Committee will come to order and today we continue our FY25 budget hearings with the Department of the Air Force. I thank our witnesses for being here and for their service to our nation. The FY25 budget request for the Air Force and the Space Force represents about a 2% increase over FY24 but when you account for inflation that increase is actually a cut and that means tough decisions had to be made about what programs to cut and what level of risk to absorb and like we heard from the Army yesterday it means the Air Force and Space Force are forced to absorb a lot of risk in the near future as they try to keep delivery of out year capabilities on track. For the Air Force that means hundreds of aircraft are grounded on any given day due to insufficient funding for spare parts. It means divesting 130 aircraft in FY25 to save operating costs and it means cutting the plan buys of new cutting-edge fighter aircraft. For the Space Force it means delays in replacing legacy systems with more advanced and resilient systems. It means we're not making investments we need to replace current air missions with new more survivable spaced base platforms and it means we're not acquiring the counter space capabilities at the pace we need to fight and win in space. That's a problem because China's military modernization isn't slowing down. They've already outpaced us with a larger Navy soon they'll have a larger Air Force and in space China is rapidly building new capabilities designed to prevent our joint force from operating. It's important to fully understand how much risk our services are taking on their own as a result of this budget and what that means for our ability to deter China Russia and our other adversaries. General Salzman I was glad to see the Space Force release its commercial space strategy. Since 2013 this committee has been consistent in urging the Department to take more advantage of commercial space. Back then it was just satellite communications but in the last decade we have seen an explosion of opportunities in the commercial space sector. In these times of limited budgets leveraging those commercial resources will be even more important than has been in the past. It will help us increase our capacity and our resiliency. I'm also interested in hearing more about the plan to move the core space mission from the air guard to the Space Force especially how the plan will not cause guard personnel and units to move out of affected states and how the Space Force's new personnel system could benefit those guardsmen who choose to not transfer. Finally this committee will be closely monitoring progress on the modernization of our nuclear triad. While the B-21 and LRSO programs continue to make good progress the Sentinel's Sentinel programs Nunn-McCurdy breach is very concerning. This committee understands how unique and challenging this program is. The Air Force hasn't undertaken a project like this since the deployment of the Minerman in the 1960s. Nevertheless the Department must do more to anticipate challenges and overcome them early when they merge. When they merge we need to get this right as Chinese and Russian nuclear arsenals continue to grow the need for a modern and flexible nuclear triad only becomes more acute. With that I yield to my friend the ranking member for any opening statement he may have. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think the chairman did an excellent job of summarizing exactly the challenges in the area of our witnesses today. I want to thank the secretary and our two Chiefs of Staff joining us this morning. The best way to sum it up you have to modernize an incredibly tight budget environment and I want to compliment all three of you for the work you've done to try to address that challenge to really look at it holistically and make a big change to reflect the great power competition that you're facing and what does that mean for how you need to develop the force going forward. And I know the budget environment makes that even more difficult but that's what we have to do. Modernize within whatever budget is that is presented to us. So I think the leadership on that has been enormously helpful and I appreciate that and I want to just sort of footstomp a couple of points the chairman made. One on the being able to divest of aging platforms that aren't serving our purposes anymore that are driving costs that's the only way we're going to be able to afford and to modernize in the way that we modernize. Also do want to hear from you gentlemen about your personnel challenges. It's been a theme across the services. Recruitment has been difficult. We have our task force on quality of life issues that Don Bacon, Chris Huland and outstanding job leading the tries to present a better offer for our service members and to meet the challenges they face. But do want to hear how how that's working within the air force and the space force on the space force is just so crucial to everything we do. Information systems are the heart of literally everything we do in defense. And you know, space is the linchpin of all of that. So I echo the chairman's remarks about how important it is to put up the best systems develop our counter space capabilities and crucially on the last point the chairman made on partnering with commercial entities. That is our great advantage in this country. Whatever the Chinese may be doing with their their defense, they do not have our private industry or our level of innovation. Even today, if we can partner with those innovative companies with those new technologies, particularly in space and information systems, that gives us the ability to meet the rather steep challenges that we face. And lastly, I do want to also emphasize the last point on the nuclear problem. You know, when we're looking at a tight budget, and we're looking at the cost of the Sentinel program right now, I sincerely hope that as you're looking at the options, as is required when a non-McCurdy breach happens, that you really aggressively look at all of the options. And just like with your modernization effort, you move forward out of past thinking to say, okay, what are we facing today? And how do we meet those challenges? I hope you do the same when you look at the future of our nuclear triad and where it makes sense to spend the money. Because, you know, all the money we're spending there could be spent to help deal with some of the challenges that you're facing in terms of updating the platforms and meeting our space needs and our air needs. So I hope you will consider that. But that I yield back. I think the ranking member now like to introduce our witnesses today, we have the honorable Frank Kendall, Secretary of the Air Force, General Chance Saltzman, Chief of Space Operations, and General David Alvin is the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Thank you all for being here. We will start with you, Secretary Kendall, you have recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Rogers ranked the member Smith, members of the committee. General Saltzman, General Alvin, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Our Department of the Air Force's FY 25 budget submission. Department of the Air Force budget submission supports the national defense strategy. We appreciate the committee's support for the FY 24 NDAA and the recently enacted FY 24 budget. Your efforts to secure timely passage are deeply appreciated. As you are aware, the six month delay has had a real impact. That time cannot be recovered. But at least we can now move forward with our urgent modernization priorities. As I've testified before this committee repeatedly, time is my greatest concern. We are in a race for military technological superiority with a capable pacing challenge. Our cushion is gone. We are out of time. As we have briefed the committee at a classified level, the pacing throughout moves steadily forward. I want to go off script for a moment to make two points. One is I want to recognize the tremendous achievement of our airmen and guardians and our entire joint force and our partners over over the weekend, and engaging all those targets that are on all the systems that run through Israel. It was remarkable accomplishment. I want to make one other point about it though. What Iran encountered was a highly contested environment. And what we face with China is a highly contested environment. And what I'm dedicated to and what we are all dedicated to here is ensuring that the US never has resolved like Iran had in its in its attempt to attack Israel. That's what's driving a lot of what we're doing. That's why it's so important to move on from legacy systems that weren't designed for that type of environment to ones that are designed for it and are capable of coping with that. Continue failure to provide on time authorities and appropriations. We'll leave the Air Force and Space Force inadequately prepared. We know the committee recognizes this. We appreciate your strong bipartisan support. Our FY 25 budget request complies with the Physical Responsibility Act. We are requesting 217 billion for the Department of the Air Force, including 188 billion for the Air Force and 29 billion for the Space Force. The budget reflection increase of about one and a half percent, a little lower than you said, Chairman, or the enacted FY 24 budget and does not keep pace with inflation, as you noted, or with a 7% publicly acknowledged growth of China's military budget. To stay within the levels of the Physical Responsibility Act, the DAF had to adjust our previous plans. The DAF 25 budget request seeks to preserve the momentum behind our modernization efforts, particularly the work on operational imperatives that we initiated that this committee supported in FY 24. In order to preserve modernization, we have marginally reduced procurement in the Air Force and have sustained our foundational accounts at levels redeemed acceptable, but no more. Because the Space Force budget is dominated by research and development accounts, we have had to marginally reduce the pace and scope of our Space Force modernization efforts. Our first priority in the national defense strategy remains the defense of the homeland. The Department of the Air Force primarily supports through investments in domain awareness, air and space defense, early warning and cyberspace defense programs. Our second priority is to deter strategic attacks against the United States, our allies and our partners. The Department budget request prioritizes nuclear modernization to maintain a safe and secure and effective nuclear deterrent. Notably, the Sentinel ICBM program has experienced unacceptable costs and schedule increases and is currently undergoing a non McCurdy review. The Department of the Air Force will work closely with the committee as that review reaches its conclusions. The third priority is to deter aggression and be prepared to prevail in conflict when necessary. The Department of the Air Force needs immediate and significant capability modernization to keep pace with the growing military capabilities of the PRC. The DAF operational apparatus and the closely related cross cutting operational enablers continue to guide our modernization program. Our budget request includes 6 billion for these efforts. Finally, the fourth national defense strategy priority is to build a resilient joint force and enduring advantages. This budget request invest to ensure that we can recruit and retain the force we need so that our airmen and guardians and their families have the quality of life they deserve and can serve to their full potential. As we have briefed the committee, the department is also currently undertaking a department wide effort to reoptimize to meet the demands of great power competition. The intent is to minimize both cost impacts and personnel or unit movement under this initiative. We will work closely with the committee as we develop detailed plans. We do not anticipate any significant impact on the FY 25 budget and we have not requested funds for this purpose. The DAF also deeply appreciates the committee's support for the DOD quick start initiative that was enacted last year in the NDAA. The Department of the Air Force has obtained approval from the Secretary of Defense for two programs that will be initiated under this new authority. They are a more resilient national position navigation and timing capability and C3 battle management for moving target indication. Time matters, but certain resources. The United States is facing a competitor with national purchasing power that now exceeds our own. A challenge we have never faced in modern times. China is actively developing and expanding capabilities to challenge strategic stability, attack our critical space systems, and defeat our ability to protect power, especially air power. Conflict is not inevitable, but it could happen at any time. Turnalvin and I have just returned from a trip to some of our key bases in the Indo-Pacific. We should all be very proud of our men and women serving in harm's way and doing everything they can to deter and be ready for a conflict unlike any we've seen before. The DAF 25 budget is focused on addressing these realities. We commit to working with the committee to secure timely enactment of this budget. Thank you for your attention and we look forward to your questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. General Salsman, you're recognized. Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for your continued support and for the opportunity to testify on the Space Force's posture for FY25. As the Space Force prepares to celebrate its fifth birthday, we are wholly dedicated to the work of forging a service, purpose built for great power competition. Space has never been more critical to the security of our nation, and the success or failure of the joint force depends heavily upon the capabilities we present. It is our responsibility to contest and control the domain, to defend U.S. Space capabilities, and to protect the joint force from space-enabled attack. Gaining and maintaining space superiority is the purpose for which the Space Force was established. With about 3% of the Department of Defense budget, the Space Force offers a tremendous value proposition for the nation. Every dollar invested in space brings asymmetric returns, but that means every dollar cut creates asymmetric risk. Against a near-peer adversary, space superiority is the lunch pin. Without it, we cannot deter conflict. Without it, we cannot provide vital effects. And without it, we cannot protect the joint force. Until we have built the infrastructure to achieve space superiority, the Space Force is a work in progress. The Space Force's theory of success includes three parts, avoiding operational surprise, denying the benefits of attack in space, and conducting responsible counter-space activities. The Space Force budget request is designed to support the national defense strategy by building, training, and equipping the forces the nation needs to perform each activity, preserving freedom of action in space, while deterring and denying adversarial objectives. Avoiding operational surprise requires us to maintain an accurate understanding of the space domain at all times. Eight point three percent of our budget is dedicated to this aim. Operating across disaggregated sensor frameworks, the Space Force provides the maximum information possible to decision makers from the tactical to the strategic level. Denying the benefits of an attack in space demands that we make any attack against U.S. capabilities impractical and self-defeating. Forty-three point four percent of our budget is devoted to this objective. Investing in resiliency for missile warning and tracking, satellite communications, position navigation and timing, hybrid architectures, and proliferated constellations impose a hefty cost on aggression. Finally, responsible counter-space activities describes the mechanism by which the Space Force contests and controls the space domain. The FY25 budget dedicates 24.7 percent of the Space Force budget to space superiority. Within the constraints of the FRA, fiscal year 25 Space Force budget reflects hard choices to maintain legacy space services, preserve current readiness, but it also slows the fielding of a modernized force. Addressing these challenges depends on guardians that are trained and ready to meet high-tech demands of space operations. For that reason, I would like to personally thank the committee for its support for the Space Force Personnel Management Act. This will be a major force multiplier in the Space Force's efforts to modernize the way we recruit, build, and retain talent. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Space Force's FY25 budget and posture, and even in the face of accelerating threats, the Space Force remains the preeminent military space organization in the world, and with the support of this committee, our guardians will preserve and expand our strategic advantage, and we will step up to meet our pacing challenge. So long as you continue to trust and invest in your space service, the Space Force will respond with unparalleled value for the nation. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, General Salzman. General, all when you're recognized. Good morning, Chairman Rogers, ranking member Smith, and distinguished members of this committee. Today I'm proud to represent the 677,000 total force airmen serving our nation. I want to thank you for your unyielding support, not only to those airmen, but to their families as well. I'd like to open by stating my immense pride in the exemplary performance of our airmen this past weekend. As part of a joint coalition effort, they successfully thwarted massive air attack by Iran on Israel's home soil. Their professionalism and skill turned a potentially catastrophic event for Israel into a strategic defeat for Iran and his proxies. As we look across the strategic landscape, we find ourselves in a time of significant consequence. The simultaneous demands of strategic competition with an aggressive and increasingly capable PRC and the persistent acute threats from around the globe require the Air Force to maximize the readiness of today's forces while adapting our structures and processes to offer the best opportunity to prevail in an environment of enduring great power competition. Time is not on our side. The FY25 Air Force budget reflects difficult choices. We've made trade offs to keep the Air Force's operational readiness today at the minimum acceptable to meet the nation's demands while seeking to preserve the previous advances in modernization. The Air Force budget also invests in the Air Force's most precious asset, its airmen, to ensure they remain the decisive advantage upon which the nation depends. Strategic deterrence is a key priority for our national defense strategy and the United States Air Force remains committed to the recapitalization of our nuclear force. We're actively supporting the process triggered by the Nunn-McCurdy breach of the Sentinel program and will continue to pursue the path of a safe, secure, reliable, and effective ground leg of the nuclear triad well into the future. Our ability to support the national defense strategy priority of deterring aggression and prevailing conflict demands a modern Air Force that is connected to the joint force and can close multiple kill chains in minimal time to control the tempo of a complex flight with a peer competitor. To that end, the FY25 proposal continues its investments in the F-35 and the F-15EX, albeit with fewer than preferred quantities dictated by the constraints of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. We remain committed to the advanced battle management system and the next-generation Air Dominance family of systems, particularly collaborative combat aircraft, which will allow the Air Force to deliver the affordable mass required to be effective against a very capable PRC. We're also committed to building forward-facing resilient enough to enable continued sortie generation even under attack. To arrest the decline in our readiness, we have proposed modest increase investments in flying ours and the weapons system sustainment funding to support them, while prioritizing investments in critical infrastructure in both physical and cyber. Our Airmen are and always will be the decisive factor in any conflict our Air Force faces, and we are committed to their health, development, and quality of life. We have made significant progress thanks to Congress' support to increase base pay, adjust basic allowance for housing and subsistence to account for macroeconomic factors. But there is still work to be done. During our recent trip to the Indo-Pacific, Secretary Kendall and I saw a dedicated Airman eager to accomplish their mission despite infrastructure degradation caused by natural disaster and persistent environmental challenges, as well as limited access to healthcare enjoyed by most conus bases. The job of your Air Force has not changed since this inception. Support the defense of this nation through credible deterrence and unmatched combat prowess. To preserve that level of deterrence, we must maintain our readiness today, modernize our force for tomorrow, and provide the absolute best support to our Airmen. Success on any battlefield is a team effort. So I want to thank members of Congress and this committee for your past and continued support. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. I thank all the witnesses for their statements and to recognize myself for questions. Secretary Kendall and the others cannot pitch in if they want to, but we've talked about the tight fiscal top line and that there's going to be the risk that you have to assume making these numbers work, particularly when it comes to our ability to effectively deter China, Russia, and Iran. Can you talk briefly about some of the risks you're assuming with this? I outlined it in my opening comment a little bit, but first thing is that we have the most powerful military in the world, and we're going to continue to have the most powerful military in the world. So we are able to meet the requirements of our combatant commanders and provide them forces that they would need, both in normal operations and in a contingency. But that's being challenged, of course, by China in particular. And that's a lot for us to do simultaneously. There are a lot of commitments the United States has around the world. So we have basically what we have done under the constraints of the Physical Responsibility Act is to fund the current force, personnel with an adequate raise, maintaining quality of life for people, maintaining the force structure basically that we have, and a level which we think is acceptable risk, floor below which we really do not want to go. That leaves us with a certain amount of resources for modernization and modernization is divided between procurement and research and development. So there's the force you have, which we have at the level where we can accept the risk. We're taking a little bit of risk in procurement. We're scaling that back, modestly, from what we had, we had previously planned in order to get on with the modernization, the R&D part of the budget, which we have to get to to remain competitive. I see the risk increasing significantly over time. I've watched China modernize for about 20 years now. They're building a military designed to defeat the United States. That is the purpose of their military. And we have got to respond to that and we've got to do it aggressively in as fast as we can. So from my perspective, getting that modernization funded and moving it forward is the highest priority. But in the meantime, we have to take care of the front force and we do need to recapitalize the reasonable rate to address the midterm risk. So that's overall the balance that we're trying to strike. Thank you. General Saltzman, I understand there are approximately 580 Air National Guardsmen in six states in D.C. that are currently performed, that currently perform the Federal Space Mission for the Space Force under Title X Authority. I understand the administration proposes transfer these personnel to the Space Force. Is it accurate that under your proposal, these 580 personnel will have the option to transfer the Space Force. If they transfer, they will still report to the same duty station. No units will be removed out of the effective state. And choosing to transfer could provide these Guardsmen with a better system of benefits under the Space Force's new hybrid personnel structure. Thank you, Chairman, for that question. And it is true. I think the best way to take care of these missions and the people that are currently doing them in the Air National Guard is to integrate them into the Space Force. With the authorities granted by Congress through the SFPMA, we now have the ability to manage part-time personnel. And when I evaluate the missions that are currently in the Air National Guard, there's no reason to change those unit structures, the personnel, the make-up of part-time to be seamless from a mission standpoint and from a personnel standpoint. Great. General, I'm interested in hearing how you plan to put into action the new commercial space strategy and specifically how you plan to change the requirements process so that the commercial products and services are fully considered. Thank you again. We're excited about the commercial space strategy. As we've known for a long time, it's one of our asymmetric advantages in the U.S. is the power of innovation and that ingenuity that's in the commercial industry and especially in space in this time. And so we wrote the commercial space strategy around four lines of effort intended to get the most out of it, trying to create more collaborative transparency. We have to know what the commercial offerings are in order to take advantage of them. And the commercial industry has to understand what our challenges are to best prioritize where they invest and how they can present capabilities to us for inclusion into our architectures. Operational and technical integration, we can't just think about this purely as adding capacity. We have to start thinking about them as filling some gaps and being fully integrated both technically and operationally into our systems. The third line of effort is risk management. We have to understand what we should preserve organically as inherently governmental services. We don't want to miss on those no fail missions and so we're taking a very deliberate approach to assuring we pull the right kinds of capabilities in. And then lastly, we have to secure the future. There's so much work being done looking out into the future about what space could offer. And so we want to make sure we're prioritizing our S&T dollars to go after the highest payoff technologies across the industry to fill gaps in the future for the Space Force. Great. Thank you. I yield time to the ranking member. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A lot to ask about. I'm just going to focus on one set of questions in a moment, but I really want to emphasize what Secretary Kendall said in the opening. I think what we saw in the Iranian attack on Israel is a really good way to frame your challenge and the broader challenge of the overall military, which is we have to make sure that whatever we have can actually get in and hit our targets while at the same time defending against it. And that is an incredibly complex web as we saw. I mean, we had jet fighters up there taking out some of the missiles. You know, electronic warfare is a huge part of this. You know, blocking signals, using drones. It's incredibly complicated and it's all about staying one step ahead with the technology. So to General Salzman's point on the last thing about, you know, using our innovative capabilities to do that, that's what we're trying to invest in and where we really need to put our focus. The one thing I want to drill down on in full disclosure, Mr. Garamini cannot be here today, which I know breaks your heart. But he asked on his behalf that I drill down a little bit and also I am genuinely concerned about it on the Sentinel program. When we're looking at, you know, the budget challenges that we have. And I share the chairman's frustration, but at the same time, you know, we have a trillion dollar, you know, deficit. We have a 33 trillion dollar debt. You know, we have to live within the budget we have. Does the triad still make sense given the amount of money that is going to have to go into reupping? And in short of that, are there alternatives that could be less costly? Because I believe the Nunn-McCurdy breach has the Sentinel program roughly 35 to 40 billion dollars over budget. I would ask you the leading question, what could you do with 40 billion dollars? But I won't because I know you could do a lot with it. But as you look at this, I hope you seriously consider what is the true value of the land-based leg of the triad and what's it going to cost to try to maintain that? Is there a more cost-effective way to do that? And Secretary Kendall, General Alvin, I'd like you both to comment on that. First of all, I am recused on the program because of a prior industry association. But I can talk about the triad in general. I did have an opportunity to talk to Congressman Gurumendi at length about this the other day. So we had a preamble for this. The triad has served us well for many decades. It has kept us from a nuclear war for a very long time. You cannot put a value price tag on that. The ICBM leg of the triad is the most responsive leg of the triad. It is probably the when you what you try to do with the triad is force an adversary to confront a problem for which there is no easy solution. If you take out one leg, there are other two other legs. Even if you take out two legs, the third leg still has a lot of destructive power that you can't ignore. And the three legs have different characteristics. The submarines have good stealth characteristics and good survivability because of that. The bombers have more flexibility in terms of how they're used. And the ICBMs are on alert and ready to go in large numbers at a moment's notice. That combination presents a very difficult problem to an adversary. And again, it has serviced well. The other part of your question about alternatives, I did the milestone A decision for Sentinel. And we knew there was widespread uncertainty about the cost at the time. Now that uncertainty is sort of coming home to confront us now. When a program has a 50% cost increase, you have to go relook at the value proposition. And the Numbocurti process requires us to do that. I'm not directly involved. Undersecretary LePlan is running that. And my undersecretary and acquisition executive are participating in it. I do think we have to be open-minded about the alternatives. Okay. And I don't think to go down on just one thing. I got that point. I may not get to general album. But on your triad argument, I don't find that overwhelmingly persuasive. Okay. If we have three legs, we're better off. Well, why not four or five? Okay. Yes. The more legs you have, theoretically, the better off you are. That doesn't necessarily answer the question of why this particular leg in this particular situation actually puts us in a better position to defend when it is stationary and just a big fat target. So we got to do better than just saying, well, the more legs, the better. Well, at a certain point, no. So we've got to get a more specific answer. And I think General Allen wants to dive in here. I can give you that. Why is this leg helpful other than just being another leg? The risk of a preemptive surprise attack that decapitates us or takes out our nuclear force becomes much higher if there's no ICBM like. If the stealth of the submarines is broken and the bombers are caught on their bases, you don't have anything left. I'm an old Cold Warrior. I spent 20 years working on this problem. We've looked at tons of scenarios. We've looked at all sorts of different opportunities and possibilities. The triad provides the most stable configuration. And it would be, I think, a lot of risk, more risk than we should accept to take that. I am out of time. I want to respect the chair. I pile out General Alvin. You and I can talk about this offline. Thank you. General from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson is recognized. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And indeed, as I was happy to meet with each of you as we came in, always I'd like to point out my appreciation of the Air Force. I grew up with that. My dad was in the Flying Tigers, the 14th Air Force. He served in India. He served in China, Kunming, Chengdu, Xi'an. I was really grateful to grow up in the shadow of Charleston Air Force base. And so anytime I visit the Holy City, it's always uplifting to see the number of aircraft there and around the world. Additionally, I'm very grateful with Congressman Jim Clyburn, Congressman Ralph Norman, that I represent adjacent bases, the Joint Air Base McIntyre at Eastover, South Carolina, and Shaw Air Force Base, of course, in Sumter, South Carolina. And so your service to me is very, very important and significant and I see it firsthand. With that, I share the concerns of Chairman Mike Rogers and that is Secretary Kendall, the legislative proposal 480 effectively does an in-run on the gubernatorial authority for consent over the transfer of their National Guard units. Your proposal disregards the governor's purview to make the best decisions for their state, setting precedent for a federal overreach on guard issues for years to come. As a 31-year guard veteran myself, I know that you can count on the guard as it operates effectively today. With this, would your proposal allow the department to relocate guard assets within the, without the approval of state governors? And if so, does this not waive the federal law requiring gubernatorial approval before any modification of guard units and assets within their jurisdiction? Thank you for your question. First of all, the guard is enormously important to us. I've gotten to know the guard. I was a reservist in the Army. I've gotten to know the guard much better in this position and I've come to really value the contribution they make to national security. Very professional, very capable force. This issue of this very small number, it turns out to be between five and 600 of people out of over 100,000 people in the guard that we need to integrate with the space force more fully. We created the space force as a very small organization designed to take on the role of a service, which is a very big thing to ask it to do. And it needs to be as lean and as tightly structured as possible so that it can do those functions. Just last year, this committee supported the Space Force Personnel Management Act, which took the reservists who were space people and is now in the process of moving them into the space force as part-time or full-time space force people. That process is going very smoothly. We need to do the same thing for the very small number of people that are in the guard that are in the same situation to give unity of command, if you will, to the space force and to allow them to manage that small number of people, only about 10,000 total, is effectively as possible to do their very important mission. The reaction from the guard, quite frankly, has been over the top on this. I mean, I read an article this morning by the head of the Guard Foundation that this was an existential threat to the guard. We're talking 500-plus people here. We're not talking an existential threat. No one is suggesting dismantling the guard. This is a sui generis, a de minimis exception to our norm, and it's necessary to make the space force effective as it needs to be. I'm sorry this has become such a politicized issue. It should be a very straightforward issue, frankly. We love the space force. In fact, I want to give Chairman Mike Reiser's credit that it exists. The presence of moving guard units without the governor is being unapprovaled is a real concern. And General Alvin and I am grateful to represent the Savannah River site where a significant amount of plutonium pits for our nation's nuclear deterrence are produced. And we know we need to upgrade these, and they haven't been upgraded for like 60 years, and so we have a two-site solution with Los Alamos. We know that China is conducting the largest military buildup in peacetime history. What is the significance of any delay of our plutonium pit production? Well, actually I will yield on the technical nature of that to the NNSA and others, but I think any time we are looking at modernizing our nuclear force, any delays to that, I can't give you a specific, but it certainly would degrade our ability to modernize. I can't put the specifics on it. I have to yield to NNSA to that, but delays are bad. Well, and indeed, hey, it's deterrence that we need, and that's exactly what each of you are providing and with the leadership of Chairman Rogers and our other colleagues, even the Ranking Member, we are working together on behalf of our country for you. Thank you. I yield back. I thank the gentleman. You're now recognized, gentlemen, from Connecticut. Mr. Courtney, providing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all the witnesses. Secretary Kendall, you've talked quite a bit publicly about sort of the challenge we right now we have with early warning platforms. The E3s are getting old. The economic business case for, you know, extending them is pretty weak. The E7 is a really promising, more than promising replacement. Australia is already flying them. I think we're selling some already to the UK, sort of where AUKUS is now in a situation where the other two countries are ahead of us. Is there something this committee can do to help accelerate either through multi-year authorities or AP to sort of get the timeline shorter so that we can start fielding these E7s? Where we are with E7 is that we're still in negotiations with the prime contractor to try to get to an affordable price that we think is reasonable. We're getting closer. I'm hopeful that we will get there soon. As a result of those negotiations going on longer than anticipated, we've taken one E7 out of the budget and swept it a year. It's one of the cuts in procurement this year, driven more by the fact that we couldn't get to an acceptable business deal. I think the odds are pretty good that we will get there, hopefully not too just in future. We have looked at ways to try to accelerate the program. I spent some time with the program office on that personally. Because of the, I'd have to go in a lot more detail when we have time for it, but because of the way the program is structured, it's very hard to find ways to remove schedule from the program. It is an important program. It plays very well in our war gaming and make a contribution. It has a lot more capability than the AWACS does. The other thing that's happening in that world in general though is the shift towards more dependency on space. We're also moving forward with moving target indicators, primarily for surface targets, ground targets right now, but also at some point for airborne targets as well. What the threat is doing is reaching out the longer and longer ranges to engage, particularly our high value aircraft, like an AWACS or an E7 or JSTAR's type of aircraft, and we have to respond to that. And part of the response to that is to move some of that capability into space and have a mix of capabilities to confront an adversary with. Well, anything, the author stands, in terms of if there's ways that we can help through the acquisition authorities. We're definitely on standby. Following the Air Force Special Operations Command V-22 Osprey crash off the coast of Japan in November of last year, we've had some pretty extensive briefings on the state of the investigation and what the Joint Services have decided as a course of action. I understand there may be a new set of inspection standards and processes to ensure safety precautions are taken into account prior to flight. I would just say, I think it's really important that when the time comes from the Air Force and the other services sort of roll out the plan, and then when they're back sort of authorized to fly again, I just think it's really important and I think you understand this just to have as strong a public message about the fact that we're going to do things differently to make the confidence in this program. And I just wonder if you could comment on that. General Alvin should comment also, but we're both in contact with General Barr and find the commander of our Special Operations Forces and he has a very thoughtful, thorough process in place, including public interface as he works his way through getting the aircraft back in the air. They're cleared to fly again, but he's working through a process of ensuring that every one of those aircraft is individually ready to go and doesn't have a problem and that's taking a bit of time. I think the other services are moving forward as well, maybe a little bit more quickly than we are, but the soft aircraft, the Special Operations Forces aircraft fly in a more difficult environment than the Marine Corps in many cases or the Navy aircraft. So we're being a little more cautious even than the other services are. Do you want to add anything? Secretary pretty much handled it, but to the point of the differences in mission, that's something that we shouldn't walk past. I mean, the difference between how the Marine Corps and the Navy operate their V-22 aircraft and how AFSOC does a lot of these more complex, it's not only more complex and perhaps challenging to the airframe, but also to the aircrew as well. So understanding that entire system and ensuring that that is safe and effective is General Barr and finds, it's his number one remit. I think he's doing a fantastic job, but your point, Congressman, is exactly right. As we get that rolled out, what we need to do is ensure that we rebuild that confidence and have a defensible, clear message that says what we're going to do and how we're going to do it and also be able to define the differences between the three different services to show that they're not inconsistent even though they may not be on the exact same time. I mean, that's what the Navy did with McCain and Fitzgerald afterwards. And again, I think that you can see, you know, that really worked in terms of just the there was a change in process and I think, again, there's a lot more confidence in how destroyers are being deployed and I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen yields back. Chair and unrecognized gentlemen from Virginia, Mr. Whitman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank our witnesses for joining us today. Secretary Cantor, I'd like to begin with you, the U.S. Air Force base budget and then the UConn-Mund-funded requirements lists both call for additional counter small UAS capability at U.S. Air Force installations. As I see things unfolding, we see counter small UAS and really lowering munitions not having much distinction. They are becoming the same thing. We saw recently very disturbing trend at Langley Air Force base where because of a large number of UASs that were in that airspace, Langley had to close down just to make sure that we were able to defend the operations that were going on there. As I watch how missions are developing, you see the Army missile defense mission, you see the Air Force, air base, air defense mission. And it looks like to me that there's a lot of commonalities there. Can you give me an idea about how do you look at those different requirements and who's responsible for what mission? Are there clear lines of distinction there? And do you think that based upon where we are today are our Air Force bases adequately protected? We have a wide range of threats to our air bases. They vary by feeder quite a bit. Different in the Middle East already in Europe or in the Pacific. In the Pacific in particular what China has been acquiring is a variety of missiles, precision missiles, ballistic end crews and hypersonic designed to attack our air bases. And that's the threat that really drives us more than anything else right now. In the Middle East and to some extent in Europe we're faced with small UAVs more. We have to deal with all of these. The way the department is approaching this is that the Army is generally the lead for research and development on small UAV problem and we're participating in that. We contribute to that and our full-fledged members. And we are funding some improvements to our air bases for security that. I was just at several of our Middle East air bases where we have systems deployed today because of that threat. As you go up the chain a little bit in the threat and start worrying about crews and ballistic missiles then systems like Patriot come into play. What we need and there's a large study that's been going on for over well over a year now led by the Army that we're participating in to try to come to an optimal solution for air-based defense against a whole range of threats. What we need in particular is a highly cost-effective way to engage those crews and ballistic missiles and those hypersonics. And there's some promising technologies and development which we think have potential to do that. We do have to make some decisions in the department about force structure and what our priorities are to acquire those. But I think it's an important part of air-based resilience that we have to address. Our whole concept of operation in the Pacific is called Adrenal Combat Employment which assumes that we don't stay on a single base to absorb missile attacks. We move around the different bases and make it harder for the other guy but you still need defenses and you need defenses that can be where you're going to be to be effective. All our wargaming says that's a necessity. So we're not where we need to be yet but we're on the path hopefully to get there. Great. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. General Saltzman, I wanted to get your perspective because today what we're seeing is a massively increasing capability on the commercial side of space. That's a good thing. There's lots of constellations going up in different orbits, lots of different capabilities there. And that commercial capability to me seems to be a perfect opportunity to augment the capacity and capability and mass that we have on the military side of things. In fact, I think that that actually has to be codified because I think it's that important for the future of the United States space force and our space assets. Can you speak to the importance of the CASTR program, the Commercial Augmentation Space Reserve program, how you see it today, what you think the future is for that and what do you think needs to go into the structure of that to make sure we can capture the incredible things that are happening on the commercial side of space and do that at the speed of relevance. Thank you, Congressman. I couldn't agree with you more. We definitely need to leverage what's available to us in the commercial industry for space. The CASTR program, I think is a classic example where we've used this in the Air Force prior to it. And the idea is about how rapidly can we expand and augment our capabilities in time of crisis or conflict. And as you know, a lot of the pre-work, the planning, how will we integrate the contractual work that needs to be done with the companies to make sure that we're primed to execute at the speed of need is really what is at the heart of the CASTR program. Do the work ahead of times, account for it in planning, see what the requirements are, which of those requirements can be met by the commercial industry and then start talking about contract negotiations before we even actually sign a contract so that we are ready in prime to put that excess capacity in place when we need it. Very good. Thank you so much, Congressman. Thank you so much, Congressman. Thank you so much, Congressman. Chair and I recognize General from California, Mr. Carba Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In addition to my district being home to some of the best wines in the world, it is also home to Vandenberg Space Force Base, the West Coast Range. There has been a rapid growth in the commercial space industry, especially with the increased launch cadence at both Space Force ranges. General Salzman and Secretary Kendall, does the increase in commercial launch cadence benefit our national security, even when those rockets are not carrying DOD payloads? I'll start with a yes and turn it over to General Salzman to give you more details. Absolutely, Congressman. You know that the more we use the infrastructure, the more we can offset and defray some of the costs associated with, especially with on the commercial side. As we use the commercial launch facilities, they continue to develop the rocket technologies, the launch technologies. We enhance the experience and the competencies of all those that operate the range do the spacecraft integration that's necessary for launch. And in the end, the real benefit is the more you launch, the more we are driving the cost per pound to orbit down. And this is one of the most beneficial things that the commercial industry has done for us in the launch enterprise is drive that cost to orbit down so that we can start to explore different kinds of constellations in different orbits to do different kinds of missions. Thank you. That question was important because in California, I know there's permitting decision making that is going on right now and the national security issue can't be further underscored. That's why I ask you that question. Thank you so much. The increase cadence will result in bottleneck unless additional payload processing is added to the range infrastructure. General Saltzman, the fiscal year 24 budget included $80 million for a payload processing facility that is supposed to go to Vandenberg. Can you provide an update on this project, including any timelines involved? I can get back to you on the specifics, but I haven't heard anything that says there's any delays or that the money's not being spent. So, but I'll get back to you specifically. Great. Thank you so much. I was really pleased to see the Space Force commercial space strategy was finally released. I think this is a great roadmap for better leveraging our nation's space industry. General Saltzman, how does the CSS work in coordination or build on the commercial space office and does fiscal year 25 budget request help build out commercial integration capabilities as outlined in the CSS? Thank you again. In addition to the standard services that we've been buying for years, satellite communications about $1.2 billion in the budget. Launch services is about $2.2 billion. But we've added about $400 million to bring some non-traditional kinds of data and services to bear. The commercial space office, commercial services office, that's the one who's kind of the front door to collaborate with industry and figure out what is the best military utility for these commercial services. And I think we're on a good path. Commercial space office falls under SSC. So they have the lead to explore. That's what when we say collaborative transparency in the commercial space strategy, that's what we're talking about. Getting out with industry, figuring out what services are most beneficial to the government and working closely with them to fill gaps and expand our capacity. Thank you. General Saltzman, one last question for you. With the proliferation of the commercial Leo constellations, it should be easier than ever to get to tactical surveillance, reconnaissance, and tracking data to out, out to the combat commands and war fighters. I believe this service is the space force should be providing. How will CSS help get tack SRT into the hands of combat commands and what challenges do you expect to run into while integrating this commercial capability? Again, I couldn't agree more with you. There's a lot of capacity, a lot of capability that's available to us in this SRT mission area. SSC has a number of demos that are going on right now to explore exactly the best way to spend our dollars on those capabilities. And the joint commercial office is also exploring how best to incorporate space data into our overall architecture. Again, with the focus on meeting those combatant commander requirements that sometimes can't be met through normal intelligence process, operational planning products that don't require the level of analytics that traditional intelligence products do. There's a lot of room for improvement there and SSC is dedicated to getting that. Great. Secretary Kendall, I look forward to you visiting Vanderbilt Space Force Space in the near future with General Saltzman. Look forward to hosting you and showing you not only paradise but the great capabilities at Vanderbilt Space Force Space. I think I'll try the wine also, sir. We'll have some good wine for you as well. Mr. Chair, I yield back. Gentlemen, yields back. Chair and I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Kendall, I know that the decision has been made on the A-10s and that, as I understand it, we're going to divest 56 aircraft this coming year. And my question is, are we talking with other countries, whether they be NATO partners or treaty countries that may be interested in that aircraft to transfer it to them? I'm not aware of any active interest, the one country, at least, has expressed some interest. But the problem is, what's that aircraft, because out of the U.S. inventory, there won't be any basis support for it. So any country that picked it up and tried to sustain it would have a very hard time. It's also a very old aircraft. They're about 45 years old. They are. Basement parts are very hard to obtain. They're old, but they're effective. But I just, as we look to divest things, it seems to me like there's a whole like going on around the world where I understand we're moving in a different direction more technically advanced, but it would have sure been nice for Ukraine to have them two years ago. Ukraine hasn't expressed much interest. I think they, rightfully, are concerned about their survivability. I agree. But I think if they'd had them two years ago, it may have made a difference. I would just suggest that as we divest things, we're running a $3 trillion deficit over the last 365 days. We're now $34 trillion. As we divest things, I understand it's the right decision for the U.S., but globally, I think we need to be, at least, meeting with other people that share our interests and our values. And while it might not be the right weapon system for us, it's certainly better than the systems that they had. We'd be perfectly happy to have those conversations. We do transfer access to fence articles. We just transferred some C-130s, for example, to the Philippines, which are very appreciative of. Sure. So one or the other aircraft that's been divested is the JSTARS from Robin's Air Force Base. I think the last one left in November of 23. General Alvin, the ABMS system is going to take its place, and then some. What are your goals for ABMS? Are you staying on track with the timeline? What can we do to help with the Air Force Mission and the ABMS Mission at Robin's Air Force Base? Thank you for that, Congressman. I would say that the advancement in the advanced battle management system, and really across what we're referring to, is that the C-3 battle management has really started to accelerate, largely due to something Secretary Kendall did a year and a half ago now, with the putting an integrator in, across all those systems that's putting together the arcade. It's a complicated thing, but when you put it together, having all of the architecture, understanding what the pipes are, what the nodes are, and how it all fits together, and to have the ability to work with the other services so it can truly integrate into the joint environment. That is where we've been making progress. We are now seeing some instantiations of that. We are seeing in the homeland defense area, some of the cloud-based command and control is now moving to four or five different defense sectors. We are deploying, I believe we have now as many as 20 this year, of these distributable battle management nodes. So this idea of moving to a distributed architecture to do what we had done before is progressing along. There will continue to be bumps along the road, but I feel very confident in General Cropsey and the team that he has. Mixing the technical folks with the operators side by side, step by step to ensure that we build this once, right the first time. I just one suggestion. I am concerned that there's not enough dialogue across the different branches with ABMS and the intent and the use of it. I had the discussion with some people in the Army that would be dependent upon it and they were not aware of the system. And that would just be my suggestion that we need to be. Yeah, Congressman, I couldn't agree more. And I would say that their convergence and the Navy's overmatch, we are certainly partnering with them. We probably you can't communicate on enough, but I would say across services and I would look over to my sister service over here in the Space Force. That's why we were building the DAF battle network. It's not just- I'm talking about people that wear grain more than that. Absolutely. And they are solving different problems they're looking at different solving a single kill chain, but they have to be integrated. Congressman, you're exactly right. Well, people at the Ranger Regiment were not very familiar with the program is my concern. And they're obviously all of the branches are going to be dependent on it. So with that, I yield. I appreciate all of you. Gentlemen's time is expired. Chair and I recognize General Lady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Huland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, gentlemen, Secretary and Generals for joining us today. Yesterday, I believe it was yesterday, we had a very similar hearing but with an Army. And at the beginning, our Chairman and Ranking Member and many of us during the course of the hearing asked appropriate questions about the President's supplemental that's now been sort of on the back burner for the better part of six months and the impact and implication of not having passed it yet and the impact and implication of when it does hopefully pass at some point to you all. I would ask the same question because I'm sort of surprised that I'm one of the junior chipmunks here that it hasn't come up yet. What is, what are your thoughts about the President's supplemental and its urgency? What is not happening because it hasn't happened and what will happen if it does happen? I can give you a quick response but I think we've got two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff here and I think you should hear from them. I watched this obviously very closely. We're very heavily engaged in support to Ukraine in particular. They desperately need the help and we look at the numbers and the way they're exhausting air defense weapons and our tour immunizations and so on. They need the help. The war right now is not going in the right direction. It's largely because they haven't gotten that assistance. So the supplemental is needed there. It's also needed for Israel and it's needed for Taiwan. So it's a very important package and it needs to be passed. I'm with my colleagues to talk about their perspectives. Well, certainly with the impact of being able to reimburse some of the munitions and the things that we have supplied, we look very closely as the request comes for different types of munitions to ensure that we don't deplete our own stockpiles. But in that, every time we do that, we incur a little bit more risk but we understand this is part of integrated deterrence. Integrated deterrence is being able to support our partners and so we do not have to commit to, in the case of Ukraine in Article 5 sort of situation. So we, from a peer service perspective, we are very interested in if the supplemental were to be passed, we would be able to replenish some of those or have maybe newer munitions stocks with those. There are some monies that we're looking for with the presidential drawdown authority that we are doing some sort of cash flowing and if we don't get that, then we're going to have to make some decisions at the end of the year with respect to readiness. I know the Army probably yesterday had more to say that they are doing quite a batch flowing as well and I've talked very closely to my counterpart Randy George and they also have issues with their risk towards the end of the year and the operation remains accounts if they don't get the supplemental pass. Thank you. They've covered the topic pretty well. I would just add that sometimes we get caught up in the tactical side of things and munitions and replenishment but there's some strategic messaging here too as well as withdrawing our support and so I think it's, we have to consider it all from tactical all the way up through the strategical. 100% and thank you gentlemen for that response. Transitioning into my fear which is my fear that is that if we don't do the right thing here the implications for us and for our troops could be catastrophic and speaking about our troops and the quality of life of them and the recruiting and retention of them I'm one of the people who participates and in fact the ranking member of the quality of life panel and we've just put out quite a big report on that and looking forward very enthusiastically to working on you on the various pillars that are provided there and suggestions listed there very briefly in the time I have left there were five categories not surprisingly service member pay spouse employment childcare housing and health care very quickly if you wouldn't mind mentioning kind of which one of those resonates most with you at this point in time and how you're currently prioritizing the funding in that area. The department's looking at it just came out recently I had a chance to look at it also a couple of things we are doing and reflecting on our 25 budget the 200% of poverty for basic needs allowance for example we obviously support that the one that I think we're going to look at very closely is the 15% pay raise for junior enlisted we have given a 15% pay raise over the last few years when you add the totals to the last few years when you look at how resources could be applied to influence quality of life for our people we think there may be some more efficient ways to do that to utilize those same funds so anyway I know there'll be a conversation between you and the department as we look at this in more detail and get back to you so that's such preliminary reactions also resonating with me is of course the housing issues as well and I think we are making progress on that I saw some other recommendations I also have to fully digest and to be able to advise the secretary I think we are I don't want to compare to other services I think we have leaned a little bit more further forward I think there's ways to go though as well that's one that resonates with me as we understand the fluctuation in housing this is really a partnership we cannot afford nor I think you want to have the military supplying housing for all of its members and so being able to have a closer communication with the communities to be able to adjust to those macroeconomic factors faster than we do now I think it's going to be key because I think we gentlemen's time has expired chair chair I appreciate you thank you so much I yield chair and I recognize gentlemen from Tennessee Mr. Jay Jarley thank you chairman secretary candle the department of the Air Force published the assessment of the Air Force test center in 2022 which found that three hundred million of facilities sustainment restoration modernization projects have not been funded can you describe the impact and operational risk associated with such an extensive backlog and how it failure of our critical test infrastructure impact modernization efforts for everything from Sentinel to hypersonics to F-35 upgrades we are managing the risk associated with our installations at a level which we think is acceptable but it's not great I look at that as we look at our the foundational accounts that we found including facilities we're funding I think at 1.6 percent replacement cost we'd like to be at 2 percent what that leads to is slow deterioration eventually you end up doing emergency repairs only and some of our installations another very salient fact there is that we have about 20 percent excess capacity in our installations in terms of real estate holdings so we have the burden of having to carry that and I know that there's no interest in a bracket from this body but we do need to take a look more fundamentally frankly at our installation posture and try to address it address it as a whole last year in response to the issue outlined in the assessment of the Air Force test center congress increased FSRM by roughly 30 million above the president's budget his budget request in order to start chopping away at that $300 million backlog and ensure that the infrastructure was well positioned to support future endeavors would you support a similar increase this year I'm in support of the president's budget I think our request is within the FRA and that's we basically have given the congress a balanced set of investments across the department taking everything into consideration General Salisman I would like to commend the department for the work that you have all done to unleash private industry to further national security interests in the space domain watching the progress made over just the past decade has been incredible however not all the elements of the federal government appear to be on the same page when it comes to this issue I constantly hear from your industry partners that they are being burdened with the slow moving bureaucracy be it through environmental studies with EPA or launch reentry licenses through the FAA how are you working with other agencies to ensure that they are working as quickly as you all are to support the critical work that Space Force is supporting we're intimately engaged with all of those agencies the speed of licensing is something I hear routinely from industry and so we reach out every time we hear this we try to figure out exactly where the bottleneck is or exactly where a policy can be shifted to try to streamline the licensing aspect of it so we're working closely with our interagency partners staying on the topic of space I wanted to get your thoughts on NSSL the NSSL phase three is a long-term strategy that will help shape the space industry over the next decade at the same time new buzzing around a potential ULA sale has created some uncertainty in the short term and will certainly impact the Space Force's calculus how does the department view a potential sale or merger of a major launch provider in awarding phase three bids well you know the strategy itself is all about assured access to space maximizing the number of providers to minimize the risk associated with losing assured access to space I'm very pleased with the phase three strategy that it has on ramps and off ramps so that we can pull people in when they're ready to to support the launch enterprise and I think that that having that flexibility in the strategy can account for any shifts in the market for Secretary Kendall and General Alvin I wanted to give you both the opportunity to share an update from the Arrow test last month at Reagan test site what did you all learn from this test the test was successful we are evaluating what to do with Arrow and what the future of our hypersonic portfolio will be overall and we have to go to a classified setting to talk about that conversation so as you know we heard last year that the program was dead is it moving forward what can we expect to see in the future we'd have to talk about that in a classified setting okay I yield Chair and I recognize the general lady from Michigan Ms. Luckin thank you Mr. Chairman good to see you all thank you for being here thank you for making the point Secretary Kendall in your remarks or ahead of your remarks about the importance of contesting the airspace being prepared for the events we saw last weekend and I couldn't agree more about our need to contest the space when it comes to up the potential threat from China and as you know now Chairman CQ Brown said in front of this committee that China could achieve air superiority over the United States and allied air forces as soon as 2035 so you're right to raise it my questions unsurprisingly to you will connect back to my home state of Michigan and just to review the bidding we got word that the Air Force was going to remove the A-10s from Selfridge Air Force Base in January of this year we're very thankful that you publicly announced the decision to base 12 KC46s at Selfridge Air Force Base we appreciate that decision but I as you know Michiganders who have worked on or near Selfridge are very focused on getting a fighter mission there so I just want to hear very clearly as I think you've stated publicly before that just because we got those refuelers doesn't mean we're precluded from any future basing of fighter aircraft which you know Michiganders will be fighting hard for your delegation is very consistent I just testified Senator Peters you actually had the same question you were not precluded from another fighter mission but the reason we put the the KC46 there was to offset the fact that we are taking out the A-10 so I don't want there to be confusion about that right and I don't think any Michigander is happy that we're replacing a fighter mission with a refueler mission so we're looking for refuelers and a fighter mission not refuelers instead of a fighter mission but we'll we'll fight that battle another day fully understood in relation to that issue I co-led an amendment last year in the NDAA that requires the Air Force to submit a fighter recapitalization plan that report was unfortunately due on March 30th today is beyond March 30th can you help us understand when we'll get that plan General Alvin and I have reviewed the final draft it's very close to coming over it should be over here as soon as we finish coordination okay that report is very important to a number of us both in the House and the Senate to understand your planning and I think per your comments if we want to maintain a strong deterrent against China we need to make sure we have fighters in the air that can do that and fighters at the ready to do that there will be a number of us who are working on a bill in this year's NDAA which will say before you can retire fighter aircraft you much must show your math on your plan so we are taking this to the next step but your plan and helping us understand the strategy would give us more confidence in for some of us who are watching these things change separately on the issue of PFAS the chemical that has contaminated a number of drinking water systems and groundwater systems around our current and former bases in Michigan since I've been here I've been hammering on this issue because we've got communities that literally can't drink the water and they have their you know location right next to a base the Department of Defense which I worked at for seven years has fought us every step of the way and now the EPA has officially changed the standards on PFAS in drinking water some of the areas around our military bases particularly Oscota military base cannot drink their water please tell us what you plan to do to now live up to the federal standards that you all claimed were the reason why you couldn't clean up these sites well we were all waiting for the standards the standard has been announced I think it's four parts per trillion which is very stringent compared to what we've been using the the next step is to evaluate the impact of that will be we're going to prioritize communities where drinking water is most affected so we'll be working with communities as we go forward with that I think we have something like on the order of 100 million dollars in the budget and 25 to address this but that's the tip of the iceberg we're going to take a lot more than that to remediate the sites that are effective so we've already done assessments we're going to see what the standard means now in terms of remediation requirements and then we're going to move forward with us I appreciate that some of these communities have been waiting upwards of 10 or 15 years so while it may be a new standard to us as of last week it is not a new issue for people who literally have to buy their own water and I would ask for a bit of an attitude change for the folks who are on the ground who have been fighting us tooth and nail and who now need to accept reality and help us clean we're going to let these times expire I recognize a gentleman from Nebraska Mr. Bacon thank you John for being here I've enjoyed work with all three of you I do got a point out though that I did go to the Air Command of Staff College and National War College with General Alvin he was always top of the class he was a top athlete and he never looked like he worked hard so we just can't figure out how he does it but with that though I do got a couple comments and concerns the Department of Air Force is requesting $262 billion but what I'd like the committee to understand $45 billion of that has passed through spending not going to the Air Force it's going to totally unrelated agencies that's about 17% of the Air Force budget now I think this clouds division of some of us and others that look at budgets of just how much the Air Force is getting I think it exaggerates that appearance of how much money the Air Force has I sure wish we could correct that process secondly I want to note that as per gross domestic product we're spending the second lowest on defense in our history going back to World War II so we our spending levels are significantly lower than the norms going back to World War II and I we see it in this year's budget we're looking at a 1% increase and you figure in inflation it's about a 2% cut to what we we need to be doing and this is at a time we got China Russia acting the latest breaking all the norms in Ukraine we have Ukraine or Iran just fired 330 projectiles into Israel so I'm concerned I don't think we're going the right way so my first question is the Secretary Kendall at what point is our Air Force the Space Force too small to deter China okay to be be direct about this Congressman Bacon the my concern is more about quality than quantity we are taking out some marginal force structure of our oldest aircraft we're divesting some more this year but getting to the quality we need to be competitive is really my first priority we talked earlier about contested environments and having adequate technological capability to succeed and get a contested environment is really first for us we don't want our aircraft to be cannon fodder we want them to be successful we want our airmen to be successful so we're trying to move in that direction as quickly as we can I think that General Alvin should talk about the size of the Air Force I think that you deserve to hear his opinion on that but but that's where I am thank you Secretary thank you Congressman I think Secretary is exactly right it's easy for us to fall into the numbers for numbers and it's it's an easy way to do it to count but as you know you've been in combat you understand that the platform is only as good as the crew and it's also only as good as the ammunition that it has on board which has to be sophisticated enough to reach the target but it also has to have a sensor that can tell you where the target is and those sensors need to be in a place where they can be resilient we also have to have the path to get there we also have to have the place where that aircraft can recover in a contested environment all those things go together and I think it might be increasingly unuseful and unhelpful to start understanding the capability of the Air Force by just counting tails there is that the phrase that says you know quantity has a quality of all its own it's only if it's effective and capable otherwise that's just a larger quantity of the aircraft that you're losing if I may interject though last year we said we were seven fire squadrons short of what we thought we need but if you look at the budget we're going to cut about 10 more squadrons so I would say there is some numbers that we need I mean we don't need of three fives all over I ran or the Middle East to shoot down you know stuff over Jordan for example I need to ask one more question I'm going to cut out a few because I want to yield some time here to Sam Grace if I can but the air combat commences they need 22 or EA 37s for the Far East fight and we only have 10 are we going to have a plan to get to 22 just general Alvin I think when we look at again it's the what is the risk of having less than 22 versus having not enough of the ability to have the munitions so you can have all the the jamming that you want but if you can't get the munitions through so I it sounds like a a quibbling answer but quite frankly I try and look at the entire system so the capability of 10 and also we look at the platforms that we're using for those EA 37s they're starting to be diminished in their their reproducibility and so you find yourself looking too far into the future to the diminishing supply and those sort of things but I think looking at it systematically trying to say if that 11th or 12th or 13th EA 37 is that more important than some other of this system that enables us to complete the kill chain I'll just put on ACC and Pecanopsa they need 22 for the kinds of cyber stuff they can do but I'll let it go with that I don't leave you much time Mr. Graves but I yield 20 seconds to you I don't think that's enough time okay so I'll we're now recognized Jenner from Massachusetts Mr. Keating sorry thank you Mr. Chairman last week the Supreme Allied Commander General Cavoli was here in front of this committee and he gave I think testimony that was I think historic in nature he was commenting on what was going on in Ukraine and he said at this moment moment not weeks from now but at this moment he could not overstate the gravity of what's facing our effort in Ukraine right now in the effort of the Ukraine military so he also said that in his three decades of study in the academies and tactical studies and his work as general he found one thing that was extremely important said if one side has the ammunition and the other side doesn't the side with the ammunition wins I think in modern day warfare I think it's a fair statement I want to ask you I think you could say as the ground is now drying up in Ukraine and the muddy season is over and the offensive and the illegal war of Putin grinds forward on the ground I think it's a fair statement to say the side that has air superiority always wins too and the other doesn't can you comment on tactically how critical this moment is and not incorrect not anything that this doesn't have to be classified to go down this road how critical is this moment where you having that kind of ground war where they're ceding territory now that the tens of thousands of Ukrainians gave their lives for and the strategy on the ground how important it is where the United States which is uniquely situated by the way the munitions and the air assets that are necessary are uniquely ours our allies don't have what's necessary at this moment so can you tell us how critical this moment is not weeks in terms of moving on the 95 billion dollar Senate security package which passed the Senate by the way with a 70 to 29 bipartisan support how critical is that to move on right now in terms of the fact the air air superiority imbalance is so great and how does that affect things on the ground Congressman I'm not going to try to provide a stronger professional opinion General Cavoli he's he's intermittently familiar with the situation I'm watching the intelligence I think we all are the the my colleagues are on the joint staff but to your early comment a summary of what you said about weapons and air superiority it's about resources the side with the resources is going to win here and Ukraine just doesn't have the resources and Russia has been applying them there's a big imbalance there and the price for us of this when you think about the fact that we have almost a nine hundred billion dollar defense budget to provide for deterrence and that if we fail to deter Russia effectively here for a few billion dollars what that means in terms of the consequence all that other investment is essentially wasted if we don't succeed in aggressive it's because it succeeded in defeating aggression here that's what's on the table and and it is an urgent need from everything I have seen I'll stop with that and let the chiefs make comment generals again I would also yield to general Cavoli and also I mean I've been in touch with the you safety commander general Hecker as well who's understanding sort of the air picture you know better than I can from from DC and in Washington but it certainly is the case it's a different type of air battle now obviously when you're talking about it's very heavily electromagnetic spectrum heavy area and and drones are involved but it's still if you can have the advantage from the air it it is critical and and the secretary's point is the right one though it's overall resources to be able to formulate a battle plan that is executable especially in the spring time here when the fight is going to pick up when it dries up it's going to be key overall I think is a critical word that you use because without this air superiority frankly winning isn't going to be possible general do you want to come in on if we hear from general Cavoli routinely I agree with his assessment I agree with what you heard him say as well we recognize that we're in a unique time frame a land war of this size in Europe just has not happened for generations and if we don't respond properly it could only get worse and I think we just have to recognize what it is we're standing for what we what we choose to defend and stand up and support it and while I appreciate what speaker Johnson's trying to do moving forward even if he's successful that's going to be weeks and weeks and weeks before we get something on the president's desk if we do it all we have to act now and it's urgent and thank you for reinforcing that I yield back gentlemen's time has expired chair now recognize general from Indiana mr banks thank you mr chairman general alvin after falling short in 2023 for the first time since 1999 in your recruitment goals the air force is on pace to reach those goals for 2024 what changed well thank you for that congressman we really attack this aggressively when we saw the down slide happening and we looked at several things we looked at our policies to ensure that they were they were still relevant we looked at some things that maybe we were being overly restrictive of so we did a clean sweep of that a couple things that were sort of as easy as falling off a log why if we if you can decrease the time it takes to have a someone who wants to be naturalized become a citizen that attracts people in if you can understand the the height and weight measurement that was required to even be considered and you can relax that towards consistent with the rest of the DOD standards those are some simple things we did but some other things that we're doing to follow up on that is we're ensuring that we can have the recruiters do more the pounding the shoe leather time and not doing as much admin time so there were several things we did a little bit more targeted marketing reaching out to other things so it was really attacking on all fronts and I think that plus the fact that we're coming out of COVID and people are starting to wake up again and we're engaging we put notes out to our wing commanders to get out to the community so people can actually see what their military can do for them I think it was the the compilation of all of those things that put us on the right path and now we're making sure that we just don't rest on those laurels and we're looking into the future to make sure we can sustain that would you say the Air Force has loosened its standards I would not say loosened its standards at all as a matter of fact I'll give you the example I talked about the body fat composition and people think the body fat composition is a different standard we had a body fat composition restriction before we'd even consider someone coming into basic training even though we'd advanced our basic train better nutrition better fitness when we put those standards back to DOD standards we enabled another 4500 recruits to be able to come in we have done longitudinal studies on those and of those only one did not make it all the way through so we're making sure the standards and the quality sustain while we're actually opening the aperture to more Americans who can serve different story for the Air National Guard still still below our recruitment goals what are we doing to fix it well the Air National Guard is also making gains they had a little bit longer way to go so part of the the issue with the Air National Guard is the we've had pretty high retention rates in the United States Air Force in the active duty and some of that affiliation is how they get their their numbers up as well but they have increased 31% from over last year so where last year they were well short this year I think they're going to be they're targeting to be within 5% of the goal their Air Force reserves is going to be either within 1% or they're going to make the goal as well so across the board we're actually making progress Can you quantify how far off we are with Air National Guard the Air National Guard right now is on a path to be within 5% and I get that I got to get the exact what that raw number turns out to be but they're within 5% of their goal Secretary Kendall are we do you have any advice on what we can do to fix that the Air National Guard recruitment numbers now we've been working this very hard ever since we started realizing we were going to be below our target year before last I got to give General Alvin a lot of credit he ran a task force as the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force it addressed an awful lot of these issues we also just put more resources at it we have increased in our 25 requests we're increasing the amount of money for the Guard for recruiting a lot of what we're seeing is just lack of familiarity with the military people don't have the same exposure they once did so we're trying to reach out and get into communities much more make people understand what we offer I think there's some misperceptions about that that we're trying to to fight against I've never been terribly concerned about this because I've always felt that we had management tools at our disposal to address the problem and if we just put more resources on it and we're thoughtful we were going to work our way out of it and that's exactly what's been happening so I'm I'm reasonably comfortable with I'm very happy with the progress we've made actually particularly with the active in the in the reserve and the guards not very far behind I think we're going to be okay on this Secretary has the Air Force ever intentionally prevented itself from recruiting from military children of military families or service members veterans has that ever been an intentional not that I know art of I mean we a lot of our people come in because they're they've experienced the military through their family life so I think we have a really significant proportion of people that come from that background we encourage that yeah you you would agree general absolutely the biggest source of military recruitment are the children of military families absolutely that's right that's right so thank you I yield back before I go to the next member I want to pause and recognize the presence of one of our former colleagues former chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee and my friend Jim Cooper of Tennessee welcome back my friend good to have you Mr. Kim you're now recognized thank you Mr. Chair good morning thank you all for coming on out as I was reading through your testimony you know your joint testimony you all emphasized and pointed out just the development of hypersonic missile capabilities by both China as well as Russia I guess I just want to ask you are we prioritizing enough hypersonic defense capabilities and the development of those I mean when we're seeing that rise I know we are investing in our own capabilities when it comes to hypersonic but what about the defense side of things I'm trying to get a better understanding of where we're scaled to given this very concerning rising threat Defensing of hypersonics is important to us because if there are a lot of hypersonic weapons potentially targeting our air bases in particular the responsibility for that largely falls on the missile defense agency and on the army what we are doing to contribute to that in particular is our space-based missile warning system that we're deploying which will support an overall architecture of hypersonic defense particularly against some of the intermediate and longer range threats and journalists also could address what we're doing there that's moving forward pretty quickly I understand that the army recently is our MDA is recently awarded the contract that I was about to for an interceptor that will be more capable against some of these targets so that's a work that I don't think is moving quite as fast as we'd like to see in an ideal world Yes sir about three billion dollars in FY25 devoted to what we're calling the proliferated warfighter space architecture and it's not just that we're putting more sensors up those sensors are more capable and actually give us some tracking capabilities and so the precursor to missile defense is missile warning and so that's what we're putting in place Yeah and I would also add that over the past several months there's been an ongoing study analysis of alternatives that should come out in June on air and cruise missile defense of the homeland that's been Department of Air Force led that study and it's really broken it down into three areas that you really need for air and cruise missile defense you need the sensors and then you need the effectors degrade them kill them whatever and then you need the command and control structure so we've been able to look at each of those elements that's going through an analysis of alternatives to determine the exact architecture to be able to put those together and as General Salsman said the missile warning missile tracking is a key part of that sensor but that analysis of alternative should be done in the next couple months on the architecture and then we'll look at building out the pieces to that to have a better defense against cruise missiles hypersonics and others Yeah, thank you for that I'd love to be able to keep in touch with you all about this and I know that there's limitations where we can talk about in this kind of setting but you know in other opportunities I'd like to have a better sense especially when it comes to the maneuverability that really sets us apart from other types of challenges so I understand the warning and the tracking but you know how do we think through the tracking as well as the interceptors when we're talking about something that with that kind of velocity but also that kind of maneuverability and I'd like to have that sense I want to just switch gears to you another type of thread obviously we've talked a lot about cyber security in the past and the challenges on that front the joint base of my district McGuire-Dix Lakehurst is home to the 140th cyber operation squadron you know those cyber operators are performing this kind of critical work for the defense of our country every single week and I guess I'm just trying to get a sense from you how do we better support our cyber operators in the Air National Guard and the force overall so that we can try to make sure that this is rising to the level that we need to I'm trying to have a better sense of you know how are these pieces fitting together in your minds our cyber capabilities are really critical to our operational success overall and frankly whether we're we'll even be able to get into the fight because of the potential for cyber attacks one of the things we've done under the re-optimizing for great power competition set of initiatives is we're elevating the 16th Air Force which was on our air combat command to be a direct reporting command it'll be the AF cyber if you will the Air Force component of the cyber command but it will also have responsibilities for the Air Force as a whole so we're trying to strengthen our capability there we're also creating warren officers in that field and we are creating new units we're putting new units together that are dedicated to that that function I my expectation is that we will expand that in the future we're moving in that direction now but I think it's going to grow even more I just saw a defense science board report on the cyber threats that we face to our infrastructure and I think we have to do things to address that as well so it's a very high priority and I think the guards ideally positioned to play an important rule on that and we'll be able to tap into people who are doing similar functions basically in the in the civil world and then have them available to bring into the military in a crisis I think that's going to be very valuable to us it's a great way to get that expertise okay great thank you I yield back gentlemen yields back chair and I recognize a gentleman from Florida Mr. Gates the F-35 is our signature Air Force platform what percentage of them are fully mission capable today Mr. Secretary Congressman if you give me a second I'm going to pull out my card and give you an exact answer okay happy to your eyes are probably better than mine 55 percent is the number we have for operational availability full operationally capable 55 percent is that do you think that's a good number or a bad number I think that's not a good number failing I wouldn't put it quite in that category I'd ask General Alvin to comment on that it's a number we'd like to see something yeah well the reason I ask the reason I ask is because we got we got testimony that is a little contrary to that Lieutenant General Schmidt head of the F-35 program gave testimony to the TAL subcommittee at Haske and that's in that testimony was that as of February of 2023 so a little over a year ago only 29 percent were fully mission capable I think we need to talk difference between operational availability okay and mission capable oh yeah so how many are fully mission capable today I do not have that number but I would not dispute what the JPO has in front 29 percent so fully mission capable 29 percent you have no basis to dispute that but you don't really know if it's true or false I have no basis to dispute it but I I would like to so you would agree that 55 percent is like a D the 29 percent is definitely failing right for fully mission capable but the missions that they can accomplish I go meet with the folks at the 33rd at Eglin Air Force Base in the district I represent and they're doing a lot of you know there's a lot of of mission there but like even the guys who are also at Eglin doing tests they end up being at the very end right and I totally get why you want your operational squadrons to be the most capable but then test gets put to the end and then we're not meeting our needs like I just think anyone watching this one would be surprised that you general don't know the exact percent is that are operationally capable and two I think people would be surprised that it's 29 percent and this GAO report that I found on breakingdefense.com that I seek unanimous consent to enter into the record it says that the reason we are not capable is because you guys at the Pentagon have given too much power to Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors for the for sustainment do you believe Lockheed Martin has been given too much power on the sustainment of the F-35 I believe that Lockheed Martin has more power than in some other weapon systems they do have the contracted logistics system that was part of the procurement plan that was put in place 20 some years ago all right I mean but it's not working if the if the Lockheed Martin built the F-35 we only can only 29 percent of them are fully operationally capable right now we've all agreed that's failing so now the question is why is it failing and this GAO report says the reason it's failing is because the Fox is watching the henhouse because the very contractor bilking the taxpayer for this platform is now in a position where they can't sustain it do you have a basis to disagree with that conclusion I have a long history with the F-35 and I inherited the program I came into it in 2010 it was a few years in a production at that point and the first time I saw the program laid out the schedule for it and so on and when the decisions points are going to be the question I ask and I'm going to quote myself who's running this program the government or Lockheed Martin that was a that's a quote from 2010 I think you have your answer Mr. Secretary and we set up the program when it was originally set up under a philosophy of management called total system performance which essentially gave to the prime contractor a complete control of the program we did not acquire the intellectual property to allow the government to come in and step in and control the program it sounds like we have we are still fighting that problem today well right but that is such important testimony for us to hear out every member of the committee heard that the government isn't running this program Lockheed Martin is running this program that was a question I asked well it sounds like you got the answer what's the answer to the question Mr. Secretary because only 29% of them are operationally capable we took a lot of steps to try to get that under control I once imposed a production contract on Lockheed I dictated a price to them because we couldn't get a negotiation done I did a unilateral contract let them take me to court if they wanted to they chose not to put in place program managers who were very firm with the contractor and insisted on performance we've had some conversation through the current head of the JPO and we've had conversations with the CEO of Lockheed I appreciate those conversations I've always found you to be the truth teller you're as very honest with the committee and straightforward the problem is the tail here is wagging the dog and it's not going to get better unless there's accountability for the fact that their planes don't fly I yield back gentlemen yields back Chair and I recognize gentlemen from North Carolina Mr. Davis thank you Mr. Chair first and foremost I would like to thank our airmen who have served us well in the 335th fighter squadron the kick butts defending our ally Israel over the past weekend and I'm extremely proud of that thank you to our witnesses who are here today Mr. Secretary it's good to see you in this fiscal year's budget there's a plan for the Air Force to eliminate one fighter squadron from Seymour Johnson Air Force Base we've been talking about this well over a year now with many mixed messages along the way there was a report requirement regarding the force structure rationale due to the Congress to do to the committee on April 1st which we did not receive we then move forward to inquire about the report again and I was anticipating hoping to get the report by this meeting today which we did not receive what's causing the delay the reports in final review and coordination General Alvin and I have both looked at a final draft we should have it to you very shortly Mr. Secretary if it's in final draft we're hitting print on the page here the computer whatever we're doing can you share with us since it's on the way what criteria has been used to determine taking away a squadron at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base it's a longer conversation about the mix of the fighter force the cost effectiveness of every element the set of capabilities we have to have and the cost of any modernization that we've required to keep the aircraft current and then of course total resources available to the department so we we are for some time known we have taken out well Mr. Secretary I look forward to seeing this report soon really soon and yes or no do you believe when there is a required report and you're submitting a budget that the report maybe could help inform us I do agree with that you'll have the report very shortly a loss of 520 jobs at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base would have a tremendous impact on our community in eastern North Carolina most of the counties in our state are ranked tier one counties which are the most economically distressed Congress has told the Air Force to modernize I get it if we can still uphold our national security interests and investment decisions then should we consider I'm just asking should we consider the impact of the decisions on the local communities we do consider that impact when we make these decisions how was that considered in this process well we try overall to minimize those impacts some unfortunately sometimes are unavoidable can you tell me the median income in Wayne County of Seymour Johnson Air Force Base I cannot Congressman you don't know can you do you realize this is one of the most impoverished counties in the state and eastern North Carolina in a region our congressional district we're 421 median income I look forward to seeing that report or there are alternatives when we look at what you're rolling out here to bring all the missions to Seymour Johnson to replace the jobs that'll be lost to take care of the impact of this community at this time I'm not aware of an alternative we have looked for that we try to Mr. Secretary do you care about this community of course I do Congressman can you tell me then the plan that is in place to consider the impact for any alternatives that you can bring to this community when we do these decisions we look at a range of alternatives we try to do everything we can to protect the interest of the community but I'm asking clearly to you right now what's the plan for just considering to roll out looking at alternatives whenever there's an adjustment like this we try to work with the community to make it as painless as possible yeah what efforts have taken place in this community right now this is the first effort that was any effort to reach out to the community can you tell me specifically I'd have to get you that for the record Mr. Secretary I can tell you this I love the Air Force I served in the Air Force I take great pride in my service in the Air Force and I believe you know that but I also believe that if we can maintain our national security interests we really have to look hard at the decisions that are being made and I'm not satisfied today with your answers I yield back Mr. Chair The gentleman from Florida Mr. Walts is recognized for five minutes Thank you Mr. Chair Mr. Secretary I was struck by a statement you just made and I just want to touch on Representative Gates's concern about readiness I'm the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee I mean I understand there is a quality over quantity argument but the basis issue is if they can't fly that's a I mean that is a strategic failing on our part and I think the Pentagon has become so focused on I know it's a balance I know there's a pendulum swing but on making these kind of handmade bespoke high-tech ferraris but sometimes you need to flee to pickup trucks and you certainly need whether they're ferraris or pickup trucks that can operate in the desert and can operate out in the corrosive environment in the Pacific so let's talk about some of your pickup trucks the Air Force owns and operates DoD's largest fleet of commercial derivative aircraft they use commercial parts this Mr. Secretary is a bag of bushings this bag of bushings stamped out by machinists don't need a high don't need a you know any high school diploma it's not anything high-tech about this all of this bag is compliant with the FAA specifications how much do you think the Air Force pays for this bag of bushings I don't know Congressman 90,000 dollars this is a 90,000 dollar bag of bushings that you need for any jet turbine engine just to operate so the exorbitant cost due to DoD only buying commercial parts from the OEMs which is essentially sole source is literally driving us out of business I mean the interest on our debt alone is now exceeding for the first time in American history the entire defense budget we can't afford it anymore so with FAA compliant parts you cut the cost in half or even more so my question is why can't I mean these are commercial birds out there by the way let's it has all kinds of implications for contested logistics when you can access commercial parts in the middle of a war potentially in the Pacific why can't we use FAA compliant I mean it's this safety standard leader in the world why can't we do that I don't know a reason why we couldn't I'm familiar with some of the issues you're trying to raise here for my previous position yeah I know you are that's why I'm asking you yeah Defense Logistics Agency used to report to me I do a lot of our parts acquisition and we had an issue when I was there with people gouging us basically charging is too much for parts and we ended up I think in court over it what can we just in the interest of times secretary come back to us how can this committee help you fix that we literally can't afford the modernization the recruiting the basing everything we need if we're paying $90,000 for a bag of bushings I work with Dr. Lapland on this because it's a it's a it's a systemic issue and again most of the parts buying is done through DLA but you have the largest fleet of commercial birds that you've got the Ferraris but these are the pickup trucks so we should just be able to we have to be able to do is challenge the prices and we have to have knowledgeable buyers who can understand when they're getting a ridiculous price and go in and ensure that they get let's work together on that I just need in the interest of time I just want to move again to the recruiting and the Genesis program I have here a quote that was given during the air and space forces association air warfare symposium that basically says if you do the math you're somewhere in the ballpark of 5600 folks that we could have likely brought on if they weren't waiting on a medical approval right and now you have a program that digs into medical records and so a kid who took ADHD meds because maybe his parents got divorced when he was 14 or 15 now can't get approved somebody who wants to serve I think we're trying to solve one problem and then we've created a whole disproportionate others and I want to work with you on that to let's fix the Genesis system and how it is affecting you and then just in my question remaining you are the only service that in your proposal proposed a cut in junior ROTC and high schools do you think that junior ROTC and high school is getting to this Gen Z getting to him early about service leadership discipline fallow ship is helpful I'm the junior ROTC is available program I'm not aware that we may have for some reason I'd have to go back and get back to I look forward to working with you on that as well you get a better citizen and you get a recruit the gentleman's time has expired the general woman from Hawaii Mr. Kuda is recognized for five minutes thank you Mr. Chair you know last summer I had the privilege of traveling to Japan, Okinawa, Taiwan Guam and the Philippines with the chairman and ranking member and many of my colleagues on this committee and of course we made our traditional stop in Hawaii during that stop however I was surprised by a briefing on the unacceptable state of the Hickam ramp and the continued challenges the Hickam side of joint base Pearl Harbor Hickam experiences as part of their joint basing relationship with the Navy from what I understand the Hickam ramp is in an unacceptable state that reflects years of budgetary neglect and the cost of getting it back to operational readiness is jaw-droppingly high I know that the Air Force and the Navy have had many conversations about the right path forward since last summer we got an update from your team about the latest developments and it seems like there is a lot still to be determined and we're just shy of one year since this issue was first raised to this committee's attention when we're on site I am concerned however given the focus on quickly re-optimizing for great power competition that the necessary maintenance and improvement to the Hickam ramp does not appear to be in the fiscal year 2025 budget request or in the unfunded priorities list Mr. Secretary am I looking at this right if this is a priority where is it and if so would you please explain to me how the Air Force is working to address these issues with the Hickam ramp and who's going to pay to fix this problem Thanks for your question General Alvin and I were just there and got a chance to look at the condition of the ramp personally the team there has laid out a good plan to move forward and we have had a lot of discussions with the Navy the Navy has funded upgrade to the ramp my understanding is that there's $379 million in the period starting in 25 through 30 to fix the ramp and connecting taxiways so that's budgeted and programmed as I understand it now and I'll just verify that to make sure it's correct Yeah that's we understand with the Navy doing that but we also to the Secretary's point we talked to the sort of the Airfield Authority Colonel Obi-Wanca they gave us a fairly in-depth brief about what needs to be done and now so we're following up on that trip to be able to ensure that we we continue to work with the Honorable Chaudry our installations and environment Assistant Secretary of the Air Force has been really driving this hard with this Navy counterpart but now understanding if there are other memorandums of agreement to where we can have different authorities to make sure we can help control the pace of how that ramp gets that gets fixed we're going to do that So when can we anticipate operational readiness based on your conversations with the Navy just given you know our proximity to the Indo-Pacific our strategic role that we play it's very concerning I think it was concerning for the leadership of this committee to see the condition of the ramp so when do we expect operational readiness to be in place? Well again the this is military construction so the military construction has to have the planning and design get to 35% planning and design that needs to get to 35% planning and design before I could even consider putting it on my unfunded priorities list so it is going through that that process now with the Navy and we're going to look at how fast to move it based on the maybe the sequencing and the phasing of the of the design and the mil-con but that's us working with the Department of the Navy Well my humble suggestion is to pick up the pace in terms of the urgency because if we truly want to be ready in the Indo-Pacific you cannot have conditions like this existing so thank you for that and we will continue to to be in conversation with you and the Navy about this you know I think the issues with Hickam are illustrative of a broader quite frankly a set of infrastructure sustainment challenges in the Indo-Pacific and the reality of distributed operations requires relying often on infrastructure in less than ideal conditions all in a non-permissive contested environment and so Mr. Secretary how is the Air Force managing and adapting to the risks inherent in infrastructure sustainment challenges in the Indo-Pacific Now General Alvin I got to see a lot of that first hand we visited Tinian which is one of our our hubs of our spokes rather are more remote bases that were in the process of clearing and repaving so that we can use that strip under the operational imperative initiatives from two years ago which the committee supported and funded starting largely in 24 we do have a lot of money allocated to to this purpose upgrading our facilities in the region so that they can support the operational concept we have agile combat employment so we're moving forward we're not moving as fast as I would like to I think as you would either we are moving forward on that a set of initiatives designed to address those problems we're well aware of them Thank you and I know I'm just about to run out of time so I will put this in as a question but I would like for you to expound a bit in your posture statement you talked about challenges imposed by the fiscal responsibility act especially in the procurement and research and development and I would like for you to just talk a bit more and elaborate on how those budgetary constraints also impact investments in infrastructure sustainment so submit that for the chairman Chair and I recognize gentlemen from Texas Mr. Jackson Thank you Mr. Chairman thank you for our witnesses for being here today I appreciate your time gentlemen the Air Force faces the difficult task of extending aircraft like the B-52 and the T-38 that first flew in the 1950s while simultaneously developing new state-of-the-art aircraft like the B-21 and the T-7 these new platforms take time to develop but our Air Force needs to get these new aircraft into the hands of our airmen sooner than later General Alvin last year I asked General Brown about the T-7 Red Hawk program and how we can get past the delays which have plagued this trainer he said he was focused on the Air Force training pipeline because he needs airmen to be ready to train and fight and that he had gathered the applicable groups in the same room to align their focuses and work on the issues of the T-7 yet here we are again this year talking about T-7 delays due to parts quality and supply chain issues sliding the delivery further to the right and backing up more and more airmen in the pipeline and creating an even greater pilot shortage as you know the T-7 will replace the aging T-38 fleet at Shepherd Air Force Base as part of the Euro NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program which is of course based in my district this problem isn't only going to affect U.S. airmen is my point here our NATO allies that participate in pilot training in Wichita Falls are very concerned about the impacts on their militaries as well we have a responsibility to get this right and it seems like this issue isn't getting the attention it needs from the Air Force in my opinion the original initial operational capability for the T-7 was supposed to be this year 2024 but now the Air Force is looking at the second quarter of FY-28 General Alvin I'm going to ask you the same question I asked General Brown last year what is the Air Force doing to overcome these delays and help our industry partners get the T-7 to bases like Shepherd Air Force Base base more quickly and how are we ensuring that we end this never-ending cycle of bad news on our new platforms like the T-7 trainer aircraft can you commit to me here that we will get these we'll get these jets to Shepherd Air Force Base as quickly as we possibly can Congressman I'll start with the end one yes as soon as we possibly can we continue to work with Boeing and T-7 it's now in flight test so we continue to move on and as a former test pilot I would hesitate to say that that guarantees things are going to go smoothly sometimes you do find things in flight tests that you hadn't before there's a bit of the way that it was developed to with the digital engineering being a bit new that might cause new issues there may allow us to go through testing more rapidly but what General Brown said he held to we did put the right people in place we are having a laser focus on trying to get past issue one at a time with the T-7 to ensure that we can bring that on as soon as possible now in the meantime we also understand as you said Congressman we need to ensure that the T-38 can remain viable through then and so as part of my unfunded priority list I had what the teams do is our team go through a couple of sprints to look at what are the things that move the needle the most with respect to supplies to keep those J-85 engine to keep that refurbishment happening so we can keep that which is a long pull in the tent for the T-38 so we're trying to tackle it on both ends to be able to work with going to accelerate and to do whatever we can to keep that T-38 flying so we can keep that pipeline of airmen American and allied and partner nations as well I'm committed to working with you on that I think that we're headed for conflict somewhere in the world pretty soon and we need to be we need to be ready to go and we're not the Air Force was the first service to start with the Nacell improvement program on its fleet of CV-22s and it serves as a prime example of how targeted investment can yield exceptional results from the data that has been provided in my office the Nacell improvement program has saved 10,000 maintenance man-hours to date and has improved the ratio of man-hours to flight hours about 200 percent the Air Force's decision to invest in this program and ensure we have the most capable inventory of airframes on the flight line for our service members is a model I believe the other services should follow and move expeditiously to adopt while improving the quality of aircraft for the service member it's also saving crucial resources at a time when budgets are going to be heavily constrained General Alvin while I realize that our time here is limited I would like to ask if we could find a time for you to come by my office at some point in the future and discuss with me in detail what your plans are for the fleet of V-22 aircraft in the Air Force and for the next generation of tilt rotor aircraft manufacturing the V-280s as you know in my district Bell helicopter in the Army's program which I've been a big proponent of and I'd like to see the other services follow that as well however with the time we have here today General Alvin how do you envision the role of the CV-22 when we think about Indo-Pacific theater and what operational capabilities does it provide to our Air Force that are difficult to replace? Well Congressman I'll tell you that in the aftermath of the accident and now getting those back to flying again General Ballinfriant is doing a comprehensive review and as part of that we are looking into all those things from getting it back to flying which is most important safely and back operating to look into the future of the CV-22 so Congressman I definitely take you up on your offer to be able to talk about that and the future how we anticipate going forward with the CV-22 at the conclusion of that comprehensive review which should be in the next two months. General Stam's expired Chair and I recognize a gentleman from Texas Mr. Veezy Thank you Mr. Chairman I wanted to ask General Salzman General Alvin have you all ever heard of the term pseudophilicitis? Okay you've heard of the term pseudophilicitis I wanted to ask you because a lot of people don't know about this but it's a skin condition that for people that have ingrown hairs mainly in black man and so when they shave it can cause pain and discoloration you can see discoloration under my neck right now I love a good shave but you can see this discoloration that's under my neck right now and I wanted to just ask you what are the current policies regarding shaving waivers in the air force in the space force and what sort of accommodations are you looking at and I want to be 100% clear I mean I have a high school senior I tried to get him to join the core cadets at A&M he wasn't interested and so I believe in military service and understand the uniformity that you're trying to get everybody to be the same and you shave their hair so I'm not trying to change that I respect that and understand why that needs to be in place but this is obviously a very you know serious issue and has affected men's careers I have a pastor in my district that I'm trying to help we're doing casework for him right now trying to help him because of his discharge status because of this issue that he had with shaving and so just wanted to get a better understanding of how these waivers work well congressman we do have more recently we've sort of raised the awareness of the waiver process and so that if you have that condition and you go to see the medical professionals there at the medical treatment facilities they provide you they grant you the verification that that's a medical condition and you're granted the waiver and I believe the number of shaving waivers for this particular condition I'd like to get you the exact numbers but it's gone up by by a degree of I would say almost 50 percent increase in the past several years because of the awareness of that and so we have an increased number of shaving waivers we have an increased number of those who are now complying with the waived ability to have a beer are you pretty confident that it's not affecting people's careers and discharge and I have y'all looked into that because even though someone may get a waiver you also want to make sure that there may be someone else that's not resentful of them getting the waiver because you know and we deal with this sort of stuff on this committee all the time there's always a group of people that well it's been this way for a hundred years and I don't understand why we got it you know what I mean and so when trying to work through that that sort of thing can be a career impediment to someone being able to advance and so is it something that everybody is embracing and understanding the importance of these waivers yeah Congressman I would say it is I would also say it's a work in progress because along the same line there is also an increase in request for religious accommodation along the same lines and so my concern but my interest as the chief is to ensure that we respect that and we honor that so not only do we ensure that those who qualify for those actually achieve those the exceptions to policy and the waivers but we also make sure that others aren't exploiting it so we need to make sure on both sides of that that was awesome yeah I think General Alvin said it just right the key is one is having a good process to grant the waivers expeditiously and appropriately and then second is remove any stigma and make sure that those people that are accommodated are still respected and there's no adverse impacts that's started that is sensitivity towards it and then second is about training and education to make sure everybody understands the situation yeah and you feel pretty confident about the educational process being able making this way through the ranks so everyone has an understanding of it I like the way General Alvin said it I think it's a work in progress because we got to reach the entire group of people but I think we're making the right strides okay good good and as far as you know there hasn't been any recent discharges that anyone has faced because of this issue okay okay good good Mr. Chairman I yield back thank you gentlemen yields back Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama Mr. Strong thank you Mr. Chairman and ranking member Smith and I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here Secretary Kendall earlier this week I sent you a bipartisan letter that I co-led with strategic forces ranking member Seth Moulton expressing our strong support for the national security space launch program ensuring that the United States has and maintains assured access to space and is more important now than it ever has been I know this is a bit early to expect a response since we only shared the letter two days ago but since you're here might as well go ahead can you speak to the importance of the national security space launch program and to the benefits that are provided by utilizing blockbys and encouraging robust competition within the launch industry Congressman strong thanks for your letter I have seen it and I appreciate the support the the the current program was put in place originally about 10 12 years ago by myself and John Polkowski in the Air Force and it was designed to provide a short access to space and provide for competition and to bring new entrants in we went from buying rockets to buying launch services and the the thing that has happened over those years includes the emergence of more more launch providers that we can tap into so General Salisman outlined outlined that earlier the the phase three that is currently in competition is designed to open up the aperture even more and they take advantage of that and the savings have been huge the the competition that we've has happened has allowed us to bring a new entrance and forced prices down it's helped to encourage a lot of innovation and it's taken advantage of what's been going on in the commercial world so I think that the program overall has been a huge success thank you North North Alabama is proud to host several companies which contribute to the success of the NSSL including Blue Origin along with just refurbished the historic Apollo test stand 4670 at Redstone-Arstall that was in partnership with the City of Huntsville Madison County Commission and it's great to have that test site back rolling for the testing of the BE-3 and the BE-4 engines United Launch Alliance which has the largest rocket factory in the world in Decatur, Alabama with 2.4 million square feet under roof celebrated a near-perfect launch of their new Vulcan their Vulcan rocket General Salisman Secretary Kendall the United States leads the world in space exploration research and launch technology and capability much of this is to the things of hard work of thousands of Alabamians that don't call Huntsville they don't call Huntsville rocket city for nothing as this has been discussed to link today China is determined to overtake U.S. dominance in space and advance in its own space program I'm concerned that the Chinese exploitation of our technology components and suppliers threatens our nation's well-earned position of leadership and reliable access to and utilization of space one how is the U.S. space force working to protect America's prominence in space as ha