AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE ON UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS LISTS

129. Senator SESSIONS. Admiral Clark, one of the items you have listed on your unfunded requirements list is a request for funds to correct, “emerging deficiencies impacting aircraft mission capable rates." The description for this line item says, "funding is required to preclude grounding three critical weapons systems as a result of unforeseen maintenance requirements." You list problems with the B-1B, B2, and F-15 fleets. In fact, you say that the B-2 hot trailing edge damage has already degraded six aircraft and that these aircraft are "en route to becoming nonflyable." Six B-2s represent almost one third of the total B-2 fleet. Your unfunded requirements list requests funding for eight center wing sections for EA-6B aircraft to restore these aircraft to full capability. Your line item description says, “51 EA6Bs are currently limited to 3 Gs." Secretary England has testified that your number one priority for funding is aircraft recapitalization. These problems sound pretty serious to me. Why are they on your unfunded list instead of a supplemental cost of war request?

Admiral CLARK. EA-6B Wing Center Sections (WCS) are included in the fiscal year 2002 Defense Emergency Response Fund Spring Supplemental Request and the fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirements list. This takes advantage of maximizing the WCS procurements in both fiscal years. Based on the amounts appropriated, we will optimize WCS production, thereby reducing the number of g-restricted aircraft in the fleet inventory.

130. Senator SESSIONS. Admiral Clark and General Jumper, there have been many reports that we are flying our aircraft at a much higher operational tempo than planned. Can your services afford to wait to fund these aircraft fixes?

Admiral CLARK. The Navy EA-6Bs are currently flying 50 percent higher operational tempo than normal. We have requested additional funding to ensure the continued viability of the EA-6B, and we will process further requests should the need arise.

General JUMPER. The AF was aware of problems with the B-1, B-2, and F-15 but they were not severe enough to ground the aircraft until recently. Therefore, these problems did not make it into the fiscal year 2002 President's budget. The purpose of the $163.3 million in the UPL is to fund additional maintenance requirements that were not serious problems during the fiscal year 2003 President's budget development. Over the last 3 to 5 months, the B-1, B-2, and F-15 issues have risen to a level which cannot wait for correction within normal programmed maintenance schedules.

The B-1 wing pivot shear bearing is an item that was designed to last for the life of the airframe. The B-1 System Program Office discovered unanticipated wear and has determined that some aircraft cannot wait until normal depot maintenance prior to repair. There is a potential of 2-3 B-1s being grounded by the end of fiscal year 2002.

The B-2 hot trailing edge is a problem discovered last fall and is being investigated by structural engineers to determine the best course of action. The trailing edge will have a significant impact on B-2 operations if not corrected immediately. F-15 horizontal stabilizer delamination issues have now exceeded normal Air Force organic maintenance capabilities. Air Combat Command believes these maintenance problems cannot wait until the fiscal year 2004 President's budget. This problem will exceed depot level capacity in fiscal year 2003 if actions are not taken immediately.

Since these problems have become serious operational issues, the AF recently added them to the top 5 of the fiscal year 2003 unfunded priority list.

LITENING PODS FOR UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AIRCRAFT

131. Senator SESSIONS. General Jumper, it is my understanding that many of the Marine Corps and Air National Guard aircraft flying in Afghanistan are equipped with Northrop Grumman Litening targeting pods which provide the pilots with greater operational capability for precision strike and nighttime navigation than those of some Air Force planes. Is the Air Force looking at this system to help our pilots and troops in the current conflict, and if so what is the status of Air Force plans to acquire Litening in the near future?

General JUMPER. The Litening Pod has a laser spot tracker. This feature enables the aircraft to identify targets that are laser-designated by special forces personnel in the current conflict. The current USAF targeting pod (LANTIRN) doesn't possess this attribute. The USAF's newly funded advanced targeting pod will possess this feature and many other critical capabilities (CID, J-series weapons coordinate gen

eration, more powerful laser for standoff). Deliveries of this pod begin this fall. However, in support of the immediate need for more laser spot trackers, a Combat Mission Need Statement was approved in December 2001. Currently, the Air Force is requesting to reprogram money for an additional 24 Litening II pods as part of the Fiscal Year 2002 Omnibus Reprogramming package.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS

SHIPBUILDING DD(X)

132. Senator COLLINS. Admiral Clark, as you stated, the DD(X) represents the future for the Navy and is expected to make a significant contribution in the Navy's ability to achieve affordability breakthroughs with dramatic reductions in fleet operations and support including personnel costs. DD(X) should allow the Navy to field a fleet of highly capable and affordable warships. Would you discuss the value that you believe DD(X) and its family of ships will provide the Navy team, and further would you provide details on the $961 million investment proposed in the fiscal year 2003 budget for this family-of-ships?

Admiral CLARK. Maritime Dominance in the 21st century requires a naval force capable of projecting power and defeating anti-access threats. U.S. naval forces will be required to project power forward, provide assured access in the littoral environment, and support a wide variety of joint and combined operations. Defeating and deterring future national threats will require a wide range of capabilities provided from a family of ships. These ships will be required to provide:

• Precision Strike and Volume Fires;

• Anti Access Littoral Missions; and

• Missile Defense.

In order to accomplish these complex and challenging missions, the future surface naval force will consist of four elements:

• Advanced, multi-mission destroyers, DD(X), capable of providing precision strike and volume fires;

• Advanced cruiser, CG(X), providing sustained air superiority against airbreathing and ballistic threats;

• Agile Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) capable of defeating enemy littoral defenses including mines, small boats, and diesel submarines; and

• In-service Aegis equipped fleet.

Transformation of the future naval force starts with the DD(X) technology development effort. Many of the cutting edge and future technologies that will assure maritime dominance are being developed under the DD(X) program for the future family of ships.

The fiscal year 2003 budget request for DD(X) will provide funding for development of transformational systems. The DD(X) design agent will focus on the development of Engineering Development Models (EDMs) during fiscal year 2003 including:

• Advanced Gun System and Magazine;

• Integrated Power Systems;

• Radar Suite (Multi-Function Radar/Volume Search Radar);

• Total Ship Computing Environment;

• Advanced Vertical Launch System;

• Integrated Deckhouse and Apertures;

• Autonomic Fire Suppression System; • Infrared Mock-ups;

. Hull Form Scale Model; and

In fiscal year 2003, the design agent will also perform design studies to support the spiral design review/requirements revalidation and the integration/evolution of the overall DD(X) ship design in fiscal year 2005. Full funding is critical to achieve the innovation and transformational technologies that DD(X) will bring to the fleet.

133. Senator COLLINS. General Jones, Admiral Clark stated the DD(X) represents the future for the Navy and is expected to make a significant contribution in the Navy's ability to achieve affordability breakthroughs with dramatic reductions in fleet operations and support including personnel costs. DD(X) should allow the Navy to field a fleet of highly capable and affordable warships. Do you have any comments to add since this family of ships will also fulfill requirements, specifically fire support, for the Marine Corps?

General JONES. A credible Naval Surface Fire Support program is a critical component of forcible entry from the sea, and DD(X) is a vital component of that capability, essential to realizing the full potential of Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare. The systems envisioned for DD(X), which include the 155mm Advanced Gun System and the Advanced Land Attack Missile (ALAM), are essential elements of an expeditionary fire support system that will provide responsive, all-weather fire support "from the sea" in support of forces operating throughout the depth of the littoral battlespace.

I am concerned, however, that DD(X) will be fielded with less warfighting capability and in fewer numbers than previously planned for DD21. The magazine capacity of DD(X) must be sufficient to provide sustained fires in support of Marine, joint, or coalition forces ashore, and there must be a sufficient number of ships available to sustain fires for extended periods of time. Additionally, there must be enough Vertical Launch System (VLS) Advanced Vertical Launch System (AVLS) cells dedicated to the ALAM, which will provide the Landing Force Commander (LFC) with responsive, medium-range interdiction, and battlespace shaping fires throughout the duration of operations.

In order to provide sustained fire support, DD(X) must be capable of rapid underway replenishment within the theater of operations. Sustainment is a key element in providing sustained fire support, and there must be sufficient numbers of ALAM and 155mm Long-Range Land Attack projectiles available to replenish the magazines and VLS/AVLS cells of DD(X).

AMPHIBIOUS LIFT CAPABILITY

134. Senator COLLINS. Admiral Clark and General Jones, the fiscal year 2003 proposed budget would reduce our force structure by two amphibious warfare ships, one combat logistics ship, one mine warfare ship, and 42 active aircraft. What short- and long-term impacts do you anticipate this force structure reduction will have on the OPTEMPO and the PERSTEMPO of our fleet?

Admiral CLARK. The proposed fiscal year 2003 budget will reduce the force structure by 2 amphibious warfare ships, 1 combat logistics ship, 1 mine warfare ship, and 42 active aircraft. This reduction in the number of ships and aircraft will have minor impact on personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO) and operations tempo (OPSTEMPO) for the remaining force. Planned and on-going operations are the primary drivers for PERSTEMPO and OPSTEMPO changes. The global war on terrorism is currently the primary worldwide operation causing increases in the PERSTEMPO and OPSTEMPO of naval forces.

The current active amphibious fleet exceeds the 2.5 MEB AE lift threshold in all areas except that of vehicle square-currently at 2.07 MEB AE. Vehicle square will be reduced to 2.01 MEB AE with the planned reductions in force structure.

General JONES. These reductions should have little impact on the OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO of marines. However, while it has long been recognized that we require an amphibious ship force structure capable of simultaneously lifting the assault echelons of three Marine Expeditionary Brigades, today's amphibious lift can only support two-thirds of this requirement in certain aspects of the lift footprint. We need to commit to redress this shortfall as a matter of urgent priority.

We remain concerned that further schedule slippages in the LPD-17 programs will directly impact our ability to maintain forward deployed naval capabilities sufficient to meet the challenges of both peace and war. In addition to LPD-17 development, it is critical to replace the aging LHA-1 Tarawa-class ships. Congressional support for amphibious shipping is vital to our continued success.

Decommissioning one LSD 36 class ship and the remaining LST in fiscal year 2003 will result in the following amphibious ship lift reductions:

⚫ Troops: 649;

• Vehicle (square feet): 27,500;

• Cargo (cubic feet): 4,800; and • LCAC Spots: 2.

The Marine Corps amphibious ship lift requirement is 3.0 MEB AE in order to support our warfighting and forward presence requirements. The current Navy amphibious shipbuilding plan results in an active amphibious force capable of lifting a fiscally constrained 2.5 MEB equivalents, which is not achieved until 2015 upon delivery of the twelfth and final LPD-17-class ship. Today, amphibious lift force structure can support only two-thirds of the 3.0 MEB AE requirement in certain aspects of the lift footprint. This reduced force structure, coupled with the decommissioning of active amphibious ships, adversely impacts Marine Corps warfighting and crisis response capabilities, thereby increasing operational risk.

WORKLOAD IMBALANCES

135. Senator COLLINS. Admiral Clark, you testify that your fiscal year 2003 proposed priorities invest in current readiness for our naval forces. However, I am aware that there have been some deferred depot maintenance periods due to current operations (i.e., combating terrorism) on the Los Angeles-class submarines in fiscal year 2002, which will impact fiscal year 2003 and out-year workload schedules, placing the fleet ready submarines at risk to meet future missions as required by the Commanders in Chief. These delays not only adversely affect fleet readiness; they can also cause dramatic workload imbalances at our shipyards. I am concerned that continued shifts in the workload to future years will place undue stress on the fleet and the yards. I would like your commitment that your workload plans will be adjusted to maintain a stable workload and workforce at the shipyards.

Admiral CLARK. Ship depot maintenance plans are continuously updated to incorporate actual execution, operational impacts, and financial resources. Availabilities are deferred only after the risk to fleet readiness associated with deferring the work is determined and deemed acceptable.

The Navy actively works to refine and schedule ship depot availabilities for effective shipyard execution. Keeping the shipyard workload level is essential to efficient operation and is a key' consideration in scheduling availabilities.

A skilled and motivated shipyard workforce is essential to maintain the Navy's high state of material readiness. Recognizing that many in the public shipyard workforce are rapidly approaching retirement eligibility, a primary focus of the Navy's depot maintenance program is maintaining a stable workforce with the skills we need. We appreciate the support Congress has give the naval shipyard apprentice programs.

AVIONICS AND NAVIGATION SYSTEMS

136. Senator COLLINS. Admiral Clark, the Multi-Mission Aircraft is scheduled to replace the aging P-3 platform in 2010 to 2012. Currently, the high OPTEMPO of the platform is rapidly diminishing its service life significantly. The P-3 platform, while it has been upgraded incrementally, has an average age of 25.5 years. Are there plans in this budget to continue upgrading the existing platforms' avionics and navigation systems to keep the P-3s viable, in order to bridge the procurement to its replacement in future years?

Admiral CLARK. Yes. The fiscal year 2003 President's budget (PB-03) contains funding for three P-3C modernization programs. Four P-3C Anti-surface warfare Improvement Program (AIP) kits and installations are funded in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 ($96.6 million). The AIP provides upgrades to sensor; command, control, communications, and intelligence (CI); weapons; and survivability systems. A comprehensive Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) program is also funded across the fiscal year 2003 FYDP ($58 million). This program will develop an open cockpit architecture that will support present and future CNS/ATM requirements and will begin to procure and install equipment needed to support CNS/ATM requirements. Finally, a Communications Improvement Program (CIP) is funded across the PB-03 FYDP ($31.8 million). The CIP provides a common configuration of VHF and UHF communications radios, a satellite communications system that is compliant with current bandwidth and transmission protocol requirements, and an Advanced Narrowband Digital Voice Terminal encryption device.

These programs will combine to keep the P-3 a valuable warfighting tool and will allow it to be the bridge needed until its replacement, the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA) reaches full operational capability.

DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM

137. Senator COLLINS. General Jones, I have been told that a Defensive Weapon System (DWS) for the V-22 is required. I understand that the competition for that system has been completed for almost 2 years, however the Corps has not executed the contract for this DWS. In reference to this program, could you tell me when the Corps plans to initiate that DWS program?

General JONES. The General Dynamics, GAU-19 (.50 cal multi-barrel gatling) was announced as the winner of our gun competition in August 2000. The events of the past 2 years forces us to prioritize the funding and engineering efforts for the V22. We must ensure the V-22 is a safe, flyable aircraft that is operationally capable, before we commit to acquiring the Defensive Weapon System. Our primary focus of

effort, near term, is to return the aircraft to flying in the test mode. The V-22 program is following an “event driven" philosophy with regard to major program changes and decisions. Integrating the Defensive Weapons System at this early stage would cause additional delays and potential program event risks.

138. Senator COLLINS. General Jones, even if production began immediately, will there still be 90 aircraft built before the weapon system is available?

General JONES. No. If the Defensive Weapon Šystem integration and production began today, we would be putting the gun system on the Lot 11 aircraft first. This means there would be 107 aircraft built before this weapon system is available. However, we are anticipating that we would only retrofit approximately 70 of the 107 aircraft. The 37 aircraft not requiring the Defensive Weapon System include projected attrition, basic training aircraft at the Fleet Replacement Squadron, and the Continued Development aircraft used by the test community.

139. Senator COLLINS. General Jones, aren't the retrofit costs for the DWS continuing to grow with these delays?

General JONES. Yes. The cost to outfit a V-22 with the Defensive Weapon System on a retrofit basis is approximately $900,000 more than a forward fit. The longer we delay the start of this Defensive Weapon System integration development effort, the more aircraft we will have to retrofit.

C-17 STRATEGIC AIRLIFT

140. Senator COLLINS. General Jumper, I believe Congress authorized another multiyear procurement of 60 aircraft for the C-17 strategic airlifter. I think most people thought that would be 15 aircraft per year for 4 years, starting in fiscal year 2003. Why are there only 12 C-17s in the fiscal year 2003 budget?

General JUMPER. Due to Air Force funding constraints, the Air Force requested and received congressional approval for a 6-year multiyear. The Air Force notified Congress during this request of the intent to buy 12 aircraft in fiscal year 2003. Since this contract is a multiyear procurement, Boeing will be able to maintain the optimum production rate of 15 aircraft per year. This funding approach will execute the 60 aircraft follow-on multiyear within the Air Force Total Obligation Authority. [Whereupon, at 12:52 p.m., the committee adjourned.]