The F–35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning Ii Program

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The F–35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning Ii Program i [H.A.S.C. No. 115–79] THE F–35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER LIGHTNING II PROGRAM HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION HEARING HELD MARCH 7, 2018 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 29–417 WASHINGTON : 2019 SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts PAUL COOK, California, Vice Chair JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island SAM GRAVES, Missouri JIM COOPER, Tennessee MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona MARC A. VEASEY, Texas STEPHEN KNIGHT, California RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona TRENT KELLY, Mississippi JACKY ROSEN, Nevada MATT GAETZ, Florida SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DON BACON, Nebraska ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland JIM BANKS, Indiana TOM O’HALLERAN, Arizona WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York ROB BISHOP, Utah JIMMY PANETTA, California ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia MO BROOKS, Alabama JOHN SULLIVAN, Professional Staff Member DOUG BUSH, Professional Staff Member NEVE SCHADLER, Clerk (II) C O N T E N T S Page STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Tsongas, Hon. Niki, a Representative from Massachusetts, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces ................................................ 3 Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative from Ohio, Chairman, Subcommit- tee on Tactical Air and Land Forces .................................................................. 1 WITNESSES Conn, RADM Scott D., USN, Director, Air Warfare (OPNAV N98), Office of the Chief of Naval Operations ........................................................................ 11 Harris, Lt Gen Jerry D., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans, Programs, and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force .............................................. 12 Rudder, LtGen Steven R., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, Head- quarters U.S. Marine Corps ................................................................................ 9 Winter, VADM Mathias W., USN, Program Executive Officer, F–35 Joint Program Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense ........................................... 5 APPENDIX PREPARED STATEMENTS: Conn, RADM Scott D. ...................................................................................... 77 Harris, Lt Gen Jerry D. ................................................................................... 85 Rudder, LtGen Steven R. ................................................................................. 67 Turner, Hon. Michael R. .................................................................................. 35 Winter, VADM Mathias W. ............................................................................. 38 DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: [There were no Documents submitted.] WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: Mr. Gaetz .......................................................................................................... 99 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: Mr. Bacon .......................................................................................................... 107 Ms. Rosen .......................................................................................................... 106 Ms. Tsongas ...................................................................................................... 106 Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 103 (III) THE F–35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER LIGHTNING II PROGRAM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 7, 2018. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m. in room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael R. Turner (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL R. TURNER, A REP- RESENTATIVE FROM OHIO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES Mr. TURNER. The committee will come to order. The subcommit- tee meets today to receive testimony on an update to the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter [JSF] program, and integrating fifth-genera- tion tactical fighter capabilities into the services’ fighter fleets. I want to welcome our witnesses for today’s panel. We have Vice Admiral Mat Winter, the Director of the F–35 Joint Program Office [JPO]; Lieutenant General Steven Rudder, Deputy Commandant of Aviation for the United States Marine Corps; Rear Admiral Scott Conn, Director of Air Warfare for the United States Navy; and Lieutenant General Jerry Harris, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force for Plans, Programs, and Requirements. Gentlemen, thank you for being here, and thank you for your service. This year marks the beginning of an important transition for the F–35 program. After 17 years of development and engineering ac- tivities, the F–35 will complete its baseline development program by May of this year, and then enter into an operational test period this September to assess and validate if each variant of the F–35 provides the capabilities needed to meet operational requirements defined by each of the military services before us today. F–35 acquisition is still increasing, but still not to the level the services require. Last year, the Department of Defense [DOD] re- quested 70 F–35s. This year the request is for 77, with plans for the services [to] budget for 99 aircraft per year by 2023. Procurement costs for F–35s are steadily declining. Last year, ne- gotiated costs for the three F–35 variants were over 6 percent lower than the previous year. Hopefully, projections for actual costs continue the recent trend of coming in below the program office’s estimates. Last year marked several notable accomplishments for the F–35 program. Among them, all developmental weapon testings was— were completed; the final version of the Block 3F software was pro- (1) 2 vided to some of the fleet; and the 66 F–35s were delivered to the U.S. services. Additionally, F–35 deliveries were made to Italy, Norway, Israel, Australia, and Japan. But the F–35 program continues to face challenges ahead. In ad- dition to beginning operational testing, this year also marks a tran- sition from initial development activities to follow-on development, which has become known as continuous capacity development and delivery, or C2D2. While the goal of C2D2 methodology is designed to deliver con- tinuous modernization to the warfighter in smaller increments and an expedited timeline, the recent Director of Operational Test and Evaluation’s [DOT&E] report to Congress questioned whether or not the C2D2 program is properly resourced, and whether the test- ing community will be provided sufficient test aircraft built at a current production configuration to perform and validate future ca- pabilities. In terms of oversight, this subcommittee has always had afford- ability at the forefront of its F–35 oversight activities. To supple- ment our F–35 oversight activities, the subcommittee included a provision in the fiscal year [FY] 2017 National Defense Authoriza- tion Act [NDAA] that required the Government Accountability Of- fice, or GAO, to review the F–35 sustainment support structure and provide Congress its findings in subsequent recommendations to address affordability issues. We look forward to those. I am sorry, we actually—the GAO’s report released in September of last year noted that the F–35 program is facing key sustainment challenges that include repair capacity at depots; spare part short- ages compounded by insufficient reliability of various parts and components; unfunded intermediate-level maintenance capabilities; and delays in development of the computer and network-based Automatic Logistics Information System, known as ALIS. We look forward to GAO’s continued review of those issues. To address these issues, we understand that the F–35 program in the past year has executed $114 million of fast-track in standing up depots, made investments in reliability and maintainability im- provement projects, and obligated $1.4 billion to increase spare parts purchases, and also built up repair capacity and improved the speed of repairs. The F–35 program office has also developed a 5-year technical road map for ALIS to address future requirements. ALIS, in its current state, is not user-friendly, and has caused the services’ maintenance personnel to create burdensome manual tracking processes and insufficient—and inefficient workloads. We have not only received testimony about that, I know a lot of our members have traveled to sites and spoken to them, the personnel, directly. And they continue to relate to us the difficulty with ALIS. More troubling, each service continues to rely heavily upon con- tractor-provided information technology experts to manipulate ALIS’s intricate software and complex databases, because the ALIS system still does not meet contractual capability requirements that would enable our personnel within each service to independently operate and input data into ALIS. As much attention and effort that was being paid to getting F– 35 development and procurement costs to a reasonable level, this 3 same level of effort and attention now needs to apply to ALIS and its functionality. Despite these efforts, the three services operating the F–35 are—still share a critical concern about rising F–35 oper- ations and support [O&S] costs affecting affordability. We under- stand the F–35 program needs
Recommended publications
  • Customers 'Left Holding the Bag'
    Life insurance medical exams on life support C1 PANORAMA Appearing at the Sumter Opera House Game show, country music, comedy and more at Main Stage series A5 SERVING SOUTH CAROLINA SINCE OCTOBER 15, 1894 SUNDAY, AUGUST 6, 2017 $1.75 IN SPORTS: Week by week look at the prep football season B1 Customers ‘left holding the bag’ Sen. McElveen calls for special session of Legislature on abandoned nuke plants BY JEFFREY COLLINS actors is impulsive, and there by Senate Major- “There just needs to be a this week to review that law Associated Press isn’t a reason to immediately ity Leader Shane timeout, a pause, whatever and to consider firing the call a special session. Massey of Edge- you want to call it, until the members of the Public Ser- COLUMBIA — Both Demo- Pressure to do something, field and Senate General Assembly has the op- vice Commission, which has cratic and Republican law- whether stopping any new Minority Leader portunity to understand in de- to approve all of SCE&G’s makers in South Carolina, in- rate hikes or firing lawmaker- Nikki Setzler of tail what has happened here,” rate hikes. cluding Sen. Thomas approved regulators, is McELVEEN West Columbia, said Setzler, who was one of Sen. McElveen, a member McElveen, D-Sumter, want mounting in the days after calling for law- 25 Senate sponsors of a 2007 of the caucus, said he would the Legislature to return soon South Carolina Electric & Gas makers to return law that allowed utilities to in- like to halt any further rate to deal with the abandonment and Santee Cooper decided to Columbia and pass a reso- crease rates to pay for the increase requests.
    [Show full text]
  • VT-9 Trained Aviators First F-35C Pilots to Graduate from TOPGUN
    Volume 58, Number 13 https://www.cnic.navy.mil/meridian ~ www.facebook.com/NASMeridian ~ Twitter: @nasmeridianms June 25, 2020 VT-9 trained aviators first F-35C pilots to graduate from TOPGUN By Gidget Fuentes ing them the tactics, techniques and USNI News procedures that are required for them to successfully employ their aircraft, inte- Two F-35C pilots are the first naval grated into a larger force,” Cmdr. Timo- aviators to graduate from the TOPGUN thy Myers, TOPGUN department head, course flying the fifth-generation Joint said in the release. “We are also in the Strike Fighter, the Navy announced. business of teaching our graduates how Marine Maj. Derek Heinz and Navy to instruct other students, so that when Lt. William Goodwin are among the lat- they go back to the fleet, they are able to est graduates of the Navy Strike Fighter instruct at a very high level.” Tactics Instructor course, run at Naval While TOPGUN had previously grad- Aviation Warfighting Development Cen- uated students who trained to F-35C tac- ter at Naval Air Station Fallon, Nev. tics and procedures, Heinz and Goodwin Heinz is a member of the “Rough Raid- are the first fleet pilots already flying the ers” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) jet to graduate the course, which used a 125, and Goodwin is a member of the syllabus developed from the ground up “Argonauts” of VFA-147, both F-35C specifically for F-35C integrated opera- Lightning II squadrons based at NAS tions, the Navy said. NAWDC has gradu- Lemoore, Calif. ally incorporated F-35C tactics into the Both Heinz and Goodwin trained and training curriculum as the advanced jet earned their “Wings of Gold” at Naval continues to enter the fleet and replace Air Station Meridian through Training aging Navy and Marine Corps fighter air- Squadron 9 (VT-9).
    [Show full text]
  • C-130J-Sof International Special Operations Forces Configurations
    C-130J-SOF INTERNATIONAL SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES CONFIGURATIONS Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company 86 South Cobb Drive Marietta, Georgia 30063 www.lockheedmartin.com MG170335-003 © 2017 Lockheed Martin Corporation. All rights reserved. PIRA# AER201706008 When the need for security cannot be compromised, a PROVEN solution must be selected. With increasing and evolving global threats, precise use of POWER provides security. In a confusing and rapidly-changing environment, PRECISION and SKILL are force multipliers for peace. These are the moments and missions where failure is not an option. Now is when special operations forces (SOF) are called upon toPROTECT your today and your tomorrows. There is one solution that fully supports all special missions needs, fferingo versatility, endurance, command and control, surveillance and protection. Feared by enemies. Guardian of friendly forces. A global force multiplier. It is the world’s ultimate special missions asset. INTRODUCING THE C-130J-SOF. THE NEWEST MEMBER OF THE SUPER HERCULES FAMILY. SPECIAL OPERATIONS AIRCRAFT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY The C-130J-SOF provides specialized intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support, along with infiltration, C-130J-SOF exfiltration, and re-supply of special operations forces (SOF) and equipment in hostile or denied territory. With added special mission equipment options, the C-130J-SOF may be configured to execute armed overwatch, precision strike, helicopter and vertical lift aerial refueling, psychological operations, high-speed/low-signature
    [Show full text]
  • Global Defense Procurement and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by Bert Chapman (Review)
    Global Defense Procurement and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by Bert Chapman (review) Steven J. Childs Journal of Advanced Military Studies, Volume 11, Number 1, 2020, pp. 242-245 (Review) Published by Marine Corps University Press For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/796228/summary [ Access provided at 24 Sep 2021 09:31 GMT with no institutional affiliation ] This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Journal of Advanced Military Studies Global Defense Procurement and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. By Bert Chapman. Basel, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. Pp. 396. $99.99 (hardcover); $79.99 (ebook). The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is among the most controversial U.S. defense procurement programs in Pentagon history. Originally envisioned as the more affordable “lo” to the “hi” of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, the system reflects the culmination of the Department of Defense’s culture of “jointness,” but in procurement rather than operations. From the program’s onset, it has been an ambitious endeavor to replace four at- tack and fighter aircraft models used by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps with a single airframe, and with variants designed to operate from convention- al runways, aircraft carriers, and helicopter carriers or forward locations using short takeoff and vertical landing capability. As a fifth-generation fighter, this stealth airframe features internal weapons carriage and incorporates advances in fusing information through its sensor suite. On top of it all, the program relies heavily on international cooperation in the production process through a tiered partner arrangement.
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Air Station Fallon : Nevada
    Military Asset List 2016 U.S. Navy NAVAL AIR STATION FALLON : NEVADA Established in 1942, Naval Air Station (NAS) Fallon is located in the Lahontan Valley of west-central Nevada in the remnants of an ancient lake bed. Because of the arid climate, much of the local area around NAS Fallon is irrigated farmland. NAS Fallon was originally designed as a fallback airstrip to defend against a Japanese strike on the West Coast during World War II. Today it is the Navy’s premier tactical air warfare Above: The Van Voorhis Airfield at NAS Fallon is named after Lieutenant training center, Commander Bruce Avery Van Voorhis, Nevada's only native-born Medal of specializing in air-to-air and air-to-ground training. Fully 80% of all Honor recipient. munitions dropped from Navy aircraft in training land on the Fallon Left: Members of the ground crew at Range Training Complex (FRTC). NAS Fallon is also the Navy’s only NAS Fallon prepare F/A-18C Hornet strike fighters for the final phase of training of a air station capable of supporting an entire carrier air wing at one carrier air wing. (U.S. Navy photo) time. MISSION & VISION STATEMENT To provide the most realistic integrated NAS Fallon's total economic impact is $573 million. air warfare training support available to carrier air wings, tenant commands and individual units participating in training FAST FACTS events, including joint and multinational exercises, while remaining committed to » Location: Churchill County, NV (near Fallon) its assigned personnel. In support of these critical training and personnel » Land Area: 8,600 acres (+ 240,000 acres of FRTC/BLM) requirements, NAS Fallon continually upgrades and maintains the Fallon range » Special Use Airspace: 13,000 square miles complex, the airfield, aviation support facilities and base living/recreation » Sorties/Operations: 51,000 per year accommodations, ensuring deployed unit training and a local quality of life second » Military Personnel: 930 active duty to none.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Force Training: Further Analysis and Planning Needed to Improve Effectiveness, GAO-16-635SU (Washington, D.C.: Aug
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees September 2016 AIR FORCE TRAINING Further Analysis and Planning Needed to Improve Effectiveness GAO-16-864 September 2016 AIR FORCE TRAINING Further Analysis and Planning Needed to Improve Effectiveness Highlights of GAO-16-864, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found For more than a decade, the Air Force The Air Force establishes combat aircrew training requirements for the full range focused its training on supporting of core missions based on an annual process, but these requirements may not operations in the Middle East. The Air reflect current and emerging training needs, because the Air Force has not Force has established goals for its comprehensively reassessed the assumptions underlying them. Specifically, combat aircrews to conduct training for assumptions about the total annual live-fly sortie requirements by aircraft, the the full range of core missions. Both criteria for designating aircrews as experienced or inexperienced, and the mix the Senate and House Reports between live and simulator training have remained the same since 2012. For accompanying bills for the FY 2016 example, Air Combat Command has set the same minimum number of live-fly National Defense Authorization Act sortie requirements across aircraft platforms, but has not conducted the analysis included a provision for GAO to review needed to determine if requirements should differ based on the number of core the Air Force’s training plans. missions for each platform. Reassessing the assumptions underlying annual This report discusses the extent to training requirements would better position the Air Force to meet its stated goals which the Air Force has (1) determined for its forces to achieve a range of missions for current and emerging threats.
    [Show full text]
  • Conversations from Cecil Field, Florida
    Conversations from Cecil Field, Florida TRANSCRIPTIONS OF ORAL HISTORY RECORDINGS OF NINETEEN WHO SERVED Lyn Corley Out in the piney woods of Northeast Florida was born NAAS Cecil Field, child of NAS Jacksonville. From two hangars, Hangar 13 and Hangar 14, and a 2,000-foot diameter circular landing mat it grew with the addition of four 5,000-foot runways. It grew to house a jet squadron in 1949 with Carrier Air Group 1 and Fleet Aircraft Service Squadron 9. It grew with four 8,000- foot runways to become the first Master Jet Base in the South. It grew to have eight hangars and 19,000 acres with its own outlying fields. Its extended 12,500-foot runway grew to become an alternate landing site for NASA space shuttles. It grew with the addition of Naval Weapons Station Yellow Water with over 10,000 acres, Outlying Field Whitehouse, and Pinecastle Bombing Range. Cecil grew to encompass 3% of the land area of Duval County, Florida. Cecil served our world by becoming a training base for those who would protect American lives and freedoms that we cherish. Tens of thousands of men and women came through its gate to serve. They lived and died in that pursuit. Cecil had promise “to continue to be a station of significant importance to readiness in the U. S. Atlantic fleet” according to public relations materials but, NAS Cecil Field passed away on September 30, 1999. Many fought to save its life and the City of Jacksonville, Florida and those who served there mourned its passing.
    [Show full text]
  • Countersea Operations
    COUNTERSEA OPERATIONS Air Force Doctrine Document 2-1.4 15 September 2005 This document complements related discussion found in Joint Publication 3-30, Command and Control for Joint Air Operations. BY ORDER OF THE AIR FORCE DOCTRINE DOCUMENT 2-1.4 SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 15 SEPTEMBER 2005 SUMMARY OF REVISIONS This document is substantially revised. This revision’s overarching changes are new chapter headings and sections, terminology progression to “air and space” from “aerospace,” expanded discussion on planning and employment factors, operational considerations when conducting countersea operations, and effects-based methodology and the emphasis on operations vice capabilities or platforms. Specific changes with this revision are the additions of the naval warfighter’s perspective to enhance understanding the environment, doctrine, and operations of the maritime forces on page 3; comparison between Air Force and Navy/Marine Corp terminology, on page 7, included to ensure Air Force forces are aware of the difference in terms or semantics; a terminology matrix added to simplify that awareness on page 9; amphibious operations organization, command and control, and planning are also included throughout the document. Supersedes: AFDD 2-1.4, 4 June 1999 OPR: HQ AFDC/DS (Lt Col Richard Hughey) Certified by: AFDC/DR (Lt Col Eric Schnitzer) Pages: 66 Distribution: F Approved by: Bentley B. Rayburn, Major General, USAF Commander, Headquarters Air Force Doctrine Center FOREWORD Countersea Operations are about the use of Air Force capabilities in the maritime environment to accomplish the joint force commander’s objectives. This doctrine supports DOD Directive 5100.1 requirements for surface sea surveillance, anti-air warfare, anti-surface ship warfare, and anti-submarine warfare.
    [Show full text]
  • JP 3-03, Joint Interdiction
    Joint Publication 3-03 Joint Interdiction 14 October 2011 PREFACE 1. Scope This publication provides doctrine for planning, preparing, executing, and assessing joint interdiction operations. 2. Purpose This publication has been prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It sets forth joint doctrine to govern the activities and performance of the Armed Forces of the United States in joint operations and provides the doctrinal basis for interagency coordination and for US military involvement in multinational operations. It provides military guidance for the exercise of authority by combatant commanders and other joint force commanders (JFCs) and prescribes joint doctrine for operations, education, and training. It provides military guidance for use by the Armed Forces in preparing their appropriate plans. It is not the intent of this publication to restrict the authority of the JFC from organizing the force and executing the mission in a manner the JFC deems most appropriate to ensure unity of effort in the accomplishment of the overall objective. 3. Application a. Joint doctrine established in this publication applies to the joint staff, commanders of combatant commands, subunified commands, joint task forces, subordinate components of these commands, and the Services. b. The guidance in this publication is authoritative; as such, this doctrine will be followed except when, in the judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. If conflicts arise between the contents of this publication and the contents of Service publications, this publication will take precedence unless the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, normally in coordination with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has provided more current and specific guidance.
    [Show full text]
  • 89 STAT. 546 PUBLIC LAW 94-107—OCT. 7, 1975 Public Law 94-107 94Th Congress an Act Uct
    89 STAT. 546 PUBLIC LAW 94-107—OCT. 7, 1975 Public Law 94-107 94th Congress An Act Uct. /, 1975^ rpQ authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes. [S. 1247] Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the Military United States of America in Congress assenibled^ construction and guard and reserve TITLE I—ARMY forces facilities authorization acts, 1976. SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop mili­ Military tary installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, converting, Construction rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, Authorization including land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, Act, 1976. and equipment for the following acquisition and construction: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND Defense Support Activity (Fargo Building), Boston, Massachu­ setts, $8,000,000. Fort Bragg, North Carolina. $13,214,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $13,680,000. Fort Carson, Colorado, $10,732,000. Fort Hood, Texas, $46,281,000. Fort Sam Houston, Texas, $870,000. Fort Lewis, Washington, $31,861,000. Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, $2,892,000. Fort Ord, California, $32,209,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $54,361,000. Fort Richardson, Alaska, $1,685,000. Fort Riley, Kansas, $14,879,000. Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia, $39,480,000. UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND Fort Benning, Georgia, $44,212,000. Fort Eustis, Virginia, $633,000. Fort Gordon, Georgia, $6,945,000. Fort Jackson, South Carolina, $14,546,000. Fort Knox, Kentucky, $42,898,000. Fort Lee, Virginia, $719,000. Fort McClellan, Alabama, $41,090,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Force Command and Control the Need for Increased Adaptability
    AIR UNIVERSITY AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Air Force Command and Control The Need for Increased Adaptability LT COL JEFFREY HUKILL, USAF, RETIRED (TEAM LEADER) COL LARRY CARTER, USAF, RETIRED COL SCOTT JOHNSON, USAF, RETIRED JENNIFER LIZZOL, DAF CIVILIAN COL EDWARD REDMAN, USAF DR. PANAYOTIS YANNAKOGEORGOS, DAF CIVILIAN Research Paper 2012–5 Air Force Research Institute Air University Press Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112–6026 July 2012 Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Air Force Research Institute, Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited. Air Force Research Institute (AFRI) papers and other scholarly Air University studies provide independent analysis and constructive discussion on issues impor­ tant to Air Force commanders, staffs, and other deci­ sion makers. Each paper can also be a valuable tool for defining further research. These studies are available electronically or in print via the AU Press website at http://aupress.au.af.mil/papers.asp. To make comments about this paper or submit a manu­ script to be considered for publication, please e­mail AFRI at [email protected]. ii Contents List of Illustrations iv CSAF Tasking Letter v About the Authors vii Executive Summary ix Introduction 1 A Framework for Analyzing Command and Control Structures 2 Analytical Model 2 Results
    [Show full text]
  • NAS Oceana and NALF Entress
    May 24, 2006 Department of Defense Inspector General’s Report on the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission’s Report Recommendation #193 Regarding Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia D-2006-091 Department of Defense Office of Inspector General Quality Integrity Accountability INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202-4704 MAY 2 4 2006 The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, W Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. Resident: The Base Closure and Realignment Commission (the Commission) issued a report of findings and recommendations to you on September 8,2005, which you approved on ~eitember15,2005. Congress allowed the report to pass into law on November 9,2005. The Commission's actions were taken under the authority of Public Law 101 -5 1 0, "'Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990." This letter is provided in response to the Commission's conclusions and recommendations related to Naval Air Station WAS) Oceana, Virginia, in the Commission's Report Recommendation # 193, which contained six criteria. The Commonwealth of Virginia (Commonwealth) and the municipal governments of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, Virginia, (municipal governments) satisfied five of the six criteria prescribed by the Commission for certification, The Commonwealth and the municipal governments have implemented a number of commendable actions to include the Commonwealth's enacting legislation and both municipal governments' adopting a series of ordinances to address
    [Show full text]