Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Department of Defense (Murkowski): Hearings to examine proposed budget estimates and justification for fiscal year 2027 for the Department of the Air Force.

I want to thank you for your decades of service to our nation. I know both have more time for UK and UofL basketball, but in the case of Western, your hometown school as well. So, gentlemen, I also need to acknowledge the outset the devotion and sacrifice of American service members. U.S. Airmen have been at the absolute razor's edge of recent operations in the Gulf.

Degrading Iran's offensive capabilities, evading the enemy on the ground, bringing down comrades home, sustaining the joint force, and in the case of KC-135 crew over Iraq, making the ultimate sacrifice. I know I speak for the entire subcommittee in recognizing these fallen airmen, their comrades, and their families. But we're here today to review the administration's fiscal year '27 budget request for the Department of the Air Force. As I've observed in discussions with other services, major increases to top-line defense spending represent a tremendous opportunity to improve readiness and lethality across the force. And industrial capacity across our whole country.

At the same time, the structure of the request for the Department of Defense would put consistent funding for key priorities at unnecessary risk. Core pieces of the President's defense agenda, like multiyear procurement contracts for critical munitions, Half of the F-35 program, Golden Dome, and DROME dominance initiatives are all requested as a one-off reconciliation spending, not a full year base appropriations. This is especially mystifying for multi-year procurement contracts. I mean, the need to budget for them annually is right there in the name. But it's more than just a contradiction in terms.

It's also a recipe for major disruptions in the very possible event that party-line reconciliation fails. The administration's choice to structure an ambitious $1.5 trillion request in this way is yet another missed opportunity to put key aspects of our common defense on a stronger and more enduring fiscal footing. Specifically, the Air Force and the Space Force. A few observations.

First, I'm encouraged to see the department acknowledge the need for the E-7 WedgeTail Airborne Battle Management Aircraft. This platform meets a current-day need with the current-day capability. And the department's alignment with this priority is a welcome investment in resiliency as we continue to build our space-based capabilities that will serve our joint force in the future. Also glad to see the fiscal year '27 request begin to address the issue of operational readiness rates by investing more in F-35 spares. But the department will continue to step on its own tail if it insists in housing procurement with new airframes, primarily in one-off reconciliation spending.

If fielding the F-35 remains an operational necessity, both for the United States and for our allies, there's really no excuse for not placing it squarely in full-year appropriations. So, General Sullivan, I'm glad that we— this request represents a massive opportunity for Space Force procurement of key systems. But I worry whether industrial capacity will be able to meet a sudden surge in spending pending a clearer picture of how the department plans to sustain steadily increasing investment in the out years. So I want to hear from all of you how the Space Force is thinking about long-term scaling. Finally, at a fundamental level, I'm curious to hear from each of you about how the Department of the Air Force is applying the lessons of the modern battlefield.

I'm concerned that the Pentagon as a whole is not learning quickly enough from the battlefields in Ukraine and the Gulf. And failure to learn and adapt, particularly when it comes to force protection and counter-drone technology, has real and measurable costs. Speaking of which, there's clearly a need for supplemental funds to cover critical operational costs incurred in the Gulf to recapture readiness to make serious down payments against the munitions shortfalls that long predate operations against Iran. So I would encourage the administration to create such an opportunity and would hope each of our colleagues would seize on it. With that, following Senator Coons' observations, We'll move to Mr. Secretary, the two generals.

You'll make short statements and leave plenty of time for question and answer. Sen. Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for our partnership and broad agreement among many of the themes that you just raised. You'll hear them reflected in my opening remarks as well. Secretary Mink, General Wilsbach, General Saltzman, thank you for your service and for your testimony here today.

The Air Force and Space Force are fortunate to be led by the three of you who continue to display a good judgment and a sincere interest in doing right by our nation. I'd like to note this is General Wilsbach's first time testifying as Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Thank you in advance for your insights today. And I'll note, as did the chairman, that this is General Saltzman's last testimony before this subcommittee ahead of your expected retirement in August after more than 35 years of service. Salty.

I'm not sure you'll miss any of us, but we will certainly miss you. Thank you to you and your family for the sacrifices you've made for our nation over so many years, and I look forward to your last nuggets of wisdom today and in the weeks ahead. Over the past year, our airmen, airwomen, and guardians have operated under immense operational pressure around the world, most notably in the Middle East in support of several operations and currently Operation Epic Fury. Tragically, several of our aircrews have paid the ultimate sacrifice, the ultimate price during this operation, and Dover Air Force Base continues to carry out with honor its sacred duty to welcome home our fallen and to support and sustain their families at dignified transfer ceremonies. As I've noted at previous hearings, our service members always answer the call and operate with immense professionalism and at the highest level of any military in the world.

But it is also demonstrably the case these current operations and recent operations have strained readiness, sharply reduced important munitions inventories, and weakened our hand to respond to tomorrow's threats. It's an indisputable fact we have fewer available aircraft and munitions to respond to future threats in the Indo-Pacific as a result. Responsibility for the decision to take us to war rests with the president who chose this war. Without a clearly articulated strategy in place. Congress also bears responsibility for allowing it to continue and to drift, although I am grateful for members on both sides who are sincerely interested in working to reclaim Congress's constitutional authority.

Today, the Air Force and Space Force continue with longstanding modernization and readiness issues that predated Operation EPIC FURY. I look forward to hearing how this year's budget request attempts to address those issues while in the context of this new war. I would love to hear how our defense industrial base is working to change behavior, uh, to help produce on time and on budget. Um, can it keep up with the increased demand signal that this budget sends? And how do we bring, uh, new players, new manufacturers into an arena, uh, once dominated by just a few big primes?

Uh, as the chairman and I have pointed out at each of our hearings this year, This entire subcommittee supports Ukraine strongly, not only on the merits, but also for the critical lessons we can learn from them and from collaboration and partnership. Ukraine is the world's most complex operational military environment right now. It sits at the cutting edge of air warfare and industrial base ingenuity. Low-cost cruise missiles first used by Ukraine are making their way into the Air Force budget, and I look forward to hearing more about additional efforts like this. Nevertheless, plenty in our traditional Air Force and Space Force needs improvement.

Our F-35s today sit around 56% mission capable, in part due to low spare parts availability. The new F-15EXs are years delayed coming off the production line. The department has been unwilling or unable to speak with clarity on the need to upgrade our aging airborne early warning and control fleet, delaying development and delivery of the new E-7, um, through budget malpractice last year, and I hope we will move forward and resolve that. I also remain concerned about key munitions, particularly given that a large portion of EPIC Fury has been conducted using air-to-ground and air-to-air munitions. Um, the administration has at times, um, talked in competing ways, with one breath insisting our current operational tempo is risk-free, and in the next requesting billions for additional vital munitions.

This subcommittee will work to do the right thing, protect American lives, ensure that our defense is adequately funded. But we also need candor from the administration in discussing shortfalls and limitations. The Department of the Air Force is requesting nearly $100 billion in the defense discretionary budget, from $257 enacted to $351 billion that we're evaluating here today. We need, and our nation deserves, a modern Air Force prepared to protect our interests. I'm pleased to see the budget request for the Space Force is increasing.

Reflecting the number of key missions you're tasked with, but I'd note for my colleagues, this request is challenging to defend in, in the face of steep reductions agencies across the government are facing this fiscal year. The department put forward yet another bifurcated request, as the chairman also reflected, counting on reconciliation that has proven to be an unworkable way to sustainably budget for base needs for a military. The request places critical resources, multi-year munitions procurements, spare parts for the F-35 program, key missile defense space programs into a reconciliation package that I doubt will ever be enacted. I look forward to a better understanding how this request supports the Air Force and what adjustments you would recommend if that funding does not come through. Turning to the space domain, as we've discussed, General Saltzman, the Space Force is in the process of standing up each of the pillars it needs in its approach.

Your emphasis on— understanding space as a warfighting domain and on space control is a critical and valued shift. At the same time, we can't lose sight of your core enabling missions in providing GPS, satellite communications, imagery, and intelligence. Without those things, the joint force could have a very bad day. To accomplish all these missions, we're lucky to have a dynamic space industrial base, but it is still fragile, and continuing to sole source big contracts to one vendor might profoundly harm that competition and be a serious mistake for our long-term interests. So as we review your budget request, I'll be looking for fostering competition using multiple providers, requiring open standards and architecture, and broadening and deepening the industrial base by giving new entrants a meaningful opportunity and encouraging more capacity and diversity in sub-tier providers.

In conclusion, the Air Force and Space Force provide critical foundational capabilities to our nation in defending the United States, This year, more than most, this subcommittee understands and must understand your goals in building this budget, whether or not it's realistic to grow this fast, and the smartest ways to reprioritize your budgets in the case that reconciliation does not occur. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony. Thank you, Senator Coons. Gentlemen, why don't we go ahead in the order that I suggested, starting with you, Mr. Secretary, if you could make it as brief as possible, because a lot of members want to ask questions.

Right ahead. Chairman McConnell, Ranking Member Coons, Chairman Collins, and distinguished members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to come down and talk about the FY27 budget request. So I'm proud to represent the 680,000 airmen, guardians, and civilians of the Department of the Air Force, as well as their family and their loved ones. After the events of the past years, Operation Midnight Hammer, Absolute Resolve, Epic Fury, I don't think anyone doubts that our Air Force and Space Force are the most capable in the world. But today we are in the middle of a generational shift in how we employ air power and space power.

Advances in autonomy, adaptive manufacturing, AI, microelectronics, and more give us unique opportunity to drive down cost and drive up effectiveness across the board. However, our adversaries recognize that opportunity every bit as much as we do. Those adversaries, particularly China, are modernizing at a very rapid pace. To stay ahead, we must innovate faster in everything that we do. That means staying ready to fight tonight, next month, next year, next decade.

Unfortunately, the past 25 years, the DAF's budget has been the smallest relative to GDP in the history. At the same time, the nation has asked more of it to meet its mission's needs. Needs—. The DAF was forced to shortchange both foundational readiness and much-needed modernization. The fiscal year 2027 President's Budget breaks that pattern with the $338 $1.8 billion request for the DAF, a 34% increase from last year.

I'll start with our investments to win the fight tonight. Foundational readiness. Boosting readiness requires increased and stable funding, particularly given the age of many of our platforms. The FY27 budget request increases our foundational readiness investment by 34%, providing the jump needed to truly recover. We're also looking at ways to operate more efficiently by accelerating decision-making, reducing barriers to entry, for industry and leveraging innovative contract structures.

The DAF's lean budget over the years has also resulted in a $50 billion facilities maintenance backlog. This is compounded by the way we've traditionally done MILCON, which results in cost— which results in cost more than double that of the commercial construction world. To reverse this, the FY27 budget request nearly doubles investments in both MILCON and facility sustainment restoration and modernization which when coupled with the new authorities granted to us by Congress— thank you— such as progressive design-build will address the— will address the shortfalls. Second, production, particularly of munitions. While we retain enough munitions worldwide to meet mission needs, we need strong factory lines to sustain and bolster our stockpiles.

Therefore, this budget leverages existing commercial production capacity and takes full advantage of multiyear procurement for our most critical munitions, totaling 39,000 weapons of all types by FY '33. We are also developing weapons almost as capable as our high-end munitions, but at a fraction of the cost and with much higher production rates. I'll note that while the money in this request is essential, time is our most precious resource, and the department will focus on companies that can scale quickly while still broadening the industry base to ensure competition in the future. That leads me to number 3, modernization. The DAF is currently engaged in the broadest program of modernization in its history.

While not every program has been perfect, we have already seen a lot of success with our new proliferated space architectures, the collaborative combat aircraft, the F-47, B-21, our command and control, and our battle management systems. The FY27 request accelerates those successes and applies lessons learned from them across the board. To that end, we are transforming our acquisition system. We are empowering our new portfolio acquisition executives and their teams with the authorities, resources, and talent they need to accelerate capability delivery. We have delegated nearly every authority we are legally allowed to do so down to the PAEs.

We are realigning portfolios to match mission outcomes. Our end state is all DAF acquisitions aligned within the PAE structure to ensure consistent, simplified, and rapid decision-making across the Space Force and the Air Force. Finally, our most decisive advantage remains our people, the airmen and guardians who make everything possible. This budget invests in them. This includes a 5 to 7% pay increase, larger bonus pools to incentivize high-performing civilians, and increases in military end strength and a 300% increase in dormitory investments.

In conclusion, this budget represents a disciplined strategy to meet our threat While the FY27 budget represents a major increase in our budget, we are ready to execute. Much of the new funding will accelerate mature programs with established contracts. Regardless of the final total, we will remain accountable and transparent to Congress and the American taxpayer. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Good morning, Chairman McConnell, Ranking Member Coons, distinguished members of the committee. I'm proud to represent 665,000 total force airmen serving our nation. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and your continued support to airmen and their families. United States Air Force exists to provide the nation with decisive options at both space speed, and scale. Every day, our airmen deliver that capability by controlling the air, holding targets at risk, moving forces and supplies across the globe, and underpinning the joint force with these combined efforts.

As illustrated in recent operations such as Operation Midnight Hammer, Absolute Resolve, and Epic Fury, they do it professionally and without pause. We operate in an environment where distance no longer guarantees sanctuary, Networks are contested and adversaries are fielding capabilities specifically designed to deny us advantages we've relied on before. That reality drives our focus toward three priorities: readiness, modernization, and taking care of airmen and their families. Readiness is the ability to generate combat power quickly, operate in contested environments, and sustain operations over time. Today, our airmen are meeting the mission, but are always doing so while managing significant strain.

We are flying aircraft that in many cases are older than airmen who maintain them. We are operating at a high operations tempo across multiple theaters and doing so while preparing to be ready for any future conflict. Our fiscal year 2027 budget request prioritizes restoring depth to our force by increasing funding for flying hours, munitions, and maintenance, and advanced training that reflects the reality of today and tomorrow's fight. Weapon systems sustainment funding increased to over $24 billion and flying hours to nearly 10 billion. We are focused on readiness that continues to remain credible and can deliver effects.

Modernization is not only about replacing old platforms with new ones, but evolving how we fight. Speed, survivability, and decision advantage will define future conflict. It requires a force that is more connected and adaptable. To this end, we are increasing our research and development funding by 27% to over $57 billion. The fiscal year 2027 budget request will accelerate our modernization programs.

We are advancing the F-47 and collaborative combat aircraft to increase combat mass and complicate adversary targeting. We are upgrading our current fighter fleet to ensure it remains viable while also investing in long-range strike, advanced munitions, and resilient command and control. Additionally, our nuclear enterprise remains foundational. Investments now will sustain the modernization of the triad through the Sentinel, B-21 Raider, and upgrades to the B-52 and the E-4B. These capabilities ensure that our deterrence remains credible and ready.

Third is taking care of airmen and families. We ask a lot of our people. Frequent moves and operational stress take a toll. Our Air Force continues to invest in improving options for healthcare, childcare, and spouse employment. Therefore, our budget request strengthens quality of life.

We are executing the largest investment in our dormitories in over a decade of $2.7 billion in FSRM and $330 million in MILCON for a total of $3 billion. We are looking for solutions to meet housing needs to our families with a request of $1.3 billion while funding new construction projects to address child care capacity shortfalls, shortfalls by adding over 1,700 additional child care spaces. The Air Force exists to be the best possible fighting force for our nation. We are building a force that can operate under pressure and deliver effects in anywhere in the world. That requires sustained investment, disciplined choices, and an unwavering focus on our people.

With your support, we will ensure they have the tools, training, and the backing they need. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Chairman McConnell, Ranking Member Coons, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for your support for the Space Force and our nation's guardians. As the past year has demonstrated, space is more vital than ever to our economic prosperity our national security, and the effectiveness of the joint force. However, our adversaries are constantly working to take away our military and economic advantages in space. To defend our nation's interests in space, the Space Force must do more than grow.

We must evolve to meet the challenges of this new era. To that end, the FY27 budget landmark investment of $71.1 billion for the Space Force represents a generational opportunity to position the force to meet the rapidly expanding threats and demands of the nation. And I know some of the budget increases being considered sound big, but the Space Force budget in comparison to other services will still be less than 5% of our nation's total military spending, an extraordinary value and return on investment for the nation. That investment is critical, is a critical down payment to meet the accelerating demands on the service. In 2025, the Space Force saw a drastic increase in mission requirements across space access, global mission operations, and space control, and this trend shows no signs of slowing.

To position the service for this mission growth and inform our future needs, the Space Force has been working hard to define what we believe our future operating environment will look like over the next 15 years, and then designed our objective force structure to meet the nation's expanding needs. That analysis makes it clear the Space Force we have today is not the Space Force we will need in the future. Increases in the service's budget and end strength are a national security imperative. That is why the FY27 budget boosts our top line by 130% and our end strength by 27%. The proposed budget, paired with this increase in end strength, will allow the Space Force to recruit and train the guardians we need, build vital space capabilities for the joint force and the nation, and provide the support and infrastructure that the mission growth demands.

In order to execute all of our expanding missions, it is imperative that we responsibly and effectively convert this increased appropriation into combat capability and warfighting advantage. Unlike the other services, the majority of our budget, nearly two-thirds, is dedicated to developing and fielding new systems instead of personnel or operations and maintenance. And that is why the Space Force is so focused on taking advantage of this once-in-a-generation opportunity to enhance our acquisition processes, all with the goal of accelerating the fielding of vital combat space systems at the speed and scale required for each mission. To that end, newly empowered portfolio acquisition executives are positioned to make better and faster program trades, expediting our ability to deliver combat-credible systems on operationally relevant timelines. We're simplifying our approach to requirements, bolstering our relationships with industry, and ensuring our vital Guardian workforce is expertly trained in the complex task of acquisition.

Unlike other services that are modernizing existing systems, the Space Force cannot modernize what it does not have. We are creating some of the innovative capabilities for new missions from the ground up, particularly in space control, where we are investing in all categories of counter space systems necessary to deter and defeat aggression in space. Additionally, we are aggressively pursuing more resilient space architectures that can withstand attacks and continue to operate through extended conflict, but the added manpower, missions, and capabilities require commensurate increases in the structures that support them. So the FY27 budget request also includes required mil-con to ensure our Guardians are fully supported. The Space Force has laid the organizational foundation, defined the compounding threat, and delivered the blueprint required to counter it.

Now we must build those structures and systems to ensure space advantage for years to come. Although our growth request looks large in the vacuum, the request is actually quite small relative to the overall budget. With the continued advocacy from Congress, our guardians stand ready to deter aggression, protect our space-enabled way of life, and if called upon, fight and win. As I conclude my final presentation to this committee as the CSO, let me say thank you for enabling our successes and for the opportunities to highlight the exceptional work that our guardians are doing every day to secure our nation's interests in, from, and to space. I look forward to your questions.

Mr. Secretary, a year ago, Ukraine's Operation Spiderweb employed cheap drones to destroy 20 Russian military aircraft sitting on the tarmac deep inside Russian territory. They have conducted regular long-range drone strikes deep into Russian territory. Switching to another part of the world, earlier this year, Iran struck 5 KC-135 and 1 E-3 on the ground at Prince Sultan Air Force Base— in Saudi Arabia, in drone and missile attacks. Iran has also struck U.S. targets in Qatar and in Bahrain.

So why has U.S. military been so slow to adapt to the changing nature of warfare? What is the Air Force doing to harden facilities and defend against drones at home and abroad?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you. It's—. It's one minute longer. Also, I think everyone on the subcommittee agrees with Secretary Driscoll's assessment that Ukraine is the quote, Silicon Valley of warfare, end quote.

Have you instructed any senior Air Force leaders to visit Ukraine to identify lessons and technologies for the Air Force to apply?

I have not instructed anybody to visit Ukraine, but the teams are either visiting Ukraine or visiting manufacturers that are supporting Ukraine, or I'm actually going to, uh, UCOM, uh, in a week or so to, to again get more information on what's going on over there as well. So I think we're, we're, we're well versed in what Ukrainians are doing and what the Russians are doing and the threats. And I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that, that this is one of the more significant threats, particularly in the CONUS, right, where we have to date treated those as sanctuary locations and have not done a lot to defend against them. But that's changing quickly. We are in the process of prioritizing the bases and starting to field equipment.

I think on the order of 14 bases we're focused on in the near term, all the way from the command and control and the monitoring systems to do sensing around the base, as well as various kinetic, non-kinetic, and directed energy type weapons. That we are working closely with Task Force 401, which is requesting a significant increase in funding going forward to procure the various types of weapon systems going forward.

Shifting to a different topic, executing Operation EPIC FURY, required both the advanced buildup of combat power in theater and sustainment flights and long-range strike missions. I understand you couldn't have done this without the cooperation with Europe and Gulf allies on access, basing, and overflight. How would operational planning have been affected if you couldn't rely on the reach and force multipliers provided by our friends in Europe and the Gulf? There's been some suggestion that our European allies aren't helping us in the area. I think that doesn't stand up against the facts.

How much does the Air Force's ability to strike adversaries worldwide lean on access, basing, and overflight from allies and partners. Would the Air Force be better off with less access to NATO countries?

Absolutely not. We can and do have the ability to strike with, without forward locations pretty much anywhere on the planet, but it is greatly facilitated by access to our allies and partners. I guess turn over to General Wilsbach for additional comments. It would certainly significantly limit our options. As the Secretary said, we do have the capability from CONUS or other territories that we have locations that are owned by the U.S. to strike from those locations, but if we don't have access, basing, and overflight into partner and allied countries, it, it greatly limits our ability to force project resupply, strike, etc.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have 3 areas of questions I want to get through quickly if I can: low-cost cruise munitions, airbase drone defense, and CCA. I'll just follow up on the point the chairman raised about base defensive. As we've discussed, Mr. Secretary, the tragedy at Tower 22 showed me at least, and I think many of us, the cost of neglecting critical investments in drone defense. You referenced the partnership with the Joint Interagency Task Force 401.

Are you confident each side knows their lanes in the road in this work, and how is your work complementing the DOD-wide initiative?

I think we do understand, but it's, it's a rapidly evolving playing field. Just how we're going to structure our base defense from an organizational perspective, we're working through quickly, and I can have General Wilsbach touch on that, but it's a rapidly changing field, but I think we have good relationships with them. I think we are laying out our priorities closely with them on what bases we're going to field well, so I think that relationship is going well, and so I think with, with the funding that's in the request, I think we should be able to field a lot of the equipment fairly quickly. I recognize that you have a very difficult prioritization exercise between forward operating bases, fixed overseas installations, our homeland, and as you answer, if you could just say, is there any authorities, resources, and support from Congress you need to get after this problem, and where are you most concerned we're not doing enough? Thank you for the support that you gave us in past years on the authorities, and I think the authorities are in a good spot right now.

Overseas, we have no limitations, especially where there's active combat happening. There's no authorities limitations there. In fact, the rules of engagement there are exactly where our warfighters would like them to be. In the CONUS, we, we now have the authorities that we need to defend our bases, and so at the current time, I don't suggest we change those authorities. With respect to the question you ask of do people know where their lanes are, absolutely.

Absolutely, yes. We actually sit in on the JTF-401 meetings, and we take that back to the, to the air staff and then can propagate the Air Force part of JTF-401 for our, for our own means. The entire Department of War has about $10 billion in this '27 budget request for a counter-drone, counter-UAS technology, and that That'll be really important for us to bolster. This year, in the CONUS, we're gonna stand up capabilities at 26 of our key installations for the Air Force. Previously, that was 10, so we're gonna more than double that.

Thank you. I, I do think this is an absolutely critical mission for all of us. As we've discussed, this committee strongly supports Ukraine. I'm encouraged to see the extendable range affordable missile low-cost long-range cruise missiles going into production, and I'd be interested briefly in what you think we've learned from the ERAM, whether the family of affordable mass missiles will be entering procurement and sufficient to meet our demand, and General Wilsbach, given your previous service in the Indo-Pacific, you know, how will that help us in the China scenario, and how do you plan to use variants with allies and partners in the region where the tyranny of distance makes coproduction essential, really essential. So the FAMM missiles are on track to start production in September of this year.

So that's good. What we've learned from seeing these not only in the Middle East, but also from what's happening in Europe, is we can see the value of mass, the ability to produce at a much higher rate that gives you that mass. I mean, the mass is important because it complicates the, the other side's defenses. They have to honor every one of those munitions. And when you have a lot of them, they, they will end up using their exquisite defenses to shoot those weapons down.

And eventually we're going to get some through. This, this is true in any theater that you might want to employ these to include the Pacific. I'll just reinforce what the chairman said about the lessons learned in Ukraine deserve your attention and engagement. And I'm encouraged by this production, and I'm hopeful that it'll demonstrate that we're learning one of the key lessons of Ukraine. Last, on the CCA program, if I might, Mr. Secretary, this program is growing by over $1 billion.

I'm not yet convinced it'll be the low-cost and attritable platform it's meant to be, and recognize a lot of the detail we can't discuss here, but what steps are you taking to ensure this program is held to cost and schedule metrics that are solid? And how are you protecting against enthusiasm for the concept of operations accidentally shielding the program from hard decisions? And then last, how will we integrate our allies into this program? So the— it's really good news, right? The platform is on schedule.

They are sticking to their budget targets, and the performance is actually in many ways better than what we expected. With respect to keeping that cost down going forward, we have competition, we have open standards. That allows to bring in separate contractors for different pieces of the hardware and bring on additional contractors everywhere from the avionics to the aircraft bodies themselves and engines. So we're really trying to make sure we have a very modular open structure, which would drive those costs down going forward. And we are working closely with the allies.

Matter of fact, the allies are doing investments in systems that are similar to what we're doing in the US. Been very optimistic. I don't know that any of those things would be considered truly attritable, But if you look at the cost trade with an adversary of CCA with a number of long-range weapons on there compared to the aircraft they might throw against them, it's a really good cost trade for us going forward. And I would just— one final thing back on the family of the FAM weapon systems. Across the fight, about 60% of that 30,000-plus weapons are coming from there, so that That tells you the level of investment, 60% of the weapons going forward across the fight.

Thank you. Thank you both. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Senator Collins, followed by Senator Baldwin and Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, I'm pleased to see the Air Force's continued investment in the F-35 modernization, which includes the engine core upgrade and the power thermal. Management upgrade. In Maine, uh, the Pratt Whitney facility in North Berwick employs more than 2,300 people and plays a critical role in producing and sustaining the F-135 engine. This impressive facility has made substantial investments in workforce capacity to support the long-term success of the F-35. So here's my concern.

The administration is proposing that a significant portion of funding for both of these modernization programs be done through a third reconciliation bill, a bill that may never happen. For example, of the $154 million request for the power thermal management upgrade for the engine, only $10 million is requested in the base budget. What is the impact on these programs if they are not fully funded in fiscal year 2027, and what would be the implications for the defense industrial base? Thank you, Chairwoman, and I agree it's a phenomenal engine that Pratt builds for the F-35, and we continue to modernize that engine going forward to make sure it can keep up with the rest of the aircraft. Yes, you know, the FY27 budget request is a combination of base and reconciliation.

We did not prioritize to execute the mission that we are asked to do. The total request is required. If we do not get the total request, then prioritization will have to be done within the budget we do get, and that'll be a continual dialogue with the Congress going forward. Thank you. I would just suggests that it is taking a terrible risk and creates instability when you're counting on a third reconciliation bill for the bulk of the money rather than doing base funding through the defense appropriations bill.

So I just had one thing. I think it's safe to conclude there will not be another reconciliation bill. So it's really not an option. I agree with that assessment. Let me switch to a different issue.

Mr. Secretary, the conflict with Iran has once again underscored the importance of aerial refueling to U.S. military operations. Tankers are essential to power projection, global mobility, fighter operations, and the sustainment of U.S. forces across multiple theaters. Uh, the Air Refueling Wing in Bangor, Maine has long played a critical role in that mission. Since 2021, and particularly during recent operations, we've seen increased activity in Bangor, reinforcing the importance of the Air National Guard tanker units to real-world operational requirements. At the same time, the Air Force has validated a requirement for up to 75 additional KC-46 aircraft and plans to continue tanker production well into the next decade.

Given the strategic importance of tanker aircraft and the continued operational contributions of the Air National Guard units, such as the impressive one in Bangor. When should Congress expect the Air Force to provide a clearer roadmap for replacing the aging KC-135 aircraft across the Guard tanker enterprise? Thanks, Congresswoman. The tanker fleet air refueling is critical to operations anywhere in the world, as well as airlift in general, is critical. And, and this is why in the FY27 and the FY budget submission, we are essentially maxing out Boeing's ability to produce really at the max rate that Boeing's capable of producing tankers.

And our intent, our, our strategy is to replace all the 135s in the fleet going forward. Some of those aircraft are actually older than I am. Still flying the same ones that we flew when I was a young second lieutenant. So we do know we need to replace them, and our strategy is to replace all of them. With respect to, to Maine, exactly phenomenal unit there.

They've done great work, and they are part of the, the next strategic basing decision that we hope to get out, a narrowing of that field by September, October time frame, and I'm sure we'll have more conversations. Thank you. The location is also very strategic, as you're well aware. Yes, yes, Mr. Chairman. Um, just let me, in ending, say that I associate myself with the comments on Ukraine and the support for Ukraine and giving Ukraine the help it needs.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary. I want to begin where the chairwoman of the full committee just left off, which is on the KC-46s. So thank you all for being here today and for your service. I— my question regarding the Air Force's refueling tanker fleet starts with the fact that this war in Iran has shown how important these tankers are to successful US and allied operations.

Over the last several years, the Air Force has been procuring KC-46 tankers to replace the aging KC-135s currently flown by units like the Wisconsin Air National Guard's 128th Air Refueling Wing. 7 KC-135s have also been destroyed— or damaged in the fighting against Iran, including one which tragically crashed in Iraq, losing all 6 crew members on board. For fiscal year '27, the Air Force is requesting $3.9 billion to procure 15 KC-46s. Is this request sufficient to cover the lost KC-135s and the necessary upgrades to the tanker fleet? Thank you, Senator.

It was a tragic loss. No question about it. Yes, it is. It is the appropriate amount of money to, to build the KC-46s. Essentially, Senator, it's the max rate that Boeing's able to produce the aircraft.

So basically, we are producing them as fast as we can with the intent of replacing, again, all the KC-135s 35s in the fleet as we, as we build out over the, over the coming years. With respect to the losses, there was one aircraft that was a total loss. The other 6 aircraft we believe are in the process of being refurbished and will be back in inventory. But nonetheless, it's an old— these are old airplanes. We're replacing as quickly as we can, as a contractor can build them.

So you believe the 6 damaged or destroyed aircraft will be returned to service? Yeah, the, the one has been lost, the other 6 we believe will be returned to service. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay.

Uh, do you anticipate, uh, that gap as they are returned to service, um, and the loss of the other one will impact, um, what actually, how will it impact which, uh, units the Air Force will select for upgrades to the KC-47?

46S? I can ask General Wilsbach to ask the impact to operations. It won't— again, it won't necessarily impact the, the basing decisions, although it could potentially be a factor as we go through this strategic basing process. So I guess it could potentially, depending on how long they take to repair, but that'll be considered as part of the strategic basing process. General Wilsbach would expect the operational impact.

And, and can you add how long you think it will take to refurbish the 6 aircraft? So some of them are already flying. In fact, most of them are already flying. Some of them had a one-time flight to have further repair, but some of them are already back in service, and then they'll— the ones that had the more significant damage will take a year or two to get fixed. But I anticipate that they'll, they'll be back eventually.

And as far as the operational impact, certainly after they were initially damaged, we had a very short-term impact to the ability to generate tankers, but we surged forward other tankers to fill those gaps, and that's what we're doing now as well. So there's very little impact to the tanker loss. Okay. Next, I want to ask you, General Wilsbach, about the readiness of the Air Force's F-35 fleet. By all accounts, the F-35 has performed well in the war with Iran.

Unfortunately, only about 50% of the fleet was available for operations when the war began. What is the status of Air Force efforts to improve the combat readiness of our F-35s? Thank you, Senator. Yes, the F-35 has performed marvelously in Epic Fury. And you're right, the aircraft availability averages out over the course of time at about 50%, but of the jets that we actually had forward performed much, much greater than that.

I don't want to say the number because it's classified, but it was meeting standards for sure forward. What that tells us is that when you prioritize the funding for the parts and the weapon system sustainment, the jet flies really well. And that's why in this budget we have $24 billion for weapon system sustainment and $10 billion for flying hours and $4.5 billion for the working capital fund, which funds the necessary parts and weapon system sustainment. A large portion of that is for F-35, but it's for all of our fleet so that we have the parts for the aircraft so when they come back they need repair, our airmen can put the parts in and the jet can get back in the air. And in closing, Mr. Chairman and Madam Chairwoman, I want to associate myself with your comments and concerns about the fact that a large part of this request is in the partisan reconciliation measure, not in the base budget that we are putting together.

So I'm very concerned about that. Yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary General, General, thank you for your service. Mr. Secretary, I want to start with you. Is not the— is not the Air Force Global Strike Command at Barksdale Air Force Base the most spectacular thing you've ever seen in your life?

Yes, Senator, I was actually— when I was active duty, I was part of the Forerunner, which was Strategic Air Command. So it's—. When are we going to address the staffing shortfalls there? So I'll look to the general for a little bit, but we are having— briefly, we are increasing to the tune of about 10,000 in the military strength within the department to try to address some of those funding or staffing shortfalls? Briefly, sir, the '27 budget has dollars in there to increase the end strength for the Air Force, as the Secretary noted, and that will allow us to get after a lot of the shortages that we have.

The staff at Global Strike Command is certainly one of them. Other shortages that we have with maintainers, etc., those are all— the budget request will allow us to take care of those. General, before I ask this question, I don't like to do it this way, but this will be an exception. I'm going to give you a point of view about what's going on around here. I know you hear all the happy talk, but I'm going to try to explain what's really going on in my opinion.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The president has pointed out that we need— we have a crisis in defense. And we need to spend a lot more money. I mean, look around. He is, of course, correct.

He's asked for, for 42%. It's going to be tough in regular order to do that amount. But Republicans want to spend— we haven't come to a final conclusion on the number— anywhere from 20 to 25, 27% more in the budget on defense.

My Democratic friends in the Senate, and they are my friends, have said privately, that's swell. We want to spend an additional amount of money on welfare. Now, they're smart people. They know that we can't do that. And we're not going to do that.

If nothing else, it would explode the deficit. And besides that, as they know, we don't have a crisis in welfare like we have a crisis in defense. It's not like we're not spending a lot of money on welfare. If we would properly define the poverty rate, it wouldn't be 10%, it would be 1%. And I'm not against helping people less fortunate than I am.

I am for standing up to China and Russia and North Korea, and you know the other countries I'm talking about. Now, what does that tell me? That tells me that the Democrats have no intention of helping us pass a budget. And I also predict, if I'm wrong I will apologize, that my friend Senator Schumer is going to shut down government tight as Dick's hatband, first chance he gets before the midterms. We'll be shut down eventually.

We won't stay shut down. We will come out of it at some point, but how? We'll have to come out of it with a CR. How's that going to impact your, your, uh, the Air Force's ability to protect this country? Because my Democratic friends, and they are my friends, want to play politics before the midterm elections.

Without a reconciliation and a year-long CR that keeps us at the $890-ish total, that would have significant impacts on our readiness. A lot of the investments we've just been talking about to meet the threats from the the unmanned vehicles, as well as, you know, the increased readiness for weapons systems to increase the F-35 readiness, as well as the munitions procurement. All that is substantially impacted if we stayed at 890 without a reconciliation or other mechanism. Well, I think you should prepare for it. Again, I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

You're going to hear a lot of happy talk from senators about how we need to spend more money on defense. But I think a lot of my colleagues have no intention of voting for a budget under any circumstances. They want government to be shut down, and I think Senator Schumer is going to accommodate them. So I would prepare for a shutdown and a CR. Last question quickly.

Since we're shooting down $25,000 drones with million-dollar missiles, why aren't we bear-hugging Ukraine, which is the world's expert on drone technology, to combat drones with drones? Senator, I'd say in many ways we are. We are. We are looking to utilize their expertise. We are looking to utilize similar or same manufacturing supply.

But there's a hesitancy. Not in our— not on our part, Senator. I know, but the administration does not seem fully committed to partnering up with Ukraine. I don't understand why. They know more about drones, uh, than anybody.

I'm out of time. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Bozeman, followed by Senator Hoeven, Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary. We had a good Air Force Caucus briefing last week, which I think everyone really enjoyed. One of the things that we discussed was the additional authorities provided by Congress to counter drone incursions over installations within the United States. Can you tell us the impacts that these drone incursions have made on the mission, and also what additional authorities would be helpful, would be needed to protect our infrastructure, airmen, and guardians?

I would say the, the impact to operations to this point has been minimal. I'm more concerned about the potential impact to operations if the drone operators, regardless of who they are, got, got more aggressive. With respect to authorities, I think we're in pretty good shape. If I could just let General Wilsbach touch on it. The Secretary is right, a minimal impact at this point, but we are giving up intelligence to people that are flying drones on our facilities.

If we ever run into one with an aircraft, it's going to significantly damage it. It could cause it to crash. And so that's my greatest concern. And of course, we all saw what happened to the Russians with a drone attack. And so it's very cheap to fly a drone and attack a very expensive platform.

So we need to be able to defend every one of our bases. And we are— in this budget, we're asking for additional funds to increase eventually to get every single base covered with a defensive system that can detect and defeat any drone that would come, come to our base. We have the current authorities to do that. Good, very good. Um, I've heard from, uh, each of you on the need of more flexibility with the multi-year procurement efforts that have been provided to the department.

I understand that you all have made progress with using the authorities for things like munitions procurement, General Wilsbach, can you speak to the progress being made on these authorities for multi-year procurement, and are they allowing the Air Force to succeed in munitions procurement? Yes, thank you, Senator. So we, we have authorities right now for JASM and LRASM. We'd like to expand that to other weapons systems like the AMRAAM and the JADAM, There's a number of others that we would like to expand to. We believe that it creates a stability for the industrial base, the defense industrial base, that creates what I say is good behavior by them that benefits us.

So they can hire the right number of people, they can facilitate, they can line up the supply chain because they have that stable environment. And what that means to us is we get the, equipment that we've ordered on time, on contract, and at the rate and the volume that we need. Right. General Salzman, are you experiencing the same thing, or—. Yes, Senator, the, the multi-year procurement is vital because it creates stability for the vendors, which allows them to invest their own money in facilitation, which improves our ability at speed and scale to deliver capabilities.

So The stability is just essential to success. Very good. Last week we discussed the E-7 Wedgetail and how it would complement the efforts of the Golden Dome. General Saltzman, can you explain how the E-7 Wedgetail would be beneficial to integrate into the Space-Based Airborne Moving Target Indicator as we build out the Golden Dome? I think my experience in Combat tells me that when you have a tough situation, the more capability you have, the better.

And I think these are complementary systems that will only make more options available for air battle management and moving target indications. Very good.

Again, General Saltzman, what capabilities, missions, and operational demands are driving the growth that you have in the, in the budget? And can you speak to why this level of expansion is necessary at this time? Well, I'll start with why it's important, and that's because the threat's important. I mean, the threat is growing and the missions are important. The space control alone, to be able to secure the space domain, we can use it the way we want, requires us to invest in new capabilities for new mission sets.

Those are going to be delivered in the next 4 to 5 years, but they're going to require new mission ops centers, new personnel to fly the satellites, as well as 10 new program offices just to do the acquisition work. So we have an increase in manpower, increase in facilities when we get these new missions to perform these vital critical functions for the nation. Good, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Secretary Mick, I want to follow up on Senator Kennedy's concerns because I very much share them. If we're not able to do a reconciliation and we continue to work to get the regular funding through in terms of the budgetary process, Isn't it vital that we have a supplemental right now to make sure that we have provided funding for our global military operations?

Thanks, Senator. It's vital that we get the full budget request. Again, all the things we've talked about here are because of the increase to the Department of the Air Force's budget. With respect to supplemental, you know, right now that's— will come out of the OMB and the White House, and the DOD is working with OMB on options, but I can't speak to supplemental. Right, but it is vital that we get funding to our military for all of these purposes, and the longer we go at a lower level of funding locked into a CR, the bigger problems we're going to have.

Is that a fact? It is vital that we get the resource we're requesting. So anybody talking about this and not recognizing that fact is not stepping up and supporting the needs our military has at a very dangerous time in the world. Isn't that true? I agree, Senator.

It is vital we get the resources we've requested. Thank you, Secretary. General Wilsbach, as far as the Gulf, talk to me about the blockade. And I'm going to just put forward a thought, and I want you to analyze and tell me what you think. It seems to me if we get better and better at the blockade, which we are, and we bottle up Iran, and we open up the strait for everyone else, and we continue to put pressure on our allies to work with us, including NATO, doesn't that long-term put the kind of pressure on Iran that we need to get to the kind of, you know, make sure they don't have nuclear weapons and to get to the place that we need to, not just for the good of the United States, but really for the world.

That's getting a little bit out of my lane, but I'm tracking what you're saying. It seems that that is the objective and the approach that the blockade is causing inside of Iran. But what I want to understand specifically is your thoughts in terms of our ability militarily to get to the point where we can block Iran with the blockade and open up the strait. What are your thoughts in terms of getting there, how soon, and how effectively? Well, I think you're seeing that we are— Admiral Cooper with CENTCOM is executing that every single day, and he's doing that with the joint force, and the Air Force is providing strike capability overhead as well as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, so that's, that's the Air Force part of that mission.

Yeah, and in fact, this committee is going to meet with him in the SCIF today and talk about that and other things. So, but I do want to highlight what you're doing over there, how incredible it is, and that this is a strategy. I mean, people have to have some patience, but this is a strategy that can work, can solve an existential crisis, and over time energy prices will be lower. And if we're not out there talking about it, how can we expect people to say, hey, yeah, we do have to hang in there and get it accomplished? So we can't just have those conversations in the SCIF.

And that's why I do want to bring it up to you, as well as to acknowledge incredible work that our men and women are doing over there. And I'm sure glad our two Apache pilots are, are safe. We're losing a lot of MQ-9s over there, or I better be careful, we've lost some MQ-9s over there. That production line is closed down, back to the funding issue. What are your thoughts on how we cover that base?

Well, first of all, the MQ-9 has been a tremendous capability that we've used very well inside of EPIC Fury, and they've conducted a lot of extremely high-risk missions that we would choose not to put a manned platform in, and they've been very effective. So from that standpoint, we've gotten a lot out of our MQ-9s, and as you said, we've lost some of them. And the approach that we're taking now is, is to refurbish and get ready the remaining Block V MQ-9s that we have. We still have a lot of them. I don't want to say the number because it's classified, but we still have a lot of them, and so we're not in a crisis with the MQ-9 at the moment.

And then we're also looking at a more affordable option that provides a lot more staying power even than the MQ-9 with respect to on-station time, which we believe will be a lot more economical and will provide essentially the same capability capability that an MQ-9 does for less money and for a longer period of time. In addition to newer technologies and satellite, correct? That's a given. I mean, we are putting a lot more in space, which General Saltzman can talk to you. General Saltzman, at Grand Forks, we're working on funding and standing up a Space Force operational facility.

Talk to me about the mission that you expect to operate out of that, and I know there'll be a number of others,, but specifically Grand Forks? Thanks, Senator. We're focusing on the proliferated constellations up there, so that'll be the Space-Based Sensing and Targeting, Missile Warning Missile Defense, and the Space Data Network all take advantage of that ops center that we're putting at Grand Forks. Thanks to all of you for the incredible work you're doing.

Shaheen and then Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, we had a chance to talk a little bit about the KC-46, and I understand it's come up from a number of people at this hearing, but I did want to reiterate what I understood you to say when we had a chance to talk about this at the Air Force Congress, because New Hampshire is the home to the 157th Air Refueling Wing. It's the only KC-46 wing in the country to reach an initial operating capacity. We're very proud of it, as you can tell.

And I, I know that you talked about the KC-46 in your written testimony and the investment of over $1 billion in the program. But as we know, the remote vision system has continued to have issues. I understand that they're getting very close to a resolution and that will be incorporated in the new planes. But my concern is how you prioritize those planes that are already operating in terms of retrofitting with the new remote vision system. So can you speak to how you see those planes being addressed in terms of the retrofits?

I think the good news— I think we're proud of you. We're proud of the, the unit as well, Senator. I think the good news is that we believe we've fixed and have tested the new 2.0 vision system and that we should start rolling that into the production line in '28. I think your concern goes further than that, is how do we get to the planes that are already out there? And we are working through the strategy for that.

But it is essentially going to take a significant mod to the airplane to do that. Whether or not we can do that in the field or we do that as part of depot, we're just working our way through that. General Wilsbach, anything else on that? Can, can I just ask you to, to address as part of your comments how you view those planes that are already out there? Are you looking at the first ones who, who were fielded, or what's your priority?

We haven't set the priority for which actual aircraft gets the, the upgrade, but what I'll tell you, Senator, is the KC-46 is performing magnificently. Even with— we know the vision, current vision system isn't what we ordered, and that's why we're getting the 2.0 version of it. But even so, it's flying fantastically. It's been doing a great job in Epic Fury and really all over the world. I actually just had a chance to fly I fly the aircraft myself, and I can tell you it's a phenomenal aircraft.

And when we get the deficiencies solved, it will be even better. Uh, well, I certainly agree with that, and I hope that as you're thinking about how you're going to retrofit those planes that are already operating, that you will think about which ones, um, have been on the ground longest and maybe, um, therefore more capable of and it may be more important to address that RVS system.

General Saltzman, we will miss you as you retire. As I was saying briefly last month, a group of senators traveled to the Arctic. We visited Bittifik in Greenland, and it was very impressive to see the operation there, to see The work with NASA to identify black holes, I was very impressed with that, to see the cooperation with our Danish and Canadian and Greenlandic partners. It was nice to hear that that is going so smoothly despite some of the challenges. So can you, and for us in New Hampshire to see the station to know the connection to New Boston, New Hampshire, because there is a hub for the Space Force in New Boston, as you know.

But can you talk about how important it is for that radar and space surveillance mission to our homeland missile warning in both the U.S. and Canada and how we're cooperating with Canada on that? Thank you, Senator. And I know the guardians and airmen up there loved having you there. So it was important for them as as much as it is for us, that Greenland is an important strategic area for us. Missile warning, missile defense, as you mentioned, space domain awareness, and satellite control network.

We have all those kinds of antennas and, and radars up there to do vital missions, and that posture where they are gives them a different vantage point to collect things and to see things that you wouldn't otherwise get an opportunity if we didn't have the, um, that strategic piece of of land, so it's vital, and that's why we're investing in it. Almost $130 million in this budget request for upgrades to the radar system. We're upgrading the dorms, we're upgrading the power generation, as you know, that's vital there as well, so I feel like we're investing heavily because of the strategic importance to those missions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary General, Thank you for being here. Thank you for your leadership. I want to follow on Senator Shaheen's comments about our Arctic visit, and particularly to, to Pitivik. I've been there on multiple occasions, as you know, General, and with each visit I am impressed by what we have, but also how old what we have is there. And we have seen obviously increasing interest in the High North and better understanding the, the gaps that we have in our surveillance is, is what is, is going to, to have to be a priority for us.

Now, I appreciate what you have shared in terms of underscoring, uh, the, the importance of the Arctic, but do you believe that the budget that we have in in front of us is going to be appropriate when it comes to not only ensuring the ongoing mission role of Pitivik Space Base, but the role of the Space Force in the Arctic. I'm looking at the budget, and it's, It's, it's pretty significant in terms of its growth, but I am concerned that we don't specifically call out the, the strategic investment in the Arctic. So I'd like to ask you that question, and General Wilsbach, you know it's coming to you too. So I'd like to just hear from the two of you whether you think that this budget adequately reflects the ongoing priority of the Arctic at this time? Yes, Senator, I believe it is.

I believe there are substantial investments. We may not call out specifically the investments are in support of the Arctic, but the posture that we have in the Arctic, in Alaska, as you all know, in Greenland in particular, and even in our northern tier bases, accomplishing missile warning, missile defense, space domain awareness, vital, and we are upgrading the systems to make sure they— we get rid of some obsolescence. These are older systems, our legacy ground-based radars. We want to digitize them and make them relevant to the future fight, and this budget does invest along those lines. General Wilson, probably the biggest example I can give you is the Fighter Town recapitalization at Elmendorf, uh, of almost $7 billion to to recapitalize the fighter side of that base, and that is a significant amount of money to create a very strategic spot for the fighter aircraft that we have stationed at Elmendorf.

And then the other is the weapon system sustainment for the F-35s, which should improve the readiness of the F-35s. So between Elmendorf with the F-22s and Eielson with the F-35s, and the strategic location that Alaska is where you can get those jets anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere in about 9 hours of flying time, that's a strategic point, and to invest in those two bases is increasing our capability to make those moves happen at the time and place of our choosing. Well, I thank you for, for reinforcing the priority of that and an emphasis that this is a national priority. It's not necessarily this isn't Alaska-specific or a JBEAR-specific, but what that allows us to do from the perspective of true strategic positioning. It was, I think, important for colleagues, many of whom had never been to the Arctic, to understand how this North American connect between Alaska, Canada, and then Greenland, how working together we are able to, to, to have a position of, of not only leverage but also a domain awareness that doesn't come with just, just increased assets on the ground in Alaska.

It, it's, it's got to be linked together. And so we saw some some pretty impressive things, not only in Greenland but also understanding what our Canadian neighbors are doing, what they need to do more of, but how we integrate across the far north is going to be— has to be a priority moving forward. Um, to the point that you made about domain awareness, the funding for the E-7 as well as the space-based AMTI will help us with both, you know, with domain awareness. Thank you for raising the E-7. You and I have had book conversations about how this must remain a priority for us, and I think we have seen that play out.

My time has expired, but General, you and I have also talked about the HC-130 and the importance to us in Alaska from a search and rescue perspective, but we've seen that play out in real time in the, in the Iran conflict with the, with the need for combat search and rescue. So I would just hope that you are able to confirm the HC-130J Combat King II fleet, that that's going to be sustained nationwide to continue these important missions. Yes, Senator, thank you. I'm glad you brought that up. Actually, one of the early measures I took when I took the CSAF seat was to keep the HC-130s together with the HH-60s across the country, though there are, there are They go together, and to separate them really decreases our capability.

And so there's no plans in Alaska or anywhere else to separate those at this time. Very good. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you all. Appreciate it.

Well, I want to thank all our witnesses. Thank you for your service and your testimony today. Members of the subcommittee will have a week to submit additional questions for the record. Senators may submit additional written questions, and we ask that you respond to them within 30 days of receiving them. The subcommittee now stands in recess, subject to call of the chair.