Report on C-130 Force Structure

Transcription

1 United States Air Force Report to Congressional Committees Report on C-130 Force Structure March 2015 The estimated cost of this report or study for the Department of Defense is approximately $24,200 in Fiscal Years This includes $200 in expenses and $24,000 in DoD labor. Generated on 2015Jan13 RefID: 9-C826C30 Public Law , Section 138

2 March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 2 of 34

3 Introduction This report on the United States Air Force C-130 force structure is submitted to the congressional defense committees pursuant to Section 138 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year SEC LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR TRANSFER OF AIR FORCE C 130H AND C 130J AIRCRAFT. (a) LIMITATION. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2015 for the Air Force may be obligated or expended to transfer from one facility of the Department of Defense to another any C 130H or C 130J aircraft until a period of 60 days has elapsed following the date on which the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the congressional defense committees an assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed transfer. (b) ELEMENTS. The assessment referred to in subsection (a) shall include, at a minimum, the following elements: (1) A five-year plan for the force structure laydown of C 130H2, C 130H3, and C 130J aircraft. (2) An identification of how such plan deviates from the total force structure proposal of the Secretary described in section 1059(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law ; 126 Stat. 1939). (3) An explanation of why such plan deviates, if in any detail, from such proposal. (4) An assessment of the national security benefits and any other expected benefits of the proposed transfers under subsection (a), including benefits for the facilities expected to receive the transferred aircraft. (5) An assessment of the costs of the proposed transfers, including the impact of the proposed transfers on the facilities from which the aircraft will be transferred. (6) An analysis of the recommended basing alignment that demonstrates that the recommendation is the most effective and efficient alternative for such basing alignment. (7) For units equipped with special capabilities, including the modular airborne firefighting system capability, a certification that missions using such capabilities will not be negatively affected by the proposed transfers. (c) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT. Not later than 60 days after the date on which the Secretary submits the report required under subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the congressional defense committees a sufficiency review of such report, including any findings and recommendations relating to such review. March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 3 of 34

4 Executive Summary Responding to increasing budget pressures, the United States Air Force has pursued tactical airlift efficiencies in its recent President s Budget (PB) submissions. Possessing too many C- 130 aircraft, at too many locations, in units that were inefficiently sized to support national security requirements, the Air Force introduced actions to reduce excess intra-theater airlift capacity in its Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) PB. Reductions proposed were consistent with the requirements defined by the 2010 Office of the Secretary of Defense and the United States Transportation Command Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study (MCRS). 1 The FY13 NDAA put these reductions on hold, establishing an intra-theater airlift capacity floor of 358 aircraft for FY13. Consequently, the Total Force 2 C-130 enterprise was tasked to perform analysis needed to identify compliance solutions for the FY13 NDAA requirement. In the FY14 PB, the Air Force elected to maintain the FY13 NDAA floor of 358 aircraft, to provide time for the Total Force enterprise to accomplish the analysis necessary to guide future force structure actions. The results of this analysis, combined with the Mobility Capabilities Assessment (MCA) 2018 and Office of the Secretary of Defense Strategic Choices and Management Decision guidance, informed the force structure proposed in the FY15 and FY16 PB submissions. The MCA, signed in May 2013 by the Office of the Secretary of Defense Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the Joint Chiefs, and the United States Transportation Command, determined "there is no surge scenario associated with the current defense strategy -- even one in which a significant homeland defense event occurs concurrently with two warfights -- that requires a fleet of 358 C-130s. 3 It recommends a C-130 force of between 248 and 320 aircraft, stating that a fleet of more than 300 aircraft would only be necessary in a worst-case scenario requiring C-130s to simultaneously support current training, an operation to defeat aggression in one region, an operation to deny objectives in a second region, homeland defense, and Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA) in a Hurricane Katrina-sized disaster. The Air Force FY15 and FY16 PB submissions maintain a C-130 fleet that still exceeds national tactical airlift requirements, but as a prudent reaction to Budget Control Act (BCA) funding caps, saves money to fund other pressing requirements. Savings are achieved by reducing the size of the C-130 fleet and, without Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) authority to close stand-alone units, eliminating overhead by consolidating the remaining aircraft into more efficiently sized units. The FY15 PB reduces the size of the C-130 fleet to 1 (U) U.S. Department of Defense Projection Forces Division, United States Transportation Command, Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study 2016, (Washington D.C.: Department of Defense, 2010), 36. (Document is classified Secret.) 2 Active Duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve Components. 3 (U) U.S. Department of Defense Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, United States Transportation Command, Mobility Capabilities Assessment, (Washington D.C.: Department of Defense, 2013). (Document is classified Secret.) March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 4 of 34

5 328 aircraft by the end of the Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP), while the FY16 PB continues this right-sizing initiative by further reducing the fleet to 300 aircraft. The savings generated enable the Air Force to invest in the fleet, retiring aging C-130Hs and utilizing the savings to recapitalize some C-130H aircraft with C-130Js and modernize the remaining C-130Hs. The C-130 force structure proposed in both the FY15 and FY16 PBs successfully supports U.S. Army movement and training requirements through more efficient utilization of noncollocated assets. There will be no adverse impact on XVIII Airborne Corps' Global Response Force (GRF) Joint Forcible Entry (JFE) capacity and capability. Under the current United States Transportation Command model, the Department of Defense (DoD) will deliver the GRF direct to an objective around the globe via integrated packages of USAF C-17s and C-130s non-collocated at Pope Army Airfield (AAF), NC. In fact, 100 percent of the XVIII Airborne Corps deployment requirements are currently met through units external to Pope AAF. Pursuant to direction in Section 138 of the FY15 NDAA, the Air Force conducted a validation of proposed FY15 and FY16 PB C-130 force structure realignments with key stakeholders, including the National Guard Bureau and Air Force Reserve. This validation reaffirmed the realignments planned in the FY15 PB and FY16 PB submissions with one modification, the Air Force will pursue retaining ten Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) C-130Js at Keesler AFB, MS, and stand up an AFRC Classic Associate Unit on the operational active component C-130J unit at Little Rock AFB, AR. The Air Force considered retaining the 440th Airlift Wing at Pope AAF. However, the additional $116M in savings generated by closing the stand-alone wing along with the wing's C-130s made closing the 440 AW the most cost effective way to eliminate 8 excess C-130s. The Air Force will retain the ability to support the Army's training and contingency response requirements at Pope AAF. Returning the 10 x C-130J aircraft to Keesler AFB will provide the efficiency of operating two squadrons together under a single wing overhead. The AFRC Classic Association is the most cost effective option to maintain the AFRC presence at Little Rock AFB. As amended, the FY16 PB delivers a force of 300 x C-130s at the end of the FY16 FYDP, generates $751M in savings across the FYDP by reducing fleet size, right-sizes units to gain operating efficiencies, and reduces overhead by eliminating an AFRC Airlift Wing. 4 Savings generated will enable the Air Force to invest in modernization of the C-130 fleet as well as various other critical mission areas. More importantly, the force structure changes allow the DoD to continue to resource the C-130 enterprise -- across all components and mission sets -- including the Modular Airborne Firefighting System (MAFFS) and Army Airborne training requirements -- at levels required to ensure mission success. The amended force structure also standardizes the Air Reserve Component (ARC) C-130 fleet size at 8 Total Aircraft Inventory (TAI), with the exception of units with unique training/operational needs and the 4 (U) $751M savings includes proposed amendments from the FY15-FY16 PB submissions. The original force structure alignments proposed in the FY15-FY16 PB submissions saved $922M. March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 5 of 34

6 Formal Training Unit, and Active Component units are standardized at 14 Primary Aircraft Inventory (PAI), to allow the active component to cover continuing rotational requirements. March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 6 of 34

7 The report includes the Following Sections providing a detailed response to FY15 NDAA questions: A. Describing the Most Efficient Basing Alignment of C-130H and C-130J Aircraft as proposed in the FY16 PB (before amendment as part of this report). B. Reviewing the FY13 NDAA Force Structure Summary. C. Describing and explaining Variations from the FY13 NDAA as proposed by the FY14 FY16 PBs. D. Explaining the Rationale Behind the FY14 FY16 PB Force Structure Changes. E. Describing the Benefits/Efficiency of the FY14 FY16 PB. F. Providing a Cost Assessment of the FY14 FY16 PB C-130 Transfers. G. Providing Analysis of the FY14 FY16 PB Basing Alignment That Demonstrates Efficiency. H. Certifying there is no Impact of Proposed Transfers on Special Mission Equipped C-130 units. I. Explaining one Amendment to as a result of this report. March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 7 of 34

8 Report A: Most Efficient Basing Alignment of C-130H and C-130J Aircraft (as presented in the FY16 PB): The FY16 PB C-130 force structure alignments reduce excess capacity and improve operations efficiency while preserving the Nation s contingency and domestic support response capability. The FY16 PB continues the Air Force s efforts to right size the C-130 fleet by adjusting the C-130 inventory to 300 aircraft, a fleet size that still exceeds the requirements of MCA-18 by as many as 52 aircraft. 5 An overview of the most efficient basing alignment of C-130 mobility aircraft is provided in Figure 1 (excluding LC-130, WC- 130J, and Special Operations C-130 aircraft). Figure 1. FY16 (FY16 PB). Derived from TFP-16 Adjustments, (presentation provided to 114th Congress of The United States of America). 5 (U) U.S. Department of Defense Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, United States Transportation Command, Mobility Capabilities Assessment, (Washington D.C.: Department of Defense, 2013). (Document is classified Secret.) March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 8 of 34

9 The Air Force FY16 PB most efficient basing for C-130H and C-130J aircraft through FY20 is provided in Figure 2 below. LOCATION CMD MDS FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 DYESS AMC J LITTLE ROCK AMC J LITTLE ROCK AMC H RAMSTEIN USAFE J YOKOTA PACAF H YOKOTA PACAF J LITTLE ROCK FTU AETC J DOBBINS AFRC H LITTLE ROCK AFRC J MAXWELL AFRC H MINNEAPOLIS AFRC H NIAGARA AFRC H PETERSON (M) AFRC H PITTSBURGH AFRC H YOUNGSTOWN AFRC H BALTIMORE ANG J BRADLEY ANG H CARSWELL ANG H CHANNEL IS ANG J CHARLOTTE ANG H CHEYENNE ANG H ELMENDORF ANG H GREAT FALLS ANG H LOUISVILLE ANG H MANSFIELD ANG H MINNEAPOLIS ANG H NEW CASTLE ANG H PEORIA ANG H PR ANG H QUONSET ANG J RENO ANG H SAVANNAH ANG H SCHENECTADY ANG H ST JOE ANG H YEAGER ANG H LITTLE ROCK FTU ANG H FY16 PB REDUX TBD H MAF TOTAL Figure 2. FY15-20 (FY16 PB). Derived from TFP-16 Adjustments, (presentation provided to 114th Congress of The United States of America). March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 9 of 34

10 FY16 PB efforts to right-size the C-130 enterprise through reductions in the legacy C-130H include recapitalizing some legacy aircraft with the modern, more cost-effective C-130J. The entire active component transitions to the C-130J, minimizing retraining costs and right sizing units and overhead for efficiency. To meet federally and internationally mandated airspace requirements, modernization of the C-130H fleet is accelerated, upgrading portions of the aircraft s avionics systems. The FY16 PB also transitions the mission of the Puerto Rico ANG from the WC-130H to the RC-26. Through the FY16 PB, ANG and AFRC units are standardized at a more efficient size of 8 aircraft, with the exception of Little Rock AFRC (10 aircraft were planned for transfer from Keesler), Schenectady, NY (2 x C-130H Backup Aircraft Inventory (BAI) aircraft provided to reduce training and operational wear and tear on the unit s ski-equipped LC-130s supporting the National Science Foundation), the ANG C-130H Formal Training Unit (FTU) at Little Rock AFB (2 x BAI aircraft added to increase student throughput), and Rosecrans Memorial Airport, MO (St. Joe) (2 x BAI aircraft added to support a C-130H Weapons Instructor Course). Standardizing ANG and AFRC units at 8 x TAI maximizes the number of C-130 units while reducing excess aircraft capacity. This construct sizes units to align with how C-130 assets are traditionally presented to combatant commanders in a typical deployment allocation. Reducing unit sizes any smaller would adversely impact economies of scale and efficiencies. The active duty (14 x C-130J at Little Rock AFB) and ANG (14 x C-130H at Little Rock AFB) FTU exceptions have a higher TAI allocation due to required student throughput, their training mission requiring additional aircraft to cover both the high number of training sorties flown and the resulting increase in maintenance requirements. Active duty C-130J units are standardized at 14 x PAI aircraft (2 squadrons each at Little Rock AFB and Dyess AFB for a total of 28 x PAI) to allow the active component to cover continuing rotational requirements. Little Rock AFB and Dyess AFB also each receive one BAI aircraft in FY19, to provide flexibility for required heavy maintenance cycles on the PAI aircraft. With these additional BAI aircraft, the Active Component will have 29 x TAI at each location. Pacific Air Forces and United States Air Force Europe C-130 units are both assigned/apportioned 14 x PAI to cover PACOM and EUCOM/AFRICOM theater operational plan requirements. As displayed in Figure 2, the FY16 FYDP delivers a force of 300 x C-130s at the end of the FYDP. The 28 aircraft reduction -- from the FY15 PB FYDP 328 aircraft end state, to the FY16 PB 300 aircraft end state -- begins in FY17. Hence, specific units and locations associated with this reduction will be provided with the FY17 PB, following coordination with C-130 Total Force partners. B: FY13 NDAA Force Structure Summary: The FY15 PB C-130 force structure changes were a direct result of the C-130 force structure mandated in the FY13 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Section 1059 of the FY13 NDAA directed the Air Force to retain 32 additional intra-theater airlift aircraft (C-27Js and/or C-130s) above the Total Force March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 10 of 34

11 Proposal (TFP) of 326 x C-130 aircraft submitted to Congress (2 November 2012). 6 The Congressional intent of the retention of the 32 additional intra-theater airlift aircraft was to ensure the USAF continued the direct support of the US Army time sensitive/mission critical intra-theater airlift mission. This FY13 NDAA language effectively raised the USAF intratheater airlift aircraft inventory floor from 326 to 358 aircraft. As a result of Section 1059 language, the Secretary of the Air Force commissioned the Intra-theater Airlift Working Group (IAWG) comprised of Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve and Active Duty members to develop and assess options to: 1) determine which aircraft type(s) (C-27J and/or C-130) should be retained, 2) propose the resultant allocations of the 32 additional aircraft across the Total Force and 3) determine the beddown locations of the retained aircraft. The FY13 NDAA directed the Air Force to retain an intra-theater airlift aircraft floor of 358 only in fiscal year 2013; the Air Force elected to extend and fund this aircraft floor through fiscal year This voluntary extension afforded the Air Force and its stakeholders the time and decision space to complete additional studies, re-address future force structure needs, and allow for resolution of fiscal and operational uncertainty in preparation of the Air Force s sequestration guided/constrained FY15 budget cycle. The IAWG's Total Force recommendations led the AF to make the strategic choice to divest the C-27J and maintain the C-130 as the single airframe in the intra-theater airlift inventory. Consequently, the Air Force retained C-130 units planned for divestment and infused BAI across the Reserve Component fleet. The FY13 NDAA Total Force Proposal authorized: 7 1) Retaining 2 x AFRC C-130H units at Pittsburg, PA and Minneapolis, MN 2) Re-missioning an AFRC C-130H unit from the C-130H FTU to a C-130H Combatcoded unit 3) Establishing an Active Duty C-130H Active Association with the AFRC at Little Rock AFB, AR 4) Increasing the ANG mission at Little Rock AFB, AR to take on the full C-130H FTU mission from AFRC 5) Transferring 10 x C-130J (AFRC) aircraft from Keesler AFB, MS to Pope AAF, NC (Note: AFRC retained WC-130Js at Keesler AFB) 6) Divesting 12 x C-130H (AFRC) aircraft from Pope AAF 6 (U) FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law , U.S. Statutes at Large (3 January, 2012): Section (U) Department of the Air Force, FY13 NDAA Intra-Theater Airlift (Congressional Overview), (presentation provided to the Congress of The United States of America). March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 11 of 34

12 7) Inactivating the Active Duty C-130J Association with the AFRC at Keesler AFB, MS 8) Inactivating the ANG C-130H Association with AFRC at Niagara ARB, NY and re-missioning of the NY ANG personnel 9) Transferring 4 x C-130H from Elmendorf AFB, AK ANG to Mansfield AGS, OH ANG to support the re-missioning of Mansfield AGS from the C-27J 10) Inactivating the Active Duty C-130H Association with ANG at Elmendorf AFB, AK 11) Divesting 2 x C-130H from Charlotte AGS, NC ANG in FY17 12) Transferring 32 x C-130Hs from the Active Component (Little Rock AFB, AR) to support: The conversion of 2 x ANG units from other weapon systems (F-15Cs at Great Falls AGS, MT ANG, and C-21A at Bradley AGS, CT) The IAWG C-130H BAI allocations and beddown Note: This transfer resulted in the inactivation of 1 x C-130H Active Duty Little Rock AFB unit and the re-missioning of 1 x C-130H Little Rock AFB unit into an Active Associate role. Combined with future conversion of PACAF s C-130H unit (Yokota AB, Japan), this transfer of all Active Duty C- 130H aircraft from Air Mobility Command set the course that would remove all C-130H aircraft from the Active Duty by FY19 13) Reallocating 3 x C-130J (originally earmarked for ARC BAI in FY19) from ARC to Active Duty. The Air Force s original FY13 PB submission reduced the USAF intra-theater airlift force structure to a level that exceeded the needs of the National Defense Strategy within the constraints of the 2011 BCA, an intermediate reduction towards further right-sizing the C- 130 fleet. The C-130s retained and restored in the USAF TFP and in response to FY13 NDAA Section 1059 language maintained a fleet at a size well above required levels. C: Variations from the FY13 NDAA as proposed by the FY14 FY16 PBs: The Air Force maintained the FY13 mandated fleet size in the FY14 PB, using that year for deliberations with stakeholders across the C-130 enterprise. In November 2013, USSOUTHCOM transferred the ANG 6 x WC-130H unit in Puerto Rico to USTRANSCOM, thereby increasing the C-130 fleet size from 358 to 364. The FY14 NDAA maintained this C-130 fleet at 364 aircraft and re-affirmed the transfer of 10 x C-130Js from Keesler AFB to Pope March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 12 of 34

13 AAF. 8 Just prior to submission of the FY15 PB, the Air Force notified Congress of its intent to redirect the 10 x C-130J aircraft from Pope AAF to Little Rock AFB. The redirection of the 10 x C-130J aircraft allowed the Air Force to recommend divestiture of the AFRC C- 130H aircraft at Little Rock AFB, which combined with the C-130H aircraft operated at Pope AAF taken in FY13, cost more to operate than a single C-130J unit (generating approximately $23.5M per year in savings). 9 The redirection of the 10 x C-130Js also allowed for the conversion of the AFRC C-130H unit with attached Active Association at Little Rock AFB to the C-130J. The FY14 NDAA C-130 force structure changes, to include the program change notification submitted prior to the FY15 PB, are highlighted in Figure 3. Figure 3. FY14 NDAA Changes. In addition to divestment of the AFRC 12 x C-130H at Little Rock AFB mentioned above, the FY15 PB reduced the C-130 fleet to 328 aircraft by divesting 35 x C-130 aircraft (4 x C- 130H from Peterson AFB, CO; 4 x C-130H from Cheyenne, WY; and 27 from BAI a various locations). 10 December, 2013). 8 (U) FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law , U.S. Statutes at Large (26 9 (U) Department of the Air Force, TFP-15 Adjustments, (presentation provided to 113th Congress of The United States of America). 10 (U) Resource Allocation Programming Information Decision System CCNs 15R3M306AF and 15R4M383AF, (Washington D.C.: Department of the Air Force, 2013). (Document is classified Secret.) March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 13 of 34

14 Also, due to the lack of Active Duty C-130H operating locations, the FY15 PB inactivated or re-designated the Active Duty elements of four Associate C-130H units (Cheyenne AGS, WY; Peterson AFB, CO; Pope AAF, NC; and one proposed for New Castle AGS, DE). 11 These associations were divested to reduce cross-training costs for Active Duty C-130H Airmen. Note: The inactivation of the Active Associations at Cheyenne AGS and Peterson AFB have no effect on those Reserve Component units ability to successfully execute their MAFFS mission, because they were added on top of unit personnel requirements. In addition to the FY15 divestiture actions, Figure 4 highlights FY15 PB changes to C-130 force structure. Figure 4. C-130 FY15 adjustments (includes program change notification to move 10 x C-130J to Little Rock AFB instead of Pope AAF). As previously highlighted, the FY16 PB continues efforts to more closely align the C-130 fleet with strategic guidance and combatant commanders contingency scenarios while, within a constrained budgetary environment, increasing operation efficiency and providing funding for investment across the Air Force. Figure 5 highlights the proposed changes to the C-130 force structure as part of the FY16 PB. 11 (U) Resource Allocation Programming Information Decision System CCNs 15R3M311MM and 15R3M361MM (Washington D.C.: Department of the Air Force, 2013). (Document is classified Secret.) March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 14 of 34

15 Figure 5. C-130 FY16 PB adjustments. D: Rationale Behind the FY14-FY16 PB Force Structure Changes: The FY15 and FY16 PBs deliver a force structure more closely aligned with operational requirements and improve allocation of resources by prioritizing a smaller, more modern, and more efficient force. Combined, the proposed FY15 and FY16 PB (as submitted) force structure changes would save $922M across the FYDP, allowing the Air Force to invest scarce resources in the remaining C-130Hs and other critical mission areas. 12 The reduction of Pope AAF manpower saves $116M; reducing the C-130 fleet to 328 aircraft saves $170.9M; divesting C-130H Active Duty associations saves $314.8M; and the FY16 PB fleet reduction to 300 TAI saves $320.9M. 13 Required C-130 Fleet Size: The MCA 2018, signed in May 2013 by the Office of the Secretary of Defense Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the Joint Chiefs, and the United States Transportation Command, determined "there is no surge scenario associated with the current defense strategy -- even one in which a significant homeland defense event occurs concurrently with two warfights -- that requires a fleet of 358 C-130s. 14 It recommends a C-130 force of between 248 and 320 aircraft, stating that a fleet of more than 12 (U) $922M savings is based on the original force structure alignments proposed in the FY15-FY16 PB submissions. As amended by this report, the FY15-FY16 force structure alignments save $751M. 13 (U) Resource Allocation Programming Information Decision System CCNs 15R3M311MM, 15R3M361MM, 15R4M383AF, 15R4M384AM, and 16R4M392MF, (Washington D.C.: Department of the Air Force, 2013). (Document is classified Secret.) 14 (U) U.S. Department of Defense Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, United States Transportation Command, Mobility Capabilities Assessment, (Washington D.C.: Department of Defense, 2013). (Document is classified Secret.) March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 15 of 34

16 300 aircraft would only be necessary in a worst-case scenario requiring C-130s to simultaneously support current training, an operation to defeat aggression in one region, an operation to deny objectives in a second region, homeland defense, and DSCA in a Hurricane Katrina-sized disaster. 15 Furthermore, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel stated in July 2013 that the Air Force could reduce tactical aircraft squadrons -- potentially as many as five -- and cut the size of the C-130 fleet with minimal risk. 16 In order to reduce excess capacity in the C-130 fleet and improve allocation of scarce resources, the Air Force made the decision to more closely align the C-130 fleet structure with the findings and recommendations of the MCA. The FY15 PB reduced the C-130 fleet to 328 aircraft by the end of the FYDP, a force structure that continues to exceed the MCA s recommended level. 17 The anticipated demand for aircraft based on current strategic planning is detailed in Figure 6. Demand Depot/Training Defeat Aggression in one region Deny objectives in 2nd theater # C-130s 47 HLD and other activities Totals Footnotes 1. Scale ranges from homeland defense only to supporting DSCA in a Hurricane Katrina-like event (U) Figure 6. C-130 Requirement Analysis Table. Adapted from C-130 Results Summary Table, Mobility Capability Assessment (Office of the Secretary of Defense Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, Washington D.C., 1 May 2013). (Document is classified Secret.) The FY16 PB further reduces the C-130 force structure to 300 total aircraft, balancing operational requirements and the realities of BCA budgetary constraints. These reductions allow the Total Force to invest in modernizing and recapitalizing the remaining C-130 force, as well as fund other requirements to counter existing and emerging national security threats. If sequestered in the FY16 budget, 9 x C-130Js planned to recapitalize legacy aircraft (8 x combat delivery aircraft and 1 x Air Force Special Operations aircraft) will not be funded (U) U.S. Department of Defense Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, United States Transportation Command, Mobility Capabilities Assessment, (Washington D.C.: Department of Defense, 2013). (Document is classified Secret.) 16 (U) Hagel, Chuck, (United States Secretary of Defense), Statement on Strategic Choices and Management Review, (Washington D.C.: July 31, 2013), speechid=1798). 17 (U) Department of the Air Force, TFP-15 Adjustments, (presentation provided to 113th Congress of The United States of America). March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 16 of 34

17 The FY13 NDAA authorized the transfer of 10 x C-130Js from Keesler AFB to Pope AAF. 18 A 4 March 2014 program change notification transfers the C-130J unit originally designated to move from Keesler AFB to Pope Army Airfield to its final location at Little Rock AFB. Additional information on the rationale behind these force structure changes is provided below. Relocation of the 10 x C-130J aircraft located at Keesler AFB to Pope AAF: Starting with the FY13 PB, after enactment of the BCA, the Air Force (including the Reserve components) faced bills exceeding resources available in FY13 PB. As part of the Air Force s proposed FY13 PB reductions, the Air Force Reserve (AFR) proposed cutting a significant number of C-130's from their fleet, and closing the Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station (ARS), Pittsburgh, PA. Pittsburgh ARS is a "stand alone" base, meaning it is not shared with other AF or AFR units (like Pope AAF or Keesler AFB). The proposed closure of the Pittsburgh ARS was done not as part of a BRAC authorization, but under Title 10 USC Notification of permanent reduction of sizable numbers of members of the armed forces. The Air Force believed this law allowed the AFR to close Pittsburgh ARS without Congress instituting a BRAC. Closing Pittsburgh ARS would have saved significant dollars in the AFR budget, by eliminating the cost and overhead associated with 8 excess C-130Hs. Congress did not agree with the Air Force s assessment and application of Title 10 USC 993. As part of the negotiations with Congress for the FY13 NDAA, the Air Force (with AFR and Air National Guard participation) constructed the TFP -- this delayed all of the proposed FY13 C-130 moves for at least one year and kept the Pittsburgh ARS open with its compliment of 8 x C- 130Hs. Also, as part of the FY13 PB Force Structure Announcement, the AFR proposed relocating one of the two C-130J flying squadrons located at Keesler AFB to Pope AAF in FY14. This proposal allowed the AFR to further reduce the overall number of C-130s in its inventory by retiring Pope s current C-130Hs and replacing them with C-130Js. Keesler was selected to lose a C-130J flying squadron because it was the only unit in the AFR with two C-130 flying squadrons (all other AFR C-130 locations have one squadron). The signed FY13 NDAA allowed the Air Force to move one squadron of C-130Js from Keesler AFB to Pope AAF in FY14. This movement supported ARC force-leveling actions that occurred in the FY13 NDAA. Moving one of the two Reserve component units from Keesler AFB allowed the Reserve Component to maintain its presence at Keesler; and it helped the Air Force recapitalize an ARC C-130H unit. The transfer of 10 x C-130Js from Keesler AFB to Pope AAF also allowed the Air Force to generate savings by reducing excess C-130H capacity at Pope and divesting the Active Duty association at Keesler AFB. This supported the Air Force s efforts to preserve readiness while reducing costs by recapitalizing excess C-130H capacity with the modern C-130J. 18 (U) FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law , U.S. Statutes at Large (3 January, 2012): Force Structure Worksheet. March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 17 of 34

18 Redirecting 10 x C-130J from Pope AAF to Little Rock AFB: In March 2014, the Air Force notified Congress of its intent to alter the destination of the Keesler aircraft from Pope to Little Rock. 19 Redirecting the 10 x C-130J aircraft to Little Rock AFB would save the DoD the costs associated with maintaining a stand-alone AFRC wing infrastructure at Pope AAF, while preserving the personnel necessary to provide support for Army training and contingency response (see section E for expanded manpower and cost savings). 20 The Air Force and the AFRC worked in close concert to consolidate the C-130Js at Little Rock in order to capitalize on the efficiencies that already exist at Little Rock AFB due to the large C-130J footprint already in-place, and to stand up an Active Association at the Reserve location at Little Rock to further capitalize on those efficiencies. Additionally, the originally planned redirection allows reduction of excess C-130 capacity by retiring the AFRC C- 130Hs at Little Rock AFB and replacing them with C-130Js, eliminating excess operational costs and preserving funds for critical modernization efforts. Little Rock AFB houses two C-130 Formal Training Units (C-130H & C-130J), the C-130J Weapons School, and three Total Force combat airlift units (C-130J & C-130H). Consolidation of the 10 x C-130J aircraft at Little Rock AFB would have enabled the Air Force to realize significant operational and fiscal benefits. Relocating the AFRC C-130J unit to Little Rock AFB would have integrated all three elements of the Total Force at a single location, eliminating the overhead personnel and logistics support required at a stand-alone unit 21 and enabling formal and informal exchanges of personnel, equipment, and expertise. After closing the 440 AW at Pope AAF, the Air Force would still successfully support movement requirements at Pope with non-collocated assets. Divesting the 440 AW will not impact XVIII Airborne Corps' GRF JFE capacity and capability. Under the current United States Transportation Command model, the DoD can deliver the GRF direct to an objective around the globe via integrated packages of USAF C-17s and C-130s non-collocated at Pope AAF. In fact, 100 percent of the XVIII Airborne Corps deployment requirements are currently met through units external to Pope AAF. 19 (U) Department of the Air Force, TFP-15 Adjustments, (presentation provided to 113th Congress of The United States of America). 20 (U) Government Accountability Office, Air Force Aircraft: Reorganizing Mobility Aircraft Units Could Reduce Costs (GAO/NSAID-98-55; January 21, 1998), 6. The GAO report states that in many cases eliminating the aircraft from a wing could also generate savings additional to operational savings. For example, Civil engineering and medical squadrons 21 (U) Government Accountability Office, Air Force Aircraft: Reorganizing Mobility Aircraft Units Could Reduce Costs (GAO/NSAID-98-55; January 21, 1998), The GAO report states that in many cases eliminating the aircraft from a wing could also generate savings additional to operational savings. For example, Civil engineering and medical squadrons and further states that when a wing is reduced and collocated with another fewer people would be needed in areas such as wing headquarters, logistics, operations, and support group staffs March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 18 of 34

19 The Air Force remains committed to supporting US Army airborne training requirements through the Joint Airborne/Air Transportability Training (JA/ATT) Joint Management System (JMS). This construct is currently used to fill 66 percent of Ft. Bragg training missions. Using JMS, the US Army can schedule additional JA/AATs to make up for the sorties currently flown by Pope AAF AFRC C-130Hs. The JA/ATT construct executed via the JMS also supports 100 percent of the missions at Fort Benning, Fort Campbell and many other Army, USMC and SOCOM units, whether they have collocated transport aircraft or not. 22 In 2010, the 18th Air Force, XVIII Airborne Corps, and 82d Airborne Division senior leaders began to formalize what is now known as the quarterly JFE Readiness Symposium. Through this symposium, Army and Air Force senior leaders prioritize training objectives to maximize training outcomes and resource joint exercises that enhance JFE readiness of both Army and Air Force units. Closure of Active Duty C-130H Associate Units: The FY13 NDAA set the Air Force on a course to remove all C-130H aircraft from the Active Duty fleet when it funded a large percentage of TFP-13 ARC units/missions restoral costs thru the transfer of the Active Duty C-130H aircraft. 23 These transfers eliminated the force development system necessary to sustain the Active C-130H associations that existed in WY, CO, AR and NC. With no Active Duty C-130H aircraft, Active Duty Airmen initially trained in the C-130J would need to attend qualification training in the C-130H upon assignment to an associated C-130H unit. These same Airmen would then need to re-qualify in the C-130J when they return to an Active Duty unit. This qualification/re-qualification cycle removes Airmen from combat roles during qualification training, reducing available manpower for contingency, humanitarian, and homeland defense operations. Additionally, this re-qualification cycle creates a fiscal burden for the Air Force as it trains and re-trains C-130J qualified Airmen to fill these units. Given this reduced demand and fiscal burden, the Air Force can no longer support these associated units. The inactivation and removal of the Active component associate units does not alter the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve units with which they were associated. The Reserve component units retain the aircraft and manpower assigned to their units with no loss of capability because the Active association personnel were added above the ARC unit s operational requirements. These associations were built to allow access to support post-surge operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to improve total force integration. Budget constraints and C-130H force structure realignment have made these units unsustainable. In summary, units were selected for inactivation based on necessary force structure divestitures and excess capacity in the tactical airlift mission area. Maintaining these units will reduce readiness levels and curtail key recapitalization/modernization efforts. The 22 (U) Department of the Air Force, SAF-IE Conference Hearing Kneeboard, (Washington D.C.: 4 June 2014). 23 (U) FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law , U.S. Statutes at Large (3 January, 2012): Force Structure Worksheet. March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 19 of 34

20 deactivation of Active associations poses little risk to the defense strategy while freeing funds for other mission requirements. E: Benefits/Efficiency of FY14 FY16 PB : The originally planned redirection of the C-130Js to Little Rock AFB and the FY15 and FY16 PB force structure changes combine to save $922M across the FYDP, when compared to the FY13 NDAA. 24 The closure of the 440 AW at Pope saves the Air Force $116M, the FY15 PB fleet reductions save $170.9M, and the deactivation of the Active associate units saves $314.8 M. The FY16 PB proposed C-130 force structure reduction saves an additional $320.9M across the FYDP. 25 The FY15 PB proposed deactivation of the 440 AW at Pope Army Airfield in FY15. In addition, it proposed divestiture of Detachment 1 s 12 x C-130H aircraft at Little Rock AFB in FY15 and re-designation of the Little Rock unit as the 913th Airlift Group. 26 The final effect of these changes is the reduction of 1,779 manpower positions (1,302 at Pope; 60 at Little Rock; and 409 at Keesler), some of which were assigned to other Air Force commands. For example, 48 full-time AFRC civilians at Pope were transferred from the 440 AW to similar positions in Air Mobility Command (Active Duty) to provide airlift support to the transient airlift crews who will continue to provide support to Army training requirements at Pope. 27 The preponderance of savings for the relocation came from the FY15 reduction of 616 manpower authorizations required to support operations at the 440 AW. The estimated savings result from the difference between the number of positions in the AFRC Little Rock (686) manning document (as of March 11, 2014) and the Pope AAF (1,302) manning document. The detailed breakdown is provided in Table (U) $922M savings is based on the original force structure alignments proposed in the FY15-FY16 PB submissions. As amended by this report, the FY15-FY16 force structure alignments save $751M. 25 Resource Allocation Programming Information Decision System CCNs 15R3M311MM, 15R3M361MM, 15R4M383AF, 15R4M384AM, and 16R4M392MF, (Washington D.C.: Department of the Air Force, 2013). (Document is classified Secret.) 26 (U) Department of the Air Force, TFP-15 Adjustments, (presentation provided to 113th Congress of The United States of America). 27 (U) Resource Allocation Programming Information Decision System CCN 15R3N010AN (Washington D.C.: Department of the Air Force, 2013). (Document is classified Secret.) March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 20 of 34

21 Costs per savings item($k) FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FYDP TR Officers (47 positions) $ 1,960 $ 1,985 $ 2,013 $ 2,050 $ 2,090 $ 10,098 TR Enlisted (438 positions) $ 8,420 $ 8,550 $ 8,693 $ 8,867 $ 9,066 $ 43,596 AGR Enlisted (10 positions) $ 1,009 $ 1,023 $ 1,042 $ 1,066 $ 1,092 $ 5,232 Civilian (121 positions) $ 11,118 $ 11,251 $ 11,390 $ 11,566 $ 11,785 $ 57, total positions $ 22,507 $ 22,809 $ 23,138 $ 23,549 $ 24,033 $ 116,036 Table 1. Cost savings from manpower reductions for Traditional Reservists (TR), Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) and Civilians. F: Cost Assessment of FY14-FY16 PB C-130 transfers. The costs of transfers were assessed from a fleet-wide perspective, as this was a multi-year, multi-base consolidation of C-130Js to meet FY15 through FY20 requirements. The originally planned C-130 mission consolidation would shift a 10 x C-130J unit from Keesler AFB to Little Rock AFB, involving personnel at Keesler, Little Rock and Pope. This relocation and consolidation would cost $24.3M ($375K in fuel, parts, and equipment shipping; $10M in PCS; and $13.9M in retraining). 28 Keeping the 10 x C-130J aircraft at Keesler at an increased 10 PAA Unit Equipped crew ratio costs $60M FYDP drives a recurring annual bill of $24M to $46M, depending on whether the Little Rock AFRC presence is a classic Reserve Associate unit with the Active Component or a unit-equipped AFR squadron. 29 The consolidation at Little Rock would reduce costs by reassigning C-130J trained personnel, while leveraging Active Duty FTU assets to gain further efficiencies. Pieces of this consolidation have already been executed in accordance with the FY13 NDAA. In a unit relocation such as the one proposed, the Air Force assumes as much as 20 percent of affected personnel may elect to relocate with the unit. Those choosing not to move may elect to transfer to other units or separate from the Air Force Reserve. To accomplish this consolidation, the Air Force Reserve will minimize personnel impacts through civilian priority placement, AFRC Clearing House, and other appropriate authorizations previously granted by Congress. The potential Permanent Change of Station (PCS) and severance costs associated with reassignment and separation of Reserve personnel are absorbed across the enterprise as a matter of managing authorized end strength. The highest estimate available for the potential PCS and severance costs associated with this proposal is $10M. However, these costs are offset by the reduction of 616 positions, which creates a savings of over $116M across the FYDP. The savings for the Keesler C-130J unit were planned to be realized in the FY13 NDAA. 28 (U) Department of the Air Force, Follow-Up Questions from CM Palazzo s meeting with Lt Gen Jackson (AFR), (Washington D.C.: 2 April 2014). 29 (U) C-130 Costing and Basing Options v.7 (Washington D.C.: Department of the Air Force, 2015). (Document is classified Secret.) March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 21 of 34

22 The aircrew and maintenance retraining costs associated with the Keesler transfer were already included in the FY13 NDAA (as planned for the move to Pope AAF). These costs would be paid regardless of the C-130J s final location following their transfer. Congress approved these funds in the FY13 NDAA and the AF programmed this activity as part of the original move to Pope in FY14. The costs of training by position are detailed in Table 2. Course Lodging/ Specialty (# Required) Costs* RPA** Per Diem*** Seasoning Total Pilots (47) $ 8.5M $ 2.1M $ 0M $ 0M $ 10.6M Loadmasters (43) $ 2.8M $ 0.5M $ 0M $ 0M $ 3.3M Maintainers (54)**** $ 0M $ 0M $ 0M $ 0M $ 0M Total $ 11.3M $ 2.6M $ 0M $ 0M $ 13.9M *Funding already in AMC baseline budget ($180K/pilot; $64K/loadmaster) and covers items like courseware and simulator support; Maintenance cost is embedded in AETC training detachment instructor pay and AMC BOS baseline funding) ** Costs already accounted for in baseline AFRC budget as RPA school tour ***Assumes 913th Airlift Group personnel live within commuting distance ****Quantity reflects only maintenance ARTS with 2XXXX AFSCs. That being said, the number of maintainers sent to school is the decision of MXG commander IAW AFRCI as long as the task training is completed by some method. 54 is a conservative number and actuals may differ if the MXG/CC equivalent elects based on ART individual qualifications and traditional reservist availability Table 2. Training costs for C-130J transition. In summary, while the relocation of the C-130J to Little Rock AFB carried a one-time cost of $24.3M, it would help right-size the C-130 fleet, ensure total force integration, and, when combined with the other FY15 and FY16 PB force structure changes, would save $922M across the FYDP. 30 G: Analysis of the FY14-FY16 PB Basing Alignment That Demonstrates Efficiency. In general, consolidation of forces reduces the overall costs to sustain the same size force structure due to reduced overhead and support requirements. The FY15 and FY16 PBs increase efficiency and effectiveness of the C-130 enterprise by consolidating and standardizing the force into units of eight, reducing the manpower associated with excess stand-alone wings and Active associate units while presenting a more modern force. According to a United States Government Accountability Office Report Reorganizing Mobility Aircraft Units Could Reduce Costs, The Air Force could reduce costs and meet peacetime and wartime commitments if it reorganizes C-130 aircraft into larger-sized 30 (U) $922M savings is based on the original force structure alignments proposed in the FY15-FY16 PB submissions. As amended by this report, the FY15-FY16 force structure alignments save $751M. March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 22 of 34

23 squadrons and wings in fewer locations. 31 Through the planned relocation of 10 x C-130Js from Keesler AFB and the FY15 PB force structure, the Air Force was able to reduce excess capacity, decrease operating costs and increase operational efficiencies. It achieved these improvements with minimal impact on peacetime and wartime missions, consistent with the findings of the GAO report. 32 Additionally, the force structure changes proposed by the FY14 program change notification and the FY15 and FY16 PBs provide long term savings that exceed the one-time costs of the proposed changes a finding also supported by the GAO report. As a result of fiscal pressures on the Department of Defense, C-130 force structure changes in FY12-15 reduced the Air Force Reserve fleet from 104 to 66 aircraft, to realign and rightsize capacity. In an effort to more efficiently allocate resources, the Air Force Reserve analyzed the remaining C-130 operating locations to determine the most efficient fleet allocation of Reserve assets. The originally planned C-130 mission consolidation would shift a 10 x C-130J unit from Keesler AFB to Little Rock AFB. This relocation and consolidation would carry a one-time cost of $24.3M ($375K in fuel, parts, and equipment shipping; $10M in PCS; and $13.9M in retraining). 33 Conversely, keeping the 10 x C-130J aircraft at Keesler costs $60M over the FYDP, because the crew ratio must be increased to make up for the loss of the Active Associate unit. Maintaining an AFRC presence at Little Rock AFB drives a recurring annual expense of between $24M to $46M, depending on whether the presence is through a Classic Association with the Active Component or a unit-equipped Air Force Reserve squadron. 34 H: Impact of proposed transfers on special mission equipped C-130 units. The FY14 program change notification and FY15 PB resource every C-130 unit at the level required for mission success. The divestment of the Active associations will not impact the ability of the Reserve components in accomplishing its missions, including its Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System (MAFFS) mission. The C-130 Active associations were established to meet increased rotational crew demand for post-surge operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Active association concept helped alleviate this demand by providing additional deployed capacity at reserve component units. However, when the FY13 NDAA used Active component C-130H aircraft to fully resource 31 (U) Government Accountability Office, Air Force Aircraft: Reorganizing Mobility Aircraft Units Could Reduce Costs (GAO/NSAID-98-55; January 21, 1998), (U) Government Accountability Office, Air Force Aircraft: Reorganizing Mobility Aircraft Units Could Reduce Costs (GAO/NSAID-98-55; January 21, 1998), (U) Department of the Air Force, Follow-Up Questions from CM Palazzo s meeting with Lt Gen Jackson (AFR), (Washington D.C.: 2 April 2014). 34 (U) C-130 Costing and Basing Options v.7 (Washington D.C.: Department of the Air Force, 2015). (Document is classified Secret.) March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 23 of 34

24 Reserve component units, it increased training requirements for active component crews transitioning between the C-130J to C-130Hs and back. These actions added additional costs to C-130H Active associations. In summary, C-130H Active associations are now less affordable and effective based on the distribution of the C-130 fleet within the components. As previously noted, Active Associate personnel were added above the Reserve component s operational requirements. This means eliminating active associations does not affect units with special mission activities. As an example, each MAFFS-equipped unit maintains 2 x MAFFS kits, 8 x C-130Hs, and sufficient qualified Reserve Component personnel. The number of MAFFS-capable aircraft and personnel will continue to meet the US Forest Service s requirements of MAFFS units in the DoD. There are no Active Duty personnel qualified in critical positions (aircraft commanders and instructors), and only a small number less than 10 qualified in any portion of the MAFFS mission. Thus, the removal of the Active Duty associate personnel will have no impact on the ability to accomplish the MAFFS mission. I: Amended. The Secretary of the Air Force has amended the C-130 force structure presented in the FY15 and FY16 PB submissions to eliminate the short term costs and turbulence driven by relocating 10 x C-130Js from Keesler to Little Rock and expand the AFRC presence at Little Rock, while still saving $751M across the FYDP (when compared to the FY13 NDAA). 35 These adjustments retain the 10 x C-130J aircraft at Keesler AFB and preserve the Air Force Reserve Command presence at Little Rock AFB as a Classic Associate C-130J unit. 35 (U) $751M savings includes proposed amendments from the FY15-FY16 PB submissions. The original force structure alignments proposed in the FY15-FY16 PB submissions saved $922M. March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 24 of 34

25 Recommended Basing Alignment of C-130H and C-130J Aircraft: An overview of the Air Force s recommended basing alignment of C-130 mobility aircraft is provided in Figure 7 following discussions with Congress on AFRC force structure (excluding LC-130, WC-130J, and Special Operations C-130 aircraft). Figure 7. FY16 (FY16 PB). Derived from TFP-16 Adjustments, (presentation provided to 114th Congress of The United States of America) and modifications to AFRC force structure following discussions with Congress. March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 25 of 34

26 The FY16 PB planned basing for C-130H and C-130J aircraft through FY20 reflected in the FY16 PB, as amended by this study to maintain 10 x C-130Js at Keesler AFB, is provided in Figure 8. LOCATION CMD MDS FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 DYESS AMC J LITTLE ROCK AMC J LITTLE ROCK AMC H RAMSTEIN USAFE J YOKOTA PACAF H YOKOTA PACAF J LITTLE ROCK FTU AETC J DOBBINS AFRC H KEESLER AFRC J MAXWELL AFRC H MINNEAPOLIS AFRC H NIAGARA AFRC H PETERSON (M) AFRC H PITTSBURGH AFRC H YOUNGSTOWN AFRC H BALTIMORE ANG J BRADLEY ANG H CARSWELL ANG H CHANNEL IS ANG J CHARLOTTE ANG H CHEYENNE ANG H ELMENDORF ANG H GREAT FALLS ANG H LOUISVILLE ANG H MANSFIELD ANG H MINNEAPOLIS ANG H NEW CASTLE ANG H PEORIA ANG H PR ANG H QUONSET ANG J RENO ANG H SAVANNAH ANG H SCHENECTADY ANG H ST JOE ANG H YEAGER ANG H LITTLE ROCK FTU ANG H FY16 PB REDUX TBD H MAF TOTAL Figure 8. FY15-20 (FY16 PB). Derived from TFP-16 Adjustments, (presentation provided to 114th Congress of The United States of America). March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 26 of 34

27 As previously highlighted, the FY16 PB continues efforts to adjust the C-130 fleet to more closely align with strategic guidance and meet the requirements of combatant commanders contingency scenarios, while providing funding for investment across the Air Force in a constrained budgetary environment by eliminating excess force structure, improving efficiency, and eliminating overhead. Figure 9 highlights the FY16 PB C-130 force structure changes as amended by this study. Figure 9. C-130 FY16 PB adjustments and proposed AFRC C-130J force structure re-alignments. The amended FY16 PB force structure changes save $751M across the FYDP. These savings enable investment in modernization of the C-130 fleet as well as various other critical mission areas. 36 The reduction of Pope AAF manpower saves $116M; reducing the C-130 fleet to 328 aircraft saves $170.9M; divesting Active Duty associations saves $314.8M; and further reducing the fleet reduction to 300 aircraft saves $149.9M (after restructuring AFRC assets to retain 10 x C-130Js at Keesler AFB). 37 Retaining the 10 x C-130J AFRC unit at Keesler: Keeping the 10 x C-130J aircraft at Keesler at an increased 10 PAA Unit Equipped crew ratio will reduce FY16 PB savings by $60 million over the FYDP, but avoid $24.3M in transition costs and the turbulence of 36 (U) $751M savings includes proposed amendments from the FY15-FY16 PB submissions. The original force structure alignments proposed in the FY15-FY16 PB submissions saved $922M. 37 (U) Resource Allocation Programming Information Decision System CCNs 15R3M311MM, 15R3M361MM, 15R4M383AF, 15R4M384AM, and 16R4M392MF, (Washington D.C.: Department of the Air Force, 2013). (Document is classified Secret.) March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 27 of 34

28 moving an AFRC unit from Keesler to Little Rock. Keesler will still provide efficiencies gained by operating two squadrons together under a single wing overhead. Reduction at Pope AAF: Divesting the C-130H unit at Pope Army Airfield allows the Air Force to reduce excess C-130H capacity and divest excess overhead and an Active Duty association. Closing the 440 AW at Pope AAF still saves the Department of Defense the costs associated with maintaining a stand-alone AFRC wing, while preserving the personnel necessary to provide support for Army training and contingency response (see section E for expanded manpower and cost savings). 38 As previously stated, divestment of the 440 AW at Pope AAF will have no impact to XVIII Airborne Corps' GRF JFE capacity and capability. The Air Force remains committed to supporting US Army airborne training requirements through the JA/ATT JMS program. The JA/AAT construct is currently used for 66 percent of Ft. Bragg missions. Using JMS, the US Army can schedule additional JA/AATs to make up for the sorties currently flown by AFRC C-130Hs based at Pope AAF. The JA/ATT construct also supports 100 percent of the missions at Fort Benning, Fort Campbell, and many other Army, USMC, and SOCOM units whether they have collocated transport aircraft, or not. 39 In addition, 100 percent of the real-world deployment requirements of the XVIII Airborne Corps are met through units external to Pope AAF. Divesting the AFRC C-130H Unit and Establishing a Classic Associate Unit at Little Rock AFB: An AFRC Classic Association is the most cost effective option to maintain the AFRC presence at Little Rock AFB without re-directing the 10 x C-130J from Keesler AFB. It reduces operational costs, eliminates the overhead personnel and logistics support required by a stand-alone unit, 40 and saves funds for critical modernization efforts, which ultimately increases the capability of the C-130 fleet. 41 Maintaining the benefits of the AFRC presence and integration at Little Rock AFB as a Classic Associate unit drives a recurring annual bill 38 (U) Government Accountability Office, Air Force Aircraft: Reorganizing Mobility Aircraft Units Could Reduce Costs (GAO/NSAID-98-55; January 21, 1998), 6. The GAO report states that in many cases eliminating the aircraft from a wing could also generate savings additional to operational savings. For example, Civil engineering and medical squadrons June 2014). 39 (U) Department of the Air Force, SAF-IE Conference Hearing Kneeboard, (Washington D.C.: 4 40 (U) Government Accountability Office, Air Force Aircraft: Reorganizing Mobility Aircraft Units Could Reduce Costs (GAO/NSAID-98-55; January 21, 1998), (U) Government Accountability Office, Air Force Aircraft: Reorganizing Mobility Aircraft Units Could Reduce Costs (GAO/NSAID-98-55; January 21, 1998), The report states that redistributing multiple smaller units into fewer locations would result in significant savings that could be used to partially fund the modernization of the Defense Department s force. March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 28 of 34

29 of $24M ($121M over the FYDP). The elimination of the Active Associate unit at Little Rock AFB saves $10M over the FYDP. 42 The FY16 PB amended force structure still saves $751M across the FYDP, when compared to the FY13 NDAA, while exceeding national tactical airlift requirements. Within that $751M, closing the 440 AW saves $116M, the FY15 PB fleet reductions save $170.9 million, the deactivation of the Active associate units saves $314.8M, and the FY16 PB fleet reduction saves $149.9M, after re-structuring AFRC assets to retain 10 x C-130Js at Keesler AFB and establish a classic association at Little Rock AFB (U) C-130 Costing and Basing Options v.7 (Washington D.C.: Department of the Air Force, 2015). (Document is classified Secret.) 43 (U) Resource Allocation Programming Information Decision System CCNs 15R3M311MM, 15R3M361MM, 15R4M383AF, 15R4M384AM, and 16R4M392MF, (Washington D.C.: Department of the Air Force, 2013). (Document is classified Secret.) $751M savings includes proposed amendments from the FY15- FY16 PB submissions. The original force structure alignments proposed in the FY15-FY16 PB submissions saved $922M. March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 29 of 34

30 Conclusion Responding to increasing budget pressures, the United States Air Force has pursued tactical airlift efficiencies in its recent President s Budget (PB) submissions. Possessing too many C- 130 aircraft, at too many locations, in units that were inefficiently sized to support national security requirements, the Air Force introduced actions to reduce excess intra-theater airlift capacity in its Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) PB. The FY13 NDAA put these reductions on hold, establishing an intra-theater airlift capacity floor of 358 aircraft for FY13. Consequently, the Total Force C-130 enterprise was tasked to perform analysis needed to identify compliance solutions for the FY13 NDAA requirement. The results of this analysis, combined with the Mobility Capabilities Assessment (MCA) 2018 and Office of the Secretary of Defense Strategic Choices and Management Decision guidance, informed the force structure proposed in the FY15 and FY16 PB submissions. The Air Force FY15 and FY16 PB submissions maintain a C-130 fleet that still exceeds national tactical airlift requirements, but as a prudent reaction to Budget Control Act (BCA) funding caps, saves money to fund other pressing requirements. Savings are achieved by reducing the size of the C-130 fleet and, without Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) authority to close stand-alone units, eliminating overhead by consolidating the remaining aircraft into more efficiently sized units. The savings generated enable the Air Force to invest in the fleet, retire aging C-130Hs and utilize the savings to recapitalize some C-130H aircraft with C-130Js and modernize the remaining C-130Hs. The C-130 force structure proposed in both the FY15 and FY16 PBs successfully supports U.S. Army movement and training requirements through more efficient utilization of noncollocated assets. There will be no adverse impact on XVIII Airborne Corps' Global Response Force (GRF) Joint Forcible Entry (JFE) capacity and capability. Under the current United States Transportation Command model, the DoD will deliver the GRF direct to an objective around the globe via integrated packages of USAF C-17s and C-130s noncollocated at Pope Army Airfield (AAF). In fact, 100 percent of the XVIII Airborne Corps deployment requirements are currently met through units external to Pope AAF. Pursuant to direction in Section 138 of the FY15 NDAA, the Air Force conducted a validation of proposed FY15 and FY16 PB C-130 force structure realignments with key stakeholders, including the National Guard Bureau and Air Force Reserve. This validation reaffirmed the realignments planned in the FY15 PB and FY16 PB submissions with one modification, the Air Force will pursue retaining ten Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) C-130Js at Keesler AFB, MS, and stand up an AFRC Classic Associate Unit on the operational active component C-130J unit at Little Rock AFB, AR. The Air Force considered retaining the 440th Airlift Wing at Pope AAF. However, the additional $116M in savings generated by closing the stand-alone wing along with the wing's C-130s made closing the 440 AW the most cost effective way to eliminate 8 excess C-130s. The Air Force will retain the ability to support the Army's training and contingency response requirements at Pope AAF. Returning the 10 x C-130J aircraft to Keesler AFB will provide the efficiency of operating two squadrons together under a single wing overhead. The AFRC Classic March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 30 of 34

31 Association is the most cost effective option to maintain the AFRC presence at Little Rock AFB. As amended, the FY16 PB delivers a force of 300 x C-130s at the end of the FY16 FYDP, generating $751M in savings across the FYDP by reducing fleet size, right-sizing units to gain operating efficiencies, and reducing overhead by eliminating an AFRC Airlift Wing. 44 Savings generated will enable the Air Force to invest in modernization of the C-130 fleet as well as various other critical mission areas. More importantly, the force structure changes allow the Department of Defense (DoD) to continue to resource the C-130 enterprise across all components and mission sets at levels required to ensure mission success. 44 (U) $751M savings includes proposed amendments from the FY15-FY16 PB submissions. The original force structure alignments proposed in the FY15-FY16 PB submissions saved $922M. March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 31 of 34

32 Appendix A SEC LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR TRANSFER OF AIR FORCE C 130H AND C 130J AIRCRAFT. (a) LIMITATION. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2015 for the Air Force may be obligated or expended to transfer from one facility of the Department of Defense to another any C 130H or C 130J aircraft until a period of 60 days has elapsed following the date on which the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the congressional defense committees an assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed transfer. (b) ELEMENTS. The assessment referred to in subsection (a) shall include, at a minimum, the following elements: (1) A five-year plan for the force structure laydown of C 130H2, C 130H3, and C 130J aircraft. (2) An identification of how such plan deviates from the total force structure proposal of the Secretary described in section 1059(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law ; 126 Stat. 1939). (3) An explanation of why that plan deviates, if in any detail, from such proposal. (4) An assessment of the national security benefits and any other expected benefits of the proposed transfers, under subsection (a), including benefits for the facilities expected to receive the transferred aircraft. (5) An assessment of the costs of the proposed transfers, including the impact of the proposed transfers on the facility or facilities from which the aircraft will be transferred. (6) An analysis of the recommended basing alignment that demonstrates that the recommendation is the most effective and efficient alternative for such basing alignment. (7) For units equipped with special capabilities, including the modular airborne firefighting system capability, a certification that missions using such capabilities will not be negatively affected by the proposed transfers. (c) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT. Not later than 60 days after the date on which the Secretary submits the report required under subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the congressional defense committees a sufficiency review of such report, including any findings and recommendations relating to such review. March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 32 of 34

33 Appendix B Objective, Assumptions, Scope, and Methodology This report assesses force structure recommended by the FY14 NDAA, FY14 Congressional notice of programmatic change, the FY15 PB, and the FY16 PB with regard to the Air Force C-130 fleet. It provides specific detail regarding costs and operational/ financial benefits of proposed force structure changes by examining: (1) the impact of proposed changes on excess C-130 force structure as defined in previous capabilities studies for mobility airlift, (2) the scope of proposed changes from the FY13 NDAA, (3) the operational impact on units affected by proposed changes, and (4) the financial impact of proposed force structure changes. To determine the impact on proposed force structure changes on excess capacity, comparisons to required fleet sizes as defined in higher level strategic guidance documents and prior mobility studies were balanced by analysis of proposed fleet capabilities. Additionally, discussions with planners and operational leaders at Headquarters USAF, the Air National Guard, and the Office of the Reserve provided qualitative assessments of proposed changes. The report utilized the United States Air Force C-130 force structure as defined by the FY13 NDAA as a point of departure for analysis of proposed force structure changes. Standard planning assumptions were utilized for financial analysis of proposed force structure changes. Cost factors such as weapons system sustainment, costs per flying hour, and personnel costs used FY15 and FY16 planning factor sets resident within the planning/programming data systems supporting the United States Air Force budget. Whenever possible, the report presents the exact values determined during the creation of the FY15 and FY16 PBs. Proposed savings were based on the assumption that planned/programmed force structure actions would be implemented as soon as possible after the FY15 NDAA was enacted into public law delays in implementing the proposed actions may alter calculated costs and savings. The report analysis was accomplished primarily through examination of meta-data and case studies as implemented in prior force structure changes. Archival research of electronic communications, database results, and Congressional communication/briefing products provided a departure point for further research of the operational and fiscal impacts of proposed force structure changes. March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 33 of 34

34 Distribution The Honorable Thad Cochran Chairman Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, DC The Honorable Richard J. Durbin Vice Chairman Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, DC The Honorable John McCain Chairman Committee on Armed Services United States Senate Washington, DC The Honorable Jack Reed Ranking Member Committee on Armed Services United States Senate Washington, DC The Honorable Rodney P. Frelinghuysen Chairman Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky Ranking Member Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC The Honorable Mac Thornberry Chairman Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC The Honorable Adam Smith Ranking Member Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from the Air Force. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. March 2015 U.S. Air Force Page 34 of 34