WATCH: In SASC Hearing, Kelly Presses Army Secretary on Electronic Warfare Testing Cuts and Aviation Budget

This week, during a Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing on the annual defense budget, Arizona Senator and Navy combat veteran Mark Kelly (D-AZ) pressed Secretary of the Army Daniel P. Driscoll on the Army's lack of communication about ongoing changes at the Electronic Proving Ground in Fort Huachuca and a dramatic cut to Army aviation in the current budget request.

Kelly talked about the Army failing to communicate changes already underway at the Electronic Proving Ground near Fort Huachuca: "We've tried to engage with the Army multiple times. My office has learned about staffing reductions and mission impacts after they've happened. […] when the Army reduces capacity there without clearly articulating some kind of long-term plan, it raises real questions about how these decisions align with the Army's stated priorities with regards to modernization."

Driscoll committed to remedy the lack of communication.

Kelly also raised the alarm over the Army's aviation budget: "Your requests include zero H-64 Apaches, zero Chinook Block IIs, and one UH-60 Blackhawk. And while I understand the intent of the Army Transformation Initiative, I'malso concerned that we're divesting in some capabilities that fill a critical requirement. […] We don't have a validated replacement for these systems."

Kelly warned of the impact the budget could have: "This budget, I think, threatens the health of the defense industrial base in that regard. Industry has been very clear that foreign sales on these systems are not enough to sustain the production lines past maybe the early 2030s. We've also been hearing from some small businesses. I heard one that says, 'Hey, the writing is on the wall here', and he wants to get out of the business of supporting Army helicopters."

Sen. Kelly questions Secretary Driscoll during a SASC hearing.

Click here to download a video of Kelly's remarks. See the transcript below:

Senator Kelly:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here today. Secretary Driscoll, the Electronic Proving Ground (EPG) near Fort Huachuca provides a very unique electronic warfare testing capability, largely because it has very favorable geography, protected airspace surrounded on all sides by terrain. And because of that, we've got an ability there to conduct very aggressive electronic warfare and jamming tests with minimal interference that goes beyond the area. This is the kind of testing we need to understand how our systems would perform if we were up against near-peer adversaries. And that's why I've been kind of frustrated by the Army's lack of communication regarding changes that are already underway at EPG. We've tried to engage with the Army multiple times. My office has learned about staffing reductions and mission impacts after they've happened, even though we're trying to communicate with the leadership. So, we're trying to proactively engage, but we're not getting the response that we would normally expect. And it's one of the Army's premier facilities for E-W and spectrum operations. So, when the Army reduces capacity there without clearly articulating some kind of long-termplan, it raises real questions about how these decisions align with the Army's stated priorities with regards to modernization. So, I'd just like a commitment from you if we could work with your office to try to figure out what's going on and make sure that the decisions we are making are in the best interest of the Army.

Secretary Daniel P. Driscoll:

Senator. Absolutely. And just to go back a step, one of the things we've tried to model out in the last 18 months is ultra-responsiveness, ultra-transparency, ultra-clarity, both to the private sector, to our larger defense partners, to the primes and the smaller mids, and then also to all of you. And so, I apologize that we haven't been faster and more clear, but we will remedy that.

Kelly:

All right. Thank you. And then on another subject, I'm a bit concerned about the Army's direction here on aviation. You know, this year you're spending $4 billion next year. You're requesting half of that. Your requests include zero H-64 Apaches, zero Chinook Block IIs, and one UH-60 Blackhawk. And while I understand the intent of the Army Transformation Initiative, I'm also concerned that we're divesting in some capabilities that fill a critical requirement. We talked a little bit about this about learning the correct lesson from the former conflict. And we've got to be really careful here. And we don't have a validated replacement for these systems. A reasonable path forward, I think, would be to sustain Army aircraft we have and use their capacity until we integrate new technologies, but instead we're facing a budget request that leaves Congress no assurances that the Army, and especially the National Guard, will not suffer from a significant capability gap in its ability to move people, and weapons, cargo, but also put fire downrange, especially with regards to the Apache. I'm concerned that we might be repeating a mistake that we saw with the Air Force in the A-10, where the service spent years arguing it could retire the platform, only to realize that there's a critical mission need and nothing to fill it. And then suddenly, with extra costs now, extend the aircraft's life after the industrial capacity and its sustainment challenges have gotten worse once production lines and suppliers and workforce capacity disappear, rebuilding them can be rather costly and time consuming. And this budget, I think, threatens the health of the defense industrial base in that regard. Industry has been very clear that foreign sales on these systems are not enough to sustain the production lines past maybe the early 2030s. We've also been hearing from some small businesses. I heard one that says, 'Hey, the writing is on the wall here', and he wants to get out of the business of supporting Army helicopters. So that could be something you're going to have to deal with. But, Mr. Secretary, you continue to say that the Apache, Blackhawk, Chinook, have a role and need to be modernized, but the budget doesn't actually get us there. So, can you explain? I know I'm over my time here, how do we do this and sustain these systems under this existing budget request?

Driscoll:

Absolutely, Senator. So, our intent we've- as you rightly pointed out, tried to say on the record a number of times, these systems will be in the Army's life for a very long time. What we are trying to do is get out in advance of the number that we will have at total as we start to bring on things like Flora, what is that ideal balance look like? And so that's what you see reflected in the current budget. I think we are optimistic that FMS will make up a lot of the cases to keep these lines on.

Kelly:

But still in the budget, you know, right now one Blackhawk, zero Apache, zero Chinook and the FMF thing, as my office has looked into this, it just doesn't seem like enough to sustain the helicopter industrial base. So, thank you. I'm sorry. I'm over my time.