U.S. Representative Rob Wittman (R-VA), Chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, delivered the following opening remarks at a hearing on the U.S. Army's modernization plans, requirements, and investments in aviation programs as part of the Army's recently announced Aviation Investment Rebalance.
Rep. Wittman's remarks as prepared for delivery:
Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished members of the subcommittee, and representatives from the Department of Defense, I want to welcome everyone to this pivotal hearing on Army Aviation and their rebalancing efforts. I look forward to discussing the progress and challenges of our rotary-wing and unmanned systems communities and how the Army plans on modernizing its aviation forces to meet the demands of the future battlefield.
In the wake of lessons learned from ongoing conflicts—most notably in Ukraine—it has become apparent that the demand for maintaining consistent and clear situational awareness is insatiable on the modern battlefield. This battlefield sensing demand has become not just a capability, but a necessity for operational success and survival. Moreover, these ongoing conflicts have highlighted both the effectiveness, survivability, and utility of legacy rotorcraft and the dire need to adjust to a battlefield proliferated with inexpensive uncrewed systems.
Today, we will hear from our distinguished panel of witnesses: Assistant Secretary Doug Bush, General James Rainey, Major General Michael "Mac" McCurry, and Brigadier General David Phillips on how the Army plans to navigate the complexities of aviation modernization, manage risks across its aviation portfolio, and how their plan to rebalance our future aviation fleet aligns with the Army's overarching modernization priorities.
I can confidently say that of particular interest to this committee is the Army's Future Vertical Lift initiative. In fact, several of our witnesses here today testified last year on the necessity of the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft—more commonly referred to as "FARA"—which sits within the Future Vertical Lift initiative and whose development the Army plans to terminate. After dramatically emphasizing the necessity to fill this attack and reconnaissance capability gap through testimonies and classified briefs, it is imperative that the Army explain to this committee on how it either plans on addressing this capability gap without FARA or explain why this capability gap no longer exists.
Moreover, while I applaud the Army's ability to make hard choices, especially in light of a fiscally difficult environment, I am concerned that the Army's acquisition strategy on FARA has led to a loss of $2 billion in tax-payer dollars that may have been somewhat alleviated had the Army followed a more traditional major defense acquisition program (MDAP) pathway from the beginning. We need the Army–and Department of Defense–to make pivots to keep pace with rapidly changing technologies, but these pivots must happen faster and before we have invested billions of dollars. Finally, I'm somewhat bewildered on why the Army didn't factor in a healthier contingency of alternatives when conducting their Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) document for FARA.
As for the rest of the Army's rotorcraft plans, I am encouraged to see the Army move forward on Chinook Block II's, increase investment in unmanned systems, and continue investment in the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft—the V-280—which is slated to replace the UH-60 Blackhawk. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how they plan on investing in UH-60 Blackhawk upgrades and a new multiyear contract while simultaneously spending billions on the system's replacement. I believe the discussion on balancing the two platforms will be a fruitful one.
As for unmanned platforms, it is concerning that the Army has decided to retire the RQ-7 Shadow while its replacement, the Future Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (FTUAS), is still two years away from entering full-rate production. While I support the retirement of a system that may no longer be operationally relevant, it is clear that unmanned systems are becoming integral on the battlefield, yet it appears that the Army has been caught flat footed. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses how they plan to bridge this capability gap.
Finally, and as I have mentioned, with the exponential growth of unmanned systems on the battlefield and the counter-unmanned systems that must be developed in tandem, I believe it is time to give serious consideration to establishing a Drone Corps within the Army that specializes in these systems. Unlocking the full potential of unmanned platforms for the Army will require soldiers to develop specialized skills and a deep understanding of various associated technologies. A Drone Corps may better lend itself to allowing the broad array of expertise required to mature within the Army and for these systems' unique capabilities to grow beyond their role primarily as enablers to the current combat arms branches.
As we delve into these discussions, it is imperative to explore the implications of these Army aviation decisions not only on the Army's operational capabilities but also on the defense industrial base, budgetary allocations, and the broader strategic objectives of the Department of Defense. Questions around the balance between maintaining legacy platforms and investing in future capabilities, the effective use of taxpayer dollars, and ensuring that the Army remains at the cutting edge of technological advancements in aviation will be critical.
This hearing is not just an examination of the Army's aviation modernization strategy but a dialogue on ensuring that this strategy is responsive to the realities of modern warfare, financially sustainable, and aligned with the broader goals of national security and defense.
I look forward to a productive and enlightening discussion on these topics. I again thank our witnesses for their dedication and commitment to the defense of our great nation and for appearing before us today.
