Jack Reed

General Johns, normal Air Force planning for force structure includes additional aircraft for attrition reserve, so-called back-up inventory aircraft that protect against aircraft being unavailable during periods of depot maintenance, et…

I think this hearing has been very useful to me, and I thank her for urging us to do it.

Had we not added additional C-17s, either at the request of the Air Force or the request of Congress, then we would not be able to retire these C-5As.

So, have you effectively factored in a situation, and particularly in the surge, where, for many reasons, just the insurance companies simply saying, 'you ain't flying,' that you would not be able to meet your----

This is the opinion not just of the Department of the Air Force and TRANSCOM. This is DOD, the Secretary, presumably as General McNabb said, all the CINCs, commanders, have been able to weigh in.

General Johns, is there any attrition reserve in the 301 number, or back-up aircraft inventory, or provisions for training aircraft?

Have you done--and this is, again, the worst-case, and again, we have to ask these questions--an analysis of how much it would cost you to take a C-5A out of the desert and put it back in the air, if all this very thoughtful analysis…

One other follow-up, and that is part of the savings going forward that you are projecting are a function of Congress changing the law.

The loss of Pakistan as a land transit point would not in any way affect your plans to retire the C-5As...

The surge is not only Homeland security. It is also a major campaign, which would be a conventional fight, unlike the irregular warfare we are seeing now?

I hope that is not the case going forward.

Strategic and tactical airlift is central to everything we do, everywhere we do it, and it deserves premier attention.

It is appropriate that we consider this change very carefully.

I would be remiss if I did not very strongly, and with great appreciation express my thanks to Senator Ayotte and her staff for her excellent work.

Getting the number right is absolutely important.

Thank you, Senator. I want to join you in thanking the panel for very insightful and very, very helpful, constructive testimony this afternoon.

But it really is a long-haul effort, and as we get into the challenges ahead with regard to the budget and new ship programs, we really have to carry this discipline further forward to ensure that we don't have breakage at a period when…

You're taking this and you're trying with Secretary Stackley to plug it into the design phase.

You have learned a great deal. We've all learned a great deal.

You've made the very explicit point that you've beefed up dramatically your supervisory staff.

I think what Admiral McCoy indicated was that the recent ships that have delivered have much fewer problems.

Let me associate myself with the thoughtful comment of my colleague that this was a very productive hearing, as a result of your questions particularly.

Are we looking outside the proverbial box at all these interrelated issues to make a comprehensive presentation?

There's no single silver bullet. There is no sacred cow.

Mr. Secretary, you have $12 million in the budget for the AoA. Is that enough, given the complexity of evaluating several moving parts?