issue. >> yeah, i think a lot of americans don't understand that the stresses with pakistan have many implications. not just the direct implication of are they our friend? are they our enemy? what exactly are they? and, who can we trust within pakistan? but it has a dramatic impact on -- on, on the budgets of our military as it relates to -- operational requirements in afghanistan and draw down in afghanistan. thank you, senator? >> thank you, madam chair. i wanted to ask each of you in the chairman joint chiefs of staff, the conclusion of the chairman's risk assessment that he submitted to us. he says that the services will need to "conceive of a new risk paradigm." can you help me what that means

sniff we are conceiving of a new risk paradigm? >> well i think as -- you know as you create a new strategy, you look for ways to balance the risk you are going to accept. of course you focus on the most dangerous aims. and then, also, you consider -- the most likely things that, that are going to occur. and so -- so i think what the chairman is, is getting to with that, at least my read of this is that -- that, that -- you know each time that you revamp your strategy you are going to have to look at things. through the lens of kind of the context of today and what the threat offers in the future. >> general, just as a follow-up on that. just listening to it from -- from my perspective. i assume that's what we did --

whenever we would issue a risk assessment. so, when i hear the word new risk paradigm, it makes me wonder if our overall view of how we are going to meet risks or assess them has changed? has it or hasn't it? >> certainly our -- our methodology for conducting risk assessments has not changed. but the, the context has changed a bit in terms of, the -- the state of the world. what we are seeing today is different from two years ago. actions in the middle east. >> i appreciate your answer. i am ask you to assess what somebody else means. to make it more helpful. let me direct my question more specifically which i think will be relevant. so with the proposed $487 billion in reduction, obviously

we are talking first year here for 13 of the reductions over the 10. you have got -- proposed significant end strength reductions, combat unit eliminations, weapons systems, other cost cutting measures that we are talking about today. and, there is no question that these -- reductions are going to impact the ability of -- each service to respond to their the request of their combatant commanders. and what i think is important to understand is when you look at what the secretary said and i quoted in my opening statement. you can't take half a trillion out. the defense budget and not occur additional risk. he said there is no margin for error. what in your, each of your opinions, each of the services, is -- is the -- the most-- the risks that we are incurring to the extent that you can talk about them. and if you could -- what's the, what are the risks that we are

incurring here that keep each of you at night i we were to add money back in this budget, to meet where we have just cut it right to the edge, on no margin for error, you had that choice -- what -- not asking you to make the request of us, but if you could -- and -- and you think about what keeps you up at night, what would you tell us? mom, i will take a shot at it first. then i think i understand where you are trying to go. there are a few things i think as you mention we are taking cuts right in 13. in the air force budget it is almost 200 aircraft in, the first year. number of people. and that speaks to capacity. our overall capacity is -- is coming down. and -- in our -- in our new strategic guidance, the ability to swing capacity from one to the second, second conflict is a

key to how well we will support the joint force. and what keeps me up at night are two things -- that is the time to respond. if we are fully engaged in the first we will we have time to get to objectives we need in the first engagement in order to properly support the second engagement with our reduced capacity which is evident from the cut and number of people and aircraft. and then the second thing that worries me is, really, unchanged from last year. and hasn't changed much, in relation to this -- to this strategy, and it is the same thing i spoke to in the readiness hearings last year. that is, that we do have -- pretty intense pressure on what we call our low density high demand assets. the j-stars. the rivet joints. the isr fleet in its total. all of those things which were, which are sized for about one

conflict and not two. and -- as you know now some of those isr assets are deployed at, less than one to one. deployed ratio. ability to respond from one conflict to the next with those low density high demand things are what keeps me up at night. >> general? >> senator, i would loike to go back to the original question and talk about freight work for risk. there is really two kind of risk -- strategic risk, the chairman largely talks about. then ha eludes to institutional risk. the service's ability to create balance between maintaining high quality people, meeting combatant commander's requirements, and home station readiness, i spoke about earlier, proper modernization profile so years from now we'll have, we'll have capabilities we need and properly maintain our infrastructure, something that madam chairmention , mentioned.

we have done things differently. we project, eight to ten years will be a period of austerity. caused us to go back and look at all of our requirements and make sure we understand what we really have to have and what is nice to have. and to extend some of our equipment past normal service life. service life extension programs and those things. in ground tactical vehicles we plan to modernize 20% of the fleet to 2027, 2028. we decided to go back. look at the rest of the fleet. do some things that will extend the service life out for perhaps, five, seven years beyond what it might otherwise have been, in terms of being in service. so, managing institutional risk is frankly what keeps me awake at night. a piece of that, we call it five pillars. a piece of that is certainly meeti ining the commander's dem.

the demann demand exceeds our supply. and what keeps me awake at night. eight, 10, 12 years, maintaining balance on the institutional pillars of risk making sure we don't hollow out one pillar to fail to recognize the second and third effects that folks will have to deal with eight to ten years from now. and then, i would just the say the last thing that keeps me awake at night. all of us came in the military in the late 1970s. and a lieutenant commander in the post-vietnam days. i know what a hollow force is, i was a platoon commander in a hollow force. number up thing that keeps me awake is being part of anything that would cause the united states marine corps to look like it did in the 1970s scum paired to 2012. that's really what keeps me awake at night. >> senator, what i focus a lot of my attention on is balancing the present with the future. the capabilities, the navy and

marine corps will need going forward. as we face increasing competition and access, technologies and nations that develop technologies and capabilities trying to thwart our ability to operate from the sea. that future balance has to be maintained against the current readiness of the force as we operate. what you saw us in our budget do, we reduced force structure, took out older assets to make available those assets. we looked at investment accounts. and made critical investments in the capabilities we needed, preserving, research, development, new technologies. reduce proed curemed procuremen them, for affordability. the investments we made today were focused or ordinance, training for the fleet. depot maintenance, sustain current readiness. and the risk for us, the risk

really boils done to capabilities. can we pace, rising peer competitors? capacity -- do we have the forces available to flow the combat and commanders, with acceptable level of risk, and how it affects, response times and what our presence levels are around in the fleet. but we think that in this budget, we tried to achieve that balance. with acceptable level of risk. >> i will just add, senator, that -- these remain challenging times. we are faced with variety of ush use. foremost among the issueses say porting the effort in afghanistan. and while doing that, striking a balance in all of the other requirements that we're faced with. and so, i, i -- routinely work along with the chief, to, to make sure that we have a healthy balance between -- our efforts, and modernization in strength and readiness. and just keeping that balance

routinely is -- is really -- what we are focused on. but also -- i worry a lot about the health of our force. now having said that. i also said earlier, that, i, i believe that we have the most resilient force that, that -- that we could have ever imagined. and, 15 years ago if you told me we would remain, be in combat for a decade and be able to keep soldiers and family members with us i would not have believed that. but as you look back and see -- how we have been able to adapt across the military, but, specifically in the army, to meet the demands and keep our force with us, and take care of our troops, i think that's quite impress sive. i'm really concerned about our ability to continue to do that. and i will remain focused on that for the foreseeable future. because as you well know, people is what the army is all about.

and -- so -- our ability to do that and keep faith with our soldiers and families is something i remain concerned about. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator ayott. senator. >> thank you, madam chair. i have a couple broad questions. then -- general breedlove, i have as you can guess, the air force on my mind. i will come to you in a second. i will walk through. these are kind of, this is, first, yes/no. do you -- support the law of the sea? we can start here? >> i'll go first. i do. and navy leadership supports it. uniform side. it provides several positive benefits. one, a legal framework for interactions -- in -- in resolution of disputes at sea. and second it allows us to shape

the resolution of those disputts as member, party of the treaty. third we feel comfortable that intelligence operations and military operations will not be subject to the jurisdiction of any international court or evolution. we are comfortable in, and we support the treaty. >> an one elyone else look to r? the navy knows it all. i will hold there. in a nutshell, any comment in regards to -- i mean, maybe start with the navy also, in regard to the future of the arctic and military -- need or positioning? >> i think we are looking at the arctic very carefully. we have an ongoing effort in conjunction with our allies, canadians, norwegians and others in discussing it. there are three aspects. security aspect. safety aspect. and, certainly an environmental

aspect. that we are concerned about in the arctic. and i think we are -- the initial action for us is the area, becomes free of ice, during the summer months we start to see -- shipping and -- oil exploration and other activities up there, i think, that there will be a necessity for us to think about having a maritime awareness of what is occurring in the arctic. but i don't see at the present time or within several years, a requirement for military operations. >> very good. anyone else want to respond on that one before? >> we routinely operate up there with our submarines and have gained a lot. >> thank you very much. let me, general, let me go to you. you know where i am going. i want to talk to you about the air force base. as the you know, there is an effort to relocate that. we have had conversation. and my big concern is based on the volume of movement of

civilian force. these are my word. i see this as kind of a back door brac, without all the public process and the need. here is the real question. what i ask every one, every meeting i have. if you are the air force and wearing anything that indicates such you get these questions and i look for the answers. did the air force conduct a comprehensive analysis and assessment tole v lle validate cost savings. five years it is $169 million. when i say comprehensive, not just for the fiscal year '13. but for the spread. and then other services that may be affected? example a is joint training. and mobility center that the army uses to move people, the striker force. they use it. it is on air force base. air force base personnel participate in that effort.

when you reduce down the force. the army is going to have to pick up a tab on this. i don't want to pitch to you in the middle of this. i look from a dod perspective. not a service perspective of savings. so is there a comprehen sieve cost analysis. if the answer is, yes. is it gross? in the sense of what it saves? or is it net in what it saves? i believe not the latter. it is a gross number. please. >> senator, as you know. we have talked a little bit about this with your staff. i think the -- the, turn tough the discussion or question is what you would call how detailed is that analysis? we did a detailed analysis to make the decision. i assure you it was not to the level that you are discussing now. and that is why as you know we have a varied team up there, made a much more deep impact, made a much more deep study of

this. and, we will soon see that -- that next level of -- analysis, which you, which you asked for. as our chief has said, if after this next level of analysis, that -- that the savings don't pan out as we thought they would, then we will look at relook at the decision about the force. >> i appreciate that. i want to, hear is the feedback. so we have it on the record from many people who met with the team that was up there. they felt -- you probably saw some of the reports. they felt the team came up and already had a -- a program of dismandateling, what are the costs, savings, are they real, are they not? as you see the report. i would hop ye you ask the hard questions. it wasn't one or two. that mentioned it. community leaders. it was everybody. it was not about does it make

economic sense, really have the savings. end of the day this is an economic issue not strategic issue. it is how much are we saving? i recognize that. and the response we got was -- some what surprising. i would hop you, or, your folks would talk that hard look. of are these real savings? and then making sure it's not just through the eyes of the air force, but stepping one more step out. the dod savings. because they may be gross savings. you may have other expenses. army may have to pick up more costs. which okay if that is part of it that should be worked in. end of the day it is how much money we need to save for dod, each service has a requirement. i want to make sure we look at that perspective. and then there is construction budget as the you know. maybe, there may be needs, and i want to see how that fits in. and not just for the 13, for the longer span. i do appreciate some of your folks coming, and working with

us. greatly appreciated. >> senator, i will assure you. i will look at that report. i wrote down that you have a feeling that they arrived with a preconceived notion. >> yeah. >> so we will attack the report in that way. and ape clearly understand what you are talking about about real safg savings over the long run. the team should be focused on those. we will ask those questions. >> great. and again i recognize the need. as you know, last year, i offered some savings. we tried to save the army a lot of money on meads. got jacked back in, not by you guys. but now the house has the put t. we are frying to save a few hundred million. we are game to find savings and make sure they're sustainable safgd savings. i think you get the sense. analysis. build housing, all these other things. that is all a cost.

it has to be figured into this. i appreciate that. let me just end on one last question. that's on the red flag -- alaska operation. and as -- as whatever happens to allison, where does that end? at the end of the day? third wing? 354th, who owns it end of the day? i don't know if you can answer right now. if you could take that, and in this analysis that will be one of the questions on the red flag exercise and who will own thor exsize end of the day. we know, it is to continue that operation. very successful. so i just need to know kind of where it lands. >> i will get you an, a very definitive answer. but i can tell you that we see no change in that. as the you said, senator, the red flag lags las alaska is cri the training. as the new strategy talks about a shift to the pacific. clearly a pacific-focused area.

so we anticipate no changes now. but i owe you a definitive answer on that. >> fantastic. thank you all very much. thank you for your service. and for the alaska cans starting to come back from afghanistan, we had about 9,000 alaska-based operation, folks, in the, in the field. in afghanistan. they're starting to come back. thank you for the services. pleasure to see them in afghanistan the last time i was there for the last trip. thank you all very much. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, madam chairman. we have these hearings, we all hear about, the dedication, the fact that -- put our troops -- what our troops are doing over there in all the services. general austin, i am kind of look you, when to was i was in army, i never believed we could reach the stage where we are today with an all-volunteer army. it wasn't an all-volunteer army. i was a product of the draft. i still thing it is a good idea. but, i look at this. and i, and i see what -- to me

it's -- it is just a less of a concentration on defending america. we have a -- when senator ayott was talking about the new risk paradigm. i used to chair this committee. i was chairman of the readiness subcommittee. and i have been wrong -- i always thought that risk equals lives. doesn't it? you increase, if you are willing to increase your, your -- your risk, you are willing to accept more loss of lives, am i wrong? >> senator, i think you are right. it is in part lives, in part the accomplishment of the mission in loss of equipment. what you want to do you want a force with capability, capacities, allows you to accomplish the mission. minimum loss, life or equipment. that's what we need to have. >> i understand that. i love all you guys. and i agree that is a problem.

but we are changing right now. general breedlove, i am reading floum yo from your statement. as we reduce our force,ability missions, but will no longer have capacity, engaging in two wars and respondi ining to humanitarian crisis will not be possible. i appreciate, you had pretty strong statements in there. when you were talking about the age of, your aircraft. i know that. i know how old the kc-35, b-52s. and i know the american people really would expect more. they don't really know. they don't know how bad this is. let me mention one area that will make everyone uncomfortable. and that is -- i, i was very

close -- i served in the house with -- with panetta. and i know what he said didn't really come from his heart. no up is going to be able to say that. and he said last week that the defense department was wage war on global warming by promising to spend billions of taxpayers dollars on more green stuff and all that. right now we are frying trying survive this thing. democrats, republicans, all three of them talked about this half trillion dollars, about the sequesteration coming along. it is disarming of america. i happen to beep the ranking member and used to when we were majority. environment and public works committee, i know this obsession on all this global warming stuff. i also know that the trends have totally changed. just, just came out the other day, only 19% of the tv

meteorologists believe, number one global warming is taking place, and man made gasses are causing it. and yet, you know, i read right here, and i appreciate very much the admiral talking about -- yeah, every one dollar increase in the price per barrel of fuel is approximately $31 million of costs above the budgeted level. we are talking huge amounts of money here. and it's great. you know if the president, and he does, want to use the military as a test-tube for his green agenda here, can do it. but people need to know he does it. and you guys are in a awkward position of having to say things thame that fortify the committee. let me just ask you this. a direct quote from last week. in the 21st century reality its that there are environmental threats that constitute threats to our national security. all right, any one of the four

of you want to volunteer to ex-plan ex explain to me, what are environmental tlelhreats that a comparable to the terrorists out there? anybody. yeah, i don't either. anyway, let's -- i want to get into one thing here. on the f-35s. by moving this program to the right, the president is able to say, well, we are not reducing the number of f-35s. however, during the -- during the cuts, moves them over off to the right so that the -- the president's budget request cuts the f-35 budget by $1.6 billion in fiscal year '13. $15.1 billion. that's true. the fy '13 cuts result in 139 fewer planes during the period. later down the road they may be

produced. we're talking right now is when the problem is. i give a talk, guess on the senate floor, but i researched it pretty good. i said, it is, it matches the figures we are getting from you guys. in total, since 2008, the department of defense has spent at least $4 billion on climate change and energy efficiency activities that had nothing to do with the actual meeting of real defense needs. the same $4 billion could have been used to purchase 30 new f-35s, it could have been used to purchase 28 new, if we had kept on the, the f-22s before the budget four years ago the program was axed. or the c 135 aviation modernization program. i think we all agree, certainly, you agree, don't you, general breedlove, the significance of the program. yeah? >> yes, sir. >> i think everybody does. and so, let me ask you, do you

think that -- do you really believe that it -- more important to be experimenting with the green stuff than to go ahead with, with the program? aviation modernization program. that's axed. that's done in this budget. >> senator, i can't speak to the broader dod programs including that amount. on the navy side we are putting a significant amount of our investment in efficiency and making our forces more efficient. >> i'm all for efficiency. that's the point. getting down to how important this program is, which, which, i think is very significant. i have a lot of quotes here from all of you guys talking about how significant this program is. in the facts that that is knocked out in this budget. for the benefit of a green test-tube experiment that the military is being forced to do. let me say this. i know my time expired. i have to leave anyway. but i can remember back when --

who is going to be secretary of defense when -- yeah, back when rumsfeld was before our committee. and it was a confirmation hearing. i said to him, this is way back -- well, back when weep were majority. i guess, ten years ago. and i said, you know, the american people believe that we have the very best of everything. and we don't. and certainly, general, you would agree. our cannon, five countries make a better one than what we have. so, i said, if you are going to take over this position. i can say the same thing to panetta. i didn't during the confirmation hearing. you are going to be advised by a lot of smart generals. a lot of smart generals out there. all four of you are smart as you can be. and you are going to be wrong. i would recall the last year i was in the house on house armed services committee, with, i would say our current secretary who is seated next to me we, had