dr. gilmore. >> mr. chairman, senator read, members of the committee i'll briefly summarize my written statement. whether the projected quantum improvements in combat effectiveness and reductions in cost will be realized that are associated with the new systems being incorporated are not now known, the navy indicates the reliability of thek-0h electromagnetic aircraft launch system will support initial operational test and first deployment. most recent definitive data i have indicate the reliability is below the navy's goal by more than a factor of ten. the reliability of the dbr and redesign are unknown. we only have engineering estimates of reliability. prior to its redesign the reliability was a factor of 800 below its goal. data providing a first indication of the reliability of the redesigned aag will be available later this year as a result of ongoing testing. and in thecation of emals the navy notes the reliability is above the growth cove, however, as a consequence of poor test performance, it i

dr. gilmore or mr. francis who said, yes, there's a projected savings in personnel cost, but we haven't achieved it yet. we have to see whether that's accurate. there may be some challenges that would reduce that. but i do know that those bringing down the number of personnel is one of the main advances over the nimitz design part of this ford class. and we should all stay on it to make sure there's achieved. i strongly support the chair's acquisition reform strategy. what we did in this year's mda was important but i think, mr. chairman, i certainly see that as a down payment on what we will be doing going forward and think it is important that we do it. >> senator cain, can i make a -- >> please. >> first on the contract for the cvn-79, the current contract is fixed price. that covers about 45% of the construction costs. 55% has already been paid for under a cost-plus contract. so keep that in mind. and then i think you're exactly right on -- the first of class of any weapons system, we seem to have a

dr. gilmore or mr.rancis who said yes, there's a projected savings in personal cost but we haven't achieved it gets. we have to see whether that's accurate. there may be some challenges that would reduce that. but i do know those bring down the number of personnel is one of the main advances over the nimitz designed as part of this war class. august i think the committee should stay very much on y'all. we should all stay out of to make sure that actually achieved. i strong support that shares acquisition reform strategy. what we did in this years ndaa was important but i think i sort i see that as just a down payment on what we'll be doing going forward and i think it's important that we give it. >> can i make a couple comments? >> please. >> first on the contract for the cvn-79. the current contract is fixed price but the cubs about 45% of the construction cost. 55% has already been paid for under cost-plus contract. keep that in mind. and then i think you're exactly right. the first of class of any we

dr. gilmore mr.francis who said, yes, yes, there is a projected savings and personnel cost, but we have not achieved it yet. i do know that those bringing down the number of personnel is one of the main advances over the nimitz design. and obviously they committee should stay very much on you. make sure that it is actually achieved. i strongly support the chairs acquisition reform strategy, what we did in this year's was important, but i certainly see that as a down payment somewhat we will be doing going forward. >> senator, can i make a comment? >> first on the contract for the cvn 79. the current contract is fixed price which covers about 47 percent of the construction cost. 65 percent is already paid for. and then you are exactly right, the 1st of class of any weapon system we seem to have a lot of trouble with. later on we kind of get comfortable with the fact that we worked out the problems and everything looks good. if we are repeatedly having trouble with 1st article, what is it that we can d

dr. gilmore announce there would be a head-to-head test against the a-10 and f-35. i don't want to put words in your mouth. i think you were not supportive of that test? i think you said it wasn't a good use of taxpayers' money? i disagree with you there, general bogdan, i think it's a very good use of taxpayer money. if the f-35 is going to iplace the a-10 we need to identify whether we're going to have a decrease in the unique capabilities in the that mission set. that includes the loiter time, the lethality, 1174 bullets, the ability to take a direct hit, and all that the a-10 brings to the fight. so i just wanted to get your perspective on the record about that head-to-head test, how that came about. and also i'm skeptical about it, quite frankly, with all the things we've seen the air force try to do to go against the will of this congress and backdoor retiring the a-10. you can set up a test to have any sort of result you want. so is the test going to specifically address not high-end, high-sophisticated air defense circumstances, but where we have air superio

dr. gilmore announce there would be a head-to-head test against the a-10 and f-35. i don't want to put words in your mouth. i think you were not supportive of that test? i think you said it wasn't a good use of taxpayers' money? i disagree with you there, general bogdan, i think it's a very good use of taxpayer money. if the f-35 is going to iplace the a-10 we need to identify whether we're going to have a decrease in the unique capabilities in the that mission set. that includes the loiter time, the lethality, 1174 bullets, the ability to take a direct hit, and all that the a-10 brings to the fight. so i just wanted to get your perspective on the record about that head-to-head test, how that came about. and also i'm skeptical about it, quite frankly, with all the things we've seen the air force try to do to go against the will of this congress and backdoor retiring the a-10. you can set up a test to have any sort of result you want. so is the test going to specifically address not high-end, high-sophisticated air defense circumstances, but where we have air superio

dr. gilmore, you urged that trials be conducted on the 78 and those are not going to be done they're going to be postponed to the next ship in the class, 79. wrote to the navy basically accepting your advice and your opinion why is it so important that these be done on the 78 and not deferred in your view. >> first of all, as i mentioned in my testimony, deputy cretary decided to direct it be done before its deployment last month. he made that decision because history has shown clearly, the history has shown clearly that they are the only way to discover mission critical failures. there has been some claim that component level shock qualification testing, which had not been funded. now the navy says it will do it, and modeling simulation are sufficient. but if those were sufficient we should never see any mission critical failures when we do shock trials when conducted at less but we always do. i think back. it was captain hunt who sent the letter a -- committee a letter. indicating his experience with shock trials and how they provide it had key information that enabled his ship to surscr

dr. gilmore announced that there would be a head-to-head test against the a-10 and the f-35. i don't want to put words in your mouth. i think you were not supportive of that test. and i think you said it wasn't a good use of taxpayers' money. i disagree with you there, general bogdan. i think it's a very good use of taxpayers' money. if the 35 is going to replace the 10, we need to identify whether we'll have a decrease in the unique capabilities in that mission set, and that includes the loiter time, the lethality, 1174 bullets, the ability to take a direct hit, and all that the a-10 brings to the fight. i wanted to get your perspective on the record of that test, how that came about. and also i'm skeptical, quite frankly, with all the things we've seen the air force try to do against the will of this congress and backdoor retiring the a-10, you can set up a test to have any sort of result you want. so is the test going to specifically address not high-end, high sophisticated air defense circumstances but where we have air superiority and those unique capabilities of the loi

dr. gilmore agreed the f-35 would not be able to survive a direct hit, like the a-10 can and still allow the pilot to at least fly to friendly territory so they're not taken to p.o.w. and lit on fire in a cage like we saw happen to the jordanian pilot. these are capabilities. i was glad to see in august dr. philmore announced there would be head to head test. i don't want to put words in your mouth. i think you were not supportive of that test and said it wasn't a good use of taxpayers money, i disagree with you, general bogdan. i think it is a good use of t p tarps money. if it is going to replace the a-10. we need unique set of capabilities including the loiter time, leftalty, the bullets and ability to take a direct hit and all that the a-10 brings to the fight. i want your perspective on the head to head test, how it came about. i'm skeptical about it with all the things the air force has tried to do against this congress and back door retiring the a-10, you can set up to have any test you want, will it specifically address not high sophisticated air circumstances where we have air s

dr. gilmore agreed that the f 35 would not be able to survive a can.t hit, like the a-10 host: talk about that. are there more issues with the a-10, even more than that? guest: what she is saying about the f 35 is something i alluded to earlier. it will be able to do the mission, just not as well. for instance, she was talking a lot about time on station. what does that mean? a means how long the plane can fly in circles and help people on the ground without going to refuel. the f 35 burns fuel a lot faster than the a-10. there are more of a commercial type engine like a jetliner. it can loiter for a lot longer. the point about not being able to take a direct hit. the f 35 has not gone through a lot of these tests that she alluded to, about whether or not it could actually withstand it, but one thing is certain. it does not have the titanium that i referenced earlier to protect the pilot. there's a lot more protection for the pilot in the a-10. host: was ever discussion about an a-10 2.0? guest: the a-10 went through a lot of modernization to bring in the modern age. over the last 10 year

dr. gilmore agreed the f-35 would not be able to survive a direct hit, like the a-10 can and still allow the pilot to at least fly to friendly territory so they're not taken to p.o.w. and lit on fire in a cage like we saw happen to the jordanian pilot. these are capabilities. i was glad to see in august dr. philmore announced there would be head to head test. i don't want to put words in your mouth. i think you were not supportive of that test and said it wasn't a good use of taxpayers money, i disagree with you, general bogdan. i think it is a good use of tarps money. if it is going to replace the a-10. we need unique set of capabilities including the loiter time, lethality, the bullets and ability to take a direct hit and all that the a-10 brings to the fight. i want your perspective on the head to head test, how it came about. i'm skeptical about it with all the things the air force has tried to do against this congress and back door retiring the a-10, you can set up to have any test you want, will it specifically address not high sophisticated air circumstances where we have air supe

dr. gilmore agreed that the f 35 would not be able to survive a can.t hit, like the a-10 host: talk about are there more issues with the a-10, even more than that? guest: what she is saying about the f 35 is something i alluded to earlier. it will be able to do the mission, just not as well. for instance, she was talking a lot about time on station. what does that mean? a means how long the plane can fly in circles and help people on the ground without going to refuel. the f 35 burns fuel a lot faster than the a-10. there are more of a commercial type engine like a jetliner. it can loiter for a lot longer. the point about not being able to take a direct hit. the f 35 has not gone through a lot of these tests that she alluded to, about whether or not it could actually withstand it, but one thing is certain. it does not have the titanium that i referenced earlier to protect the pilot. there's a lot more protection for the pilot in the a-10. host: was ever discussion about an a-10 2.0? guest: the a-10 went through a lot of modernization to bring in the modern age. over the last 10 years, to