[Senate Hearing 112-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 11:17 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Inouye, Cochran, Murkowski, and Coats.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. RAY MABUS, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL K. INOUYE
Chairman Inouye. The subcommittee meets this morning to
receive testimony on the fiscal year 2012 budget request for
the Navy and Marine Corps.
And I'm pleased to welcome the Secretary of the Navy, Mr.
Ray Mabus, and the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary
Roughead, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James
Amos. I look forward to your testimony. I'd like to thank all
of you for your prepared testimony. And, without objection, the
full statement will be made part of the record.
For fiscal year 2012, the President's budget requests $161
billion in base funding for the Department of the Navy. This is
an increase of just one-half of 1 percent over last year's
request. In addition, the budget seeks to reduce overseas
contingency operation funding from $18.5 billion to $15
billion, reflecting the changing missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
The very low growth of the Navy and Marine Corps budget is
partly attributable to the Secretary of Defense's efficiency
program. The request includes many commendable proposals, such
as cutting energy costs by making our ships, aircraft, and
facilities more efficient and increasing the use of alternative
energy sources.
But, the subcommittee may have questions about other
programs that are claimed as cost savings. For example, the
Marine Corps' expeditionary fighting vehicle (EFV) has been
terminated, and three new programs are being established to
fill the void. While we know how much money will be saved by
canceling the EFV, it is hard to estimate how much money we
will spend on the three follow-on programs.
In an age of tightening budgets, Congress needs to have a
clear understanding of what budgetary proposals will produce
real savings that can be better invested for our
servicemembers, as opposed to delaying tough spending decisions
for another day.
While the subcommittee will have many questions about the
proposed budget over the coming months, there is no doubt about
the importance of the Navy and the Marine Corps in the world
today. Even while supporting combat missions overseas, marines
and sailors are now performing life-saving humanitarian relief
efforts in Japan after the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami.
They are delivering supplies, searching for survivors, and
rendering aid to the victims of this disaster. The people of
the United States and Japan are grateful for the life-saving
efforts of these men and women, and our thoughts are with all
of the victims of this terrible catastrophe.
In these challenging fiscal times, it is all the more
important that each dollar that Congress provides to the Navy
and Marine Corps is put to its fullest use. I'm mindful that
many of the budget proposals that were delivered to Congress in
February were based on deliberations that occurred last summer
and last fall. No matter how well planned the budget may be, it
cannot predict the future. It is the job of this subcommittee
and Congress to make adjustments to the defense budget, to
redirect unneeded spending to higher priorities, based on new
information and new developments.
This hearing is just the beginning of the process of
learning how the budget request will support our national
priorities. So, I look forward to working with our
distinguished panel throughout the year so that our fiscal year
2012 appropriations bill will best reflect the needs of our
Armed Forces.
And I'd like to now call upon Senator Cochran, the vice
chairman, for his statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I'm pleased to join you in welcoming our distinguished
panel of witnesses this morning. Secretary Mabus, our former
distinguished Governor of Mississippi, is doing a fine job, in
my opinion, as Secretary of the Navy. He's reflecting credit on
our State and our Nation and the United States Navy. And
Admiral Roughead has become almost like a citizen of
Mississippi. It seems like we turn around and he's down there
at a commissioning or a christening, helping to ensure that our
shipbuilding maintains a pace that will help defend our
national interests in the waters of the world. And he has had a
distinguished career in the Navy, and we're pleased to call him
a friend.
General Amos, we appreciate very much your being a part of
this panel and your leadership for the Marine Corps. We're glad
to have you here.
Mr. Secretary, I know that we've had an opportunity to
visit and stay in close touch on issues here. There will be
questions that'll arise during the hearing, but I think I'll
reserve my further comments or questions until later in the
hearing.
Welcome.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
May I now call upon the Secretary.
Secretary Mabus.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. RAY MABUS
Mr. Mabus. Mr. Chairman, vice chairman, members of the
subcommittee, I have the honor of appearing here today,
representing the sailors, marines, and civilians that make up
the Department of the Navy.
Please let me to first express my deepest sympathies to
those affected by the terrible events in Japan. Our thoughts
and our prayers go out to the families of the thousands of
people who have lost their lives in the earthquake and the
subsequent tsunami.
The Navy and Marine Corps are absolutely committed to
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations. Ships
from the 7th Fleet, including carrier USS Ronald Reagan and its
strike group, the USS Essex amphibious group, with the 31st
Marine Expeditionary Unit, embarked, and the command ship USS
Blue Ridge, as well as helicopters and marines from the 3rd
Marine Expeditionary Force in Okinawa, are already on station
or moving to provide assistance. And they will stay in place as
long as they are needed.
Ongoing operations in Japan underscore the fact that,
across the world, Navy and Marine Corps are conducting missions
over the full range of military operations. They remain the
most formidable expeditionary force the world has ever known.
And, thanks to your support, they will continue to meet the
multiplicity of missions entrusted to them by our Nation.
Today, I want to spend just a minute talking about an
immediate crisis that we face: the absence of a Defense
appropriations bill and the increasingly serious problems of
operation under a continuing resolution. The pressure of the
continuing resolution has already significantly impacted
procurement and reduced the resources available to maintain
readiness. If the continuing resolution continues for the
entire year, we will be forced to reduce aircraft flight hours
and ship-steaming days, cancel up to 29 of 85 ship
availabilities, defer maintenance on as many as 70 aircraft and
290 aircraft engines, and defer up to 140 maintenance and
construction projects across the country. In addition, we will
be prevented from constructing one Virginia-class submarine,
two Arleigh-Burke destroyers, and one mobile landing platform.
It will prevent procurement of two nuclear reactor cores and
delay increased funding for the Ohio-class submarine
replacement. It will reduce Marine Corps procurement by up to
one-third, after the Marine Corps rebalances its manpower
counts. And it will create nearly a $600 million shortfall in
combined Navy and Marine Corps manpower accounts. These
measures not only place additional stress on the force and our
families, they will weaken the industrial base and affect over
10,000 private-sector jobs.
The disruption to our fleet and shore maintenance and
modernization schedules may take years to recover from and will
come at a much greater cost. We strongly request congressional
action to address the implications of this continuing
resolution. It's particularly important, considering that the
submission of the 2012 budget was keyed off the 2011 numbers.
As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the budget request for
the Department of the Navy is a one-half of 1 percent increase
over the fiscal year 2011 request. It includes funds for 10
ships and 223 aircraft. It maintains our commitment to take
care of our people, build a strong R&D and industrial base, and
to grow the fleet.
The OCO request, which, as you pointed out, again,
represents a drop of $3.5 billion, includes funds to sustain
operations, manpower, and infrastructure, as well as procure
equipment to support operations in Afghanistan.
During this budget development, and today, we are keenly
aware of the fiscal position of the country and the necessity
to be, in your words, responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.
This request, we believe, is a strategy-driven document that is
informed by fiscal realities. It balances competing
requirements and does what is best for the country, the Navy
and Marine Corps, and our sailors and marines.
We started this cycle by examining every aspect of
everything we do. Consequently, $42 billion in Department of
the Navy efficiencies were identified over the 5-year period.
As a result of these efficiencies, we've been able to add one
aegis destroyer, three TAO(X) oilers, and one T-AGOS ocean
surveillance ship to our shipbuilding program. With a dual-
block littoral combat ship (LCS) strategy, this increases the
total number of ships in the FYDP from 50 to 56, including one
joint high-speed vessel to be built for the Army. The savings
also allow us to buy additional F-18s, extend the service life
of up to 150 aircraft, as a hedge against any delay in the
deployment of the F-35 Bravo, and allow us to continue
investing in unmanned systems.
The upcoming year will see deployment of the unmanned Fire
Scout system to Afghanistan, and continuing testing of the
UCLASS D, the forerunner of an integrated carrier-based system.
In 2010, one of the most important efforts was a decision,
endorsed by Congress, to pursue the new littoral combat ship
through a dual-block-buy procurement strategy. At an average
cost of less than $440 million per ship, and with the cost
reductions we have seen on LCS-3 and -4, the new strategy will
save taxpayers $2.9 billion. This is a plan that's good for the
Navy, good for the taxpayers, and good for the country, and
shows what can be accomplished when sound acquisition
principles are enforced.
We heard the message from Congress very clearly: We need
more ships, but they have to be affordable. The LCS strategy
supports the industrial base by keeping workers employed at two
shipyards, and is indicative of the Department's push to ensure
acquisition excellence. We believe that the fixed-price
contracts used for LCS are a model.
Significant additional savings were also achieved through
the termination, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, of the
expeditionary fighting vehicle for the Marine Corps. I believe
it's very important to emphasize that this decision in no way
changes our Nation's commitment to amphibious warfare. We have
to maintain an amphibious assault capability that will put
marines ashore, ready for the fight. But, the EFV is simply not
the vehicle to do this. Its cost per unit would have consumed
one-half the Corp's total procurement and 90 percent of its
vehicle-related operation and maintenance account in the years
2018 to 2025.
In aviation programs, we're closely monitoring the Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF), particularly the Marine Corps variant,
the B. After a 2-year period of very focused scrutiny, we'll
make an informed recommendation about resolving the technical
and the cost issues.
Ashore, we continue to confront rising healthcare costs
caused by an increasing number of beneficiaries, expanded
benefits, and increased utilization. To deal with these trends,
we must implement systematic efficiencies in specific
initiatives that improve the quality of care and customer
satisfaction, but, at the same time, much more responsibly
manage costs. We concur with the recommendations made by the
Secretary of Defense to ensure fiscal solvency and benefit
equity for our retirees.
Finally, as the chairman pointed out, we are continuing
efforts to invest in and develop alternative energy. The latest
headlines from around the world reinforce this basic point.
Energy is, first and foremost, an issue of national security.
We cannot allow volatile regions of the world to control the
price and affect the supply of fuel we use.
In the last year, the Navy and Marine Corps took huge steps
forward, flying an F-18 Hornet on biofuel, conducting a large-
scale expansion of solar power, and beginning extensive
expeditionary energy initiatives in Afghanistan. What we're
doing in Afghanistan is already saving lives as we reduce our
reliance on fossil fuels.
In closing, I want to thank you again for your support.
Thank you for always looking out for our sailors, marines, and
their families, and for your support of efforts to make the
Navy and Marine Corps better, stronger, and better able to
defend our Nation.
PREPARED STATEMENT
It's a solemn privilege to lead the naval services during
an era of protracted war and national challenge. I have been
profoundly moved by the sacrifice and devotion I have witnessed
in the sailors and the marines who defend us. The Navy and
Marine Corps are, and will remain, ready to do any mission
America gives.
Thank you.
Chairman Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Ray Mabus
Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran, I have the honor of
appearing here today on behalf of the nearly 900,000 Sailors, Marines,
and civilians that make up the Department of the Navy. I have appeared
before this Committee on a number of occasions, and I am happy to be
here again, along with the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant
of the Marine Corps, to report on the readiness, posture, progress, and
budgetary requests of the Department. We consider ourselves privileged
to lead the dedicated men and women of the Department who are
selflessly serving the United States all around the world.
Today, your Navy and Marine Corps are conducting missions across
the full range of military operations. They are engaged in combat in
Afghanistan, stability operations in Iraq, deterrence and ballistic
missile defense in the Pacific, Arabian Gulf, and the Mediterranean, as
well as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations across
the globe. Our unmatched global reach, endurance, and presence continue
to allow the Navy and Marine Corps--in partnership with our sister
services--to secure and advance America's interests wherever challenges
or crises have arisen, as well as operate forward to prevent crises
from occurring. We remain the most formidable expeditionary fighting
force the world has ever known, and with your continued support, the
Navy and Marine Corps will continue to meet the multiplicity of threats
that endanger international peace and security.
But today we are very concerned about the absence of a Defense
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2011 and the negative effects of
operating under a continuing resolution for the remainder of the year.
We are equally concerned about passage of a bill that reduces the
topline from the level requested in the fiscal year 2011 President's
budget. Either course of action significantly impacts the resources
available to grow the fleet and jeopardizes recent efforts to restore
and maintain readiness levels commensurate with the standards expected
of the Navy and Marine Corps.
Without legislative action, limiting fiscal year 2011 procurement
accounts to fiscal year 2010 levels will:
--Prevent start of construction of one Virginia-class submarine to be
built in Groton and Newport News which will break the existing
Multi-year Contract.
--Prevent start of construction of one Mobile Landing Platform to be
built in San Diego.
--Prevent start of construction of one or possibly both programmed
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to be built in Bath and
Pascagoula due to DDG 1000/DDG 51 swap language that prevents
award of either ship unless both are authorized and
appropriated.
--Preclude fourth and final increment of full funding for
construction of CVN 78 (U.S.S. Gerald Ford) and advance
procurement for CVN 79.
--Prevent procurement of two nuclear reactor cores for refueling of
one aircraft carrier and one ballistic missile submarine, as
well as delay increased funding for research and development of
the Ohio-class replacement and replacement of two Moored
Training Ships that provide half of the force's nuclear
training capability.
--Prevent completion of one Arleigh Burke-class modernization.
--Reduce Marine Corps procurement by $563 million. This would add to
equipment shortfalls generated by 9 years of conflict and
prevent equipment replacement or purchase of 4 H-1 helicopters,
numerous LAVs, MTVRs, LVSRs; tech upgrades to counter IED
jammers; communication and intelligence equipment; tactical
fuel systems to power our vehicles and generators; engineering
equipment to move ammo, gear and supplies; air conditioners and
heaters to take care of Marines and sensitive gear; and EOD
improvements to protect them.
Reductions to expected procurement levels will create additional
stress on the force, as units in service pick up additional commitments
to cover the seams created by fewer available platforms.
Likewise, fixing fiscal year 2011 operations to fiscal year 2010
levels has created a $4.6 billion shortfall in Navy and Marine Corps
operations, maintenance, and training accounts. Faced with this
prospect, the Department began efforts in January to mitigate the
impacts of operating under the continuing resolution, which over the
course of the fiscal year will cause us to:
--Reduce aircraft flight hours and ship steaming days, including a
reduction of four non-deployed air wings' flight hours to
minimal flight-safety levels.
--Cancel up to 29 of 85 Surface Ship availabilities.
--Defer maintenance on 70 aircraft and 290 aircraft engines, bringing
the combined backlog of aviation maintenance close to 1-year
redlines.
--Defer 41 facilities maintenance projects and 89 new construction
projects in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,
Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Virginia, and Guam. These cuts equal an approximate
50 percent reduction and will eliminate, among many projects,
dry dock certifications, bachelor quarters maintenance
projects, repairs to Explosive Handling Wharves (EHW) at Bangor
and Kings Bay that support ballistic missile operations, and
modernization projects to support introduction of new training
aircraft.
The combined effects of the continuing resolution will directly
impact the strength of the industrial base and over 10,000 private
sector jobs at shipyards, factories, and Navy and Marine Corps
facilities across the country. The degradation or loss of perishable
skill-sets within our workforce, including many nuclear workers, and
the disruption to both our fleet and shore maintenance and
modernization schedules will take 3 years to recover based on
rotational schedules alone--and only at significantly greater cost than
requested in the fiscal year 2011 President's budget.
Finally, there is almost a $600 million shortfall in Navy and
Marine Corps manpower accounts. As a result of this shortfall, the
Services must raid other accounts in order to meet payroll for the
duration of the year. We are currently living within funding
constraints by limiting or conducting short-notice permanent change of
station moves; however, this tactic places significant hardship on our
military families and is not sustainable over the entire fiscal year.
We strongly request congressional action to address the
implications of the continuing resolution on our forces and our people
by taking action to enact the fiscal year 2011 President's budget.
DEPARTMENTAL PRIORITIES
As I testified last year, there are four imperatives I believe the
Department of the Navy must address to maintain preeminence as a
fighting force and successfully meet the challenges of the future. They
are: Taking care of our Sailors, Marines, civilians, and their
families; treating energy as a strategic national security issue;
creating acquisition excellence; and continuing development and
deployment of unmanned systems.
These priorities underpin every action of the Department, from
supporting current operations to developing the current year's budget
request, finding efficiencies within the Department, and preparing our
Navy and Marine Corps for the future.
Fundamentally, it comes down to a question of resources, of
ensuring that our people have what they need to do their jobs, ensuring
the Nation that the Navy and Marine Corps uses our fiscal and energy
resources wisely, and ensuring that seapower, as a resource, remains
readily available to meet the Nation's policy requirements and the
orders of the Commander in Chief.
SEAPOWER: A CRITICAL STRATEGIC ENABLER
It is clear that we live in a time of sweeping change and an era of
strategic realignment. The President has stated that we ``must pursue a
strategy of national renewal and global leadership--a strategy that
rebuilds the foundation of American strength and influence.'' Seapower
has always been a part of that foundation and will continue to be an
indispensible asset to American leadership and economic strength in the
global community of nations. American seapower, as it has done for
generations, continues to guarantee freedom of navigation and
international maritime trade, underpinning global economic stability
and facilitating continued global economic growth. No other component
of American military power is as flexible or adaptable as seapower. I
see one of my primary responsibilities as Secretary to be ensuring
continuation of this responsiveness, flexibility, and adaptability
through the policies we adopt and in the ships, aircraft, and weapons
systems that we build.
Maritime nations have many inherent strategic advantages. Naval
forces operating in the open ocean provide an effective conventional
deterrent to those who threaten regional stability or promote
extremism. Strong expeditionary forces can swiftly respond to crises
and make potential adversaries pause before committing hostile actions.
But should deterrence fail, our combat ready naval forces must be
prepared to conduct sustained combat operations.
The Navy and Marine Corps are America's ``Away Team.'' They exist
primarily to protect our Nation far from home and respond quickly to
crises wherever and whenever they occur. Exploiting their inherent
mobility and maneuverability at sea, naval forces gather information,
perform surveillance of seaborne and airborne threats, defend regional
partners, deter prospective adversaries, interdict weapons of mass
destruction, disrupt terrorist networks, conduct humanitarian
assistance and disaster relief, and support the work of American
diplomacy. This variety of capabilities is a primary feature of
seapower, and it provides the President and our Nation with unmatched
flexibility to deter conflict and, if necessary, project power from the
sea to defend U.S. national security interests. The ability to
accomplish these tasks without placing a large presence ashore and
absent concerns of sovereignty is absolutely critical in our world of
increasingly sophisticated threats and growing geopolitical complexity.
It is for these reasons, and in order to improve global force
projection capabilities that the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force are
working on an Air Sea Battle (ASB) concept to improve joint
capabilities and cooperation in addressing anti-access/area-denial
challenges.
Unique in history, the blanket of maritime security and stability
provided by American maritime power is the first to be used for the
good of the whole world. But in order to ensure continued American
leadership in issues of maritime policy and security, we strongly
recommend accession of the United States to the Convention on the Law
of the Sea, an action that has been similarly and repeatedly
recommended by multiple Secretaries of the Navy and Chiefs of Naval
Operation. Accession by the United States would enhance stability of
the navigational rights inherent to the Convention and would strengthen
our bargaining position in international discussions of Arctic Policy
and access to resources and sea lines of communication.
CURRENT OPERATIONS
Over the past year, our forces have successfully navigated the
world's growing complexity and have consistently demonstrated the
utility, effectiveness, and flexibility of seapower and maritime
forces.
Following completion of the Marines Corps' mission in Iraq, the
primary operational focus of the Department has been supporting the war
effort in Afghanistan. Over 30,000 Marines and Sailors are committed to
the fight there, working all across the country, with the largest
concentration operating as Regional Command Southwest (RC-SW) along the
Helmand River Valley.
In my visits to the Marines on the ground throughout the year, I
had the opportunity to look firsthand at the progress made by our
increased presence in Helmand. In December, I visited three Forward
Operating Bases (FOBs) with increasing levels of stability in three
separate districts of Helmand: Sangin, Marjah, and Nawa--or as the
Marines put it, I went to look at where the fight is, where the fight
was, and where there is no fight.
In Nawa, I saw a strong partnership between the local government,
Afghan National Police, the Afghan National Army, and our Marines--who
have built the capacity of their partners so that they may shortly
assume responsibility for their own security. The district is very
safe, and because of the success of the counter-insurgency effort, Nawa
is growing in both political strength and economic activity.
In Marjah, after successful operations to clear it last spring, the
markets are open, schools are being built, and a local government is
working to build capacity. In my visit just 3 months ago, I personally
walked the streets of Marjah to witness the progress, something that
even in the summer of 2010 would have been unthinkable. Then, just
stepping outside the gates of our forward operating base would have
generated a pitched battle. Now, it brought out street vendors and men
on motorbikes.
I also went to Sangin District near the Kajaki Dam in Northern
Helmand, which has been a Taliban stronghold for years and for the past
few months has been the main effort of the fight in Helmand. Our
Marines in Sangin have been conducting intensive combat and security
missions in support of the counterinsurgency strategy, and
concurrently--even in the midst of the fight, have been testing new
solar energy equipment to expand their operational reach. Together with
their partners from the Afghan National Security Forces, they have
taken the fight to the Taliban and are facilitating the Afghan
Government's reestablishment of local control.
Elsewhere across Central Command, the Navy has over 14,000 Sailors
on the ground supporting joint and coalition efforts and another 10,000
Sailors at sea supporting combat operations, including from our
carriers operating in the Indian Ocean, where we are launching
approximately 30 percent of the strike or close air support missions
that watch over our Marines and Soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan.
In addition to combat operations, the Navy and Marine Corps remain
globally engaged in a host of other security and stability operations.
On any given day, more than 72,000 Sailors and Marines are deployed and
almost half of our 286 ships are underway, ready to respond where
needed.
It was the Navy and Marine Corps that were the first on scene after
both the devastating earthquake in Haiti and the summer's catastrophic
floods in Pakistan. Within hours of the January 12th earthquake, both
Navy and Marine Corps assets were en route to Haiti. A total of over
10,000 Sailors and Marines and 23 ships, including the carrier U.S.S.
Carl Vinson, the Bataan and Nassau Amphibious Ready Groups, and the
hospital ship U.S.N.S. Comfort ultimately participated in Operation
Unified Response.
Halfway around the world, after Pakistan was struck by devastating
August floods that impacted nearly a fifth of its population,
helicopters from the U.S.S. Peleliu and the 15th Marine Expeditionary
Unit supported the Government of Pakistan through delivery of 2,000
tons of relief supplies and by contributing to the rescue of over
10,000 people. Later, the ships of the Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group
deployed early to provide a continuous U.S. humanitarian presence.
In response to the administration's strategic direction, the Navy
is scaling up our ballistic missile defense (BMD) force and their
deployments to enhance our deterrent posture, especially in the defense
of Europe. Our multi-mission, BMD-capable, Aegis cruisers and
destroyers now routinely deploy to the Mediterranean and the Arabian
Gulf, as well as the Western Pacific to extend our deterrent umbrella
for our allies. I had the opportunity a few months ago to visit the
destroyer U.S.S. Ramage after she completed her first BMD deployment,
and I can assure you that the Sailors on these ships are some of the
most professional and dedicated men and women in the country, and they
are incredibly excited about their work. We appreciate Congress'
continued support of the destroyer and cruiser modernization programs
that are bringing additional BMD capability to the fleet.
Our growing BMD capability is complemented by our traditional sea-
based, strategic nuclear deterrent centered upon our globally deployed
and proficient ballistic missile submarine force.
In the Western Pacific, as an integral part of U.S. diplomatic
actions, several times last year the U.S.S. George Washington sortied
to the South China Sea and the Sea of Japan in response to territorial
disputes with North Korea and open North Korean provocation. In late
November, after the North Korean artillery attacks on Yeonpyeong Island
west of Inchon, the George Washington strike group conducted a training
exercise with the South Korean Navy in order to demonstrate the
continuing value and strength of our alliance.
We are also working to build regional capacity and resolve security
issues of common international concern.
In support of our Maritime Strategy, both the Navy and Marine Corps
routinely engage with nations all around the world to build capacity
and forge stronger maritime partnerships. In the ``Rim of the Pacific''
or RIMPAC exercise, 32 ships, five submarines, and more than 170
aircraft from 14 nations participated in the world's largest
multinational maritime exercise encompassing every aspect of
traditional naval warfare.
Global Partnership Stations in Africa, South America, and the
Pacific are training hundreds of Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen
from dozens of nations and are bringing advanced medical and civil
engineering assistance to those in need. The Africa Partnership Station
alone has trained with 32 African and European partners since 2007. And
between them, Pacific Partnership 2010--conducted by the U.S.N.S.
Mercy--and Continuing Promise 2010--conducted by the U.S.S. Iwo Jima--
treated over 100,000 patients and conducted over 20 civil engineering
projects.
In the Caribbean and South America, we continue to work with the
Coast Guard-led Joint Interagency Task Force--South to synchronize
forces from 13 nations and interdict the flow of illegal narcotics into
the United States. In 2010 naval forces contributed to the seizure of
over 133.2 tons of cocaine, 3.2 tons of marijuana, 92 boats and
aircraft, and $2.7 billion in drug revenue.
In the Gulf of Aden and western Indian Ocean, the Navy remains
committed to counter-piracy efforts with approximately 16 partner
nations. Combined Task Force 151, in cooperation with forces from the
EU, NATO, and other nations deploying individual units or task groups,
is operating off of Yemen and in the Somali Basin to protect the safe
passage of maritime commerce. Where our forces are located, pirate
activity has fallen, but the areas involved are huge, and as Secretary
of State Clinton said in April 2009, the solution to Somalia piracy
lies largely with Somalia, through building its capacity to police
itself and offering young pirates viable alternatives to that way of
life. We are treating the symptoms of piracy, rather than its
fundamental cause: Somalia's failure as a state. Despite the
international community's commitment, piracy has both continued to
increase and move further offshore, a measure of pirate resiliency and
the strong economic incentives that underpin it. Nine of ten pirates
captured are ultimately freed as there is often insufficient evidence
or political will to prosecute them, or to incarcerate them after
conviction. We strongly endorse additional international efforts to
address these concerns.
FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET SUBMISSION
Over the past year, I have visited with thousands of Sailors and
Marines stationed with our forward operating forces at sea and our
combat forces in Afghanistan. I can report, based on both the direct
observations I mentioned and from personal inputs from Joint and
Combined commanders, that the quality of our Sailors and Marines is
superb and we are continuing to protect America's interests abroad. But
while we are prevailing today, we must also build the foundation for
the Navy and Marine Corps of tomorrow.
During the development of the President's fiscal year 2012 budget
submission our Navy and Marine Corps leadership team made numerous
difficult tradeoffs to preserve current readiness while better
posturing the Navy and Marine Corps for the challenges of the future. I
believe that the result provides a balanced approach that will enable
the Services we lead to successfully perform our assigned missions,
even while setting a course for future success. It is important,
however, to reiterate that the fiscal year 2012 budget was developed
based upon ultimate passage of the President's fiscal year 2011 budget.
If the continuing resolution now in place remains the de facto budget
for the year, or if a Defense appropriations bill is passed that
reduces the amounts requested in the fiscal year 2011 President's
budget, the proposed fiscal year 2012 budget will not be sufficient to
recover from delays, cancellations, and mitigations we have been forced
to put in place this year.
Over the past year, we have examined every aspect of what we do and
how we do it in order to eliminate waste and move every resource
possible toward operations and successfully executing our missions now,
and in the future. At the direction of the Secretary of Defense, in
June 2010, the Services were formally asked to continue this process
through an efficiencies review, which we developed through three
complementary approaches; buying smarter, streamlining our organization
and operations, and being more efficient in the way we use, produce,
and acquire energy. This effort has had a substantial impact on our
overall budget, allowing us to invest more in our core warfighting
missions and enhance our acquisition plans. Savings were also derived
from OSD-mandated, Defense-wide efficiencies.
Since the review began, the Department of the Navy has identified
approximately $35 billion in self-generated efficiencies over the next
5 years. When DOD-wide efficiencies are factored in we will achieve $42
billion in savings. These savings will facilitate adding one guided-
missile Aegis destroyer, three T-AO(X) fleet oilers, and one T-AGOS
ocean surveillance ship to our shipbuilding plan, which with our dual-
block LCS strategy will increase the total number of ships in the FYDP
from 50 to 56, including one JHSV to be built for the Army, an average
of more than 11 ships per year. We were also able to accelerate a
Mobile Landing Platform from fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2012 and
increase R&D funding to support the accelerated procurement of the T-
AO(X), and the development of the next amphibious dock-landing ship
(LSD(X)).
The savings allowed additional investments in the Next Generation
Jammer to provide greater protection for tactical aircraft, electronic
warfare systems, ballistic missile sets, and the new air and missile
defense radar that will equip our DDG-51 Flight III destroyers. The
savings allowed increased funding for a new generation of sea-borne
unmanned strike and surveillance aircraft; and gave us the ability to
buy additional F/A-18s and extend the service life of 150 aircraft as a
hedge against more delays in the deployment of the F-35B, the Short
Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the Joint Strike
Fighter.
We addressed Marine Corps needs by increasing equipment funding for
units in dwell and for repair and refurbishment of Marine equipment
used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Based on heavy usage rates, we requested
$2.5 billion for Marine reset in the fiscal year 2012 OCO request, and
estimate a $5 billion reset liability upon termination of the conflict
in Afghanistan. We also added funding for fire and maneuver platforms,
command and control capabilities, and intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance.
We found the $35 billion through a close and systematic review of
our programs and by cutting excess capacity in our support
establishment. Over the FYDP, with congressional support we will reduce
Navy manpower ashore and reassign over 6,000 personnel to operational
missions at sea; use multi-year procurement and production efficiencies
to save more than $1.1 billion on the purchase of new airborne
surveillance, jamming, and fighter aircraft; and disestablish both
Second Fleet and excess staffs for submarine, patrol aircraft, and
destroyer squadrons plus one carrier strike group staff.
Programmatically, one of the most important efficiency efforts was
the decision endorsed by Congress to pursue the new Littoral Combat
Ship (LCS) through a dual-block buy procurement strategy. Over the past
years the message from Congress has been clear, we must build more
battle force ships as affordably as we can, consistent with the
statutory requirements laid out in the Weapons System Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009. We heard that message clearly, and are grateful to
the administration for its support and to the many Members of Congress
who worked with the Navy to make the LCS program an example of what can
be done right when strict acquisition standards are laid out and
enforced.
With an average cost of $440 million per ship, and with the cost
reductions we have seen demonstrated on LCS 3 and 4, the Navy will save
taxpayers approximately $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2012-16. More
importantly, the fact that prices were so dramatically reduced from the
initial bids in 2009 will allow us to save an additional $1 billion--
for a total of $2.9 billion--through the dual award of a 10-ship
contract to each bidder. This plan is truly one that is good for the
Navy, good for taxpayers, and good for the country.
At the recommendation of both the Commandant and myself,
significant additional savings were also achieved by the Department of
Defense through termination of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)
program. The Nation absolutely must retain and rebuild an amphibious
assault capability that will get Marines from ship to shore in a
protected amphibious tracked vehicle ready for the fight. This is a
core capability the Marine Corps must have. But the EFV is not the
vehicle to do this. Conceived in the 1980s, the EFV was the previous
generation's solution to a tactical problem that has since
fundamentally changed. Just as importantly, the EFV's cost per unit
would have eaten up over half of the Corps' total procurement account
and 90 percent of the Corps' vehicle-related operation and maintenance
account; the requirements levied on the vehicle outstripped what could
affordably be achieved.
We are committed to developing and fielding an effective,
survivable and affordable amphibious capability that will meet the
Corps' amphibious requirements. This will be done through upgrading
existing vehicles, through service-life extensions, and by working with
OSD and industry to go as fast as possible in the acquisition and
contracting process to develop a successor program to the EFV, one that
will meet today's requirements for this critical Marine Corps
capability.
We are also closely overseeing the Joint Strike Fighter program. In
particular, we are providing additional focused attention on the Marine
Corps variant, the F-35B, which the Secretary of Defense has placed on
a 2-year probation. During this time, solutions to the unique F-35B
technical issues will be engineered and assessed while production will
be held to a minimum sustaining production rate of six aircraft per
year in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013. This low-production rate
is required to ensure continuity in the engineering workforce involved
in the design and assembly of the F-35B at the prime contractor and key
vendors without a loss in learning and to sustain the supplier base of
F-35B unique parts. After this 2-year period of focused F-35B scrutiny,
an informed decision will be made about how to proceed with development
and production of this variant, to include the potential for program
cancellation.
I want to point out that it is only the F-35B (STOVL) variant that
is on probation. The F-35C variant, which will be flown off of our
aircraft carriers, is doing satisfactorily and will be procured by both
the Navy and the Marine Corps.
The President's budget request of $161 billion will maintain our
commitment to take care of our people, build a strong R&D and
industrial base, and grow a fleet capable of sustaining our preeminence
as the world's most formidable expeditionary force. The fiscal year
2012 request of $15 billion for contingency operations includes
incremental costs to sustain operations, manpower, equipment and
infrastructure repair as well as equipment replacement to support our
operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request includes funds for
10 Navy battle force ships, including: 2 Virginia-class submarines, 1
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, 1 Mobile Landing Platform ship, 1 Joint
High Speed Vessel, 1 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship, and 4 Littoral
Combat Ships.
In aviation, we have requested 223 aircraft in the fiscal year 2012
baseline budget, including: 13 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for both the
Navy and Marine Corps, 24 MH-60R and 11 P-8As to replace the aging
current ASW and maritime patrol squadrons, 18 MH-60S for logistics
support, 1 KC-130J, 25 H-1 variant helicopters, 30 MV-22 tilt-rotor
aircraft, 28 F/A-18E/F fighter/attack planes, 12 E/A-18G to continue
replacing the veteran EA-6B, 5 E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes, 36 Joint Primary
Aircraft Trainers for our student aviators, and 20 Unmanned Aircraft.
The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request also contains
funding for the Navy Unmanned Combat Aerial System demonstration and
continues development of the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS)
unmanned system.
The individual efficiency initiatives the Department has put in
place will continue to further streamline our organizations and
operations, will reshape and reduce both capacity and personnel
associated with the Department's ``tail,'' and will contribute to the
dramatic transformation already underway in how the Department does its
business. More importantly, they will sharpen the operating ``tooth,''
free up critical resources for maintaining and accelerating our
shipbuilding and aviation acquisition plan, maximize fleet
capabilities, and help preserve a strong industrial base.
TAKING CARE OF SAILORS, MARINES, CIVILIANS, AND THEIR FAMILIES
The Navy and Marine Corps have continued to recruit and retain the
high quality men and women we brought into the Services in the past
years, and 2010 was no exception. Both the Navy and Marine Corps met or
exceeded their mission quotas and quality standards.
We recognize that quality of life programs are important for morale
and the military mission. We recruit Sailors and Marines, but we retain
families. We continue to provide a wide array of readiness programs,
including deployment support services, morale and welfare services, and
child and teen programs. These award winning career management,
training, and life-work balance programs are nationally recognized for
their excellence not only by respected national human resource
organizations, but even more by the Marines and Sailors that benefit
directly from them.
Medical care for our Wounded Warriors, already outstanding,
continued to get better throughout the year. Since Operations Enduring
Freedom and Iraqi Freedom began, over 12,000 Marines and Sailors have
been wounded in action. Their service and sacrifice mandates that we
provide quality care for those who have given so much for our country.
Our medical community continues to meet this challenge and make
advances in dealing with the signature wounds of the current wars:
traumatic brain injuries, mental health issues, amputation, and
disfiguring injuries, and Navy Medicine continues to reach out to its
colleagues in both civilian and Veterans Affairs hospitals to improve
our understanding and improve overall care for our people.
But care for our Wounded Warriors does not end in the hospital. We
have undertaken a commitment to bring our Veterans back into the
workforce of the Department of the Navy through several Wounded Warrior
outreach programs and hiring conferences. We are not there yet, but we
are moving toward the goal of being able to say to every Wounded
Warrior--if you want a job, we have one for you. As a representative
example, in the past year alone, the Naval Sea Systems Command hired
200 Wounded Warriors. In 2011 we will continue to make employment
opportunities for Wounded Warriors a priority for the Department.
It is important to note that rising healthcare costs within the
Military Health System continue to present a fiscal challenge for the
Department. Like the Secretary of Defense, both I and Departmental
leadership are particularly concerned that the rate at which healthcare
costs are increasing and the relative proportion of the Department's
resources devoted to healthcare cannot be sustained; the Military
Health System is not immune to the pressure of inflation and market
forces evident in the civilian healthcare sector.
The military faces a growing number of eligible beneficiaries,
expanded benefits, and increased utilization throughout the military
healthcare system. As a Department, we must be resolute in our
commitment to implement systemic efficiencies and specific initiatives
which will improve quality of care and customer satisfaction but will
at the same time more responsibly manage cost. We have made progress,
but there is more to do. We concur with the recommendations made by the
Office of the Secretary of Defense; we must create incentives such as
the Home Delivery Pharmacy Program and implement modest fee increases,
where appropriate, to both ensure the fiscal position of the system and
ensure equity in benefits for our retirees.
Taking care of Sailors and Marines also means aggressively
addressing the issues of sexual assault prevention and response. Last
year, you supported the establishment of a new Office of Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response (SAPRO) reporting directly to me to focus
attention on the issue, develop effective training, and coordinate
prevention and response programs across the Navy and Marine Corps.
However, it is clear through sexual assault surveys that this crime
remains a significant problem in the services, and within some
populations we have seen a negative trend of an increased number of
assaults. But I can assure you that we are not accepting this trend,
and we will not rest while any cases of this awful crime continue to
occur.
In 2010, the Department moved forward on expanding the
opportunities for women in the Navy. We established a comprehensive
plan to integrate women into the submarine force, beginning with our
ballistic missile and guided missile Ohio-class submarines. This
summer, the first 21 women officers were selected for nuclear
training--and they have begun their approximately 15-month training
pipeline. The first of these officers will get to their boats beginning
in November 2011.
We are preparing to move forward with successfully implementing
congressional guidance with respect to repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell'' in 2011.
Overall, the fiscal year 2012 budget reflects a carefully crafted
request for the fiscal support and resources necessary to sustain the
force in light of the ongoing demands on our people and their families.
Thank you for your continuing support.
ENERGY SECURITY AND LEADERSHIP
Energy consumption in the Navy and Marine Corps has become a
strategic vulnerability, an operational Achilles' heel, and a readiness
challenge. This has made our energy usage a national security issue of
rising importance. As a Department, we rely too much on fossil fuels,
making our forces susceptible to fluctuations in both price and supply.
Dramatic shifts in cost and availability can be caused by a host of
man-made or natural events in volatile areas of the world. Those
potential shocks could have, in turn, strategic, operational, and
tactical effects upon our forces. A survey of headlines around the
world today demonstrates exactly the point we are trying to make--
energy is first and foremost an issue of national security.
Without sustainable and reliable sources of energy and increased
efficiency in our platforms, we may find ourselves paying an exorbitant
price for operating our fleet, training our aviation and ground forces,
and running our installations that support them. The ability to train
and prepare forces for deployment could be curtailed. Worse still, our
naval forces may find that future adversaries target our operational
dependence on petroleum, as we see in attacks on fuel convoys in
Afghanistan today. Our dependence on a fragile fuel distribution
network increases our footprint, drains resources from the tip of the
spear to supporting logistics lines, and ties up combat forces for
security. Thus, energy diversity and efficiency are essential to
maintain our warfighting capabilities and enhance our combat
effectiveness.
This is a topic I have spoken on a great deal, in front of this
committee last year, around the world in speeches to industry and
military audiences, and in conversations with international leaders.
Through these events and discussions, it has become clear that energy
security is not just an American issue--it is an issue that affects
both our allies and potential adversaries alike. History has taught us
that competition for resources has been one of the fundamental causes
of conflict for centuries, and today, competition for energy still
provides one of the most inflammatory sources of potential conflict.
Energy, or more specifically denial of energy, could affect many of
our NATO partners in Europe and indeed the strength of the alliance
itself. Many of our partners are dependent upon external sources for
their energy, so for them--denial of energy is a weapon, one just as
real as the threat of tanks or airplanes.
For all these reasons, and in order to improve our long-term
strategic position and enhance the future operational effectiveness of
our forces, I have charged the Navy and Marine Corps with accelerating
the exploration and exploitation of new ways to procure, produce, and
use energy.
This effort began in October 2009, when I issued my five energy
goals for the Department, the most important of which commits the Navy
and Marine Corps to generate at least 50 percent of all the energy we
use from alternative sources no later than 2020. Alternative sources
include all renewable forms of energy such as solar, wind, geothermal,
and ocean energy, as well as biofuels and nuclear energy.
We are on track to meet all our goals, and throughout 2010, we
demonstrated progress through many energy programs, partnerships, and
initiatives. Throughout the year, we successfully conducted both ground
and airborne tests of an F/A-18 Hornet and MH-60 Seahawk helicopter,
and ran a Riverine Command Boat (experimental) on renewable biofuel
blends made from either camelina or algae. Recently, we also completed
testing of a marine gas turbine engine that will enable us to certify
our frigates, destroyers and cruisers for biofuel operations. In each
case, there was no impact on performance and no degradation to engine
reliability. Together, these tests represent critical milestones for
the Department's goal of demonstrating the Great Green Fleet in 2012
and its planned deployment in 2016. In late 2010, the Navy conducted
concurrent but unrelated tests of a more efficient F/A-18 engine in
order to generate an increase in the aircraft's range.
Afloat, as I discussed last year, the U.S.S. Makin Island is using
a hybrid-electric drive to dramatically lower its fuel usage at slow
speeds, which we estimate will generate life-cycle savings of up to
$250 million at today's fuel prices. Over the next few years, we will
continue to move forward with installation of a similar system on new
construction DDGs and look at the feasibility of retrofitting the fleet
with these systems in the course of routine shipyard availabilities.
The Marine Corps is also aggressively exploring energy efficiency
solutions in its operating forces in theater and in the supporting
establishment. The Marines realize that energy as a resource influences
a Commander's operational freedom of maneuver, and its conservation and
wise use can save lives on the battlefield. Reduced logistics support
and fewer convoys for expeditionary forces would free up resources and
limit the exposure of Marines to ambush and IEDs. Energy efficiency
equals better combat effectiveness.
At home, the Marine Corps demonstrated their traditional spirit of
innovation by scouring the commercial world for rugged solutions,
building two Experimental Forward Operating Bases (ExFOB) at Quantico
and Twentynine Palms. New alternative energy technologies tested at the
ExFOB deployed this fall with the Third Battalion, Fifth Marines (3/5),
posted to Sangin District in the north of Helmand Province. Immediately
upon arrival, they began evaluating expeditionary solar power
generators at their forward operating bases and combat outposts to
supplement or replace fossil fuels. They have done this even while
engaged in near constant combat against a determined enemy in one of
the most hotly contested districts of the war.
When I visited Sangin, I heard first-hand from a Marine First
Lieutenant about what worked, what did not, and how his Marines in
India Company of 3/5 were using the equipment. Two patrol bases are
operating entirely on renewable energy, and another with a 90 percent
reduction. One of the team-portable systems, called GREENS (Ground
Renewable Expeditionary Energy Network System), is being used to
provide power for the Operations Center, small radios, and small
electronic equipment. And across the battalion's operating area, man-
portable SPACES (Solar Portable Alternative Communications Energy
System) are being used by individual squads to recharge their radios
and other combat electronics. This capability made it possible for a
foot patrol to operate for 3 weeks without battery resupply, reducing
their burden by 700 pounds and saving more than $40,000.
By deploying these renewable solar energy technologies the Marines
in Sangin have been able to expand their operational reach, eliminate
or minimize their need for fossil fuels in their generators, and
dramatically reduce the need for often dangerous logistic support.
At Camp Leatherneck, the Marines have likewise begun a small bio-
fuel pilot project for Helmand Province, purchasing locally produced
cotton oil from an Afghan facility to mix with their own fuel. At
Leatherneck, a standard generator is producing power from a 20-80 mix
of cotton oil to fuel, yielding a 20 percent reduction in demand for
fuel, while simultaneously demonstrating to Afghan farmers that there
are alternatives to opium, and demonstrating to Afghan leaders that
they can power their own economy from within Afghanistan. I am
monitoring its progress closely.
As the ExFOB gets all this feedback from returning Marines, our
expeditionary energy systems and programs will continue to improve and
we will move even further down the road of energy efficient, combat
effective forces.
In addition to these tactical and platform applications, we have
implemented a number of energy projects at our facilities ashore. We
are actively exploring for new geothermal resources to augment our
existing 270 MW geothermal powerplant at China Lake. Last year we
established the Nation's first grid-connected wave buoy at MCB Kaneohe
Bay, Hawaii. Last December the Marines completed a 1.5 MW solar
installation situated atop six acres of a landfill. The installation
was unique because the equipment foundations were designed not to
perforate the membrane covering the garbage below. Our budget request
asks for continued support of these and similar projects in order to
enhance our efficiency and maximize our move to greater independence
and more resilient infrastructure.
And finally, throughout the year we developed partnerships with a
number of Federal agencies, States, academic institutions, and industry
partners including the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, NASA, and
the Small Business Administration.
It is precisely because of the spirit of innovation that these
partnerships embody that our Nation remains a world leader in its
unrivaled capacity to stimulate and exploit cutting-edge ideas and new
technologies. The U.S. Navy has always been a technological leader and
has excelled at embracing change, particularly in propulsion systems
and energy sources. We moved from wind to coal in the 19th century,
from coal to oil early in the 20th century, and added nuclear power 60
years ago. In every transition there were opponents to change, but in
every case these changes increased our combat effectiveness by an order
of magnitude.
I have tasked the Navy and the Marine Corps to once again pioneer
technological change through alternative energy sources. I am pleased
with the progress to date, and expect it to sharply enhance the long-
term strategic agility of our operating forces, as well as better
posture the Department for an age of fiscal austerity and potential
energy volatility. I want to stress, however, that every action and
program we undertake is focused on generating improved warfighting
capability and strategic flexibility, it is not just change for
change's sake.
CREATING ACQUISITION EXCELLENCE
Our future combat readiness is dependent upon the design,
development and acquisition of weapons, platforms, and information
technology. The current ships and aircraft of the Navy and Marine Corps
provide decisive advantages over today's threats. But that edge must be
constantly sharpened and modernized against constantly evolving
technologies. We must continue to invest in intelligence, precision
missiles and munitions, networked command systems, stealth technology,
unmanned vehicles and ground fighting systems. To retain our advantage
across multiple warfighting areas, we rely heavily upon both our
dedicated personnel and the expertise resident in America's private
sector. Throughout my tenure, I have taken the opportunity to visit
shipyards, aircraft plants, vehicle factories, maintenance facilities,
and warfare centers for detailed briefings and a firsthand look at the
people responsible for designing and building our fleet and equipping
our Sailors and Marines with vital weapon systems and technologies
necessary to do their jobs. One cannot fail to recognize the
creativity, dedication, and skills of our Nation's workforce.
Yet, with Government spending increasingly constrained,
affordability, cost containment and total ownership costs are more
important than ever. Because acquisition costs are rising faster than
our top-line and because replacement systems can be more expensive than
the platforms or weapon systems being replaced, we are putting
tomorrow's force at risk.
Both on our own and as a result of Secretary Gates' guidance, the
Department has devoted considerable effort to finding efficiencies,
reducing support costs, and scrubbing our acquisition process to
mitigate this impact. In accordance with the Weapons System Acquisition
Reform Act passed by Congress in 2009, we have made the requirements
and acquisition processes more rigorous in order to better manage the
resources entrusted to us by the American taxpayer, and we are working
with OSD to develop a streamlined process for acquiring information
technology in a more responsive manner to better equip the warfighter
with emerging technologies and ward off the cyber threat.
This requires constant examination of every single one of our
policies, practices, priorities, and organizations, with a clear focus
on controlling cost. Our acquisition community has been extensively
engaged with industry and the Services to streamline processes, and
they are ruthlessly evaluating both requirements and the supporting
analyses in order to get more value out of the overall acquisition
system.
The Navy and Marine Corps will continue initiatives already in
place to improve processes and to instill discipline in procurement. In
2010, we strengthened our cost estimating group and met statutory
requirements to obtain independent cost estimates, and we have
incorporated Defense-wide best practices in the formulation of all our
major programs. We have made our cost estimates more realistic and are
using these improved cost and schedule plans to make necessary
capability tradeoffs and difficult investment decisions at the front
end of the requirements process rather than during design or
construction.
A professional acquisition workforce is a key element in our
overall acquisition excellence initiative and a driver in our strategy
to preserve our fighting edge at an affordable cost. Accordingly, and
with your strong support, we are rebuilding the acquisition workforce
within Government to fulfill Federal oversight of the acquisition
process and ensure that accountability to taxpayers is the foremost
concern of our employees. In the last year, the Department has added
nearly 1,300 acquisition professionals toward the goal of increasing
the community by 5,090 over the FYDP.
Our acquisition strategies have been shaped to expand the use of
fixed price contracts, leverage competition, and tighten up on the use
of incentive and award fees to ensure quality systems are consistently
delivered on budget and on schedule. The new acquisition plan for the
Littoral Combat ship epitomizes this strategy, and is indicative of the
type of fixed price contracts that will be the model for the future.
The LCS block-buy contracts are the result of effective competition and
give the Government full ownership of the technical data package used
in construction. This will ensure our ability to pursue competitive
strategies for LCS Seaframe requirements in fiscal year 2016 and beyond
and affords greater congressional oversight of the program. With the
new LCS strategy, we get more ships, at a faster rate, and at less
cost.
The LCS dual-block procurement strategy also contributes to meeting
another acquisition goal of both this committee and the Navy through
its strong support of the industrial shipbuilding base. Modernizing
today's force and recapitalizing the fleet affordably cannot be
accomplished without a healthy industrial base and strong performance
by our industry partners. We have worked hard to procure our ships,
aircraft, and weapon systems at a rate intended to bring stability to
the industrial base and enable efficient production. The Navy's
shipbuilding and aviation plans were developed with particular regard
to maintaining the unique characteristics and strength of the
industrial base and our efforts have promoted increased competition,
greater innovation, and better capacity within the base.
Over the FYDP, we will continue to build upon our progress to date
and we will work with our shipyards, aircraft manufacturers, weapon
systems providers and systems integrators to build the best possible
fleet for the future.
DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF UNMANNED SYSTEMS
The complex nature of today's security environment, as well as
current and future anti-access/area-denial threats faced by the United
States, require that the Navy and Marine Corps continue to advance in
unmanned systems and exploit the contributions they make to warfighting
capability. Unmanned systems are unobtrusive, versatile, persistent,
and they reduce the exposure of our Sailors and Marines to unnecessary
threats or dangerous environments. They can perform a vast array of
tasks such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance,
hydrographic monitoring, mine detection, targeting, and precision
strike.
Navy and Marine Corps unmanned systems have already made key
contributions to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, unmanned aircraft systems have
flown thousands of flight hours, enhancing the effectiveness of our
combat operations and undoubtedly saving lives. Unmanned ground
vehicles employed by the Marine Corps have conducted thousands of
missions detecting and/or neutralizing improvised explosive devices.
And off the Horn of Africa, unmanned systems contribute to surveillance
and tracking of suspected or confirmed pirate vessels.
The range of tasks that these capabilities may fulfill will grow
substantially over time. I am determined to ensure that your Navy and
Marine Corps are at the cutting edge of this military capability.
Our vision for the future will exploit unmanned systems in every
domain of our operating environment (sea, air, and land) while
maintaining an affordable price. The Department's Unmanned Systems will
move from adjunct capabilities supporting manned systems and platforms
to providing autonomous, networked, and interoperable independent
capabilities--much as naval aviation matured from an adjunct to the
Battle Fleet to a combat capability in its own right in the first half
of the 20th century.
We will field unmanned systems in the near term to:
--Provide sensing, influence and effects where manned systems are
limited by range, endurance or risk.
--Shift from relying primarily on manned platforms to accomplish
missions to combinations of manned platforms, robots, augmented
human performance, and remotely operated and unmanned systems
that make operational sense.
--Increase the combat effectiveness of Sailors and Marines, their
platforms and combat organizations to better operate against
multiple types of threats.
In implementing this vision, we will embrace Unmanned Systems as
critical tools in our warfighting quiver of capabilities. We will
integrate them into everything we do across the full range of military
operations to enhance our combat effectiveness and efficiency. And we
will invest in the infrastructure to ensure we have the capabilities
and capacity to properly task, collect, process, exploit and
disseminate the information so the intelligence data gets to the
decisionmakers and warfighters. The initiatives and investments
contained in the fiscal year 2012 budget request will continue moving
us along this desired track. I look forward to reporting our progress
toward this vision throughout the year.
CONCLUSION
Today I have laid out our strategic posture as well as the goals
and priorities that guide the Department's investment portfolio and
future direction. These goals and programs will significantly influence
our future capabilities and ensure we remain ready to deter regional
conflict or respond rapidly and decisively to emerging crises. Our
specific requests are reflected in the President's fiscal year 2012
budget submission.
In order to retain a ready and agile force capable of conducting
the full range of military operations, we must carefully weigh risks
and apply our available resources efficiently and carefully. This
year's request reflects our strategy-driven priorities and the
disciplined trade-offs that you and the American taxpayer expect of us.
The Department's efficiency efforts have been beneficial in terms of
enhancing our ability to invest in the future even while preserving and
extending our force structure.
This is not a one-time event, as we will continuously work to
increase efficiencies in every project, program, and operation, afloat
and ashore. The budget request ensures that we will retain the world's
most powerful and agile expeditionary force. The CNO, Commandant, and
myself are committed to that aim and to being effective stewards of the
Nation's resources.
As Secretary, I have seen firsthand the selfless courage of our
young Marines and Sailors in Helmand; the dedication of our medical
community caring for our wounded; the professionalism of our surface,
submarine and aviation Sailors; and the incredible technical skills of
the maintenance crews that sustain them. I have also borne witness to
the sacrifices of our personnel in hospitals in theater and at the
National Naval Medical Center. A single visit to Bethesda will make you
marvel at the resilience of the human spirit and the unflagging
patriotism of our American service men and women.
Your Navy and Marine Corps are performing at a high operational
tempo, at unparalleled levels of skill and dedication, and with
remarkable results afloat, at depth, aloft, in cyberspace, and ashore.
Thanks to your support, this level of performance has been sustained
with the modern platforms, weapons systems, and training necessary to
underwrite our readiness. Your continued support recognizes and
sustains the sacrifice of our Sailors, Marines, civilians and their
families. The support of this committee for our key programs and our
people has been instrumental to operational success of the Navy and
Marine Corps and maintenance of the world's most flexible instrument of
national policy--a modernized and ready naval expeditionary force.
It is a solemn privilege to lead the Naval Services during an era
of protracted war and national challenge. I have been honored by the
trust the President and Congress have placed in me, and even more
honored by the sacrifice and sterling devotion I have witnessed by
those Sailors and Marine who go forward into harm's way to defend us.
Preserving our values and our way of life is ultimately dependent upon
our being prepared to use decisive force against those who threaten
them. The Navy and Marines have been ready to do so for 235 years, and
will continue to be ready. You can count on it.
Thank you again for your support. Godspeed.
Chairman Inouye. And now, may I call upon the Chief of
Naval Operations (CNO), Admiral Roughead.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL GARY ROUGHEAD, CHIEF OF NAVAL
OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES NAVY
Admiral Roughead. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and members of
the subcommittee, it's my honor to appear before you in my
fourth year as the Chief of Naval Operations, representing more
than 600,000 sailors, Navy civilians, and families who operate
and live globally. I appreciate your continued support for them
as they continue to carry out our maritime strategy.
I echo the Secretary's comments in extending our
condolences to the people of Japan, with whom we enjoy a very
unique relationship with our forward-deployed naval forces
assigned there.
Our Navy continues to meet operational commitments and
respond to crises as they emerge. We're engaged in Afghanistan
and in Iraq, with about 14,000 sailors on the ground in those
countries, and another 14,000 at sea in the region. From our
aircraft carriers there, we fly about 30 percent of the fixed-
wing aircraft sorties over Afghanistan.
Our presence in the Middle East also gave us the
flexibility to respond to the events that we see taking place
there and elsewhere. We have elements of the Kearsarge
amphibious ready group, with the 26 MEU, in the waters off of
Libya, and several destroyers and submarines in the
Mediterranean, available for tasking, as required.
But, our interests extend beyond the Middle East, and so do
our operations. Today, we have about 70,000 sailors deployed
globally, with 40 percent of our ships, aircraft, and
submarines deployed, as well. They're globally present,
persistently engaged.
We provide deterrence in Northeast Asia and forward
presence in the western Pacific, which has enabled our swift
response to the natural disaster in Japan, and our good friends
and allies there. The ships of the USS Ronald Reagan carrier
strike group remain underway off the east coast of Honshu, with
significant fixed-wing and helicopter assets supporting search-
and-rescue and humanitarian assistance. At least five more
ships will soon arrive from exercises in Southeast Asia. These
include ships from the USS Essex amphibious ready group, which
has the 31st MEU embarked, and which will bring additional
humanitarian aid, advanced medical capability, and seaborne
lift support to the Japanese Government.
We continue our counterpiracy efforts in the Indian Ocean,
and we continue to build maritime partnerships in Africa and
South America and throughout the Pacific.
These operations represent part of the growing demand for
the offshore option that our Navy and Marine Corps team
provides the Nation. We assume the lead for the first phase of
ballistic missile defense of Europe, and are working with the
Missile Defense Agency on providing that same capability
ashore. We created the new Information Dominance Directorate,
on my staff, which has enabled us to make better decisions and
investments in countering the anti-access and area-denial
strategies that we see in the world today. We recently
established the U.S. 10th Fleet, our cyberfleet, which has
demonstrated its expertise by conducting joint and naval
operations in cybernetwork, cryptology, and space arenas.
To deliver the above, we've been pushing the fleet hard. We
have 288 ships today. It is the smallest fleet since 1916, when
our interests and responsibilities were nowhere near what they
are today. And that's why 313 ships remains the floor of our
future force, and why sustaining fleet capacity is essential to
reaching that floor.
Since I became CNO, I've focused on ensuring that the Navy
is ready, that our quality of work and quality of life are
fulfilling to the men and women of our Navy, and that we place
underperforming programs back on track. We have introduced
stability, affordability, and capacity into our shipbuilding
and aviation plans, and, with the assistance of Congress, we've
advanced capabilities to meet the most likely evolving threats.
We've secured a fixed-price dual award for 20 littoral combat
ships, as the Secretary has mentioned. We've addressed our
strike fighter capacity with a multiyear F/A-18 procurement.
And pending a decision on the continuing resolution, we will
build two Virginia-class submarines a year, another DDG-51,
start the mobile landing platform, construct and refuel our
aircraft carriers as planned, and continue the design of our
replacement strategic submarine.
I'm pleased with our accomplishments to date, and I thank
Congress for their continued support of our acquisition
strategy. Our fiscal year 2012 budget request is a balanced
approach to increasing fleet capacity, maintaining warfighting
readiness, and developing and enhancing our Navy total force.
This budget goes beyond ships and aircraft. It enhances
electronic warfare, information dominance, integrated air and
missile defense, and antisubmarine warfare capabilities for
evolving challenges. It continues to develop a family of
unmanned systems that will work in concert with our manned
systems to secure access and establish maritime superiority
where and when we choose. It continues our effort, over the
last 2 years, to reduce total ownership costs, and leverages
the opportunity presented by the Secretary of Defense's
efficiencies to reduce excess overhead, improve readiness, and
reinvest in warfighting capability and capacity that improves
the long-term sustainability of our force.
Importantly, it supports the Secretary of Defense's
healthcare initiatives, included in the President's budget,
which continues our efforts to improve healthcare, improve
internal efficiency, incentivize behavior, and ensure all our
beneficiaries are treated equitably, and enhance our ability to
deliver high-quality healthcare for years to come.
You can be exceptionally proud of our sailors and our Navy
civilians, who they are and what they do. Today's sailors are
the best with whom I have ever served.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I ask for your strong support of our fiscal year 2012
budget. And I thank you for all that you do to support the men
and women of the United States Navy, our enduring global force
for good.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Inouye. All right. Thank you very much, Admiral.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral Gary Roughead
Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and members of the
Committee, it is my honor and pleasure to appear before you, in my
fourth year as CNO, representing the more than 600,000 Sailors and
civilians of the United States Navy. As we have done for more than 235
years, our Navy is forward-deployed around the world protecting our
national security and prosperity. Today, our dedicated Navy men and
women are operating globally at sea, on land, in the air, and in space
and cyberspace. I appreciate your continued support for them and their
families.
As the demand for our Navy continues to grow, our Maritime
Strategy, which I issued more than 3 years ago with the Commandants of
the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard, continues to guide our Navy's
operations and investments. Its core tenets are enduring and our Navy
is executing daily the six core capabilities it articulates for our sea
Services: forward presence, deterrence, sea control, power projection,
maritime security, and humanitarian assistance and disaster response.
With your support, since becoming CNO, our Navy has placed
underperforming programs back on track; we have introduced stability,
affordability, and capacity into our shipbuilding and aviation plans;
and we have advanced capabilities to meet the most likely evolving
threats. We improved the performance of several programs, most notably
the Littoral Combat Ship. After cancelling the LCS ships we had planned
for 2007 because of unacceptable costs, last year we were able to
secure a price for 20 ships through a dual award strategy that will add
new and needed capabilities to our Fleet, bring important stability to
the industrial base, and get us closer to the minimum of 313 ships our
Navy needs. I thank Congress for their support of this strategy. We
delivered five new ships in 2010, including one Virginia class
submarine, two Arleigh Burke Destroyers, and two T-AKE logistics ships.
We commenced testing and low rate initial production of the P-8A
Poseidon Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft and continued testing and low
rate initial production of the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. Through multi-
year procurement contracts for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G, and Virginia class
submarines, and planned multi-year procurements for the MH-60R/S and E-
2D, we are introducing affordability in our aviation and shipbuilding
plans and realizing significant savings. For example, on the Virginia
class multi-year procurement alone, the savings has been $3.2 billion.
We are advancing capability to meet emerging threats, particularly in
Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and information dominance. In BMD, we
assumed lead for the first phase of the President's Phased Adaptive
Approach (PAA) for BMD of Europe and we are working with the Missile
Defense Agency on providing Aegis Ashore capability to support the
second phase of the PAA. Our newly established Fleet Cyber Command/U.S.
Tenth Fleet demonstrated its expertise conducting joint and naval
exercises and operations in the cyber, network, cryptology, signals
intelligence, information warfare, electronic warfare, and space
arenas. We also achieved the early operational deployment of the MQ-8B
Fire Scout Vertical Takeoff and Landing Tactical Unmanned Air Vehicle,
the first successful flight of our Navy Unmanned Combat Air System
demonstrator, and a memorandum of agreement with the Air Force to
pursue increased commonality between the Global Hawk and Broad Area
Maritime Surveillance programs.
Our Navy continues to meet planned operational commitments and
respond to crises as they emerge globally. We remain engaged in
operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Our Navy has more than 14,000
active and reserve Sailors on the ground and another 10,000 at sea in
Central Command, including ongoing Individual Augmentee support to both
operations. Our aircraft carriers provide about 30 percent of the close
air support for troops on the ground in Afghanistan and our Navy and
Marine Corps pilots fly an even greater percentage of electronic attack
missions there.
Because our national interests extend beyond Iraq and Afghanistan,
so do the operations of our Navy. More than 40 percent of our Navy is
underway daily; globally present and persistently engaged. Last year,
our Navy provided deterrence against North Korea; conducted counter-
piracy operations in the Indian Ocean with a coalition of several
nations; trained local forces in maritime security as part of our
Global Maritime Partnership initiatives in Africa and the Pacific;
responded with humanitarian assistance and disaster relief to the
earthquake in Haiti and the flood in Pakistan; and conducted the
world's largest maritime exercise, which brought together 14 nations
and more than 20,000 military personnel, to improve coordination and
trust in multi-national operations in the Pacific. Navy sealift
continues to deliver the lion's share of heavy war and humanitarian
equipment in the Central Command and Pacific Command areas of
responsibility, while Navy logisticians operate the seaport and airport
facilities that ensure this vital materiel arrives on time. Our Sailors
remain forward throughout the world, projecting U.S. influence,
responding to contingencies, and building international relationships
that enable the safe, secure, and free flow of commerce that underpins
our economic prosperity.
Our Navy's global presence guarantees our access and freedom of
action on and under the sea. We are developing with the Air Force and
Marine Corps the Air Sea Battle concept that will identify the
doctrine, organization, training, procedures, and equipment needed for
our Navy to counter growing military threats to our freedom of action.
This joint effort will inform the conceptual, institutional, and
material actions needed to employ integrated forces that support U.S.
operations to project power and influence, protect allies and partners,
and secure our national objectives in peace and war.
I remain committed to supporting our active and reserve Sailors,
Navy civilians, and their families. Our Navy continues to be recognized
as a highly ranked place to work as a result of its workforce planning,
life-work integration, diversity, and training opportunities. We met or
exceeded overall officer and enlisted active recruiting goals last year
and we are accessing a force of extreme high quality. We continue to
move forward on assigning women into our submarine force, with the
first women submariners on track to report aboard SSBNs and SSGNs by
the end of this year. We remain committed to performance as a criterion
for promotion in our Navy, and have successfully transitioned the
majority of our civilian personnel out of the National Security
Personnel System (NSPS). Our remaining NSPS employees are scheduled to
convert by the end of this year. I appreciate the support of Congress
for our Fleet and the dedicated Sailors, Navy civilians, and their
families that serve our nation every day.
My priorities for the Navy remain unchanged: to build tomorrow's
Navy, to remain ready to fight today, and to develop and support our
Sailors, Navy civilians, and their families. We continue to advance our
Navy in each of these areas thanks to your support.
Our Navy remains the most capable maritime force in the world;
however, we are stretching our force to meet Combatant Commander
demands. Since 2000, our Navy's ship-underway days have increased by
approximately 15 percent, yet we have about 10 percent fewer ships in
our Fleet. Greater demand for our forces has led to longer deployments
and shorter dwell, or turnaround times, which increase stress on our
Sailors and drive up maintenance requirements for our ships and
aircraft. We are implementing force management measures in the near
term to stretch the capacity of our 286-ship force to meet increasing
global requirements while providing the necessary maintenance our Fleet
needs to reach its expected service life. Our Navy is different from
other Services in that we reset our force ``in stride''; that is, we
rely upon regular maintenance of our ships and aircraft, and training
and certification of our crews between deployments, to sustain our
force. I thank Congress for their support of our fiscal year 2011
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) request, which would enable our Navy's
continuous reset and translate into decades of service for each ship
and aircraft, a significant return on investment.
Regrettably, the continuing resolution (CR) for fiscal year 2011
prevents us from applying the increased fiscal year 2011 O&M funding to
improve our readiness, and it negatively impacts our ability to procure
our future Navy and support our Sailors, Navy civilians, and their
families. It has forced us to take mitigation measures that include:
reducing operations, limiting numerous contracts for base operating
support, slowing civilian hiring, reducing Permanent Change of Station
notifications for our Sailors from about 6 months lead time to less
than 2 months, not initiating the Small Business Innovative Research
program, and delaying procurement contracts for new capabilities and
existing production lines. Starting this month, we will cancel or scale
back ship maintenance availabilities in Norfolk, Mayport, and San
Diego, and cancel more than a dozen Milcon projects in several States.
If the CR lasts all year, we will have no choice but to make permanent
these mitigations and others, significantly reducing our operations,
maintenance, and training. We will be forced to further reduce
facilities sustainment, cancel training events and additional surface
ship availabilities, and defer maintenance on our aircraft, which would
result in almost a 1-year backlog in aviation maintenance. The impact
of these actions will jeopardize the efforts we made in recent years to
restore Fleet readiness. Without relief, we will procure only one
Virginia class submarine and break the multiyear contract. Agreements
made with our surface combatant builders, as a result of the DDG 1000/
DDG 51 swap, precludes us from awarding any DDG 51s in fiscal year 2011
unless both ships are appropriated. In addition, without relief, we
will delay the new start Mobile Landing Platform; we will constrain
aircraft carrier construction and refueling, negatively impacting
operational availability, increasing costs, and delaying CVN 79
delivery by up to 1 year; and we will limit aviation and weapons
procurement to fiscal year 2010 quantities, impacting E-2D and Standard
Missile production. A full-year continuing resolution will also defer
essential research and development in unmanned aerial systems and
significantly delay the design of our replacement strategic deterrent
submarine and the recapitalization of our nuclear operator training
infrastructure. It will eliminate our ability to source out-of-cycle
overseas contingency operations demands for increased Fleet presence
and activated Navy Reserve Sailors. Operating under a continuing
resolution for a full year at the fiscal year 2010 level would have
negative effects on our Fleet, on the ship and aviation industrial
base, and on the many workers who support naval facilities. Your
support in addressing this critical current and long term readiness
issue is appreciated greatly.
Our fiscal year 2012 budget submission achieves the optimal balance
among my priorities, but it is based on our funding request for fiscal
year 2011. If the CR lasts all year, we will need to revisit our fiscal
year 2012 request to properly balance our Navy for today and in the
future. Our fiscal year 2012 budget request continues to rely on a
combination of base budget and overseas contingency operations (OCO)
funding, but it reduces the extent to which we rely on OCO funding for
enduring missions. Our fiscal year 2012 request continues the effort we
started 2 years ago to reduce the cost to own and operate our Fleet. We
leveraged the opportunity presented by the Secretary of Defense to
significantly reduce excess overhead costs, and apply the savings to
warfighting capability and capacity, by executing a deliberate,
thoughtful, and integrated approach to finding efficiencies that
improve the long-term sustainability of our force. We are taking steps
to buy smarter, streamline our organizations and operations, realign
manpower, and pursue energy efficiencies. Through these efforts, and
with your support, we will improve readiness and warfighting
capabilities and optimize organizations and operations, including
increasing the number of ships and aircraft in our procurement plans
and enhancing or accelerating anti-access capabilities, unmanned
systems, and energy initiatives.
Our fiscal year 2012 budget request supports our Maritime Strategy
and continues to support our forces, take care of our people, rebalance
our force to meet current and future challenges, and reform how and
what we buy. Highlights follow.
BUILD TOMORROW'S NAVY
Since the release of our Maritime Strategy, I have stated our Navy
requires a minimum of 313 ships to meet operational requirements
globally. This minimum remains valid; however, we continue to examine
this requirement to address increased operational demands and expanding
requirements for ballistic missile defense, intra-theater lift, and
forces capable of confronting irregular challenges. Our fiscal year
2012 submission funds 10 ships, including two Virginia class fast
attack submarines, one Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV), one LPD 17, one
Mobile Landing Platform (MLP), one DDG 51, and four Littoral Combat
Ships (LCS), which reflects our new LCS procurement plan under the dual
award strategy. Our submission also supports the acquisition of an
oceanographic ship. I thank Congress for their support of our LCS
acquisition strategy and for our shipbuilding program. With your
support over the last 3 years, we have been able to improve the balance
among capability, capacity, affordability, and executabilty in our
shipbuilding plan.
As I reported last year, I remain concerned about the capacity of
our Fleet in the future. Starting in the 2020s, many of our existing
cruisers, destroyers, and submarines will reach the end of their
service lives. During this period, it will be particularly critical to
procure sufficient new ships to offset these decommissionings to avoid
a rapid decline in force structure. In the same timeframe, we will
begin to procure the replacement for our Ohio class ballistic missile
submarine, the most survivable leg of our Nation's nuclear deterrent
triad. While we have reduced the cost of that submarine substantially,
our total shipbuilding budget will be pressurized in that decade as we
seek to recapitalize our surface and submarine forces while sustaining
warfighting readiness and supporting our people. I am confident our
near-term force structure plans provide the capability and capacity we
need to meet demands today, but in this decade we must address how to
best resource the shipbuilding programs required in the 2020s.
Our fiscal year 2012 program funds 203 manned aircraft. We have
increased our procurement of P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft to
provide needed anti-submarine warfare capacity to our Fleet and
facilitate a successful transition from our legacy P-3 Orion aircraft.
Our fiscal year 2012 submission also procures 28 F/A-18 E/F aircraft,
extending the F/A-18 procurement through fiscal year 2014 and
purchasing 41 more aircraft than requested in last year's budget
submission. I remain committed to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and
was pleased to see the first flight of the F-35C last year. The timely
delivery of the F-35C remains critical to our future carrier airwing
strike fighter capacity; however, we are procuring additional F/A-18
Super Hornets to address the decrease in strike fighter capacity we
have identified. I thank Congress for their continued support of the F-
35 program and our overall strike fighter fleet.
Our Navy is also looking beyond our ships and aircraft and
investing in information capabilities that span space, cyberspace, and
the electromagnetic spectrum. We moved boldly last year with the
establishment of U.S. Tenth Fleet and the Deputy CNO for Information
Dominance. That restructuring has enabled us to focus on enhancing our
electronic warfare, information dominance, integrated air and missile
defense, and anti-submarine warfare capabilities. I request Congress'
support for these programs as they position our Navy to successfully
conduct operations in an evolving anti-access environment today and in
the future.
A viable, highly technical, and specialized industrial base is
essential to sustaining the capability and capacity of our future Navy.
Our shipbuilding and aviation industrial base is a strategic national
asset and a significant contributor to our Nation's economic
prosperity, employing more than 97,000 uniquely skilled Americans while
indirectly supporting thousands more through second and third tier
suppliers. The highly specialized skills in our shipbuilding base take
years to develop; and, if lost, cannot be easily or quickly
reconstituted. A viable shipbuilding industrial base, underpinned by
predictable, level-loaded ship procurement, is essential to meet our
nation's naval requirements.
I remain committed to delivering a balanced and capable Fleet that
will meet our national security requirements. I seek your support for
the following initiatives and programs:
AVIATION PROGRAMS
Aircraft Carrier Force Structure
Our nuclear-powered aircraft carrier fleet is capable of flexibly
employing capabilities that span from power projection and deterrence
to humanitarian assistance and disaster response. Our 11-carrier force
structure is based on worldwide presence and surge requirements, while
also taking into account training and maintenance requirements. Our
Navy has put in place measures to minimize the impact of the 10-carrier
period between the inactivation of U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN 65) and
commissioning of U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). After the delivery of
CVN 78, we will maintain an 11-carrier force by continuing the
refueling program for Nimitz class ships and delivering our Ford class
carriers at 5-year intervals starting in 2020.
CVN 78, which is approximately 20 percent complete, is the lead
ship of our first new class of aircraft carriers in nearly 40 years.
These new carriers incorporate an innovative flight deck design that
provides greater operational flexibility, a nuclear propulsion plant
that generates more than 50 percent greater energy while decreasing
maintenance requirements, and a combination of measures that reduce
manning by more than 1,200 Sailors. Among the new technologies being
integrated in these ships are the Dual Band Radar, the Electromagnetic
Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), and the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG),
which will enable the carrier to increase its sortie generation rate by
25 percent and lower total ownership costs. AAG is currently undergoing
commissioning testing at our land-based testing facility and, in
December, EMALS successfully launched an F/A-18 aircraft. Both systems
are on schedule to support delivery of CVN 78 in September 2015.
Strike Fighter Capacity
I remain committed to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program.
The timely delivery of the F-35C carrier variant is critical to our
future carrier airwing strike fighter capability and capacity. As a
result of delays in the F-35 program, we are closely managing our
strike fighter inventory to address the decrease in strike fighter
capacity that is projected to peak in 2018 as our F/A-18A-D aircraft
reach the end of their service life. Our actions include managing the
service life of our A-D aircraft, extending the service life of our A-D
aircraft, buying new F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft, and maintaining
wholeness in the F-35C program. With these measures, we can manage our
current strike fighter inventory to meet TACAIR requirements.
F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
The F-35 program gives us the advanced sensor, precision strike,
firepower, and stealth capabilities our Fleet needs. I continue to base
our Initial Operating Capability (IOC) timeline for the F-35C on the
level of capability delivered at the completion of Initial Operational
Test and Evaluation of the F-35C equipped with Block 3 software. We are
reviewing the results of the in-depth Technical Baseline Review and
restructuring of the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase
to determine our IOC. While the overall system demonstration and
development schedule has slipped, we have not reduced the total number
of airplanes we plan to buy. Our fiscal year 2012 request procures
seven F-35C aircraft. We are monitoring the program closely and
managing our existing strike fighter capacity to meet power projection
demands until the F-35C is delivered. Procurement of an alternate
engine for the F-35 increases our risk in this program. The Navy does
not have a requirement for an alternate engine; indeed, we would only
take one model to sea. Its additional costs threaten our ability to
fund currently planned aircraft procurement quantities, which would
exacerbate our anticipated decrease in strike fighter capacity
throughout the remainder of this decade.
F/A-18A-D Hornet and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
Our F/A-18A-D Hornet aircraft were originally designed for a
service life of 6,000 flight hours. Through a life assessment program
and High Flight Hour (HFH) inspections, which have been in place for 3
years, we have been able to extend the service life of our legacy F/A-
18A-D aircraft to 8,600 flight hours. Our fiscal year 2012 budget
requests funding to pursue a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) for
150 F/A-18A-D aircraft, commencing in fiscal year 2012 at a rate of
about 40 per year, that would further extend the service life of these
aircraft to 10,000 flight hours. We are also conducting a life
assessment program for our Super Hornet aircraft to extend their
original 6,000-hour service life design to 9,000 hours. The F/A-18A-D
HFH and SLEP are necessary measures to address our strike fighter
inventory while preserving our investment in F-35C. To further reduce
risk, we are accelerating the transition of 10 legacy F/A-18C squadrons
to F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets, and our fiscal year 2012 budget requests
funding to procure more F/A-18E/F Super Hornets than we requested last
year. I thank Congress for their support of the F/A-18 program as we
introduce F-35C into our Fleet.
EA-18G Growler
The Navy has been a leader in Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) for
more than half a century and AEA is in high demand. AEA provides one of
the most flexible offensive capabilities available to the joint
warfighter and is becoming increasingly important as technology capable
of manipulating the electromagnetic spectrum matures. We are leveraging
the mature and proven F/A-18E/F Super Hornet airframe to recapitalize
our AEA capability with the EA-18G Growler. Although the EA-18G
currently utilizes the same ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System as the EA-
6B, we are developing a new system, the Next Generation Jammer, as a
replacement for the aging ALQ-99. The Next Generation Jammer will
incorporate a Modular Open System Architecture and improved reliability
and maintainability to provide a robust, flexible jamming capability
that can evolve to address emerging threats. The EA-18G is in full rate
production and we have accepted delivery of 43 aircraft. We have
transitioned three EA-6B Prowler squadrons to EA-18G Growlers and two
more squadrons are currently in transition. Our first EA-18G squadron
deployed in November to Iraq. Our program of record will buy 114 total
EA-18G aircraft, recapitalizing 10 carrier-based EA-6B squadrons and
four expeditionary squadrons, all to be stationed at NAS Whidbey
Island. The program continues to deliver on schedule and our fiscal
year 2012 budget requests funding for 12 EA-18Gs.
P-3C Orion and P-8A Poseidon Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft
Our P-3C Orion aircraft remain in high demand today across a range
of missions including Anti-Submarine Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare, and
time-critical Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. Our
Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) force is a direct enabler for troops on
the ground in Central Command while also ensuring access and battle
space awareness at sea. Because we are operating our P-3Cs at a high
rate, about 100 P-3 aircraft have been grounded since February 2005 for
fatigue life and we anticipate continued groundings through the
remainder of the P-3 program. Through significant congressional support
for P-3C wing repairs and sustainment, as of February, we have a
current inventory of 84 mission aircraft; a 58 percent increase since
last year. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests about $100 million to
continue our P-3C sustainment program. Continued investment in this
program and in the modernization of our P-3s is critical to ensure we
retain sufficient capacity to conduct maritime battle space awareness
and support to land forces in Central Command, while successfully
transitioning to the P-8A.
The P-8A Poseidon Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft is ideally suited
for regional and littoral operations, and is our pre-eminent airborne
capability against submarine threats. Procurement of P-8A will deliver
needed capacity for these missions. The P-8A is scheduled to reach
initial operating capability and will begin replacing our aging P-3
Fleet in 2013. The current delivery schedule enables transition of two
squadrons per year. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding for 11
P-8A aircraft. I request Congress' support for the P-8A program
schedule and for our P-3 sustainment and modernization program, the
combination of which is essential to our transition to the next
generation of MPA capability while avoiding future gaps in our MPA
force.
E-2D Advanced Hawkeye
The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft, will replace the E-2C and
represents a two-generation leap in airborne radar surveillance
capability. The E-2D will improve nearly every facet of tactical air
operations and add overland and littoral surveillance to support
theater Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) against air threats
in high clutter, complex electro-magnetic and jamming environments. The
airborne radar on the E-2D, with its improved surveillance capability,
is a key pillar of the Navy Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-
CA) concept. Four test aircraft have been delivered to the Navy and we
will commence operational test and evaluation in late 2011. The first
Fleet squadron transition is planned for 2013, with an IOC scheduled
for late 2014. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests six E-2D aircraft.
We plan to procure 75 aircraft, with the final aircraft procurement in
2019 and Full Operational Capability (FOC) in 2022.
MH-60R/S Multi-Mission Helicopter
The MH-60R and MH-60S are in full rate production. The MH-60R
multi-mission helicopter replaces the surface combatant-based SH-60B
and carrier-based SH-60F with a newly manufactured airframe and
enhanced mission systems. With these systems, the MH-60R provides
focused surface warfare and anti-submarine warfare capabilities for our
strike groups and individual ships. The MH-60S supports surface
warfare, combat logistics, vertical replenishment, search and rescue,
air ambulance, airborne mine counter-measures, and naval special
warfare mission areas. We have delivered 85 MH-60R and 187 MH-60S to
our Fleet and our fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding for 24 MH-
60R and 18 MH-60S helicopters.
SURFACE SHIP PROGRAMS
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
LCS is a fast, agile, networked surface combatant optimized to
support naval and joint force operations in the littorals with
capability to support open-ocean operations. It will operate with
focused-mission packages to counter mine, small boat, and submarine
threats in the littorals. The modular design and open architecture of
the seaframe and mission modules provide the inherent flexibility to
add or adapt capabilities as new technologies mature or to counter
threats that emerge beyond the Mine Countermeasures, Surface Warfare,
and Anti-Submarine missions currently planned for LCS. These ships will
employ a combination of manned helicopters and unmanned aerial,
surface, and undersea vehicles.
U.S.S. Freedom (LCS 1) completed her first operational deployment
to the Southern and Pacific Commands in April 2010, 2 years early.
While deployed, U.S.S. Freedom successfully conducted counter-drug
missions and validated its open ocean capability, allowing us to learn
valuable lessons from these real-world operations. U.S.S. Independence
(LCS 2) was commissioned in January 2010 and is currently in Norfolk
undergoing post-delivery tests and trials. We are seeing demonstrated
performance and stability in the construction of LCS 3 and LCS 4 that
captures lessons learned from the first ships. PCU Fort Worth (LCS 3)
was launched and christened in December and is completing final
construction. PCU Coronado (LCS 4) is almost 50 percent complete and is
scheduled to be launched and christened later this year. Both LCS 3 and
LCS 4 are experiencing minimal change and are scheduled to be delivered
to the Navy in 2012 on cost and on schedule.
I thank Congress for approving the Navy's dual award strategy in
December 2010. This strategy enables the Navy to save over $2 billion
in acquisition costs and acquire these ships well below the
congressionally mandated $480 million cost cap set in 2009. It allows
our Navy to acquire an additional Littoral Combat ship, increasing
needed capacity in our Fleet. I am impressed and satisfied with the
capabilities of both LCS designs and remain committed to procuring 55
of these ships. Consistent with the dual award strategy, our fiscal
year 2012 budget requests four LCS seaframes at a total cost of $1.8
billion. The budget also requests two mission packages in fiscal year
2012. These packages provide the vital center for LCS's combat
capability and we have aligned LCS mission module procurement with that
of our LCS seaframes. I request your continued support as we continue
to acquire the future capacity and capability the Fleet requires.
Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)
The Navy's mature and proven maritime Ballistic Missile Defense
(BMD) capability will play a primary role in the first phase of our
Nation's Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) for the missile defense of our
NATO Allies in Europe. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding to
increase our current BMD ship capacity from 21 ships (5 cruisers and 16
destroyers) to 41 BMD capable ships by 2016. This planned capacity
expansion will eventually include all of the Navy's Arleigh Burke class
destroyers and nine Ticonderoga class cruisers. Until we grow our BMD
ship capacity, our existing BMD ships may experience longer deployment
lengths and less time between deployments as we stretch our existing
capacity to meet growing demands.
As part of the PAA, we are working with the Missile Defense Agency
to adapt Navy's proven and flexible Aegis BMD capability for use in an
ashore configuration by repackaging components of the afloat Aegis
Weapons System into modular containers for deployment to pre-prepared
forward sites. The Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex is
currently under development, with fabrication to begin in Kauai, Hawaii
in 2013. This complex is a key enabler of the Aegis Ashore capability,
which will be tested prior to shore placement overseas in 2015. This
phased approach provides needed technology and capacity to pace the
threat; it serves as a conventional counter to trends in global
ballistic missile technology; and it allows for technological
maturation through 2020.
DDG 51 Flight IIA and Flight III
To keep pace with the evolving air and missile defense threats, we
restarted the DDG 51 Flight IIA production line in the fiscal year 2010
and fiscal year 2011 budgets with advanced procurement buys for DDG
113, 114, and 115. The restarted DDG 51 Flight IIA destroyers provide
Navy with a proven multi-mission combatant that fills critical
warfighting needs across the spectrum, and is the first warship built
from the keel up to conduct maritime Ballistic Missile Defense. They
will be the first Aegis ships to be built with the Open Architecture
Advanced Capability Build (ACB) 12 Aegis Combat System. ACB-12 will
allow these surface combatants to be updated and maintained with
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technology, yielding reduced Total
Ownership Cost and enhancing the ability to adapt to future military
threats. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding for the
construction of DDG 116 as part of our plan to build seven more of the
Flight IIA class over the FYDP (an increase of one DDG 51 over last
year's budget). We also request just over $75 million to support
Research and Development for ACB-12, which will support the integration
of this critical system on DDG 113 and our development of Aegis Ashore.
The follow-on to DDG 51 Flight IIA is the DDG 51 Flight III, which
will commence with the construction of DDG 123. Flight III ships will
be tailored for Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) and include
the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), upgraded command and control
software and hardware, and enhanced electrical power and cooling. Our
fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding for a total of eight DDG 51
class ships, including funding for the first Flight III ship in fiscal
year 2016.
Modernization
To counter emerging threats, we continue to make significant
investments in cruiser and destroyer modernization to sustain our
combat effectiveness and to achieve the 35 year service life of our
Aegis fleet. Our destroyer and cruiser modernization program includes
Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical (HM&E) upgrades, as well as advances
in warfighting capability and open architecture to reduce total
ownership costs and expand mission capability for current and future
combat capabilities. In addition to HM&E upgrades, key aspects of our
Destroyer and Cruiser modernization programs include the installation
or upgrade of the Aegis weapons system to include an open architecture
computing environment, addition of the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile
(ESSM), an upgraded SQQ-89A(V)15 anti-submarine warfare system, and
improved air dominance with processing upgrades and Naval Integrated
Fire Control-Counter Air capability. Our Destroyers also receive
integration of the SM-6 missile, while our Cruisers receive
installation of the AN/SPQ-9B radar and an upgrade to Close In Weapon
System (CIWS) Block 1B. Maintaining the stability of the cruiser and
destroyer modernization program is critical to our ability to provide
relevant capability and capacity in our future Fleet. Our fiscal year
2012 budget requests funding for the modernization of four cruisers
(three Combat Systems and one HM&E) and three destroyers (one Combat
System and two HM&E).
DDG 1000
The DDG 1000 Zumwalt guided missile destroyer will be an optimally
crewed, multi-mission surface combatant optimized for long-range
precision land attack. In addition to providing offensive, distributed
and precision fires in support of forces ashore, these ships will serve
as test-beds for advanced technology, such as integrated power systems,
a sophisticated X-Band radar, and advanced survivability features,
which can inform future ship designs. Following a Nunn-McCurdy breach
due to the reduction in procurement to three ships, we restructured the
DDG 1000 program to remove the highest risk technology, the Volume
Search Radar, from integration into the platform. DDG 1000 is more than
37 percent complete and is scheduled to deliver in fiscal year 2014
with an initial operating capability in fiscal year 2016.
Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV)
The JHSV will deliver a new level of organic logistic and maneuver
flexibility for Combatant Commanders. JHSV is a high speed, shallow
draft ship. Its unique design allows the ship to transport medium
payloads of cargo and/or personnel to austere ports without reliance on
port infrastructure. JHSV-1 and -2 are currently under construction by
Austal USA in Mobile, AL and are scheduled to be delivered in fiscal
year 2012 and 2013. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding for
the construction of the third JHSV. We are currently developing a
Memorandum of Agreement with the Army that would transfer programmatic
oversight and responsibility for the entire JHSV program, including
operations and maintenance, to the Navy. Upon the signing of the
agreement, all JHSVs when delivered would be operated by the Navy's
Military Sealift Command and manned by civilian or contract mariners.
SUBMARINE PROGRAMS
Virginia Class SSN
The Virginia class submarine is a multi-mission submarine designed
to dominate the undersea domain in the littorals, access denied
environments, and the open ocean. Now in its 14th year of construction,
the Virginia program is demonstrating its continued ability to deliver
this critical undersea asset affordably and on time. The Navy continues
to realize a return on investment in the Virginia cost reduction
program and construction process improvements through enhanced
shipbuilder performance on each successive ship. A majority of the
submarines contracted via multiyear procurement have delivered under
budget and ahead of schedule, and their performance continues to exceed
expectations with every ship delivered. I am pleased with the
accomplishments of the combined Navy-Industry team and anticipate
additional improvements as we ramp up production to two submarines per
year, as requested in our fiscal year 2011 and 2012 budget submissions.
SSBN and Ohio Replacement
The Navy remains committed to recapitalizing the Nation's sea-based
strategic deterrent, the most survivable leg of our nuclear triad. With
a fleet of 14 Ohio class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), we have
been able to meet the strategic needs of the Nation since 1980. This
class will begin retirement after more than 40 years of service in
2027.
The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review reaffirmed that our Nation will
continue to rely on a reliable and survivable sea-based strategic
deterrent for the foreseeable future. To ensure the Navy is able to
meet the Nation's demand in this critical capability, our fiscal year
2012 budget requests research and development funds for the design of
the Ohio class replacement, enabling construction of the class
beginning in 2019. The Ohio replacement will possess the endurance and
stealth required for continuous, survivable strategic deterrence for
decades to come. Appropriate R&D investment is essential to design a
reliable and survivable submarine capable of deterring all potential
adversaries. Over the past year, the Ohio replacement program has been
thoroughly reviewed and all aspects of the program were aggressively
challenged to drive down engineering and construction costs. Our fiscal
year 2012 request represents best balance of needed warfighting
capabilities with cost. The Ohio replacement program will leverage the
many successes of the Virginia SSN program to achieve acquisition and
total ownership cost goals. These efficiencies and a record of
acquisition excellence are critical to minimize risk to our total force
structure while recapitalizing sea-based strategic deterrence between
fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2033.
AMPHIBIOUS WARFARE SHIPS
LPD 17 Class Amphibious Warfare Ship
The San Antonio class LPD (LPD 17) amphibious warfare ships provide
the Navy and Marine Corps the ability to embark, transport, control,
insert, sustain, and extract combat marines and sailors on missions
that range from forcible entry to forward deployed crisis response.
These ships have a 40-year expected service life and will replace four
classes of older ships: the LKA, LST, LSD 36, and the LPD 4. Of the 11
ships in our program of record, five ships have been delivered, three
have completed their initial deployments, and four are under
construction. We continue to resolve material reliability concerns with
the class and apply the lessons learned during initial operation of the
early ships to those under construction. Quality continues to improve
with each ship delivered as we work closely with the shipbuilder to
address cost, schedule, and performance issues. Our fiscal year 2012
budget requests funding to procure the final ship in the program.
LHA Replacement (LHA(R))
LHA(R) is the replacement for our aging Tarawa class ships, which
will reach the end of their extended service life between 2011-2015.
LHA(R) will provide flexible, multi-mission amphibious capabilities by
leveraging the LHD 8 design. The America (LHA 6) is now more than 30
percent complete and on schedule for delivery in fiscal year 2014.
Beginning with LHA 8, the Navy will reintegrate the well deck into the
large deck amphibious assault ships. Our fiscal year 2012 budget
requests funding for research and development to support reintegration
of the well deck into the design of the large deck amphibious ship and
the construction of LHA 8 in fiscal year 2016.
Mobile Landing Platform (MLP)
Based on commercial technology, the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP)
will enable the transfer of equipment, personnel, and sustainment at-
sea, and delivery ashore in support of a wide range of contingency
operations. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding for one MLP
and we intend to procure a total of three MLPs. We expect the first
ship to deliver in fiscal year 2013 and project initial operating
capability and incorporation into the Maritime Prepositioning Force
(MPF) for 2015. In the Maritime Preposition Force, each of our existing
Maritime Preposition Squadrons will be augmented by one MLP, one T-AKE
combat logistics ship, and a Large Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR)
cargo ship. The three T-AKE are all under contract with projected
delivery dates beginning this year and going through fiscal year 2013.
INFORMATION DOMINANCE PROGRAMS
Unmanned Systems
Our Navy is developing a ``family'' of unmanned systems over, on,
and under the sea to provide unique capability, in concert with our
manned platforms, to rapidly secure access and establish maritime
superiority at the time and place of our choosing. We are developing
information architecture that will allow us to rapidly assimilate data
into information for our commanders, enabling shorter decision cycles
that will give us an advantage in joint and maritime operations.
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
Our unmanned aircraft family of systems includes the Broad Area
Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAS, which will enhance our situational
awareness and shorten the sensor-to-shooter kill chain by providing
persistent, multiple-sensor capabilities to Fleet and Joint Commanders.
Through our recent memorandum of agreement with the Air Force, we are
pursuing greater commonality and interoperability between BAMS and the
Air Force's Global Hawk UAV. Our Vertical Take-off and Landing Tactical
Unmanned Air Vehicle (VTUAV) is on its second deployment aboard the
U.S.S. Halyburton (FFG 40) and will deploy in an expeditionary role to
support combat operations in Afghanistan later this year. Our fiscal
year 2012 budget includes about $12 million in research and development
funding to facilitate development of a weapons-capable VTUAV ready for
deployment in late fiscal year 2012. Our fiscal year 2012 request also
includes funding to develop a medium range maritime-based UAS (MRMUAS)
and a Small Tactical Unmanned Aerial System (STUAS) that will support a
variety of ships, Naval Special Warfare and Navy Expeditionary Combat
Command units, and Marine Corps elements.
The Navy Unmanned Combat Aircraft System Demonstration (NUCAS-D)
will prove carrier suitability of an autonomous, unmanned, low-
observable, carrier-based aircraft. This effort includes maturing
technologies for aircraft carrier catapult launches and arrested
landings, as well as integration into carrier-controlled airspace.
Initial flight tests to demonstrate carrier suitability are scheduled
to start next year and autonomous aerial refueling demonstrations are
planned for 2014. We will leverage the lessons learned from operating
the demonstrator in developing a low-observable unmanned carrier-
launched airborne surveillance and strike system (UCLASS). The UCLASS
program will shorten the timeline to find, fix, track, target, engage,
and assess time sensitive targets. UCLASS will integrate with the
carrier air wings and increase the flexibility, versatility, and
capability of the carrier force. We are currently developing the UCLASS
acquisition strategy with OSD.
Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV)
UUVs provide an innovative technological solution to augment manned
platforms. Our Navy has logged more than 85,000 hours of UUV operations
to improve battlespace awareness. Our small-body Littoral Battlespace
Sensing (LBS) oceanographic autonomous undersea gliders have
demonstrated the ability to conduct 6-month long autonomous operations
and will achieve Initial Operating Capability this year. Our fiscal
year 2012 budget requests about $13 million for research, development,
and procurement of the LBS glider. We are also developing Large
Displacement UUVs (LDUUVs) with the capability to autonomously deploy
and manage a variety of sensors and payloads. The development of these
highly capable vehicles will require investment in commercially and
militarily beneficial alternative energy technologies, including
refinement of fuel cell technology and cutting edge battery
technologies. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests about $50 million to
develop an LDUUV, and I remain committed to conduct fully independent
UUV missions with durations of 2 months by 2017. This capability will
allow full scale employment and deployment of LDUUV squadrons in the
2020s.
Mobile User Objective System (MUOS)
Our Maritime Strategy demands a flexible, interoperable, and secure
global communications capability that can support the command and
control requirements of highly mobile and distributed U.S. and
coalition forces. Satellite communications give deployed forces a
decisive military advantage and often offer the only communication
means to support ongoing operations. Rapidly expanding joint demand for
more access at ever-higher data rates requires moving beyond our
current legacy Ultra High Frequency (UHF) satellite capabilities. The
Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) will help satisfy those demands
when initial operational capability is reached in fiscal year 2012. The
first satellite in our planned constellation of five is scheduled for
on-orbit capability in May 2012. Our fiscal year 2012 budget submission
continues our investment in MUOS to replace the aging UHF Follow-On
(UFO) constellation. I request your continued support of MUOS and the
critical narrowband communication capability it will provide to the
joint warfighter.
Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN)
The Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN) is a Department of
the Navy (DON) enterprise network that will provide secure, net-centric
data and services to Navy and Marine Corps personnel after the current
Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) network stands down. In July, Navy
awarded Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services with the Navy-Marine Corps
Intranet (NMCI) continuity of services contract to transition the Navy
out of Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) and into NGEN. NGEN will
sustain the services currently provided by NMCI, while increasing
government command and control of our network and enabling secure,
reliable, and adaptable global information exchange. The initial NGEN
contracts are expected to be awarded in the first quarter of fiscal
year 2012. Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests an additional $22
million to support government command and control of our networks and
improve our network situational awareness and defense.
REMAIN READY TO FIGHT TODAY
Our Navy continues to experience a high tempo of global operations
which I expect to continue even as combat forces draw down in
Afghanistan. Global trends in economics, demographics, resources, and
climate change portend an increased demand for maritime power and
influence. America's prosperity depends upon the seas: 90 percent of
world trade moves on the world's oceans and underwater
telecommunications cables facilitate about $3.2 trillion of commerce
each year. As new trade patterns emerge, such as those that will result
from the expansion of the Panama Canal and the opening of the Arctic,
and as disruption and disorder persist in our security environment,
maritime activity will evolve and expand. Seapower allows our Nation to
maintain U.S. presence and influence globally and, when necessary,
project power without a costly, sizeable, or permanent footprint
ashore. We will continue to maintain a forward-deployed presence around
the world to prevent conflict, increase interoperability with our
allies, enhance the maritime security and capacity of our traditional
and emerging partners, confront irregular challenges, and respond to
crises.
High operational demand for our force over the last decade has led
to longer deployments, lower dwell time, and reduced maintenance time
for our surface ships. If these trends continue, our force will be less
ready and less available than it is today because of increased stress
on our Sailors and a reduction in our Fleet capacity as ships fail to
reach their expected service lives. We have initiatives currently
underway to address these trends. We are moving approximately 1,900
Sailors from shore billets onto our ships to meet operational demands
while maintaining acceptable Fleet readiness levels and Sailor dwell
time. To enhance the material readiness of our Fleet, we are improving
our ability to plan and execute maintenance by increasing manning at
our Regional Maintenance Centers (RMCs), and by institutionalizing our
engineered approach to surface ship maintenance, converting the
successes of our Surface Ship Lifecycle Maintenance (SSLCM) initiative
I began 2 years ago into the Surface Maintenance Engineering Planning
Program Activity (SURFMEPP). I remain focused on ensuring our Navy has
a force that is maintained and trained to provide the capability and
forward presence required in the two areas of interest identified in
our Maritime Strategy, the Western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf, while
preserving our ability to immediately swing from those regions and our
Fleet concentration areas in the United States to respond to
contingencies globally.
Our fiscal year 2012 base budget and Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) funding requests balance the need to meet increasing
operational requirements, sustain our Sailors' proficiency, and conduct
the maintenance required to ensure our ships and aircraft reach their
full service lives. It does not address the potential impacts of a
full-year continuing resolution on our ongoing operations and
maintenance afloat and ashore. Highlights follow of initiatives that
ensure our Navy remains ready to fight today.
Depot Level Maintenance
Our ships and aircraft are valuable capital assets that operate in
unforgiving environments. Keeping these assets in acceptable operating
condition is vital to their ability to accomplish assigned missions and
reach their expected service lives. Timely depot level maintenance,
based on an engineered assessment of expected material durability and
scoped by actual physical condition, will preserve our existing force
structure. Continued investment in depot level maintenance is essential
in achieving and sustaining the force structure required to implement
our Maritime Strategy. Our combined fiscal year 2012 base budget and
OCO funding requests fulfill 94 percent of the projected ship depot
maintenance requirements necessary to sustain our Navy's global
presence and 95 percent of our aviation depot maintenance requirements,
servicing 742 airframes and 2,577 engines. The actual extent of our
depot maintenance requirements will be determined by the final funding
levels for fiscal year 2011. I request that you fully support our
baseline and contingency funding requests for operations and
maintenance to ensure the effectiveness of our force, safety of our
Sailors, and longevity of our ships and aircraft.
Shore Readiness
Our shore infrastructure enables our operational and combat
readiness, and is essential to the quality of life and quality of work
for our Sailors, Navy civilians, and their families. High operational
demands, rising manpower costs, and an aging Fleet of ships and
aircraft cause us to take deliberate risk in shore readiness,
specifically in sustaining our shore infrastructure. We have focused
our facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization funds on
improving our housing for unaccompanied Sailors and investing in energy
efficient building modifications. To source these enhancements, we have
temporarily cancelled our demolition program and reduced our facilities
sustainment posture to 80 percent of the modeled requirement. We have
targeted our shore readiness investments in areas that have the
greatest impact on achieving our strategic and operational objectives.
These areas include support to our warfighting missions and
capabilities, nuclear weapons security, quality of life for our Sailors
and their families, and energy enhancements. We remain on track in our
Homeport Ashore initiative to provide sufficient accommodations to our
junior single Sailors by 2016, and we continue our support for family
services. We plan to complete an expansion of 7,000 child care spaces
in fiscal year 2011, allowing us to meet OSD's mandate of providing
child care for 80 percent of the potential need in fiscal year 2012.
Training Readiness
Our Navy is leveraging Modeling and Simulation (M&S) extensively
across the Fleet training continuum to reduce at-sea training
requirements and associated operating costs and energy use. These
virtual environments stress critical command and control warfare skills
and fine tune basic warfighting competencies without going to sea. They
provide synthetic events that are scalable and repeatable, including
the ability to train multiple strike groups simultaneously. Synthetic
training provides a complex, multi-faceted threat environment that
cannot be efficiently recreated at sea on a routine basis. Ship command
and control simulations, in conjunction with the Fleet Synthetic
Training (FST) program, support unit level and integrated pre-
deployment training and certification, including Joint Task Force
Exercises (JTFEX), Ballistic Missile Defense Exercises (BMDEX), and LCS
qualification and certification training. In fiscal year 2012, our
Navy's use of simulators will reduce steaming days by 603 days for a
savings of $30 million, and flying hours by 5,400 hours, for a savings
of $35 million. The Fleet has placed FST as a top training priority
with the objective to increase simulator use and synthetic training to
reduce Fleet operating costs.
Although we are maximizing our use of synthetic training, it cannot
completely replace our need to conduct live training. Simulators cannot
replicate the physical environment, risks, stress, or experiences that
live training provides. Naval units must be able to practice and hone
their skills in the air and at sea. Having the right facilities and the
ability to practice skill sets in a live operating environment are
necessary for the proficiency and safety of our Sailors and for the
warfighting effectiveness of our Fleet.
The proliferation of advanced, stealthy submarines continues to
challenge our Navy's ability to guarantee the access and sustainment of
joint forces. Robust Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) training with active
sonar systems is vital for our Navy to effectively address this threat.
The Navy remains a world leader in marine mammal research and we will
continue our investment in this research in fiscal year 2012 and
beyond. Through such efforts, and in full consultation and cooperation
with other Federal agencies, we have developed effective measures that
protect marine mammals and the ocean environment from adverse impacts
of mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar while not precluding critical Navy
training. We continue to work closely with our interagency partners to
further refine our protective measures as scientific knowledge evolves.
It is vitally important that any such measures ensure the continued
flexibility necessary to respond to future national security
requirements.
In January, we announced our plan to initially focus Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) homebasing on the west coast in accordance with 2010
Quadrennial Defense Review direction and the JSF Transition Plan. We
also announced that we are suspending work on the Outlying Landing
Field (OLF) draft environmental impact statement (EIS) planned for the
east coast until at least 2014. At that time, we will re-evaluate the
requirement for an OLF based on our east coast JSF basing and training
requirements. We continue to experience capacity shortfalls at our
current east coast field carrier landing practice sites that present
challenges to meeting our current training requirements under both
routine and surge conditions for existing Navy aircraft. We will
continue to ensure we meet all our training requirements by
implementing the measures necessary to use all available facilities.
Energy and Climate Change
The Secretary of the Navy and I are committed to advancing our
energy security. I consider energy an operational imperative and I
established the Navy's Task Force Energy more than 2 years ago to
improve combat capability, assure mobility, and green our footprint. We
will achieve these goals through energy efficiency improvements,
consumption reduction initiatives, and the aggressive adoption of
alternative energy and fuels. Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels
will improve our combat capability by increasing time on station,
reducing time spent alongside replenishment ships, and producing more
effective and powerful future weapons.
Our tactical energy efforts fall into two categories: technical and
behavioral changes that use energy more efficiently, and testing/
certification of alternative fuels. We are making good progress on our
efficiency initiatives. The U.S.S. Makin Island (LHD 8) uses hybrid
propulsion and we are installing the same system on LHA-6 and LHA-7. We
are developing a hybrid electric drive system for the DDG-51 class and
I anticipate a land-based test as early as this summer. We continue to
introduce advanced hull and propeller coatings and solid state lighting
in our ships, and we are developing the Smart Voyage Planning Decision
Aid to achieve more efficient ship routing. We are also implementing
policies that encourage Sailors to reduce their personal energy usage.
These incremental initiatives add up to significant efficiency
improvements.
Our alternative energy programs are progressing. We are
aggressively certifying elements of our operational force for biofuel
use. To date we have operated the ``Green Hornet'' F/A-18 and MH-60S on
camelina-based JP-5 fuel and the RCB-X riverine craft on algal-based F-
76 fuel. Operational testing of energy efficiency upgrades to the
Allison 501k engine completed last month and is a key milestone toward
certification of our Navy combatants with marine gas turbine engines.
We have reduced our energy use ashore by more than 14 percent since
2003, as a result of our energy efficiency efforts, including energy
efficiency building upgrades, energy management systems, procurement of
alternative fuel vehicles, and achievement of sustainable building
standards for all new construction and major renovation projects. Our
continued investments in advanced metering and energy audits will help
identify further opportunities for efficiency gains and alternative
energy use. Our approach remains focused on integrating the right
technology at the right time in the right place while transforming Navy
culture and behavior for long term sustainability.
Since establishing Task Force Climate Change in 2009, our Navy has
taken several actions to better understand and address the potential
impacts of climate change on our Navy. We have increased our
operational engagement in the Arctic, participating this past summer in
Operation NANOOK/NATSIQ with Canada. We are re-assessing regional
security cooperation, through our African, Southern, and Pacific
Partnership station missions to include consideration of climate change
adaptation, especially with respect to improving water security. We are
also participating with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and other Federal agencies to survey in the
Arctic and improve our environmental observation and prediction
capability worldwide. Scientific observations indicate that current
changes to the climate are occurring on a decadal scale, giving our
Navy enough time to conduct the studies and assessments necessary to
inform future investment decisions.
Second East Coast Carrier-Capable Homeport
The Navy continues to focus on achieving the 2010 Quadrennial
Defense Review direction to upgrade the carrier port of Mayport. Much
like the dispersal of west coast aircraft carriers between California
and Washington, a second homeport on the east coast to maintain
aircraft carriers is prudent in the event of a natural or man-made
disaster in Hampton Roads. The dredging project funded in fiscal year
2010 is underway and will ensure unimpeded access to Mayport. Our
fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding for the Massey Avenue corridor
improvement projects. We plan to request funding for the Wharf F
recapitalization in fiscal year 2013, and the remaining projects within
the FYDP, to establish Naval Station Mayport as nuclear carrier-capable
homeport by 2019.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The Navy has consistently supported a comprehensive and stable
legal regime for the exercise of navigational rights and other
traditional uses of the oceans. The Law of the Sea Convention provides
such a regime with robust global mobility rules. I believe it essential
that the United States become a full Party to the treaty. The
Convention promotes our strategic goal of free access to and public
order on the oceans under the rule of law. It also has strategic
effects for global maritime partnerships and American maritime
leadership and influence. Creating partnerships that are in the
strategic interests of our Nation must be based on relationships of
mutual respect, understanding, and trust. For the 160 nations who are
parties to the Law of the Sea Convention, a basis for trust and mutual
understanding is codified in that document. The treaty provides a solid
foundation for the United States to assert its sovereign rights to the
natural resources of the sea floor out to 200 nautical miles and on the
extended continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, which in the
Arctic Ocean is likely to extend at least 600 nautical miles north of
Alaska. As a non-Party to the treaty, the United States undermines its
ability to influence the future direction of the law of the sea. As the
only permanent member of the U.N. Security Council outside the
Convention, and one of the few nations still remaining outside one of
the most widely subscribed international agreements, our non-Party
status hinders our ability to lead in this important area and could,
over time, reduce the United States' influence in shaping global
maritime law and policy. The Law of the Sea Convention provides the
norms our Sailors need to do their jobs around the world every day. It
is in the best interest of our Nation and our Navy to ratify the Law of
the Sea Convention. We must demonstrate leadership and provide to the
men and women who serve in our Navy the most solid legal footing
possible to carry out the missions that our Nation requires of them.
DEVELOP AND SUPPORT OUR SAILORS, NAVY CIVILIANS AND THEIR FAMILIES
Our Sailors, Navy civilians, and their families are the backbone of
our Maritime Strategy. They make us who we are. Their skill,
innovation, and dedication turn our ships, aircraft, weapons and
systems into global capabilities that prevent conflict, build
partnerships, and, when necessary, project combat power to prevail in
war. Our investment in our Sailors, Navy civilians, and their families
ensures our Navy's continued maritime dominance today and in the
future.
Our fiscal year 2012 budget requests authorization and funding for
325,700 active and 66,200 reserve end strength. This request includes
the migration of more than 1,800 military billets from shore and staff
activities into the Fleet to man new ships and squadrons, restore
optimal manning cuts, add needed information technology and nuclear
operators to our force, and restore billets for fiscal year 2013 to
extend U.S.S. Peleliu in commission. This migration will enhance our
forces afloat; however, the transition will present challenges to our
ability to maintain sea-shore flow for some of our enlisted Sailors and
sustain manning levels across the force. We are aware of these
challenges and believe the transition is manageable. Our fiscal year
2012 end strength request also begins to move end strength previously
supported by OCO funding, namely our Navy Individual Augmentees (IAs),
into our baseline program. We will execute a phased draw down of our
OCO end strength as we project a gradual reduction of IA demands in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Should IA demand remain at current levels, or
increase over time, we will be challenged to meet manning requirements
for our Fleet. Our Navy continues to size, shape, and stabilize our
force through a series of performance-based measures designed to retain
the skills, pay grades, and experience mix necessary to meet current
and future requirements.
Our fiscal year 2012 endstrength reflects efficiencies in our
manpower account that reduce excess overhead by disestablishing several
staffs, but not their associated ships and aircraft, for submarine,
patrol aircraft, and destroyer squadrons, as well as one Carrier Strike
Group staff. We are disestablishing the headquarters of Second Fleet
and transferring responsibility for its mission to U.S. Fleet Forces
Command. These efficiencies streamline our organizations and allow us
to reinvest the savings into warfighting capability and capacity.
I would like to touch briefly on the issue of changes to the
healthcare benefit. Navy Medicine has been a leader in implementing
pilot testing for the Department in a new concept called the Patient-
Centered Medical Home. Beneficiaries have welcomed Navy Medicine's
Medical Home Port initiative and it shows in their satisfaction scores.
I am convinced that our beneficiaries will readily accept very modest
changes to copayments as long as we continue to invest in these
transformational approaches to delivering high quality healthcare. The
proposals in the President's budget are consistent with our efforts
over the last several years: a focus on internal efficiency,
incentivizing the health behaviors we want, and ensuring all of our
beneficiaries are treated equitably. I request you support these timely
and appropriate efforts.
The tone of our force continues to be positive. In 2010, we
conducted the Navy Total Force Survey, which was the first of its kind
to assess the work-related attitudes and experiences of active and
reserve Sailors and Navy civilians. The survey reported that Navy
personnel are, overall, satisfied with the quality of their leadership,
benefits, compensation, and opportunities within the Navy for personal
growth and development. The survey results reaffirmed what more than 20
national awards have recognized: that our Navy is a ``Top 50''
organization and an employer of choice among today's workforce.
Our fiscal year 2012 budget request represents a balanced approach
to supporting our Sailors and their families, sustaining the high tempo
of current operations, and preserving Fleet and family readiness.
Highlights follow of our efforts to develop and support our Sailors,
Navy civilians and their families.
Recruiting and Retention
Our Navy has enjoyed strong recruiting success over the past 3
years, and we expect this trend to continue through fiscal year 2011.
Fiscal year 2010 marked the third consecutive year Navy met or exceeded
its overall enlisted recruiting goals in both the Active and Reserve
Components and we continue to exceed Department of Defense quality
standards in all recruit categories. We accessed the highest quality
enlisted force in history last year, with more than 97 percent having
traditional high school diplomas. Active officer recruiting for fiscal
year 2010 also exceeded our overall goals. Reserve officer recruiting
exceeded our fiscal year 2009 levels, but achieved only 95 percent of
our fiscal year 2010 goal. Reserve medical officer recruiting continues
to be our greatest challenge as the requirement for medical officers
has increased by more than 100 percent since fiscal year 2008. We
continue to explore new avenues for recruiting, including expanding our
social media engagement to maintain a dialogue with potential
applicants and influencers nationwide.
Navy will remain competitive in the employment market through the
disciplined use of monetary and non-monetary incentives. Using a
targeted approach, we will continue our recruiting and retention
initiatives to attract and retain our best Sailors, especially those
within high-demand, critical skill areas that remain insulated from
economic conditions. We are taking advantage of current high retention
rates and success in accessions by reevaluating all special and
incentive pays and bonuses and reducing them where possible. Judicious
use of special and incentive pays remains essential to recruiting and
retaining skilled professionals in the current economic environment,
and will increase in importance as the economic recovery continues. Our
goal remains to maintain a balanced force, in which seniority,
experience, and skills are matched to requirements.
To ensure we stay within our congressionally authorized end
strength, we are executing force stabilization measures that include
Perform-to-Serve (PTS) for enlisted Sailors and a series of Selective
Early Retirement (SER) boards for Unrestricted Line (URL) Captains and
Commanders. PTS considers the manning levels in each enlisted rating
and reviews the record of Sailors eligible for reenlistment to
determine if the Sailor should remain in the rating, convert to an
undermanned specialty, transition to the reserves, or separate from the
Navy. The SER boards will address the excess inventory of active
component Captain (O6) and Commander (O5) URL officers in our Navy to
ensure sufficient senior officers are available at the right time in
their careers to serve in critical fleet billets. We project
approximately 100 URL Captains and 100 URL Commanders will be selected
for early retirement through this process. With these performance-based
measures, we expect to meet our fiscal year 2011 authorized active end
strength of 328,700 and reserve end strength of 65,500 by the end of
the fiscal year. We will be challenged to meet our active and reserve
end strength targets in fiscal year 2012 using existing force shaping
measures. As a result of continued high retention and low attrition
across the force, we are facing increasing pressure to use involuntary
force shaping measures to remain within our authorized end strength.
Diversity
Demographic projections estimate that today's minorities will make
up more than one-third of our Nation's workforce by 2020; by 2050, that
projection increases to about half of our workforce. Our ability to
access and retain the talents of every component group in our society
is critical to our mission success. Recruiting and retaining a diverse
workforce, reflective of the Nation's demographics at all levels of the
chain of command, remains a strategic imperative and a focus area for
leaders throughout our Navy. To foster a Navy Total Force composition
that reflects America's diversity, we are focusing our efforts on
outreach, mentoring, leadership accountability, training, and
communication. Our diversity outreach efforts have contributed to our
2014 U.S. Naval Academy and NROTC classes being the most diverse
student bodies in our history. We have increased diverse accessions
through targeted recruiting in diverse markets, developing
relationships with key influencers in the top diverse metropolitan
markets, and aligning Navy assets and organizations to maximize our
connection with educators, business leaders and government officials to
increase our influencer base. We continue to expand our relationships
with key influencers and science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM)-based affinity groups to inform our Nation's youth
about the unique opportunities available in our Navy. We are also
building and sustaining a continuum of mentorship opportunities that
includes the chain of command, individual communities, social
networking, peer-to-peer relationships, and affinity groups. We will
continue to ensure that all Sailors are provided with opportunities to
develop personally and professionally.
Women on Submarines
After notifying Congress last year of our intent to assign women to
submarines, the Secretary of the Navy and I have authorized female
officers to serve aboard Ohio class SSBN and SSGN submarines. This will
enable our submarine force to leverage the tremendous talent and
potential of the women serving in our Navy. The first 18 female
submarine officers commenced the standard 15-month nuclear and
submarine training pipeline in 2010, and will begin arriving at their
submarines at the end of this year. These officers will be assigned to
two ballistic missile (SSBN) and two guided missile (SSGN) submarines
which have the space to accommodate female officers without structural
modification. The plan also integrates female supply corps officers
onto SSBNs and SSGNs at the department head level. In December, the
Secretary of Defense notified Congress of Navy's intent to expend funds
to commence design and study efforts regarding reconfiguration of
existing submarines to accommodate female crew members, as well as to
design the Ohio replacement SSBN with the flexibility to accommodate
female crew members.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
I am pleased Congress voted to repeal section 654 of Title 10,
United States Code, commonly referred to as the ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell'' (DADT) statute. Legislative repeal affords us the time and
structured process needed to effectively implement this significant
change within our Armed Forces. As I testified in December, we will be
able to implement a repeal of DADT in our Navy. I assess the risk to
readiness, effectiveness, and cohesion of the Navy to be low. Our
implementation process will be thorough, but timely. We are preparing
the necessary policies and regulations to implement this change in law
and training Sailors and leaders at all levels to ensure they
understand what repeal means to them, their families, and the Navy.
Before repeal can occur, the President, Secretary of Defense, and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs must certify that the change can be made
in a manner consistent with the standards of military readiness,
military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of
the Armed Forces. I will provide Navy's input to the certification
process and I remain personally engaged in this process.
Sailor and Family Continuum of Care
We remain committed to providing our Sailors and their families a
comprehensive continuum of care that addresses all aspects of medical,
physical, psychological, and family readiness. Our fiscal year 2012
budget request expands this network of services and caregivers to
ensure that all Sailors and their families receive the highest quality
healthcare available.
Navy Safe Harbor is at the forefront in Navy's non-medical care for
all seriously wounded, ill, and injured Sailors, Coast Guardsmen, and
their families. We have expanded our network of Recovery Care
Coordinators and non-medical Care Managers to 12 locations across the
country. Safe Harbor continues to provide exceptional, individually
tailored assistance to a growing enrolled population of more than 600
individuals. Over 116,000 Sailors and their spouses have participated
in Operational Stress Control (OSC) training, which actively promotes
the psychological health of Sailors and their families by encouraging
them to seek help for stress reactions early, before they become
problems. The Warrior Transition Program (WTP) and Returning Warrior
Workshops (RWW) are essential to post-deployment reintegration efforts.
The WTP offers an opportunity for IA Sailors redeploying from a combat
zone to decompress, turn in their gear, and receive tools that will
help them ease their transition back to their home and families. The
RWW is designed to address personal stress that may be generated by
deployment activities and it supports and facilitates the reintegration
of the deployed Sailor with his/her spouse and family. The RWW also
provides a safe, relaxed atmosphere in which to identify and address
potential issues that may arise during post-deployment reintegration.
Stress on the Force
While the overall tone of our force remains positive, current
trends suggest that high operational tempo, increasing mission demands,
lean manning, force shaping, and economic conditions are placing
increased stress on our Navy personnel. Our fiscal year 2012 budget
requests increased funding to improve our program manager-level support
of our suicide prevention and stress control programs.
Suicide dramatically affects individuals, commands and families.
Over the last year, we expanded our approach to preventing suicides
from historic suicide surveillance and annual awareness training to
include more comprehensive resilience building and tailored suicide
prevention training, peer intervention, research and analysis. We saw a
reduction in our number of suicides from 46 in calendar year 2009 to 38
in calendar year 2010. Our calendar year suicide rate also decreased
from 13.3 per 100,000 Sailors in 2009 to 10.9 per 100,000 Sailors in
2010. Our 2010 suicide rate is below the national rate of 19.0 per
100,000 individuals for the same age and gender demographic; however,
any loss of life as a result of suicide is unacceptable. Suicide
prevention is an ``all hands, all the time'' effort involving our
Sailors, families, peers, and leaders. We continue to work toward a
greater understanding of the issues surrounding suicide to ensure that
our policies, training, interventions, and communications are meeting
intended objectives.
We are integrating our suicide prevention efforts into the broader
array of programs we offer to improve the resilience of our force.
These programs, aimed at reducing individual stress, address issues,
such as substance abuse prevention, financial management, positive
family relationships, physical readiness, and family support.
We continue our efforts to eliminate sexual assault by fostering a
culture of prevention, victim response and offender accountability.
Sexual assault is incompatible with our Navy core values, high
standards of professionalism, and personal discipline. We have
organized our efforts in this critical area under the Navy Sexual
Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program. The SAPR program and
the Naval Safety Center and Alcohol and Drug Prevention Program are
currently developing an integrated approach to sexual assault
prevention that includes clear leadership communication, bystander
intervention training for Sailors to help them recognize and interrupt
risky situations, and training for military investigators and lawyers
on issues specific to sexual assault investigation and prosecution.
Learning and Development
Education and training are strategic investments that give us an
asymmetric advantage over adversaries. To develop the highly skilled,
combat-ready force necessary to meet the demands of the Maritime
Strategy and the Joint Force, we have 15 learning centers around the
country providing top-notch training to our Sailors, Navy civilians and
members of the other Services. In fiscal year 2010, we completed
learning and development roadmaps for all enlisted ratings, providing
Sailors with detailed information about the required training,
education, qualifications and assignments they need to succeed in their
career fields. We continue to leverage a blended training approach,
integrating experienced instructors, advanced technology, and state-of-
the-art delivery systems with modularized content in order to provide
the right training at the right time in a Sailor's career. We are
balancing existing education and training requirements with growth in
important mission areas such as cyber defense, missile defense, and
anti-submarine warfare. Cultural, historical, and linguistic expertise
remain essential to successfully accomplishing the Navy's global
mission, and our budget request supports our Language, Regional
Expertise, and Culture (LREC) program as well as the Afghanistan-
Pakistan (AF-PAK) Hands Program sponsored by the Joint Staff. Last year
the LREC program provided language and cultural training to more than
120,000 Sailors en route to overseas assignments. We recognize the
importance of providing our people meaningful and relevant education,
particularly Joint Professional Military Education (JPME), which
develops leaders who are strategically minded, capable of critical
thinking, and adept in naval and joint warfare. Our resident courses at
Naval War College, non-resident courses at Naval Postgraduate School
and in the Fleet Seminar program, and distance offerings provide ample
opportunity for achievement of this vital education.
CONCLUSION
You can be exceptionally proud of our Sailors. They are our
Nation's preeminent force at sea, on land, and in air, space, and
cyberspace. While the future is not without challenges, I am optimistic
about our future and the global opportunities our Navy provides our
Nation. Our fiscal year 2012 budget request represents a balanced
approach to increasing Fleet capacity, maintaining our warfighting
readiness, and developing and enhancing our Navy Total Force. I ask for
your strong support of our fiscal year 2012 budget request and my
identified priorities. Thank you for your unwavering commitment to our
Sailors, Navy civilians, and their families, and for all you do to make
our United States Navy an effective and enduring global force for good.
Chairman Inouye. And may I now call upon the Commandant of
the Marine Corps, General Amos.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES F. AMOS, COMMANDANT, UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS
General Amos. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cochran, members
of the subcommittee, it's my honor to appear before you today,
for the first time, as our Nation's Commandant of the Marine
Corps.
The Corps serves as America's expeditionary force in
readiness, a balanced air-ground logistics team of 202,000
Active, 39,000 Reserve, and 35,000 civilian marines.
Today, there are over 32,000 marines forward-deployed
around the world. As we sit here in the comfort of this hearing
room, it's just past 8:30 in the evening in Afghanistan. The
rainy season has hit. The evenings remain cold and damp. It's
in this nation where 20,000 of our young men and women are
engaged in full-spectrum combat and counterinsurgency
operations. I'm encouraged by the significant progress they
have made in the Helmand Province. And you have my assurance
that this effort remains my top priority.
Sergeant Major Kent and I spent Christmas with our marines
and sailors in Afghanistan, and I'm happy to report that their
morale is high and their belief in their mission remains
strong.
Partnered with the United States Navy, we are forward-
deployed and forward-engaged. This past year alone, our float
forces conducted humanitarian assistance missions in Pakistan,
Haiti, and the Philippines, recaptured the pirated ship,
Magellan Star, from its Somali pirates. And 2 weeks ago,
marines from the 1st Battalion, 2d Marine Regiment, rapidly
deployed to the Mediterranean to join their brothers and
sisters on board two amphibious ships. This formidable force is
underway now, prepared to do our Nation's bidding.
Likewise, on the opposite side of the world, marines based
on Okinawa rapidly responded to our ally, Japan, following this
week's devastating earthquake and tsunami. Within hours of this
tragedy, marine aviation units from the Marine Corps Air
Station Futenma Okinawa began transporting humanitarian
assistance goods, disaster response planning teams, and
personnel to impacted areas. We have established a forward-
refueling and operating base, just west of the devastation, to
facilitate around-the-clock search-and-rescue and transport
operations. Our marines already on the ground are being joined
by 2,200 marines and sailors from the three amphibious ships of
the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit. In addition to a multitude
of other capabilities, the 31st MEU is optimized for
humanitarian assistance and disaster response operations.
Evidenced by what has unfolded globally just within the
last 2 weeks, our role as America's crisis response force
necessitates that we maintain a high state of readiness. Our
mission is simple. We need to be ready to respond to today's
crisis, with today's force, today.
I am keenly aware of the fiscal realities confronting our
Nation. During these times of constrained resources, the Marine
Corps remains committed to being the best stewards of scarce
public funds. We maintain a longstanding tradition in Congress
as the Department of Defense's penny-pinchers. Our
institutionalized culture of frugality positions us as the best
value for the Defense dollar.
For approximately 8.5 percent of the annual Defense budget,
the Marine Corps provides the Nation 31 percent of its ground
operating forces, 12 percent of its fixed-wing tactical
aircraft, and 19 percent of its attack helicopters. This year's
budget submission was framed by my four service-level
priorities: We will, one, continue to provide the best-trained
and -equipped marine units to Afghanistan; two, rebalance our
Corps and posture it for the future in a post-Afghanistan
environment; three, better educate and train our marines to
succeed in increasingly complex environments; and last, but not
least, we will keep faith with our marines, our sailors, and
our families.
While these priorities will guide our long-term planning
for the Marine Corps, there are pressing issues that face our
Corps today that concern me, issues for which I ask for
Congress' continued assistance in solving. Our equipment abroad
and at home stations has been heavily taxed in the nearly 10
years of constant combat operations. The price tag for reset
today is $10.6 billion. The F-35B STOVL Joint Strike Fighter is
vital to our ability to conduct expeditionary airfield
operations. Continued funding and support from Congress for
this important program is of utmost importance to me and the
Marine Corps.
You have my promise that, during the next 2 years of F-35B
scrutiny, I will remain personally engaged with the program,
closely supervising it. Both the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of the Navy have reaffirmed the necessity of the
Marine Corps' amphibious assault mission. We must develop an
affordable and capable amphibious vehicle to project marines
from sea to land in permissive and uncertain and in hostile
environments. I ask for your support to reach this goal.
To ensure the Marine Corps remains a relevant force with a
capacity and capability to respond to the demands of the future
security environment, we recently conducted a detailed and
internally driven force-structure review. The results of this
effort provide America a strategically mobile, middleweight
force, optimized for forward presence in crisis response.
Finally, I would like to comment on the impact of--the
current continuing resolution has had on our operations and
programs. As of this morning, $1 billion in military
construction contracts have not been awarded; $2.4 billion of
Milcon is at risk for the remainder of the year. These project
impact--projects impact the lives of marines, the local
economies and communities around our bases and stations, and
are projected to generate over 63,000 jobs, from the Carolinas
to Hawaii.
If the continuing resolution extends through the entire
fiscal year, 13 bachelor enlisted quarters (BEQ), totaling
5,000 affected spaces, will not be built, thus stymieing our
BEQ modernization plans. These 13 BEQs will allow eight
infantry battalions to move out of 50-year-old cold war-era
barracks.
Finally, a continuing resolution could prove catastrophic
to our procurement accounts, resulting in the loss of almost
one-third or our procurement budget.
Last, you have my promise that, in these challenging times
ahead, the Marine Corps will only ask for what it needs, not
what it might want. We will make the hard decisions before
coming to Congress, and we will redouble our efforts toward our
traditional culture of frugality.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and each of you, for
your continued support. I'm prepared to answer your questions.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much, Commandant.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of General James F. Amos
AMERICA'S EXPEDITIONARY FORCE IN READINESS
The Marine Corps is America's Expeditionary Force in Readiness--a
balanced air-ground-logistics team. We are forward-deployed and
forward-engaged: shaping, training, deterring, and responding to all
manner of crises and contingencies. We create options and decision
space for our Nation's leaders. Alert and ready, we respond to today's
crisis, with today's force . . . Today. Responsive and scalable, we
team with other services, allies and interagency partners. We enable
and participate in joint and combined operations of any magnitude. A
middleweight force, we are light enough to get there quickly, but heavy
enough to carry the day upon arrival, and capable of operating
independent of local infrastructure. We operate throughout the spectrum
of threats--irregular, hybrid, conventional--or the shady areas where
they overlap. Marines are ready to respond whenever the Nation calls .
. . wherever the President may direct.
General James F. Amos
AMERICA'S EXPEDITIONARY FORCE IN READINESS
Today, your United States Marine Corps is foremost America's
Expeditionary Force in Readiness. Established originally by an act of
the Second Continental Congress on November 10, 1775, your Marine Corps
has evolved over 235 years into a balanced air-ground-logistics team
that is forward deployed and forward engaged: shaping, training,
deterring, and responding to all manner of crises and contingencies.
Through the ongoing support of Congress and the American people,
your Marine Corps is a cohesive force of 202,100 Active Duty Marines;
39,600 Selected Reserve Marines; and 35,000 Civilian Marines. At any
given time, approximately 30,000 Marines are forward deployed in
operations supporting our Nation's defense.\1\ This year, as our Nation
recognizes a decade since the tragic events of 9/11, your Marine Corps
has been conducting Overseas Contingency Operations for an equal amount
of time. From Task Force 58 with 4,400 Marines launching from six
amphibious ships to secure critical lodgments in Afghanistan in late
2001 to our counterinsurgency efforts in the Al Anbar province of Iraq
and to our current operations in the Helmand River Valley of
Afghanistan, your Marines have been forward deployed in the service of
our Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of December 2010, there were approximately 20,700 Marines in
Afghanistan including Marines serving in external billets (e.g.
transition teams and joint/interagency support, etc.); 6,200 at sea on
Marine Expeditionary Units; and 1,600 Marines engaged in various other
missions, operations and exercises. The 30,000 statistic excludes over
18,000 Marines assigned to garrison locations outside the continental
United States such as in Europe, the Pacific, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, during this time the Marine Corps has not been confined solely
to major combat operations and campaigns. From our rapid response
aiding fellow Americans and enabling joint and interagency relief
efforts following Hurricane Katrina's floods, to our non-combatant
evacuation operation of 14,000 American citizens from Lebanon in 2006,
to our numerous and ongoing security cooperation missions with nations
of Africa, Eastern Europe, the Pacific Rim, and Latin America, the
United States Marine Corps continues to demonstrate the agility and
flexibility expected of America's principal crisis response force. Over
the course of the past year alone, your brave men and women who wear
the Marine uniform and who bring a diversity of talent in service to
our Nation, have simultaneously:
--Waged an aggressive full-spectrum counterinsurgency operation in
Afghanistan while concurrently increasing combat power nearly
two-fold (i.e. from 10,600 to 19,400) in accordance with the
President's December 2009 Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy;
--Successfully completed our mission in Iraq, bringing stability to
Al Anbar province. This achievement was not without sacrifice
and suffering in that 1,022 \2\ Marines gave their lives and
8,626 Marines were wounded in action;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 1022 deaths = 851 killed in action (hostile) and 171 deceased
(non-hostile).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Partnered with allied forces in engagement missions throughout
every Geographic Combatant Commander's Area of Responsibility;
--Conducted foreign humanitarian assistance and disaster relief
missions in Pakistan, Haiti, and the Philippines;
--Participated in maritime security operations to ensure freedom of
navigation along vital sea lines of communication, to include
the recapture of the vessel Magellan Star and rescue of its
crew from Somali pirates; and
--Rapidly reinforced U.S. Embassies in Port au Prince, Haiti;
Conakry, Guinea; Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan; and most recently Cairo,
Egypt to assist and protect diplomatic personnel amidst crises
in these foreign capitals.
Their actions align with the functions of our Corps as seen in the
new Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, Functions of the
Department of Defense and Its Major Components, and are a critical link
to the continued prosperity and security of our Nation and the survival
of our friends, allies and partners. The performance of your Marines on
the global stage adds to our storied legacy of sacrifice and success--
under even the most adverse conditions--inspiring a sense of pride and
confidence in the American public that their Marines are able to
respond quickly, ensuring the Nation's interests will be protected.
FUTURE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT
Public law, defense policy, our doctrine and operating concepts,
and the future security environment shape how we organize, train, and
equip our forces. As we look ahead, we see a world of increasing
instability, failed or failing states, and conflict characterized by:
Poverty, unemployment, urbanization, overpopulation, and extremism;
competition for scarce natural resources; and rapid proliferation of
new technologies to include capabilities to disrupt cyber networks,
advanced precision weaponry, and weapons of mass destruction.
These troubling socio-economic and geopolitical trends converge in
the littorals--regions along the world's coastline where the sea joins
with the land. The majority of the world's population lives near the
sea. The trend toward accelerated birth rates in the developing world,
coupled with ongoing migration from rural to urban landscapes, results
in hyper-populated coastal regions, burdened by the cumulative
stressors of criminality, extremism, and violence.
Littoral cities increasingly may assume what some have called feral
qualities, raising the potential for conflict, providing a measure of
sanctuary for our adversaries, and posing challenges to governmental
sovereignty and regional security. It is in this complex environment
that your United States Marine Corps will operate. We stand optimally
postured to conduct a range of operations for Joint Force commanders,
bridging the gap between operations at sea and on land.
Nonetheless, we are committed to the prevention of conflict as we
are to responding to it. Indeed, 21st century security challenges
require expansion of global engagement--facilitated through persistent
forward naval presence--to promote collective approaches to addressing
common security concerns. Accordingly, forward deployed Marine forces
will increasingly conduct theater security cooperation activities and
will build partnership capacity through security force assistance
missions with our allies and partners around the globe. The goal of our
engagement initiatives is to minimize conditions for conflict and
enable host nation forces to effectively address instability as it
occurs.
ROLE OF THE MARINE CORPS
The United States is a maritime nation with global
responsibilities. With a naval tradition as the foundation of our
existence, we remain firmly partnered with the U.S. Navy. Forward
deployed, we retain the ability to come from the sea rapidly to conduct
missions across the range of military operations. Our persistent
forward presence and multi-mission capability present an unparalleled
ability to rapidly project U.S. power across the global commons--land,
sea, air, space, and cyber.
Amphibious forces with robust and organic logistical sustainment
provide a maritime Super Power significant advantages, including the
ability to overcome the tyranny of distance and to project power where
there is no basing or infrastructure--a strong deterrent capability for
our Nation. To Marines, ``expeditionary'' is a state of mind that
drives the way we organize our forces, train, develop and procure
equipment. By definition, our role as America's crisis response force
necessitates a high state of unit readiness and an ability to sustain
ourselves logistically. We must be ready to deploy today and begin
operating upon arrival, even in the most austere environments. The
United States Marine Corps affords the following three strategic
advantages for our Nation:
--A versatile ``middleweight'' capability to respond across the range
of military operations. We fill the gap in our Nation's defense
as an agile force capable of operating at the high and low ends
of the threat spectrum or the indistinct areas in between.
--An inherent speed and agility that buys time for National leaders.
Our flexibility and rapid response capability present unique
opportunities to develop strategic options, shape the
environment, and set conditions to deploy the full capabilities
of the Joint Force and other elements of National power.
--An enabling and partnering capability in joint and combined
operations. Our unique forward posture aboard amphibious ships,
manned by well trained, uniformed sailors, positions us to be
the ``first to fight.''
USMC PRIORITIES
My four service level priorities informed this year's budget
submission. These priorities were influenced by and derived from a
number of factors to include our understanding of the 21st century
battlefield based on lessons learned over nearly a decade at war, our
examination of the future security environment, our doctrine and
operating concepts, and our current and future budgetary and
programmatic requirements.
These priorities are aligned with the principal recommendations of
the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, meeting its end state of ensuring
that the Marine Corps is able to ``prevail in today's wars, prevent and
deter conflict, prepare to defeat adversaries and succeed in a wide
range of contingencies, and preserve and enhance the All-Volunteer
Force.'' My priorities also support America's four enduring strategic
interests as identified in the 2010 National Security Strategy.\3\ To
that end, we will:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ (1) Security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S.
allies and partners; (2) a strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy
in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and
prosperity; (3) respect for universal values at home and around the
world; (4) and an international order advanced by U.S. leadership that
promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation
to meet global challenges. 2010 National Security Strategy Pg, 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Continue to provide the best trained and equipped Marine units to
Afghanistan;
--Rebalance our Corps, posture it for the future, and aggressively
experiment with and implement new capabilities and
organizations;
--Better educate and train our Marines to succeed in distributed
operations and increasingly complex environments; and
--Keep faith with our Marines, our Sailors and our families.
The above priorities guide my long-term plan for the Marine Corps;
however, there are pressing issues facing our Corps today that give
cause for concern.
--Equipment.--Our equipment abroad and at home station has been
``heavily taxed'' in the nearly 10 years of constant combat
operations. We require funding to reset equipment being
utilized overseas and to reconstitute home-station equipment
and modernize for the future. This is critical to maintaining
readiness throughout the Corps.
--The Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing F-35B Joint Strike
Fighter.--The F-35B is vital to our ability to conduct combined
arms operations in expeditionary environments. Continued
funding and support from Congress for this program is of utmost
importance.
--Amphibious Combat Vehicle.--We will begin the development of an
affordable and capable amphibious combat vehicle to replace the
recently cancelled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program. The
capability inherent in a ship-to-shore connector is critical to
our expeditionary nature, as affirmed by the Secretary of
Defense.
--End Strength.--The drawdown of our active component from 202,100 to
186,800 must be conditions-based, and only after completion of
our mission in Afghanistan. We must keep faith with our Marine
Corps family by allowing appropriate time and support for those
departing the force and to ensure the resiliency of our units
still engaged in war.
--Family Readiness Programs.--Like our equipment, Marines and their
families have been ``heavily taxed'' since 9/11. We will
continue to fund family readiness and family support programs
that are vital to the health and welfare of our entire Marine
Corps family.
--Amphibious Ships.--The Navy and Marine Corps have determined a
minimum force of 33 ships represents the limit of acceptable
risk in meeting the 38-ship amphibious force requirement for
the Assault Echelon. Marines are best postured to engage and
respond to the Nation's security interests from amphibious
ships.
The Marine Corps needs the continued support of Congress in
confronting these critical issues and the many others discussed below.
My promise to Congress is that we will do our part by continuing to be
good stewards of our taxpayers' dollars.
FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGETARY SUBMISSION
The Marine Corps maintains a longstanding tradition in the
Department of Defense as being ``Penny Pinchers.'' A prime example of
our many noteworthy cost-saving measures is our practice of units
deploying to Afghanistan utilizing equipment sets maintained and
repaired in country--a measure saving significant funds annually on
costs associated with the cycle of deployment and redeployment. Our
institutionalized culture of frugality, streamlined business practices,
lean structure, and multi-mission capability, position us as the ``best
value'' for the defense dollar. This fiscal year we are seeking over
$40 billion \4\ to fund ongoing operations, provide quality resources
for our Marines, Sailors and their families, conduct reset of equipment
stressed from nearly 10 years at war, and prepare our forces for future
missions. For approximately 8.5 percent \5\ of the annual Defense
budget, the Marine Corps provides the Nation approximately 31 percent
of its ground operating forces (Combat, Combat Support and Combat
Service Support), 12 percent of its fixed wing tactical aircraft, and
19 percent of its attack helicopters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This sum includes both ``Blue in Support of Green'' funding,
Overseas Contingency Operation funding, and other Navy funding for USMC
needs (e.g. chaplains, medical personnel, amphibious ships, etc)
\5\ Based on provisions of the fiscal year 2010 National Defense
Authorization and Appropriation Acts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During these times of constrained resources, the Marine Corps
remains committed to streamlining operations, identifying efficiencies,
and reinvesting savings to conserve scarce public funds. At the
direction of the Secretary of Defense in June 2010, the services
conducted an efficiencies review and our fiscal year 2012 budget is the
result of a thorough study of all of our business activities. Already
one of the most economical of the military services, we achieved our
DOD efficiency goal. We captured overhead efficiency savings by
focusing on three main efforts: Buying smarter through acquiring
platforms more intelligently; streamlining our operations; and being
more efficient in the way we use, produce, and acquire energy.
This effort has had a marked impact on our overall budget, allowing
us to invest more in our core warfighting missions and enhancing our
acquisition plans. The efficiency initiative drove adjustments to our
programs and ensured restoration of funding in areas where needed most.
Additionally, we used funds realized from efficiencies to support
programs originally not funded. We re-invested savings into critical
war fighting programs to enhance readiness. We anticipate unit
equipment readiness to increase by fiscal year 2014 through the
purchase of additional equipment beginning in fiscal year 2012. This
readiness increase will allow the Marine Corps to equip, train, and
prepare units earlier in the pre-deployment cycle. Other expansions
that we were able to address include enhancing funding for facilities
with direct operational impact, energy and water investments at bases
and installations, command and control and logistics programs, and
equipment modernization.
In addition to our frugality and aggressive pursuit of finding
efficiencies to enhance our warfighting capacity inherent in our budget
request, your Marine Corps remains the first and only military service
whose financial statements have been deemed audit ready. We are
continually striving to be good stewards of the public trust and know
the ongoing financial audit will serve to both strengthen our financial
management practices and give us actionable business intelligence to
support our decisionmaking process in supporting our operational forces
at home, abroad and in harm's way.
PRIORITY #1: CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE BEST TRAINED AND EQUIPPED UNITS TO
AFGHANISTAN
Operation Enduring Freedom.--We have made great progress in
Afghanistan; this effort remains our number one priority until we
attain our National objectives. At present over 20,000 Marines are
deployed in Afghanistan. This mission ultimately involves almost 60,000
Marines, or just under one-third of our active duty force, factoring in
deployment, redeployment, training cycles and other direct support. We
will continue providing forces in Afghanistan capable of full-spectrum
combat and counterinsurgency operations, while balancing our
capabilities to perform what the Nation will likely ask of us in the
future. We will ensure that Marines, Sailors, and the units in which
they serve, receive the best possible training and equipment to succeed
in the many types of missions we are conducting in this complex,
dynamic environment.
Our successes within Helmand Province are paving the way for
economic development and governance. Marine commanders on the ground
and Afghan officials indicate that freedom of movement for the local
populace has improved. Bazaars and markets are flourishing; critical
infrastructure projects are underway. Today, 10 of 13 districts in
Helmand Province are under the control of the Afghan central
government. Daily, 135,000 children attend school, which is more than a
60 percent increase from 2008 levels. Formerly dangerous places like
Marjah, Now Zad, and Garmsir, un-trafficable due to improvised
explosive devices just 1 year ago, now have significant activity
occurring in commercial centers. Yet, other challenges remain as we now
seek to capitalize on our 2010 successes. We are currently expanding
battle-space northward into other hostile locations such as the
district of Sangin, where our forces are going ``head-to-head'' with
Taliban resistance.
As America's Expeditionary Force in Readiness, we are ready to
execute any mission assigned in support of crisis and contingency
response. In addition to our Afghanistan commitment, we continue to
source forward-based and deployed forces to meet Geographic Combatant
Commander requirements. In light of our operational demands, and
through the support of Congress in authorizing our end strength of
202,100 active duty forces, our combat units are beginning to realize
an approximate 1:2 dwell time.\6\ Other units vary at more favorable
dwell time levels depending on their mission. We anticipate the 1:2
dwell ratio for combat units to remain relatively stable provided
current deployed force levels are not increased; however, increased
operational demands in Afghanistan or elsewhere may result in dwell
times inconsistent with fostering a resilient Total Force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Infantry battalions will continue to remain just below 1:2
dwell time due to relief in place/transfer of authority requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Marines in select military occupational specialties continue
to fall into what is known as a high-demand, low-density status. This
is a key indicator that the combat demand for Marines with these skills
does not match, or exceeds, the current manpower requirement and/or
inventory. In addition, there are currently 14 of 211 occupational
specialties where the on-hand number of Marines is less than 90 percent
of what is required.\7\ Our recently completed force structure review
addressed all these concerns. We are working actively to recruit,
promote, and retain the right number of Marines in the right
occupational specialties thus promoting resiliency of our Total Force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Our most stressed occupational specialties based on percentage
of Marines beyond a 1:2 dwell are (1) Geographic Intelligence
Specialist, (2) Imaging Analyst/Specialists, (3) Signals Collection
Operator/Analyst, (4) Unmanned Aerial Systems Operator/Mechanic, and
(5) European, Middle East, and Asia-Pacific Cryptologic Linguists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training for Full Spectrum Counter-Insurgency Operations.--Our
comprehensive training program conducted at our premiere desert
training base in Twentynine Palms, California, has been credited by
leaders throughout the Corps with providing a dynamic environment that
replicates the many tasks, challenges, and requirements required of
units in a counterinsurgency setting. Our newly instituted Infantry
Immersion Trainers are realistic, reconfigurable, and provide
comprehensive training environments that develop small unit tactics and
individual skills for deploying infantry squads. The Infantry Immersion
Trainer supports essential training such as control of supporting arms,
language, improvised explosive device recognition and defeat measures,
human terrain understanding and close quarters battle. Introducing
battlefield effects simulators, culturally appropriate role players,
and interactive avatars at the Infantry Immersive Trainers teaches
Marines to make legally, morally, ethically, and tactically sound
decisions under situations of great stress. It also contributes to
reducing the effects of combat stress. I view this training program to
be of vital importance to our Operating Forces.
Equipping for the Afghan Effort.--Marine units are operating in
Afghanistan with high rates of ground equipment readiness. Through the
generosity of Congress, we have received funds for the rapid fielding
of urgent need items in support of our Afghanistan effort. The Mine
Resistant Armor Vehicle Program continues to meet urgent requirements
while we actively pursue vehicle upgrades to outpace emerging threats,
enhance mobility, and improve vehicle performance. We can accomplish
this goal through engineering changes and capability insertions in
current production, planned orders, and fielded vehicles. We have a
requirement for 3,362 vehicles in the family of Mine Resistant Armor
Protected vehicles, including 1,454 Mine Resistant Armor Protected All
Terrain Vehicles. To date, we have fielded 1,214 Mine Resistant Armor
Protected All Terrain Vehicles to our units in Afghanistan and have met
the theater requirement.
To date, we have fielded 34 Assault Breacher Vehicles, 5 of which
are in Afghanistan, to enhance the mobility of the Marine Air Ground
Task Force (MAGTF). We plan to field a total of 52 Assault Breacher
Vehicles. Production of the remaining 18 vehicles remains on schedule
and is fully funded with final delivery scheduled for the second
quarter of fiscal year 2012.
In our continuing efforts to find improvised explosive devices by
all possible means, we are tripling our successful Improvised Explosive
Device Dog Detection program and are also undertaking a research and
development effort to train dogs with improved detection capabilities
with fielding expected this fall. This year, we will have fielded 647
specially trained Labrador Retrievers who work off-leash, supporting
our infantry units in ground combat operations. We also have fielded a
wide array of intelligence collection sensors and analytic and
processing systems to include the Multimedia Archival Analysis System,
the Ground Based Observational Surveillance System, the Tactical Remote
Sensor System, the Communication Emitter Sensing and Attacking System,
and improvements to the Tactical Exploitation Group, to name a few.
Last, in December 2010, we deployed a reinforced company of 17 M1A1
Main Battle Tanks to join our efforts in Regional Command SouthWest to
provide increased force protection and firepower. Today, these tanks
are fully integrated with our forces operating in our most highly
contested regions, and are rapidly proving their utility in this
environment by enabling our Marines to increase operational tempo. They
also demonstrate the commitment of Coalition Forces to the security of
Southern Afghanistan.
PRIORITY #2 REBALANCE THE CORPS, POSTURE FOR THE FUTURE, AND
AGGRESSIVELY EXPERIMENT WITH AND IMPLEMENT NEW CAPABILITIES AND
ORGANIZATIONS
Posture for the Future and Force Structure Review.--The Marine
Corps has deployed MAGTFs in support of irregular warfare missions such
as our counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan, humanitarian assistance
and disaster relief efforts in Pakistan, Haiti, and the Philippines,
and engagement missions such as our theater security cooperation
exercises in support of every Geographic Combatant Commander.
Despite these and many other operational successes over the past
decade, new challenges await us requiring the same spirit of innovation
and institutional flexibility that have been the bedrock of our Corps
for 235 years. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review highlights an
expanding need over the next two decades for military forces skilled at
countering irregular threats,\8\ and the 2010 National Security
Strategy signals a need for increased engagement activities. Both of
these thrusts necessitate Marines who are not only fighters, but also
trainers, mentors, and advisors. The 2011 National Military Strategy
advances the idea that ``strengthening international and regional
security requires that our forces be globally available, yet regionally
focused.'' \9\ Likewise, Geographic Combatant Commanders have continued
to register their growing need for forward--postured amphibious forces
capable of conducting security cooperation, regional deterrence, and
crisis response.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``The wars we are fighting today and assessments of the future
security environment together demand that the United States retain and
enhance a whole-of-government capability to succeed in large-scale
counterinsurgency, stability, and counterterrorism operations in
environments ranging from densely populated urban areas and mega-
cities, to remote mountains, deserts, jungles, and littoral regions.''
2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, Pg 20.
\9\ 2011 National Military Strategy of the United States, pg 10.
\10\ In the past 20 years, U.S. amphibious forces have responded to
crises and contingencies 114 times--a response rate double that during
the Cold War.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This past fall, we conducted a detailed force structure review to
develop the optimum mix of capabilities for our role as America's
Expeditionary Force in Readiness in the post-Afghanistan security
environment. The force structure review addressed 21st century
challenges confronting our Nation and its Marine Corps, aiming to build
on our historic role as the Nation's crisis response force. The review
sought to provide the ``best value'' in terms of capability, cost, and
readiness relative to the operational requirements of our forward-
engaged Geographic Combatant Commanders. The results of that effort
provide for a strategically mobile, ``middleweight'' force optimized
for forward-presence and rapid crisis response. We will be light enough
to leverage the flexibility and capacity of amphibious ships, yet heavy
enough to accomplish the mission when we get there. Sea-based forces,
in particular, will be invaluable for discreet engagement activities,
rapid crisis response, and sustainable power projection.
Our review also aimed for a force structure that provides
capability and capacity across the range of military operations, while
simultaneously providing for resiliency in our Total Force. With likely
reductions in forward basing and strategic transportation, the
importance of regionally focused headquarters and forces, both forward-
postured and immediately deployable with a minimum of strategic lift,
is paramount. We have thus built a Joint Task Force capable
headquarters at several Geographic Combatant Command locations. As we
aim to implement signature outcomes of the force structure review,
Marines on a day-to-day basis will be forward-deployed and engaged,
working closely with our joint and allied partners. When crises or
contingencies arise, these same Marines will respond--locally,
regionally, or globally if necessary--to accomplish whatever mission
the Nation asks of us.
To best meet Geographic Combatant Commander needs and ensure
optimal configuration as America's Expeditionary Force in Readiness, we
require Congressional support to reset our equipment, develop new
organizational structures, and begin implementing initiatives from our
force structure review. These measures ultimately will improve our
ability to function within the Joint Force, execute distributed
operations, command and control in complex environments, and conduct
persistent engagement missions. As we are entrusted with the resources
and funding to posture ourselves for the future, we will continue to
conduct responsible examination required of a disciplined force to
ensure that we implement every refinement--from the smallest to the
most sweeping--in a manner that provides the Nation with a lean force,
capable of rapidly projecting the Nation's power and strategic
influence.
Equipping
Reset of the Total Force.--Resetting the Marine Corps for the
future after nearly a decade at war is my number one equipping
priority. This past year, we completed our mission in Iraq, effecting
the retrograde of more than 25,000 Marines,\11\ 382,000 items of
equipment, 10,800 short tons of aviation support equipment, and nearly
11,000 containers from Al Anbar province via Jordan and Kuwait to the
United States and elsewhere. This drawdown of equipment over the course
of 1 year was a significant logistical and operational achievement. We
also accomplished the rapid shift of critical equipment from Iraq to
Afghanistan in support of the deployment of the 2d Marine Expeditionary
Brigade. This shift of materiel within a theater of operation became
one of the largest redeployments in U.S. history, both in terms of
equipment moved and distances involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ At present, approximately 100 Marines remain in Iraq serving
in individual augment, transition team and other miscellaneous billets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Marine Corps is currently sourcing highly trained and ready
forces to meet global combatant commander requirements.
--Approximately 98 percent of deployed units report the highest
levels of readiness for their assigned mission.
However, high deployed-unit readiness has come at the expense of
home-station, non-deployed units, which have sourced organic equipment
and personnel to meet the needs of our deployed forces.
--Approximately 68 percent of non-deployed units report degraded
levels of readiness. The largest contributing factor is
equipment; approximately 37 percent of non-deployed forces
report degraded levels of equipment supply. This lack of
equipment impacts the ability of non-deployed forces to respond
rapidly to other potential contingencies and represents lost
core training opportunities early in the deployment cycle in
preparation for Overseas Contingency Operations.
The equipment redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan in support of the
2009 surge included most of our deployed medium tactical fleet, the
majority of our fleet of Mine Resistant Armor Protected vehicles, light
armored reconnaissance vehicles, other hard-to-move equipment, and
theater-specific items. While shifting this equipment directly to
Afghanistan enabled the Marine Corps to meet critical operational
timelines, it resulted in the deferment of previously planned post-
Operation Iraqi Freedom reset actions. These same assets comprise a
significant portion of the Marine Corps' total reset liability and
depot maintenance costs. Thus, a consequence of delaying reset actions
on this equipment is the acceptance of considerable risk in the long-
term readiness and future availability of our ground equipment. In
addition, increased usage rates of our ground equipment and harsh
operating environments over these many years at war have resulted in
our ground equipment far exceeding planned peacetime usage rates by a
factor of six.
It is vital that we reset our equipment from nearly 10 years at war
to maintain the necessary levels of readiness to posture ourselves for
the future.
--We estimate the cost of reset for the Marine Corps to be $10.6
billion. $3.1 billion has been requested in fiscal year 2011 to
reduce this liability, leaving a $7.5 billion deficit. $5
billion of the $7.5 billion reset liability will be incurred
upon termination of the conflict in Afghanistan. (Note: $2.5
billion has been requested for reset in fiscal year 2012. These
estimates assume no reset generation beyond fiscal year 2012
and thus do not include any reset requirements for fiscal year
2013 and fiscal year 2014.)
This funding will support the depot-level maintenance of our
Operation Enduring Freedom equipment, procurement of combat vehicles
and major weapons systems, engineering equipment, ammunition
expenditures, and combat losses. The reset estimate is based on current
circumstances and will change as operational requirements are re-
evaluated. Moreover, as long as the war continues, our costs for reset
will grow accordingly.
Reconstitution of Equipment.--Our experiences in combat operations
over the past decade have shown us that our legacy 20th century tables
of equipment are inadequate with regard to the demands of the modern
battlefield. As we move toward finalizing our force structure review by
conducting a thorough Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel,
Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities assessment, we will
finalize determination on the costs associated with modernization of
equipment sets necessary to support our future operations.
--However, at this time, our initial estimate of reconstituting our
tables of equipment is $5 billion, which is an amount entirely
separate from our reset costs. We have begun to address our
reconstitution shortfall by requesting $253 million in fiscal
year 2012 for equipment procurement.
As our force structure review is implemented, we will continue with
deliberate assessments of the modernization requirements for equipment
that optimizes our post-Afghanistan posture while simultaneously
reinforcing our frugal and responsible roots. Our Service
Reconstitution Equipment Strategy will guide the identification of
emerging requirements for refining the capabilities of our status as a
middleweight force, our support to the Geographic Combatant Commanders,
our service level prioritization, and resource allocation.
Marine Aviation.--We are transitioning our entire inventory of
fixed and rotary wing aircraft to support our future force and require
ongoing support from Congress for this comprehensive aviation
modernization effort. The continued development and fielding of the
short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B Joint Strike Fighter
remains the centerpiece of this effort. The capability inherent in a
STOVL jet facilitates our maneuver warfare doctrine and fills our need
for close air support in the many austere conditions and locations
where we will likely operate in the future. Around the world, there are
10 times as many 3,000-foot runways capable of handling a STOVL jet as
there are 8,000-foot runways required of conventional fighter aircraft.
Additionally, we maintain the organic ability to build an expeditionary
3,000-foot runway in a matter of days in support of aviation
operations. The capabilities of the STOVL F-35B enable the Marine Corps
to replace three legacy aircraft types--F/A-18, EA-6B, and AV-8B--which
once fielded will save the Department of Defense approximately $1
billion per year in operations and maintenance costs. The F-35B program
has made significant progress to date including 22 successful vertical
landings so far this year which is more than double that achieved all
last year. I am confident that we will field this aircraft in
accordance with responsible timelines. This matter has my unwavering
attention, and I am personally overseeing this program. With a fully
fielded fleet of F-35Bs, the Nation will maintain 22 capital ships--11
carrier and 11 amphibious assault--with fifth generation strike assets
aboard--a significant deterrent and response capability for our Nation.
Our legacy aircraft supporting operational missions are consuming
service life at a rate up to three times faster than scheduled.
Averaged across our complete fleet, we are consuming aircraft service
life at a rate 1.85 times faster than planned. This reality results in
compressed timelines between re-work events and in earlier retirement
of aircraft than originally programmed. The majority of our legacy
platforms are nearing the end of their service lives, and most
production lines are closed. New aircraft with low average ages and
robust service life projections are the future of our aviation force
and its support of Marine Corps and joint operations. As we transition
to these new capabilities, we are mindful of the need to ensure a fully
integrated and networked force to provide Marine aviation to the MAGTF
and the Joint Force.
We are exploring the viability of transformational platforms such
as the Cargo Unmanned Aircraft System. The Cargo UAS will facilitate
the delivery of logistics to remote locations when weather or threat
systems preclude manned aviation sorties or overland resupply convoys.
Our new aircraft will provide increased range, speed, standoff,
time on station, lift capability, and will be critical to tomorrow's
MAGTF. By 2020, we will transition more than 50 percent of our aviation
squadrons to new aircraft and complete fielding of the tilt-rotor MV-22
Osprey assault support aircraft and the upgraded UH-1Y Huey utility
helicopter. We will field new close air support platforms such as the
AH-1Z attack helicopter and the STOVL F-35B. We also will have new
platforms for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and an
entirely new family of Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Last, we will
introduce greater lifting power to the MAGTF with a new model of the
heavy-lift CH-53 cargo helicopter.
Ground Combat and Tactical Vehicle Strategy.--The priority for our
Ground Combat Element is our ship to shore tactical mobility. The
seamless transition of our Operating Forces from the sea to conduct
sustained operations ashore, in particular to support three balanced
Marine Expeditionary Brigades (i.e. two sea-based Joint Forcible Entry
Marine Expeditionary Brigades reinforced by a third Maritime
Prepositioning Force-based Marine Expeditionary Brigade) as well as for
conducting irregular warfare missions, necessitates an appropriate mix
of ground combat vehicles. We are focusing our efforts on developing
and fielding a family of vehicles with a balance of performance,
protection, payload, transportability, fuel efficiency, and
affordability that supports the rapid concentration and dispersion of
combat power, supports strategic deployment concepts and meets our
world-wide operational commitments.
Our Ground Combat and Tactical Vehicle Strategy is currently in its
third phase of development. Its overall goal is to field a ground
combat vehicle portfolio structured to support the ground combat
element. Vehicles in this portfolio include the Joint Light Tactical
Vehicle, the Marine Personnel Carrier, and a new amphibious combat
vehicle.
In the complex future security environment, the execution of
amphibious operations requires the use of the sea as maneuver space. An
amphibious combat vehicle is essential to our ability to conduct
surface littoral maneuver and seamlessly project ready-to-fight Marine
units from sea to land in permissive, uncertain, and hostile
environments. As the Secretary of Defense affirmed earlier this year,
the cancellation of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is by no means a
rejection of the Marine Corps amphibious assault mission.
The standing, validated requirement for, and development of, an
amphibious combat vehicle will ensure we continue to develop the right
platform--at the right price--to support rapid ship to shore movement.
To that end, we are now pursuing an integrated new vehicle program with
three components, crafted from inception for affordability and
leveraging the investment made in the EFV. We intend to mitigate risks
associated with a new vehicle program and to maximize value by use of
an integrated acquisition portfolio approach. This approach will have
three synchronized efforts: Acceleration of the procurement of Marine
Personnel Carriers; investment in a service life extension program and
upgrades for a portion of the existing amphibious assault vehicles; and
development of a new amphibious combat vehicle.
We intend to manage these complementary capabilities, requirements
and acquisitions from a portfolio perspective.
Navy Support
The Navy Marine Corps Team.--As part of the Joint Force, the Marine
Corps and the Navy partner to leverage the significant advantages
provided by amphibious forces--a point reinforced by joint
doctrine.\12\ The Navy and Marine Corps team will be postured and
engaged forward to be most operationally relevant to the needs of our
Nation. Together, we provide the capability for massing potent forces
close to a foreign shore while maintain a diplomatically sensitive
profile. And, when needed, we are able to project this power ashore
across the range of military operations at a time of our Nation's
choosing, collectively demonstrating the essence of naval deterrence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Timely response to crisis situations is critical to U.S.
deterrent and warfighting capabilities. The timeliness of U.S. response
is a function of U.S. forward deployed forces and prepositioned forces
with adequate organic movement capability . . ..'' Joint Publication 3-
35, Joint Deployment and Redeployment Operations, 7 May 2007, pg I-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Shipping.--The Marine Corps' requirement to deploy
globally, rapidly respond regionally, and train locally necessitates a
combination of tactical airlift, high-speed vessels, amphibious ships,
maritime preposition shipping, organic tactical aviation, and strategic
airlift. The inherent flexibility and utility of amphibious ships is
not widely understood, as evidenced by the frequent--and erroneous--
assumption that ``forcible entry capabilities'' alone define the
requirement for amphibious ships. The same capabilities that allow an
amphibious task force to deliver and support a landing force on a
hostile shore enables it to support forward engagement and crisis
response. In fact the most frequent employment of amphibious forces is
for steady state engagement and crisis response. The Geographic
Combatant Commanders have increased demand for forward-postured
amphibious forces capable of conducting security cooperation, regional
deterrence, and crisis response reflecting the operational value of
amphibious forces for missions across the range of military
operations.\13\ In an era of declining access and strategic
uncertainty, I anticipate that this upward demand trend will continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Since 9/11 U.S. amphibious forces have responded to crises and
contingencies at least 50 times, a response rate more than double that
of the Cold War.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our principal contribution to U.S. Global Defense Posture is our
``rotationally responsive'' forces aboard amphibious ships. These
forces combine the advantages of an immediate, yet temporary, presence,
graduated visibility, and tailored, scalable force packages structured
around the MAGTF. Rotational Amphibious Ready Groups/Marine
Expeditionary Units forward deployed in three Geographic Combatant
Command areas of responsibility, not only provide the capability for
crisis response, but also present a means for day-to-day engagement
with partner nations. Rotational forces also offer additional
flexibility for decisionmakers in the event that forces are required to
rapidly re-deploy across divergent regions and conflicts.
In January 2009, the Navy and Marine Corps agreed that the force
structure requirement to support a 2.0 Marine Expeditionary Brigade
lift is 38 total amphibious assault ships. In light of the fiscal
constraints, the Department of the Navy agreed to sustain a minimum of
33 total amphibious ships in the assault echelon. This number gives a
capability needed for steady state operations and represents the
minimum number of ships needed to provide the Nation with a sea based
power projection capability for full spectrum amphibious operations--
including the amphibious assault echelon of two Marine Expeditionary
Brigades.
The Marine Corps is committed to the spiral development of the
America Class LHA (R), which is 27 percent complete. We expect the Navy
to take delivery of LHA-6 in fiscal year 2014 with availability to
deploy beginning in fiscal year 2017. In terms of LHA-7, we anticipate
the contract award in late fiscal year 2011 with fabrication commencing
the following year. These two ships are maximized for aviation, and I
believe it is essential that a well-deck be reintroduced in LHA-8 as
currently planned. The ongoing procurement and commissioning of the
final 2 of our planned 11 San Antonio class LPD-17 ``Common Hull
Forms'' is critical to providing the lift capacities and operational
capabilities to support the full range of military operations up to and
including forcible entry.
Maritime Prepositioning Assets.--The Maritime Prepositioning Force
(MPF) program exists to enable the rapid deployment and engagement of a
Marine Air Ground Task Force anywhere in the world in support of our
National Military Strategy. The current MPF force, which has been
employed 55 times since 1985, is composed of a fleet of 16 ships
divided into three Maritime Pre-Positioning Ships Squadrons located in
the Mediterranean Sea, Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia), and Pacific Ocean
(Guam and Saipan). With the restructure of the Maritime Prepositioning
Force-Future, the Marine Corps and Navy have focused on an interim
solution to enhance current MPF with three new ships to enable future
sea-basing concepts. The addition of three Mobile Landing Platforms
(MLP) and three T-AKE auxiliary dry cargo ships to the Maritime
Prepositioning Ship Squadrons, coupled with existing Large, Medium-
Speed, Roll-On, Roll-Off (LMSR) cargo ships, will enable the MPS
squadrons to conduct at-sea, sea-state three, selective offload of
vehicles, personnel, and equipment without complete reliance on fixed
ports ashore. The introduction of MLPs, T-AKEs, and LMSRs provide the
Navy and Marine Corps team a substantial step in enhancing our current
sea-basing capabilities.
The Department of the Navy is currently funding the full MPF
program of 16 ships through fiscal year 2012; however, the DON POM-13
places one Maritime Prepositioning Squadron (six ships) in a Reduced
Operational Status beginning in fiscal year 2013. We will continue to
optimize the MPF program to remain responsive and relevant to
Geographic Combatant Commander requirements.
Naval Surface Fire Support.--The Marine Corps has an enduring
requirement for fire support from naval vessels in the range of 41-63
nautical miles to support amphibious operations in the littorals. These
fires are needed by tactical commanders to maneuver toward battlefield
objectives once ashore, contributing to joint doctrine for assured
access. They serve as a component of the balanced and complementary
joint triad of fires. Yet, unlike tactical aviation and ground fire
systems, naval surface fires are unique and vital for their volume,
lethality, accuracy and all-weather capability.
Planned reductions in the procurement of certain naval ships along
with cancellation of specific weapons programs over the past few years
have led to a deficiency in systems available for naval surface fires.
Completed in 2009, the Joint Expeditionary Fires Analysis of
Alternatives identified the optimum U.S. Navy programs to support
Marine Corps naval surface fire support requirements. This study
established the baseline capabilities of the current naval surface fire
support program of record (13nm projectile of the 5-inch gun and the
Advance Gun System of the DDG 1000) to be insufficient in mitigating
fire support gaps. The study determined that extended range 5-inch
munitions would serve as a complementary alternative to the three DDG
1000s. Dramatic improvements in 5-inch projectiles can extend the naval
surface fire support maximum range, across the 106 guns in the surface
fleet, from 13 to 52 nautical miles with precision, high angle attack
for use in operations in urban terrain, and potential effectiveness
against moving targets. We also support ongoing research and
development of transformational technologies like the Electro-Magnetic
Rail Gun with its potential to revolutionize the reach, coverage, and
responsiveness of ship-based naval gunfire to ranges in excess of 200
nautical miles.
Assured Access.--We remain vigilant of burgeoning anti-access/area
denial threats proliferating around the globe, particularly in the
Pacific Rim. The family of guided rockets, artillery, mortars, missiles
and subsurface systems like mines and quiet submarines, pose a
challenge to the power projection capability of seaborne expeditionary
forces and threatens DOD's ability to prevent and deter conflicts and
prepare for a wide range of contingencies.
Marine Air Ground Task Forces ashore and aboard amphibious shipping
will support operations to ensure the freedom of action of U.S. and
Allied forces by establishing expeditionary bases and airfields or
defending advance bases. Marine Short Take-off and Vertical Landing
aviation assets will be of particular value in overcoming adversary
anti-access and area denial capabilities since they can operate from
short or degraded airfields, can be rapidly dispersed, and can utilize
both large carriers and amphibious ships for attack, maintenance, force
protection, and dispersal purposes. The Joint Force Commander can
leverage these unique capabilities to ensure the sea control necessary
for the conduct of subsequent joint operations, whether they be power
projection, forcible entry, or freedom of navigation.
In this regard, we are partnered with the joint community to
develop an overarching concept to attain operational access. This year,
we will employ our war-gaming capability in Expeditionary Warrior 2011
to examine operations designed to overcome anti-access challenges. We
are partners with the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force in the
development of the Air-Sea Battle Concept aimed at integrating
capabilities to defeat these advanced weapon systems in maritime areas
of strategic interest. We also continue to participate in the U.S.
Army's Joint Forcible Entry Warfighting Experiment, examining
capabilities to conduct airborne and amphibious forcible entry
operations.
Personnel and Organizatonal Initiatives
People.--Today's Marine Corps represents less than one-tenth of 1
percent of the U.S. population, and the individual Marine remains our
most valuable asset. Our 202,100 Active Duty and 39,600 Selected
Reserve end strength allow us to meet current operational commitments
while promoting resiliency throughout our Total Force. In fiscal year
2010 Marine Corps Recruiting Command accessed 1,703 officers (100.18
percent of the 1,700 officer goal). Our fiscal year 2011 accession
mission is 1,650 active duty officer accessions with the same goal
projected in fiscal year 2012. In terms of enlisted accessions, we are
exceeding our internal quality standards of 95 percent enlisted
recruits entering the Marine Corps possessing a high school diploma and
63 percent qualifying in the DOD I-IIIA mental group categories (DOD
quality standards are 90 percent and 60 percent respectively). We will
achieve our mission of 31,500 enlisted active component non-prior
service recruits in fiscal year 2011. Enlistment Bonuses remain vital
to meeting the continuing requirement for high demand skills. We are
continuing to experience unprecedented retention in both first-term and
career Marines.
We will continue to shape our Total Force to provide the ideal
grade and military occupational specialty mix needed for sustainment.
Our force structure review developed ways to increase unit readiness
within our operating forces to ensure 99 percent manning of enlisted
billets and 95 percent manning of officer billets. At the close of the
Future Years Defense Program, we will work with the Secretary of
Defense on a responsible drawdown of our end strength that is aligned
with the future mission demands of a post-Operation Enduring Freedom
security environment. I am determined to ``keep faith'' with our
Marines and their families by designing and executing a responsible
drawdown from our current 202,100 end strength such that we avoid
reduction-in-force actions and early retirement boards.
The Marine Corps is committed to making concerted efforts to
attract, mentor, and retain the most talented men and women who bring a
diversity of background, culture and skill in service to our Nation.
Our diversity effort is structured with the understanding that the
objective of diversity is not merely to achieve representational
parity, but to raise total capability through leveraging the strengths
and talents of each and every Marine. The success of our pioneering
Female Engagement Team program in Afghanistan, which is an offshoot of
a similar effort we employed in Iraq, is one way that the Marine Corps
utilizes diversity within our ranks for operational benefit.
We are currently developing a comprehensive, Service-wide strategy
on diversity, an effort facilitated through our standing Diversity
Review Board and a Diversity Executive Steering Committee chartered to
establish the foundations for diversity success in the Total Force. The
Marine Corps has established minority officer recruiting and mentoring
as the highest priority in our recruiting efforts. Along with the other
Services, we have provided timely input to the congressionally
sanctioned Military Leadership Diversity Commission and look forward to
release of the Commission's final report scheduled for March 2011.
Marine Air Ground Task Force Enhancements.--To further posture
ourselves for the future, we are evaluating the internal workings of
our MAGTFs to account for the distributed operations, decentralized
command and control, dispersed forces and diffuse threats inherent on
the modern battlefield. We are implementing a diverse suite of command
and control systems within all elements of the MAGTF. We continue to
work to build the capacity of new organizations like the Marine Corps
Information Operations Center to achieve non-lethal effects in today's
irregular and complex environments. We are ensuring the rapid analysis,
fusion, and dissemination of intelligence down to the tactical level by
continuing implementation of the Marine Corps Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Enterprise. We also aim to reorganize
our intelligence collection and exploitation capabilities, increasing
the ratio of resources to users. We will also capitalize on the
capabilities of unmanned aircraft systems via an increase in capacity.
We are developing regionally focused Marine Expeditionary Brigade
command elements that are joint task force capable, with habitually
aligned subordinate elements, to improve Geographic Combatant Commander
effectiveness and speed of response. We have recently stood up one such
element in Bahrain in support of U.S. Central Command. To better
standardize operations and training for units and staff in our ground
combat element, we established the Marine Corps Tactics and Operations
Group, which reached full operational capability in May 2010. Among
other measures, this organization's mission is to support the
refinement of our doctrine, including how our infantry companies will
fight in the future. Building on the successes of the Marine Corps
Tactics and Operations Group for the ground combat element, we are also
developing and establishing a Marine Corps Logistics Operations Group
capability for the Logistics Combat Element along with reorganizing
Marine Logistics Groups to establish standing Combat Logistics
Battalions habitually aligned to specific Marine Expeditionary Units
and infantry regiments.
Over the past decade, we have become more reliant on equipment sets
resulting from the emergence of new threats, perhaps most notably the
improvised explosive device. This trend has resulted in the acquisition
of some resources that are incompatible with the ethos of an agile,
expeditionary force. To that end, we have begun an effort known as
``Lightening the MAGTF,'' a measure aimed at reducing the size, weight,
and energy expenditure of our forces from the individual rifleman to
wholesale components of the MAGTF.
Sustained combat operations and worldwide theater security
cooperation and training commitments over the last decade point toward
an essential requirement for the Marine Corps Reserve to continue
focusing at the operational, rather than strategic level of warfare.
Since 9/11, our Marine Corps Reserve has engaged continuously in combat
operations as well as in regional security cooperation and crisis
prevention activities in support of the Geographical Combatant
Commanders. This operational tempo has built a momentum among our war
fighters and a depth of experience throughout the ranks that is
unprecedented in generations of Marine Corps Reservists. In fact,
today's Marine Corps Reserve is more highly trained, capable, and
battle-tested than at any time since the Korean War.
The transition in utilization of the Marine Corps Reserve from a
strategic to operational Reserve, as affirmed by our force structure
review, expands our ability to perform as America's Expeditionary Force
in Readiness. Sharing the culture of deployment and expeditionary
mindset that has dominated Marine Corps culture, ethos and thinking
since our beginning more than two centuries ago, the Marine Corps
Reserve is optimally organized, equipped, and trained to perform as an
operational Reserve.
Institutions for Irregular Warfare.--Irregular operations (e.g.
Counterinsurgency, Stability Operations, Foreign Internal Defense,
Unconventional Warfare and Counterterrorism) often occur in response to
crisis and are executed in austere conditions--situations often
entailing employment of Marines. Our experiences countering irregular
threats in ``Small Wars'' is a result of responding to complex crises
involving a mix of security, economic, political, and social issues--
usually under austere physical conditions. Our approach to irregular
warfare is based on the understanding that people, ideas and
organizations--not platforms and advanced technology--are the keys to
success in operating in complex and irregular warfare environments.
Naval forces conducting theater security operations and security force
assistance to build partnership capacity also provide the Nation the
potential for immediate crisis response capability and options for
escalation or de-escalation. Building on our lessons learned in Iraq
and Afghanistan, we are developing options to re-organize, consolidate,
and strengthen our institutions that emphasize our irregular warfare
and multi-mission capability such as the Center for Advanced
Operational Culture and Learning, the Security Cooperation Training and
Education Center, and the Center for Irregular Warfare. The objective
is to gain unity of effort, increase effectiveness and efficiency, and
reduce redundant capacity.
We established the Marine Corps Training and Advisory Group (MCTAG)
within the past 5 years to train, equip, and deploy Marines for
Security Force Assistance missions in support of Geographic Combatant
Commander theater security cooperation plans. The MCTAG provides
conventional training and advisor support to Host Nation Security
Forces. This organization also offers planning assistance to Marine
regional component commands in developing and executing partner nation
training programs. The MCTAG is scheduled to reach full operating
capability in September 2011 and to date has directly trained more than
180 Marines and Sailors and assisted in the training of more than 600
Marines and Sailors, who themselves have conducted in excess of 150
deployments to more than 50 countries worldwide. The MCTAG has also
developed programs of instruction to train joint service advisors/
trainers deploying on theater security cooperation missions as well as
programs of instruction to train light infantry battalions from the
Republic of Georgia in executing combat operations in Afghanistan.
Because the Marine Corps functions in an integrated fashion
throughout all traditional domains--land, sea, air, and space--it is a
logical step forward for us to be optimally organized, trained and
equipped to operate synergistically on the modern battlefield, which
now includes the cyber domain. As U.S. Cyber Command matures and
sponsors initiatives to increase cyber operational capacity, we are
taking deliberate steps to build additional Marine Corps cyber
capability and capacity to meet joint and service-level demands.
We see the continued development of organic cyber capabilities,
capacities, and awareness as a critical element to retain speed,
precision, and lethality across the entire spectrum of operations. We
are working to incorporate scenarios into our exercises to increase
opportunities for Marines to leverage cyber capabilities while also
training Marines to operate where cyber-enabled warfighting capability
may be degraded and/or contested. Additionally, we are integrating
tailored cyber education into our officer and enlisted professional
education programs. We are continuing to examine our options for
recruiting, training and retaining our cyber workforce. This is
especially challenging given the highly specialized skill sets and the
competition for such in both the Federal and Private sectors.
Formed in 2006, Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) is
currently conducting an internal reorganization into three mirrored
battalions. Upon completion of this reorganization in fiscal year 2014,
Marine Special Operations Command will have one regiment consisting of
three battalions, 12 companies, and 48 Marine Special Operations Teams.
Since December 2009, MARSOC has maintained an enduring battalion-level
Special Operations Task Force headquarters and two companies in
Afghanistan along with persistent Marine Special Operations Team
engagements in other high priority regions.
Since its inception, the Marine Corps has resourced Marine Special
Operations Command with significant investments in military
construction for training facilities, barracks and headquarters. In the
near term, MARSOC will have 2,678 personnel. Our force structure review
recently evaluated ways to increase the number of combat support and
combat service support Marines (e.g. logisticians, intelligence
personnel, etc.) enabling MARSOC's operations. I intend to add 1,001
Marines to MARSOC, which will increase its capacity by 44 percent.
These Marines, who are above and beyond the planned fiscal year 2014
personnel increase, will better enable it for effective special
operations.
The Marine Corps serves as the Department of Defense Non-Lethal
Weapons Executive Agent responsible for developing program
recommendations and stimulating non-lethal weapons requirements. Non-
lethal effects are part of the Department of Defense portfolio of
capabilities that enhance the Joint Force Commander's ability to act in
a timely manner to detect, deter, prevent, defeat, or, if necessary,
mitigate the effects of an attack. Non-lethal capabilities provide the
Joint Force the ability to selectively target hostile threats, covered
or concealed by civilian assets, while avoiding collateral damage.
Geographic Combatant Commands are registering increased demand for non-
lethal weapons options to include items such as arresting nets, dazzler
lasers, acoustic hailing devices, electric stun guns, blunt impact
munitions, and non-lethal warning munitions. The Joint Non-Lethal
Weapons Program continues to support joint and combined non-lethal
weapons research, development, training and exercises in support of all
Geographic Combatant Commands.
Expeditionary Energy.--The Marine Corps is leading the development
of expeditionary energy solutions for DOD and the Department of the
Navy--reducing energy demand in our platforms and systems, increasing
the use of renewable energy, and instilling an ethos of energy and
water efficiency in every Marine. Our priority is force protection--
saving lives by reducing the number of Marines at risk on the road
hauling fuel and water. We also aim to help Marines travel lighter and
move faster through the reduction in size and amount of equipment and
the dependence on bulk supplies.
In February 2011, we issued a ``Bases to Battlefield''
Expeditionary Energy Strategy Implementation Planning Guidance, which
sets goals, performance metrics, and a plan for implementation by 2025.
This strategy supports congressional and Department of the Navy goals
to increase energy security through the use of alternative fuels and
energy efficiency. Since 2009 we have aggressively pursued renewable
energy and energy efficient capabilities that will make Marine units
more energy self-sufficient, and ultimately increase our combat
effectiveness.
Within 1 year, we stood up an Experimental Forward Operating Base,
sourced commercial and government technologies, trained an infantry
company with renewable energy technology, and deployed them to
Afghanistan in the winter of 2010 where they operated two patrol bases
entirely on renewable energy. As a result, our forces required less
fuel and batteries, reducing risk to Marines and saving money. This
year, the Experimental Forward Operating Base will focus on the
requirements of a major battlefield energy user--the Command Operations
Center and the Command Element--and will evaluate a second round of
energy technologies to support expeditionary operations.
In fiscal year 2012 we are devoting more resources--in current
programs and new areas--to build a foundation to achieve our goals for
increased energy efficiency and renewable energy by 2025. As a starting
point, we anticipate savings of petroleum over the Future Years Defense
Program in our Overseas Contingency Operations of 100,000 to 150,000
barrels. For example this year, we are procuring mobile electric power
sources to achieve 17 percent fuel efficiency using U.S. Army funded
development and Marine Corps funded procurement monies. We are also
fielding Enhanced Efficiency Environmental Control Units to achieve 15-
30 percent power efficiency improvements.
Installation Energy.--We are also devoting more resources to our
Energy Investment Program than ever before. These funds will be used to
implement the results of recent and ongoing energy audits at our
installations; install more efficient systems and reduce overall energy
consumption. Additionally, new facilities will continue to incorporate
the latest energy sustainability and efficiency features. This effort
aboard our installations complements our Corps-wide initiative to
develop an energy ethos and culture of conservation.
Training
Training MAGTFs.--We are utilizing our Marine Corps Service
Campaign Plan as a roadmap to strengthen and maintain our core
competencies and to ensure we remain America's Expeditionary Force in
Readiness well into the future. This effort also will also help
synchronize our Service level security cooperation activities in
support of national strategy and guide the type of training and
exercises we must conduct, in particular at the Marine Expeditionary
Brigade level.
Our amphibious core competency figures prominently in our Service
Campaign Plan, and as a result we have undertaken an array of exercise
planning in this critical skill area. We will soon be conducting a
MAGTF Large Scale Exercise that will refine our capability to conduct
amphibious power projection and sustained operations ashore in a joint
and inter-agency environment. In late-2010 we conducted Exercise Bold
Alligator 2011, the first large-scale amphibious training exercise with
the Navy on the east coast in almost 10 years. This synthetic training
event practiced planning for forcible entry operations against
conventional and asymmetric threats and a large scale non-combatant
evacuation operation. We will take lessons learned from this exercise
and build upon them for the next iteration of this important exercise
with the U.S. Navy scheduled in the coming year.
We are reviewing the core functions of our organizations and, where
appropriate, adding irregular warfare capabilities to reflect the full
spectrum of possible employment options as a core task set for the
Marine Expeditionary Brigade. We view integration with other government
agencies and coordination with non-government organizations as
essential to our success in irregular warfare and have significantly
increased interagency participation in numerous exercises and training
venues such as Expeditionary Warrior-09/10, Emerald Express, Joint
Urban Warrior-09, and Joint Irregular Warrior-10. We aim to capitalize
on our current theater security cooperation and partnership capacity
building activities with our allies and partners in all operational
environments providing our National leaders with strategic options to
shape outcomes, prevent and deter conflicts, strengthen ``at risk''
states, and deny enemy safe-havens.
PRIORITY #3 BETTER EDUCATE AND TRAIN OUR MARINES TO SUCCEED IN
DISTRIBUTED OPERATIONS AND INCREASINGLY COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTS
Professional Military Education and Small Unit Leader
Development.--We are planning more investments in the education of our
non-commissioned officers and junior officers, as they have assumed
vastly greater responsibilities in both combat and garrison. This focus
on education will better train them for decisionmaking during
distributed operations against more diffused threats over broader areas
of the battlefield. The primary initiative to address this priority is
to increase markedly their opportunities to attend resident
professional military education. We are currently evaluating ways to
increase throughput at resident professional military education courses
with options for both constrained and unconstrained manpower and
resource increases. We are evaluating traditional paradigms relative to
course lengths and instructional methodology, with the specific
objectives of tripling throughput at the Expeditionary Warfare School
(Career level) and doubling resident Command and Staff College
(Intermediate Level) throughput.
These key leaders also impact unit cohesion and our overall
effectiveness in combat. Introducing these leaders into a unit at the
right time and stabilizing them in a life cycle continuum of a unit
positively impacts a unit's effective training, performance and
resiliency during pre-deployment training and post combat. These
leaders are in the best position to influence our cultural ethos with
its emphasis on intangible qualities such as esprit de corps,
integrity, and ``service to country during time of war.'' We are
currently reviewing manpower policies and models and will ensure these
key leaders are present and able to lead a cohesive unit throughout its
life-cycle continuum, including rigorous pre-deployment training and
post deployment actions. This effort will ready our units for any
fight, whether irregular or combat.
We also intend to infuse Values Based Training, rooted in our core
values of Honor, Courage and Commitment, at all levels of professional
development to foster resilience and to enable effective operations,
especially in complex irregular environments. Our overall goal is to
institutionalize efforts to develop more mature, educated, and capable
non-commissioned officers and maneuver unit squad leaders. As these
concepts mature, there will be costs in terms of military instruction
and facilities for which we will require congressional support.
Regionalization and Specialization.--The increased call for
engagement, as seen in our force structure review and in strategic
guidance, requires Marines with improved cultural and language skills
and formal education. To develop better specialization for anticipated
future missions and operating environments, we will expand our Foreign
Area Officer and Regional Affairs Officer programs, as well as
opportunities to send more officers through graduate level training,
fellowships and research opportunities--ideas supported by findings and
recommendations of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and the 2010
Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel Report.\14\ This effort
will extend to our ``Whole of Government'' approach toward irregular
warfare as we seek greater exchanges and fellowships with the elements
of the Interagency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, pg 54; 2010 QDR
Independent Panel Report, pgs 75-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Corps University.--We are continuing to implement
recommendations of our 2006 Officer Professional Military Education
Study (the Wilhelm Report) and are making significant strides in terms
of resources and facilities enhancing the campus of the Marine Corps
University (MCU). We have programmed approximately $125 million in
Military Construction between fiscal year 2011-12 for new academic
facilities for the Marine Corps War College, Command and Staff College,
and the School of Advanced Warfighting. In addition, we will expand the
Staff Noncommissioned Officer Academy at the main campus in Quantico.
These funds represent only a down payment on a larger commitment to
double the size of the University campus and to upgrade our enlisted
academies world-wide. Completion of the MCU master plan will require
the demolition and relocation of tenant units aboard the campus.
Detailed documentation of costs associated is ongoing; however, we
estimate over $400 million is needed to complete the master plan. Our
ultimate goal is to develop the MCU into a premier institution with
world-class faculty, facilities, students, and curricula; we will
require the assistance of Congress in this goal.
PRIORITY #4 KEEP FAITH WITH OUR MARINES, OUR SAILORS AND OUR FAMILIES
Keeping Faith.--We expect and demand extraordinary loyalty from our
Marines--a loyalty to country, family, and Corps. Our Nation has been
at war for a decade, placing unprecedented burdens on Marines, Sailors,
families, Wounded Warriors, and the families of the fallen. They have
all made tremendous sacrifices in the face of danger. We owe them all a
reciprocal level of loyalty. Our approach to caring for their needs is
based on the same unwavering faithfulness they have demonstrated to the
Marine Corps. We will ensure their needs are met during times of
deployment and in garrison by providing the services, facilities, and
programs to develop the strength and skills to thrive on the challenges
of operational tempo. When needed, we will restore them to health. We
will also transition them back to civilian life, and in the cases of
our fallen Marines, we will support and protect their surviving spouses
and dependents. We will do this by focusing on several areas this
fiscal year.
Combat Stress, Resiliency, Medical and Mental Health Care.--We
continue to advocate for the highest quality medical care and
facilities for our service members, retirees, and their families. To
ensure the Department can continue to provide the finest healthcare
benefits in the country to our beneficiaries, we fully support the
medical efficiencies and adjustments in TRICARE included in the
President's budget proposal.
The evolving security environment requires a physically and
mentally resilient Marine able to endure extended exposure to
ambiguous, stressful, and ever-changing situations. Young leaders find
themselves on the vanguard of a protracted war, adapting to a variety
of situations and scenarios. To improve their resilience, we are
working aggressively and creatively to build a training continuum that
better prepares them for the inevitable stress of combat operations and
to equip them with the necessary skills required to cope with the
challenges of life as a Marine.
Instruction founded and focused on our core values helps provide
some of this resilience, especially in irregular warfare and complex
environments. A program combining the ``best practices'' of mental,
emotional and physical fitness will best instill in our Marines the
resiliency needed to endure the stressors of combat and enhance their
ability to perform effectively across the range of military operations.
We are developing a comprehensive program to improve the resiliency of
our Marines both in garrison and in combat.
We are partnered with the Navy to address the nationwide dearth of
qualified mental healthcare providers, which challenges our ability to
provide care at some of our bases and stations and, in some cases, to
our reservists in remote locations. During calendar year 2010, we saw a
nearly 30 percent decrease in the number of suicides within our Total
Force.\15\ We are too early in our suicide studies to identify what
specific initiative(s) have resulted in this dramatic turnaround.
However, we have implemented a number of measures on multiple fronts.
Some of these include the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Calendar year 2010 suicides = 37 whereas calendar year 2009
suicides = 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Evocative Peer-led Training Program.--``Never Leave a Marine
Behind'' suicide prevention program for non-commissioned
officers and Junior Marines. We are expanding this training to
include staff non-commissioned officers and commissioned
officers this year.
--DSTRESS Line Pilot Program with TRICARE West.--``By Marines-For
Marines'' call center designed to assist with problems at an
early stage. The call center is staffed by veteran Marines,
providing anonymous service to all current Marines, veteran
Marines, their families and loved ones.
--Combat and Operational Stress Control and Operational Stress
Control and Readiness Teams.--Utilizing unique training
programs across the Total Force and ensuring the presence of
mental health professionals in front-line units as a primary
prevention tool to help Marines identify and mitigate stress.
--Marine Resilience Study to Assess Risk and Resilience.--We are
participating in a longitudinal research study that will
examine risk across three domains: biological, psychological
and social. The outcome of this study will inform our future
work in the area of building and maintain resiliency across the
Corps.
We will continue advocating to the medical community for better
diagnostic and increased treatment options for Marines with severe
injuries including Post Traumatic Stress and Traumatic Brain Injury. In
collaboration with the other services, we developed a set of events-
based parameters, mandating that our leaders search out Marines who
have experienced a concussive event. This measure no longer relies on
identification of impacted service members solely on their willingness
to seek help on their own initiative. These protocols are in place now
in Afghanistan, and we are already seeing a culture change in the
attitude of Marines about being treated early for a Traumatic Brain
Injury.
We have established an in-theater Restoration Center that brings
comprehensive concussion diagnosis and management as close to the front
lines as possible to ensure that appropriate care is available as
quickly as possible. We are currently developing policy and
applications to track Traumatic Brain Injury from ``point of injury''
to ``return to full duty'' separately but in parallel with medical
documentation. These measures will empower commanders with the
information they need to monitor the health of a Marine who has
suffered a concussive event and intervene appropriately for the
duration of a Marine's career and long after the initial injury.''
Transition Assistance.--We believe transition assistance should be
a process not an event. We have established a goal to make the Marine
Corps Transition Assistance Management Program more value added for our
departing Marines. From 2009 to 2010, we conducted functionality
assessments of the Transition Assistance Management Program and the
Lifelong Learning Program and noted many deficiencies. In response, we
established two Transition Assistance Operational Planning Teams in
2010 to assess existing programs. We have developed an ``end to end''
process improvement plan that will begin at the point of initial
accession into the Marine Corps and continue through post separation.
We are initiating actions and integrating existing capabilities that
will most directly improve the quality of support provided to Marines
within 6 months prior to separation and those who have been separated
at least 6 months.
Marines have expressed a desire for assistance navigating
Department of Veterans Affairs benefit processes such as in cases of
enrollment for and access to education benefits. We will modify
existing websites to improve access and enhance opportunity for
separating Marines to speak directly to Marine Corps support personnel
who are trained to remove administrative benefit processing barriers.
We will improve networking opportunities to help Marines find
meaningful employment and are adapting our current job fairs to support
increased networking opportunities that will allow them to meet mentors
and employers.
Marines have asked for an opportunity to connect with employers and
learn how to translate their intangible and tangible attributes. Our
transition workshops will be overhauled to address these needs. Marines
are also seeking help to simplify enrollment processes for the post 9/
11 Montgomery GI bill and to gain access to academic institutions that
will provide the quality and level of business education and skills
private industry demands. We have initiated a Leader-Scholar Program,
which includes academic institutions who value Marines' service
commitment and pledge special enrollment consideration. While the
support varies from school to school, we now have 75 participating
institutions with the goal of an additional 25 by the end of this year.
As we gain momentum, we will continue to change the transition
assistance program from its current event focus to that of a process
that reintegrates Marines into the civilian sector with the knowledge,
skills, and abilities to leverage and communicate their Marine Corps
time and experience.
Family Readiness Programs.--We increased baseline funding for
family support programs beginning in fiscal year 2010 to ensure
appropriate wartime footing. Programs benefitting from this measure
include the Unit, Personal and Family Readiness Program; Marine Corps
Family Team Building Program; Exceptional Family Member Program; School
Liaison Program; and other miscellaneous Marine Corps Community
Services Programs supporting remote and isolated commands, deployed
Marines, and independent duty Marines and families. We are currently
conducting a complete review to ensure effectiveness and efficiency of
these programs. Our goal is to determine where expansion may be needed
to further assist our families and where programs can be streamlined to
reduce redundancy.
Wounded Warrior Care.--Marines continue to suffer numerous wounds,
trauma, and injuries during operations in combat and during training
missions. Many of these brave heroes with significant injuries are
convalescing at military treatment facilities here in the National
Capital Region and across our Nation at other major military treatment
facilities. Our Wounded Warrior Regiment provides non-medical care
management services to wounded, ill, and injured Marines and their
families. The Wounded Warrior Regiment continues to improve existing
programs and add new support mechanisms. We have increased support to
wounded, injured, and ill reserve Marines through additional Recovery
Care Coordinators, enhanced family support at military treatment
facilities, and one-on-one orientation sessions. We also provide
Integrated Disability Evaluation System Support through Regional
Limited Duty Coordinators and Wounded Warrior Attorneys. We have also
initiated a mandatory Warrior Athlete Reconditioning Program. Outreach
is an important aspect of the Regiment's non-medical care delivery and
management. The Sergeant Merlin German Wounded Warrior Call Center
extends support to Marines and families through advocacy, resource
identification and referral, information distribution, and care
coordination, 24 hours a day, 7 days per week.
The comprehensive care coordination provided by the Wounded Warrior
Regiment throughout the phases of recovery has been highly successful.
The results of internal assessments have substantiated that creation of
the Wounded Warrior Regiment has had a positive impact on the support
offered wounded, injured and ill Marines and families. The Marine Corps
will continue to honor the commitment to our Wounded Warriors and to
help them return to full duty or successfully reintegrate into their
communities.
Behavioral Health Integration.--Behavioral health needs since 9/11
have become increasingly complex with individuals often requiring
assistance in a number of areas at one time. Marines with more than two
deployments have been identified as a higher risk population. According
to the Joint Mental Health Assessment Team, psychological health
problems remain steady at 11 percent of Marines for the first and
second deployments, but increase to 22 percent for those who have
deployed three or more times. Sixty-five percent of Marines are under
25 years old. Associated with this young force are high-risk factors
that include communication and coping skills, isolation, combat-related
wounds and substance abuse. Drawdown of end strength following
Operation Enduring Freedom and return to garrison life will likely
result in additional behavioral healthcare requirements as Marines
redeploy and adjust to the garrison environment. We continue to move
forward with our integration of prevention and intervention programs
initiated in 2009. We have established a Behavioral Health Branch at
our headquarters for Manpower & Reserve Affairs. Headquarters Marine
Corps Health Services also has created and filled a new billet for a
Director of Psychological Health.
Military Construction.--The Marine Corps maintains its commitment
to facilities and infrastructure supporting both operations and quality
of life. Our military construction and family programs are important to
success in achieving and sustaining our force structure and maintaining
readiness. For many years, we funded only our most critical facility
needs. As a result, our installations were challenged to properly house
and operate the additional forces required to meet our planned end
strength increase. Between fiscal years 2007-10, we received $6.9
billion in new construction and design. With this funding, we are
providing new quality of life facilities, improved operational and
training facilities, and more modern utility infrastructure systems.
Our fiscal year 2012 military construction budget request is $1.4
billion. With these requested funds, we will provide Bachelor Enlisted
Quarters, aviation support facilities, and improvements to quality of
life, utilities and infrastructure, and professional military education
facilities. Additional family housing efforts in fiscal year 2012
include improvements to existing housing units and funding for the
operations, maintenance, and leasing of 1,100 units worldwide and
oversight of 22,000 privatized units.
CONCLUSION
The United States Marine Corps remains the Nation's crisis response
force-of-choice. Our continued success in Afghanistan and throughout
the globe is made possible by the loyal sacrifice of our incredible men
and women in uniform, Civilian Marines, and our Marine Corps family.
The personnel, equipment, and training that have given us success over
the nearly past 10 years at war has come through the ongoing support of
Congress and the American people. I promise that your Marine Corps
understands the value of each dollar provided and will continue to
provide maximum return for every dollar spent.
In the coming year, we will begin a deliberate transformation into
a force optimized for the likely threats of the next two decades. We
understand and appreciate the contribution that each Marine has made
for this great Nation, and we recognize the heavy burden it has placed
on their loved ones. We remain ``Always Faithful'' to our Marine Corps
family, to Congress, to our chain of command and to the American
people.
LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP SPLIT BUY PLAN
Chairman Inouye. If I may, I'd like to begin asking
questions.
Mr. Secretary, you have received authorizations to have a
split buy on the LCS. How will that benefit the Navy?
Mr. Mabus. Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, we have
received authority to buy both variants, both the one made in
Marinette, Wisconsin, and the one made by Austal in Mobile,
Alabama. These ships bring us differing but important
capabilities, each one of them.
When I became Secretary, this program, in the summer of
2009, bid out three ships. We had planned to buy both versions
at the time, but the bids came in just unacceptably high. So,
we made the decision to reduce that to one version, have the
two yards compete against each other.
Over the course of the next year, the bids came in
dramatically reduced. The average ship cost, over 10 ships, for
each variant is less than $440 million. By doing both versions
and using two yards--and we had always planned on using two
yards, whether we had one version or two--we were able to speed
up the delivery of the ships. We were able to buy 10 ships,
from 2011 to 2015, and to buy--from each supplier--which will
get us almost one-half the class of ships--55--that we're
planning to build with the littoral combat ship.
This ship, and its two variants, is incredibly important to
the Nation's future and to the Navy's ability to do the
missions that we're given. Shallow draft, very fast, manning of
about 40 people for the core crew, and another 30 for the
weapons systems, gives us great flexibility to meet the
challenges that we see in the future.
Finally, the fact that it--that both these ships are
modular, that you can take one weapon system off and put
another one on, means, as technology improves and as weapon
systems change, we can keep up with the technology, we can
change weapon systems without changing the hull, without
changing the entire ship.
So, we think that this is going to provide us an incredible
capability at a greatly reduced cost, almost $3 billion in
savings, from the first 20 ships, and that it will give us the
flexibility that we need to perform the missions that the Navy
has been given.
Chairman Inouye. You've spoken about the continuing
resolution, and all of you have done the same. I can assure you
that this subcommittee is very much against the continuing
resolution, because that's no way to run the Government. And
we'll do our best to go back into regular order. As you know,
in the last fiscal year, we did--12 subcommittees--come through
with our bills on time.
CONTINUING RESOLUTION IMPACTS ON 313 SHIP GOAL
On the matter of 313, as Admiral Roughead stated--the base,
the minimum--how will the continuing resolution and the
budgetary crisis affect this number?
Mr. Mabus. We have, as I pointed out, 56 ships across the
FYDP. But, because of the continuing resolution, we are unable
to begin one Virginia-class submarine this year. We have
planned to build two each year, over the next--well, starting
in 2011, over the next 6 years. And we have a multiyear
procurement authorized by Congress to do that. If we are unable
to start the second Virginia-class, we will break the
multiyear, and we'll have to go in and renegotiate the cost of
future Virginia-class submarines. We have two Arleigh-Burke
DDG-51 destroyers that we cannot start as long as we are
operating under the current continuing resolution.
The impact--and one MLP--one mobile landing platform--the
impact from not beginning those ships will have ripple effects
as we go forward. It will keep us from reaching the numbers
that we need as quickly as we need. It will mean that the ships
will almost inevitably cost more, which may mean fewer ships.
If our shipbuilding plan, that we submitted for fiscal year
2011 and updated for fiscal year 2012, is fully built and
funded, we will not only get to the 313 floor, but we will
reach in the neighborhood of 325 ships early in the 2020s,
which will give us what we need to have for a global fleet.
But, we are very concerned that if we are unable to start these
ships this year, in fiscal year 2011, that the ripple effects
will have huge impacts as we go forward.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
RUSSIAN NAVY ASSESSMENT
Admiral Roughead, in recent months very little, if
anything, has been said about the Russian navy. If you look at
the front pages, you don't see anything about the Russian navy.
But, at one time, it used to be a formidable force. What is
your assessment of the Russian navy today?
Admiral Roughead. Thank you very much, Senator.
And, to your point, the Russian navy has not been in the
news that much. And that really, in my opinion, is because, in
the period of the 1990s, that the navy was significantly
reduced in capability and capacity. The funding had fallen off.
Several of the shipbuilding programs had stopped or atrophied.
That has since changed in recent years. And with the
economy contributing to the resources that are now made
available to the Russian navy, I believe you're going to see an
increase in the capability, the capacity, new shipbuilding
programs taking hold. Recently, there are negotiations taking
place, between France and Russia, on construction of a large
amphibious ship. And so, I believe that the Russian navy, which
still has great ambition, great pride in the fact that they are
at a world-class level of capabilities, will now begin to, for
want of a better term, rebuild itself, bring more modern
capabilities to bear, and to be able to operate more widely.
That said, I believe it's important that we work closely
with the leadership of the Russian navy to see where there are
opportunities for cooperation, to see where we can join
together and have a relationship that is constructive and
globally relevant.
I think it's also important to note that we have been
conducting operations with the Russian navy in the
counterpiracy area.
But, clearly I think, after a period of stagnation in the
1990s, the Russian navy is moving again.
CHINESE NAVY ASSESSMENT
Chairman Inouye. Can you give us an assessment of the
Chinese navy?
Admiral Roughead. Thank you, Senator.
And I've been an observer of the Chinese navy now for
probably over 15 years, where, because of my assignments in the
Pacific, I've had an opportunity to not only visit China on
several occasions, but also to be present when Chinese ships
have called in Hawaii, when I was commanding there, and to have
had the opportunity to spend several sessions with my Chinese
counterpart, Admiral Wu Sheng Li. The Chinese navy is--has been
advancing, developing, expanding their shipbuilding programs,
increasing the level of technology that is available to them,
and also beginning to operate more globally.
Like the Russian navy, we also, for the last 2 years, have
been operating daily with the PLA navy in counterpiracy
operations.
But, we see their submarine fleet expanding, surface
combatants are expanding. But, it's also how they're using
command and control and the nature of the operations that tend
to expand beyond what we call the ``first island chain,'' in
the western Pacific.
It's a navy that's also seen the value, as we have, in
aircraft carriers. And they have an aircraft carrier
development program that's underway. The initial phase will be
based on a former Russian aircraft carrier. But, I see that
developing. And, as you know, the PLA has a longer view of
time. And it's a very thoughtful approach on how you bring
these capabilities to bear.
Similarly, I believe it's important that we look for ways,
as we're doing off the coast of Somalia, to develop a
professional relationship, and to also develop personal
relationships with the leaders in the PLA navy, so that we,
too, can operate in ways that enhance the safety and the
security of the world oceans. But, it's a navy that I would say
is the fastest-growing, not just in capacity, but also in
capability, in the world today.
Chairman Inouye. I've been told that the Chinese have more
submarines than we have. Is that correct?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir, in terms of numbers. But, I
also believe that there's a qualitative dimension to the
submarine force. And there is no question in my mind that we,
in the Navy--in the United States Navy--operate the most
capable submarine force in the world. And with the advent of
the Virginia-class submarine into our inventory, there's no
finer submarine, no more capable submarine in the world today
than the Virginia. And that's why being able to get to the
build of two per year, to be able to take advantage of the
multiyear, that the Secretary pointed out, why getting out from
under the continuing resolution is key, because the Virginia
submarine is the most capable warship that we have.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
May I ask General Amos a few questions.
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS FORCE STRUCTURE CHANGE IMPACTS
The Marine Corps recently announced significant force-
structure changes that will greatly affect the composition of
your units in the future, making them lighter and more agile.
This review stated that these changes will impact your budget
request for fiscal year 2013 and beyond. However, we have
before us the 2012 request for equipment that will likely start
delivering when you begin implementing these changes. Can you
explain to the subcommittee the immediate impact these force-
structure changes on the procurement programs, such as MRAP
tactical vehicles and other equipment will have?
General Amos. Chairman, just a quick note on the effort
itself. It began last fall, spent all fall with a lot of really
smart folks working to determine what the Marine Corps should
look like in a post-Afghanistan environment. That was the
framework we began with. We began with the mission of the
Marine Corps, which is America's expeditionary force and
readiness, this crisis response force. So, using that as the
background, and understanding that--and informed by, this would
be a force post-Afghanistan, we began to take a look and say,
``Okay, with the future security environment that we will be
likely working in for the next two decades, what would that
force be required to do?'' And, again, informed with history,
we said, ``What should it do? What kind of equipment would it
need? How big would it need to be?'' So, the results were
finished right around Christmas, and briefed to the Secretary
of the Navy in January, the Secretary of Defense in early
February.
Right now, the Marine Corps sits at 202,000 marines. We
grew--started in 1990---excuse me--started in 2007, from about
182,000, up to 202,000. And that was so we could get some dwell
time in our units, in--that are combat units that were
deploying constantly in and out of Iraq, and certainly now in
Afghanistan. That's happened, that's been very beneficial. But,
does the Marine Corps need 202,000 in a post-Afghanistan
environment? And the answer was no.
So, based on that, we built a force with capability sets
learned from the lessons--or, educated by the lessons of 9
years of combat. I think it's a more capable force. We will go
down to 186,800 marines. The guidance I have been given by the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy is that that
is conditions based. It is not designed to do this now, while
we have 20,000 marines on the ground in Afghanistan. This is
post-Afghanistan.
So, we are looking now--when I made the comment, in my
statement, that we were--they will have some immediate, during
fiscal year 2012, changes; that's predominantly within the
structure that we currently own. In other words, we're going to
eventually reduce 21 headquarters as we flatten the Marine
Corps to make it more capable and less complicated by higher
levels of decisionmaking. So, we've collapsed or eliminated 21
headquarters. We've eliminated three infantry battalions. But,
those will not go away until the end of--until our war is over,
until we come out of Afghanistan.
So, within fiscal year 2012, there will be very little,
other than just moving some capabilities around internally
within the Marine Corps. For example, we'll probably go ahead
and collapse a couple of these headquarters in fiscal year
2012. We're going to take some of the structure that we
currently have, and we're going to start putting it into our
Cyber Command so we can beef that up. We're going to take some
of our current 202,000 marines and move them into Marine
Special Operations Command and begin that migration.
So, the actual cost in 2012 will be transparent. Where we
think we're going to begin to see some cost breaks will begin
in 2013. We don't know precisely what that will be, because
we're going through all the detailed analysis now of: Precisely
when do you start drawing down equipment? Or, when do you stop,
perhaps, buying equipment that you had planned on buying, at
the rate that you were buying?
So, we don't know the answers to that yet, Chairman. But,
we will know that probably by June, as we begin to really get
serious about the fiscal year 2012 budget. So, the end state
will be a very capable force, capable of doing everything that
we have done in the past, be slightly larger than what the
force was when we began the buildup in 2007. But, it will be
informed and--by all the lessons learned of almost--really,
almost 10 years of hard combat.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you very much.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
U.S. NAVY DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE TO JAPAN--SECNAV
Mr. Secretary, we all have been watching the news reports
from Japan and the vicinity, about the effects of the
earthquake and other related collateral damages that may have
been done in that region. Do we have naval forces that have
been affected directly by this tragedy? And, if so, what are we
doing to position for either relief efforts for our own troops
and ships or land-based personnel who happen to be in the area?
To what extent is the Navy involved in that?
Mr. Mabus. Senator, first, thank you for your very kind
remarks in your opening statement.
We are very involved in all aspects of the relief effort in
Japan. As CNO pointed out, we have, or will soon have, 14 ships
and more than 10,000 people in Japan, or in the waters off
Japan, to do humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. The
marines have--from the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force in
Okinawa--have brought a headquarters company up, with 500
marines, to very close to the affected area to do things like
radiological testing, to do humanitarian assistance planning.
They've also established a refueling station so that we can use
our helicopters more effectively.
We're also flying with fixed-wing aircraft to deliver
humanitarian assistance. We're flying our helicopters--and we
will soon have almost 70 helicopters--in the region or in the
area that was affected. We're moving Japanese first-
responders--Japanese troops--by ship to the affected area.
In terms of our own folks there, as you well know from your
visits there, we have ships home-ported in Japan. In Yokosuka,
we have the USS George Washington and a couple of other support
ships there. We have been monitoring the--what has been going
on with this disaster. A couple of days ago, because of a wind
shift, we recommended that our people in Yokosuka and other
bases that we have on Honshu, the main island in Japan, remain
indoors, to the maximum extent possible, because of radiation
exposure. We didn't believe it was a threat to health or to
life, but, out of precautions, we urged them to stay inside.
The wind has since shifted again, and we've removed those
precautions.
We have moved our ships off the coast of Japan to keep them
out of the plume that is developing. We are monitoring
individuals that are actively engaged in the relief effort, to
make sure that their radiation exposure is within appropriate
bounds. We have done decontamination work on equipment, which
mainly involves just washing them--washing surface radiation
off--to date.
U.S. NAVY DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE TO JAPAN--CNO
But, we're going to continue to, every moment, monitor the
situation to--and, in case there are changes, to make the
appropriate changes for our people who are there permanently
and to the forces that we have sent to help in this
humanitarian disaster.
Senator Cochran. Admiral Roughead, do you have any comments
to make along those lines?
Admiral Roughead. Just to echo what the Secretary said. I
think the benefit of having the forces forward-deployed, but
also the flexibility that we derive from a global forward-
deployed Navy, allowed us to move one of our aircraft carriers
into position very promptly. The USS Ronald Reagan is off the
coast of Honshu, operating in areas that are safe to operate
in. And the nature of being able to close forces, to pick up
from an exercise in Southeast Asia and, in a matter of days,
move off the coast of Japan to be able to provide this
assistance--and it's coming from all of our ships; it's not
just the aircraft carrier. We have guided-missile destroyers
that are serving as fueling pads for the helicopters that are
involved in search and rescue. Our amphibious ships, with their
capacity--and, as the Secretary mentioned, one of our
amphibious ships is up on the island of Hokkaido, loading
Japanese self-defense forces to be able to then go down to
Honshu.
U.S. NAVY DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE TO JAPAN--CMC
And I think what it describes is a global Navy that's
forward, that's ready, that can respond, but it has a variety
of capabilities that gives you that balance that can swing
from, in one case, combat operations, all the way to
humanitarian assistance. I think it's important to realize that
the USS Ronald Reagan and her strike group were on its way to
conduct combat operations in Afghanistan when, on a moment's
notice, it shifted into a full humanitarian mode. That shows
the flexibility of our force. Most importantly, it shows the
flexibility and the compassion of our people.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
General Amos, do you have Marine Corps forces in the
region? And, if so, what's the effect on them?
General Amos. Senator, we do. We have about 500 marines on
the ground right now. They're at various locations. Some are at
the Naval Air Station Atsugi, which is just south of--it's
really in the suburbs of Tokyo. We have some at Yokota Air
Force Base, where we brought in what we call our Expeditionary
Mobile Command Post, which is a very capable trailer-like
setup, where we can talk to just about anybody in the world,
with enormous capability. So, we brought that in. And then we
set up--just as the Secretary said, just east of the affected
area, we set up a--what we call a forward arming and refueling
point. We're certainly not doing any arming, but--that's what
we call them--but, it's where we bring in the actual fuel and
bladders. We bring in pumps. We bring in hoses. We can hook up
to any jet aircraft. We can hook up to any helicopter. And
that's what we do with expeditionary marine aviation.
So, for us, being able to work in a very austere
environment suits our capabilities well. So, we bring that. So,
we are forward to the east, and we're south with command and
control. And, as the Secretary and the CNO have said, we've got
2,200 marines on board the USS Essex and that marine
expeditionary unit.
So, yet to be seen what they're going to do, but everybody
is poised to assist with humanitarian operations. It can be
everything from medical--it can be just evacuation. It can be
food and water--clean water. It's a host of things, Senator.
And so, we do this. We practice it. As I said, in my opening
statement, we did it in Haiti, just about this time last year.
We did it in Pakistan, 400 miles deep, when the floods--we've
done it on the backside of the Philippines, when that super
typhoon, Megi, came through. So, we actually--this naval force
has an enormous capability.
I was particularly proud and pleased that, within 12 hours
notice, that eight C-130Js and eight 40-year-old CH-46
helicopters, with their marines and their equipment, flew out
of the Marine Corps air station, Futenma Okinawa, and headed
north to help out their brothers and sisters on the mainland
Japan.
Senator Cochran. Thank you. We appreciate your leadership
in monitoring U.S. interests in that region, and being a good
neighbor at the same time.
Thank you.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you.
And I, too, will echo the comments of the chairman and the
vice chairman here in thanking you and the men and women that
are working so hard and in such an incredibly capable way to
provide for the level of rescue and relief, as we watch, in
Japan.
And I appreciate the fact that we have the ability to be
nimble as a Navy, as the marines, as our armed services are. We
never know what's going to hit us, whether it's an earthquake
or a tsunami, or what the disaster might be. But, one way or
another, we figure it out.
EVOLVING ARCTIC CONSIDERATIONS
We've got a situation, up in the Arctic, that is not
something that is happening overnight. We are seeing an
evolving Arctic; an opportunity, viewed by many, but also a
very noticeable challenge to us, as we, as an Arctic nation,
work and act to be engaged in an area that, quite honestly, we
haven't had to look at. When something's been locked up in ice,
it's kind of put on hold, out of sight, out of mind. That
situation is changing as we see the impact of receding ice, as
we see a level of commercial activity, of military activity, of
tourism up in the Arctic. And it brings to mind the question as
to, how nimble, how flexible we will be--can be--in an area
that we just have not really had to have much of a presence?
There's a report that was released recently by the National
Academy of Sciences. And they state that, ``Even the most
modest current trends in climate change, if continued, will
present new national security challenges for the U.S. Navy, for
our Marine Corps, and our Coast Guard.''
We've seen reports that China plans to receive over 150,000
tons of oil, 600,000 tons of iron ore, and about 400,000 tons
of gas condensate this year, all of which is going to be
traveling in the maritime route, up north, through the Northern
Sea Route. And depending on the size of any of these vessels,
China's looking to receive anywhere from 7 to 28 tankers
through the Northern Sea Route this year, an incredible
increase from what we have seen last year. And it's not just
what we're seeing from China in that activity. As I mentioned,
we're seeing cruise ships that are coming up above the top;
obviously, a greater increase in shipping activity. And the
expanding role up there is something that--those of us that
focus on the Arctic issues are concerned about our readiness.
The question that I have to you, Admiral, is, do we have
the resources--the assets, the staffing, the training, the
funding--that is necessary to develop the national security,
the sovereignty concerns, as we see increased international
presence within the Arctic?
EVOLVING ARCTIC CONSIDERATIONS--TASK FORCE CLIMATE CHANGE
I note that you, in response to the chairman, indicated
that China has more submarines than we do as a nation. I
understand that China has more icebreakers than the United
States has. And we're the Arctic nation, they are not. So, can
you speak to the--again, the changing role that we have, and
our readiness?
Admiral Roughead. Thank you very much, Senator. And I thank
you for your interest in the Arctic.
A couple of years ago, I put together something that I
called Task Force Climate Change, to really look at the changes
that were taking place, primarily in the Arctic, but it also
expands into other areas of the globe.
But, there is no question in my mind that the Arctic is
changing. I often, in public comments, refer to ``the opening
of the fifth ocean,'' which is the Arctic Ocean. We have not
had an ocean open since the end of the ice age. So, this is a
big deal. And the changes that you described--the fishing
fleets beginning to migrate with the fishing stocks, mineral
extraction will be taking place. Ultimately, we'll get to a
point where we have profitable commercial channels that are now
open. And that probably is within the next two decades.
And so, what we've done with Task Force Climate Change is,
we've begun to look at, what is it that we must be putting in
place as this ocean opens up? We have put some money toward
that continued study and thinking about where we have to be.
We're working very closely with the Coast Guard on how they see
that future and how we must cooperatively work together to have
in place the right types of equipment and communications and
surveillance systems in the polar areas so that we have a
better understanding of what's going on up there.
ARCTIC CONSIDERATIONS--CONVENTION ON LAW OF THE SEA
But, I would say the most important thing that I think we
should do is to become party to the Convention on Law of the
Sea. And I know that, in some areas, that may not be a popular
view, but my sense is that if we are not party to that treaty,
then we will not have a seat at the table as this unfolds.
Senator Murkowski. Can you go into, I think, a little more
detail, in terms of what it means to not have a seat at the
table? Does this limit our ability, within the U.S. Navy,
within the Marine Corps, to be engaged, to be responsive, to be
a participant in what is happening in the evolving Arctic?
Because this is an issue that I'm very focused on----
Senator Roughead. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. And I'm not seeing the
urgency that I feel needs to be taking place on this issue.
Admiral Roughead. I think it--first off, if I could say
about the convention, there are some who believe that being
party to this convention will inhibit our ability, as a Navy,
to conduct the operations that we conduct, and that we must, to
support the interests of the Nation, be able to conduct. That
is simply not the case. It in no way inhibits us.
But, what it does do, as issues of the Arctic and claims
that are being adjudicated and discussed are taking place--not
being party to that treaty, we will not be part of that
discussion.
I would also submit that we, as a global Navy, as a Nation
with global interests, the leadership role that we play in many
venues is significant. And countries look to us to be able to
take the principled positions that we do, and to lead in those
positions. And as these issues that are being discussed,
adjudicated, for example, in the Arctic, not only will we not
be there, we will not be able to be that leader that I think
many countries look to and will continue to look to in the
future. So, I think it will inhibit and, I think, would--will
be a detriment to us, as a Nation. But, in no way will it limit
our ability to operate effectively as a Navy.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate your leadership and
your outspokenness on that as an issue. I do feel pretty
strongly that we need to take the initiative, here in the
Senate, to move toward ratification of that treaty.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Inouye. Thank you.
I'd like to welcome back Senator Coats. Welcome back, sir.
Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Cochran
and Senator Murkowski. I am pleased to be on the subcommittee,
and appreciate the opportunity to do this.
I need to make a bit of a confession. I--during my first
term of service, I was an authorizer on the Senate Armed
Services Committee for 10 years, and I must admit, I was--there
were times when I was grumbling about the role of the Senate
Defense Appropriations Committee. Now I are one. And so, I'm
looking forward to working with both the chairman and the
ranking member and others on the subcommittee, and hopefully
finding some seamless ways in which we can coordinate with the
authorization committee to strengthen and make sure we have the
kind of national security apparatus that has sustained this
country for so long, and hopefully we can maintain that.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your welcome.
U.S. NAVY-CHINESE NAVY RELATIONSHIPS
Admiral Roughead, I was interested in your response,
relative to the relationships that you've developed with the
Chinese navy. It wasn't that long ago--just a couple weeks, I
think--when DNI Director Clapper told a Senate subcommittee
that China was one of the two major threats. And we have seen a
significant increase in spending and development of not only
the Chinese navy, but the Chinese military.
And so, I wonder if you could just delve a little more into
that, in terms of your relationship, what your response is to
DNI Clapper's view, in terms of the Chinese navy being a major
threat to the United States, and give us some of your thoughts
in that regard.
Admiral Roughead. Thank you very much, Senator.
And whenever I talk about a threat, whether it's another
navy or simply walking down a road, I think a threat requires
two things. It requires the capability to do you harm, and it
also requires an intent to do that. And so, I think those are
two components of threat. As I look at the PLA navy, and I look
at how their capabilities are developing, as I do globally,
with any navies around the world, I look at what those
capabilities are, how they're employed, what the competence of
their people are. And so, I continue to watch that. And, as the
leader of our Navy, my obligation, my duty, is to make sure
that we, as a navy, are never denied any options when it comes
to capability.
And as you look at our programs that we have laid out
within this budget, they are focused on not just the types of
wars that we find ourselves in today, but also, where is
technology taking naval warfare? And how do we, as a navy and
as a Nation, always enjoy the advantages of being able to be in
an unfair fight, from our perspective? So, that's what I do, as
the Chief. So, I'm comfortable with the programs that we have
put together, with the initiatives that we have put in place
here.
I do--as I mentioned, in my earlier remarks, I think it's
important to try to gain insight into what their intent is and
how they intend to use that navy. So, watch developments very
closely, build programs so that we are not disadvantaged. And I
think that's why you've seen the emphasis on antisubmarine
warfare in this budget--integrated air and missile defense,
electronic warfare, cyberwarfare--because that's the world that
we're going to be operating in for the foreseeable future.
CHINESE NAVY STRATEGIC INTENTIONS
Senator Coats. Well, in listing those decisions, which I
think are appropriate decisions, I mean, is it fair to--what do
we think the intent of the Chinese is, relative to their navy
and its--what is their objective? What is their--what are their
strategic objectives? Can you give us some insights into that?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. I would say it's the objective
that nations and navies have had throughout history. With
regard to countries whose economies rise, and if those
economies are built on transoceanic trade, it follows that
there will be a strong navy. It happened with the Portuguese,
the Spanish, the Dutch, the British, and with the United
States. And as China's economy has grown, and as the resources
have been available, and as they rely on the sea lanes of the
world to bring resources in and goods out, they want to ensure
that those sea lanes are able to be used. And that's what
navies have done throughout history. And so, that's how I see
the PLA navy developing, being able to control the sea lanes
that are important to them, the areas around their country that
are important to them. That's the path I see them on.
CHINESE MISSILE DEVELOPMENT
Senator Coats. What's your read on the Chinese development
of a new missile capability in taking out carriers? I mean,
there's a lot been written in--about that. This is more than
just defending sea lanes for trade. This is a very aggressive
weapon designed to take out a hugely expensive piece of
property. That has immense implications, should something like
that happen.
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. I would say that--and I know
there's been a lot of discussion about the DF-21 missile, which
is what has been developed. But, I think throughout war--the
history of warfare, there have always been, how do you develop
new capabilities to counter a capability that someone else has?
I would submit that the DF-21 is no more an anti-access
weapon than a submarine is. Because I could argue that you can
take a ship out of action by putting a hole in the bottom
faster than you can by putting a hole in the top. So, I think
it's all part of being able to control sea space, control
access into the ocean areas. So, I think that that has--is part
of it.
But, I would also say that, even though the DF-21 has
become a weapon of--a newsworthy weapon, the fact is that our
ships, particularly our aircraft carriers, can maneuver. We
have systems to counter weapons like that. And so, you would
expect me, as someone who wears this uniform, to prefer to be
on that aircraft carrier, that can move and do other things,
than to be on a fixed shore base where the targeting problem is
extraordinarily easy, relative to trying to find, then target,
and then hit a moving ship.
Senator Coats. I don't want to get into a classified area,
but I assume, on the basis of what you've said, that we are
pursuing, or have effective--what we believe to be, or will be,
effective defensive systems to protect against that kind of a
threat.
Admiral Roughead. Senator, my objective for our Navy is--
whether it's a submarine, another ship, an anti-ship cruise
missile, low-flying missile, or a ballistic missile--is to not
be denied ocean areas where we can operate, or not be
restricted in our ability to operate.
Senator Coats. Yeah.
F-35B (STOVL) DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Commandant, General, just one question, in the
interests of time here. The F-35B, the V/STOL, now under
moratorium for 2 years--what if the worst-case scenario
happened--either funding wasn't available to go forward with
that, or the technical issues associated with the development
of that were prohibitive, or the combination of the two, the
funding and the technical problems--and we couldn't build that
or couldn't source you with that. What are your alternatives?
How serious an issue is this, relative to your capabilities in
the future, if we were not able to do that?
General Amos. Senator, the short answer to your question--
then I'd like to put a little bit more on the back side--is,
there is no alternative right now. And the impact is more than
just to the Marine Corps. This is our Nation. Right now, today,
we have 11 carriers--11 carriers that transit the world, and
some of which are off the coast of Japan right now, and off the
coast, doing combat operations in the Southwest Asia area.
We also have 11 large-deck amphibious ships, one of which
is the USS Essex, that's--that will arrive off the coast of
northern Japan later today. So, 22 capital ships flying fixed-
wing aircraft off. Now, our amphibious ships, we fly MV-22
Ospreys, we fly helicopters, attack helicopters, and we've got
about 500 marines on board one of those large-deck ships. And
then we spread the other marines out.
But, what this means for the Nation is, if we lose this
capability, the ability to take a fixed-wing aircraft and land
it vertically on board a--large-deck amphibious ships, then our
Nation now is reduced, by 50 percent, its ability to influence
and--its--you know, its will, around the world, at any given
time.
You take the F-35B, which is the Marine Corps version,
short takeoff and vertical landing--we'll take off from that
amphibious ship. It is a fifth-generation aircraft. It not only
is a strike aircraft, but it's what we call an ISR platform--
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance. It has the ability
to do electronic jamming, electronic warfare, just inherent in
the basic platform. It will have the ability to do information
management, and spread that out over large portions of the
battlefield, down to a marine corporal who's on the ground. It
has that ability inherent in the platform. That makes it, along
with its ability to carry weapons, its stealth, a fifth-
generation fighter.
So, in a nutshell, if we lose this, our AV-8B Harriers, the
ones that you see land vertically--and we've been flying them
for so--for a long time--will begin to run out of service life
around 2020, 2022. So, if we lose this airplane, then what
you'll have is, you'll have 11 large-deck ships--carriers--with
fifth-generation airplanes, and you'll have 11 large-deck
amphibious ships with rotary-wing aircraft doing rotary-wing-
type missions instead of having the ability to have fifth-
generation fighters on there.
The last thing I'd say, Senator, is--I've been tracking the
F-35B--as I said in my opening statement and in my written
statement--very, very carefully. If--in my office, I watch the
metrics of how that program is progressing. Tomorrow, the
program manager and the senior leadership of Lockheed Martin
and the senior leadership of the Department of Defense come to
my office--tomorrow will be my first monthly meeting--where we
sit down and we go over the progress of this airplane. I will
not be surprised by this. The airplane is--by order of the
Secretary of Defense, is on a 2-year probation period. I don't
want it to last 2 years. I don't think it needs to last 2
years. I think we'll be able to prove the airplane's
performance and ability to meet standards well before then.
But, that's the decision my seniors have to make.
But, I want this subcommittee to know that I'm tracking it.
I'm watching it. I'm very encouraged by what I've seen, just in
the last 70 days. This year alone, the airplane has flown over
140 percent of its scheduled test flights. That's our version,
the one that's on probation. It's flown more than four times
the amount of vertical landings that it flew all last year, in
the first 60 days of this year. This year, it's scheduled for
480 test points. Every airplane that goes up on a test flight
has to hit certain specific test points to determine the--how
the airplane is performing. We've flown almost one-half of
those test points--not quite; about 40 percent--just in the
first 70 days of this year's schedule.
So, I'm encouraged. The engineering fixes are coming along.
But, I'm not a Pollyanna. I'm going to watch it very, very
carefully. And as I said to the Secretary of the Navy and the
Secretary of Defense, that if this airplane is not performing,
much like the EFV, then I'll be the first person that comes
forward and says, ``Okay, then we need to cancel it.'' But, I'm
optimistic. I don't think that that will happen.
Senator Coats. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service. I don't have any
questions.
I appreciate being a part of the subcommittee and look
forward to future times together.
Chairman Inouye. Welcome back.
I have many other questions I'd like to submit to the panel
for their responses. But, may I ask one question.
The front pages have been filled with articles on the
unrest and the instability of the Middle East. I'd like to know
about the Navy's readiness posture. Are we ready to respond to
anything?
Mr. Mabus. Mr. Chairman, I'll give you the overall answer,
and then I'd like the CNO to give you details. But, the overall
answer is, yes, sir, we can respond to whatever mission is
given to us in the Middle East or anyplace else in the world.
And we are--we have the readiness and the capability to do
that.
Admiral Roughead. To follow up on the Secretary, Mr.
Chairman, as you know, we maintain a ready force in the Central
Command area of operations, the Middle East. We currently have
two aircraft carriers that are deployed there--submarines,
surface ships. And when they go forward, they are prepared for
a range of operations, all the way from high-end combat to, as
we see, humanitarian assistance. But, we train them to go
forward, to be prepared, to be ready for sustained combat at
sea. That has not changed, and that will not change.
And so, the forces that are in the Arabian Gulf, in the
North Arabian Sea, are prepared and very flexible to do
whatever would be required of them.
And then, we've also put some forces into the
Mediterranean, because of the unrest that has taken place in
the Magreb, particularly in Libya--took some ships from the
Amphibious Ready Group that was there, put them in the
Mediterranean. Destroyers and submarines are also present
there. So, it's also the place where we have our 5th Fleet
Headquarters, in Bahrain, where the 5th Fleet commands the
operations in the Central Command area of operation.
U.S. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS READINESS POSTURE
I'm in daily contact with our commander there. The unrest
has not been manifested toward the United States, or, indeed,
any Westerners. And the 5th Fleet operations continue.
In the last couple of days, there was an authorized
departure that was put in place for our dependents in Bahrain,
and some of the families have started to take advantage of
that.
But, we remain ready. We are ready. Our command and control
is in place, and our capability is in place. And those naval
forces are ready to do whatever is asked of them.
Chairman Inouye. General?
General Amos. Sir, we have--as you know, most of our forces
are on the ground, currently, in Afghanistan. Although we have
a MEU, a marine expeditionary unit, that should be arriving
there in the next couple of days, we have a portion of a marine
expeditionary unit currently on the ground, in Afghanistan. So,
those forces that are attached to naval vessels are ready, sir.
And we are bringing in this capability from the west coast--
should arrive here shortly. But, all those forces at a very
high state of readiness before they leave the United States,
headed toward the Central Command area of operations.
Chairman Inouye. General Amos, this may be your first
appearance before a congressional committee, but I'm certain
your fellow marines would be proud to have seen you respond and
answer all those questions. You've done very well, sir.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I'd like to thank the panel for their testimony, and I'll
be submitting more questions.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Ray Mabus
Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
HEALTH CARE PROPOSALS
Question. I believe that the healthcare benefits we provide to our
servicemembers and their families are one of the most important
benefits we provide to the men and women serving our Nation. The
Department of Defense is proposing several changes to the military
health system that would raise out-of-pocket costs for military
families. Could you please explain why these changes are necessary, and
what impact they might have on military personnel and their families?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense has articulated that the rate at
which healthcare costs are increasing, and relative proportion of the
Department's resources devoted to healthcare, cannot be sustained. He
has been resolute in his commitment to implement systemic efficiencies
and specific initiatives which will improve quality and satisfaction
while more responsibly managing cost. We recognize that the Military
Health System is not immune to the pressures of inflation and market
forces evident in the healthcare sector. In conjunction with a growing
number of eligible beneficiaries, expanded benefits and increased
utilization throughout our system, it is incumbent upon us to ensure
that we streamline our operations throughout the system in order to get
the best value for our expenditures.
The Department of the Navy supports the Secretary's Defense Health
Care Reform initiatives and believes these proposals are consistent
with our efforts over the last several years including focusing on
internal efficiencies, incentivizing healthy behaviors and ensuring all
of our beneficiaries are treated equitably. These proposals are modest
and provide an opportunity for all participants--the Government,
providers of healthcare, and beneficiaries--to share in the
responsibility to better manage our healthcare costs.
Question. I believe that the healthcare benefits we provide to our
servicemembers and their families are one of the most important
benefits we provide to the men and women serving our Nation. The
Department of Defense is proposing several changes to the military
health system that would raise out-of-pocket costs for military
families. Secretary Mabus, increases in co-pays were proposed and
rejected just a few years ago. Could you explain how these proposals
are different, and why they should be reconsidered by Congress at this
time?
Answer. The rising healthcare costs within the Military Health
System continue to present challenges. The Secretary of Defense has
articulated that the rate at which healthcare costs are increasing, and
relative proportion of the Department's resources devoted to
healthcare, cannot be sustained. TRICARE Prime enrollment fees for
retirees have not changed since 1996. The Secretary's proposals include
a modest adjustment in TRICARE Prime enrollment fees for all retirees
under age 65 ($5/month for families or $2.50/month for individuals) as
well as modest adjustments (none more than $3) to pharmacy co-pays for
all beneficiaries (except active duty) to promote the use of the
TRICARE Home Delivery program.
The Department of the Navy supports the Secretary's reform
proposals to better manage our health benefit in a way that delivers a
superb benefit while more responsibly managing cost.
NAVY ENERGY
Question. Secretary Mabus, for the last 4 years, this Committee has
added funds to the budget to increase Navy research efforts on
alternative fuels, and we have supported your initiatives to reduce the
dependence of the Navy and Marine Corps on fossil fuels. A recent study
has questioned the value of the military's use of alternative fuels.
Could you comment on the findings of that report, and explain why your
initiatives are important to the Navy and Marine Corps?
Answer. The RAND Corporation Report was not well researched and did
not take into account the recent research and development advances in
the biofuels technologies. RAND stated in their report that the
Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-liquid/biomass-to-liquid fuels are the most
promising near-term options for meeting the Department of Defense's
needs cleanly and affordably. Currently, there are no Fischer-Tropsch
plants here in the United States. Additionally, under the guidelines of
the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, section 526,
any replacement fuel has to have a greenhouse gas emission profile less
than petroleum. In order to meet this guideline, any Fischer-Tropsch
coal-to-liquid plant would have to have carbon capture and
sequestration incorporated into this overall process. While there is
important carbon capture and sequestration research and development
ongoing at DOE, there has not been any carbon capture and sequestration
process built to commercial scale in the United States. In summary, due
to the EISA 2007, section 526 guidelines and the cost prohibitive
carbon capture and storage process, we feel that the Fischer-Tropsch
coal-to-liquid/biomass-to-liquid fuels are not the most promising near-
term option for meeting the Department of Defense's needs cleanly and
affordably.
In the RAND report, some of the conclusions suggested that the
alternative fuel industry is immature, could not scale up to make an
appreciable difference as a domestic alternative, and recommended that
DOD not invest in this market. We have found that the biofuel industry
appears to be well poised to be of commercial size and ready to meet
Department of Navy (DON) demands by 2016 for the Secretary of the Navy
(SECNAV) Great Green Fleet goal. According to Biofuels Digest, there
are 110 companies that are currently working on various biofuel
products including mixed alcohols, bio-crude oils, and drop-in fuels.
The Navy prefers to see itself as an ``early adopter'' of available
biofuels. The military has often led in the development of new
technologies where there was a compelling military use, even if the
civilian use was ultimately greater (ex. GPS, the Internet). The
operational use of alternative fuels by the Department of the Navy will
be hastened by collaborating with Federal agencies and private industry
at every step of the research, development, and certification process.
The alternative fuel program establishes the Department of the Navy as
an early adopter for investors in a nascent industry that could
significantly enhance energy security, and thereby national security,
in the mid- to long-term. By positioning itself as an early adopter by
testing available biofuels and certifying them ``fit for use across our
major platforms and leveraging test and certifications accomplished by
the other services that meets our specifications'', the Navy is better
poised to reap the following benefits:
--Cost Savings.--Increasing our use of alternative energy sources
helps us achieve a level of protection from energy price
volatility. For every $10 increase in the cost of a barrel of
oil, the Navy spends an additional $300 million a year.
Operating more efficiently saves money by reducing the amount
we spend for fuel. Savings can be reinvested to strengthen
combat capability. The cheapest barrel of fuel afloat or
kilowatt-hour ashore is the one we will never use.
--Guaranteed Supply.--Our reliance on energy can be exploited by
potential adversaries. Efficiency and alternatives may be our
best countermeasure. Energy efficiency increases our mission
effectiveness by expanding our range and endurance, and
reducing our need for logistics support. Efficiency
improvements minimize operational risks of that logistics
tether, saving time, money, and lives. Alternative fuels
provide the Navy an ``off-ramp from petroleum,'' mitigating the
risk to a volatile and ever more expensive petroleum market.
--Early Adopter of Technologies.--The military has often led in the
development of new technologies where there was a compelling
military use, even if the civilian use was ultimately greater
(ex. GPS, the Internet). The operational use of alternative
fuels by the Department of the Navy will be hastened by
collaborating with Federal agencies and private industry at
every step of the research, development, and certification
process. The alternative fuel program establishes the
Department of the Navy as an early adopter for investors in a
nascent industry that could significantly enhance energy
security, and thereby national security, in the mid- to long-
term.
--Fossil Fuel Independence.--The Navy recognizes that our dependence
on fossil fuels and foreign sources of oil makes us more
susceptible to price shocks, supply shocks, natural and man-
made disasters, and political unrest in countries far from our
shores.
--Combat Capability.--Making our ships and aircraft more efficient
improves their fuel economy. We can increase the days between
refueling for our ships, improving their security and combat
capability. We can also extend the range of our aircraft strike
missions, allowing us to launch our aircraft farther away from
combat areas. Increasing our efficiency and the diversity in
our sources of fuel improves our combat capability
strategically and tactically.
Question. Secretary Mabus, are there particular alternative energy
technologies which you find are most promising at this time?
Answer. The Department of Navy (DON) is exploring multiple
solutions to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. It is critical to have a
broad solution to this issue due to difficulties in predicting which
solutions will be best suited for production at an industrial scale and
at an acceptable price point.
The DON is aggressively moving to demonstrate and certify
alternative fuels for tactical application. Although the DON has not
specified any particular feedstock, alternative fuels considered by DON
must comply with EISA 2007 section 526 and not compete with food
production. The DON has been evaluating 50/50 blends of hydrotreated
plant and algal oils with petroleum-vased fuel. These blends have
looked promising in both laboratory and aircraft and ship operation
tests conducted to date. The DON is confident that its strategy of
partnering with a broad coalition and demonstrating its commitment to
and ability to use alternative sources of energy will lead to the
successful development of clean alternatives and more secure domestic
sources of energy.
Question. The Navy has been working aggressively to identify
savings which can be reinvested throughout the department. The list of
initiatives described in your budget rollout includes $2.3 billion of
savings on energy. Could you please detail the source of these savings?
Answer. There are numerous energy efficient initiatives and
renewable/alternative energy programs that the Navy and Marine Corps
are pursuing. The reduced reliance on fossil fuels will achieve lower
energy consumption, strategic security, avoided energy cost, and a more
sustainable Fleet. Here are the major program areas along with examples
of projects with estimated savings.
Major Energy Program areas
Shore:
--Steam plants decentralizations
--Lighting systems upgrades
--Renewable energy systems (solar & photovoltaic)
--Rooftop solar thermal hot water projects
--LED street lighting projects
--Ground source heat pumps
--Boiler heat recovery upgrades
--Control system improvements
--Alternative Powered Vehicles
Tactical/Expeditionary:
--Hull coatings
--Propeller coatings
--Stern Flaps
--Allison 501K Efficiency Initiatives
--Aviation Simulators
--Smart voyage planning software
--USS Truxtun hybrid energy drive retrofit
--Alternative fuels testing and certification program
--Incentivized Energy Conservation Program (i-ENCON)
--Expeditionary Forward Operating Base (Ex-FOB)
--SPACES portable solar systems
--Light Emitting Diode (LED) Lighting
--Renewable battery charging systems
Examples of Projects for Navy Tactical with estimated savings
Stern Flaps for Amphibious Ships:
--Shown to have an average payback period of less than 1 year on FFG/
CG/DDG platforms
--Currently undergoing testing on amphibious ships
--Savings estimated at 5,500 BBLs/ship/year for LHD
Hull/Propeller Coating:
--Easy release hull/propeller coating system allows Navy ships to
shed bio-fouling once underway
--Reduces costly periodic hull/propeller cleanings
--Savings estimated at 1,800 BBLs/ship/year
Solid State Lighting:
--Uses LEDs for platform illumination
--LED lights in commercial applications last almost 50 times longer
than Incandescent and 6 times longer than Fluorescent lights;
provide the same illumination with 25 percent of the energy
--Currently testing on DDG-108 and LSD-52
--Payback estimated at 3 years, depending on fixture (savings of 335
BBLs/ship/year for DDG)
Navy also continues to develop technologies that will be
implemented in future years; the implementation schedule for these
initiatives is subject to impacts based on final fiscal year 2011
budget:
Hybrid Electric Drive for DDG/LHD/LHA:
--Fuel savings by securing LM2500 propulsion turbines at low speed
while loading gas turbine electric generators to more efficient
operating condition (savings estimated at 8,500 BBLs/ship/year)
--Land-based prototype scheduled for testing mid-2011
--First afloat hybrid drive installed in USS Makin Island (LHD-8)
--Hybrid drive will be installed in USS America (LHA-6), which is
scheduled for completion in 2012.
--USS Truxtun (DDG-103) scheduled to be first operational
installation in fiscal year 2012 as an afloat test platform
Engine efficiency modifications for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter:
--Improvement in F135 Block 5+ engine fuel economy and lifecycle cost
through component upgrades and software cycle optimization
--Estimated Fleet-wide savings of 35,000 BBLs in 2023 (upon delivery
of Block 5 aircraft), increasing to 178,000 BBLs/yr by 2029
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
MILITARY HEALTH
Question. Secretary Mabus, the suicide rate in the military is at
an all time high. While both the Navy and the Marine Corps numbers seem
to have decreased, one suicide is one too many.
What is your department doing to prevent suicides in the Navy and
the Marine Corps?
Answer. We believe preventing suicide hinges on our leaders'
ability to intervene early and lead a culture change to induce help
seeking behavior. We continually improve the guidance and program
support provided to leaders at all levels to combat this preventable
loss of life.
Suicide prevention initiatives in the Navy include training aimed
at front line supervisors to boost their understanding of the sailors
they command, recognize changes in behavior, signs of concern, and
engage early with appropriate support. Leadership seminars focus
attention during times of transition and stress due to loss, including
loss of status or career standing. Seminars also address the concept of
continuously building and reinforcing connections with families and
support structures to facilitate communication in times of need.
Recognizing that people exposed to suicide are an at-risk group,
expanded post-suicide-event training and guidance has recently been
added to assist leaders in the aftermath of a tragedy to prevent future
suicides. Suicide prevention coordinator and first responder training
were provided world-wide and at Navy Reserve locations via Navy Reserve
psychological health outreach teams.
For the Marine Corps leaders educate all marines about the
relationship between suicide and stressors, warning signs, and risk
factors--both through annual awareness and prevention training, and
through additional training embedded in all formal schools from recruit
training to the Commander's Course. Marines are also taught how to
fulfill their duty to seek help for themselves or a fellow Marine at
risk for suicide. The importance of seeking help early, before problems
escalate to the point of suicide risk is also emphasized.
The ``Never Leave a Marine Behind'' suicide prevention training
series is being expanded. In January 2011, we provided a junior Marine
module as well as an update to the existing award-winning NCO module.
In development for release soon are officer and staff noncommissioned
officer modules that will help leaders to manage command climate in a
way that builds resilience and encourages help-seeking in their
marines.
To truly build a resilient force that fosters the ability of
marines to cope with the widely varying stress of life, we must
recognize the interconnectedness between physical health, behavioral
health, wellness, and spirituality. We will accomplish this by better
integrating our existing resilience programs, improving efficiency and
effectiveness, and making resources more useful to leaders. To that
end, many programs have been reorganized under a new behavioral health
branch with the end state of one mission. Effectively leveraging other
programming across the spectrum of behavioral health and extending into
other wellness areas will proactively prevent suicide.
We recognize that strong partnerships are necessary to stay abreast
of the latest available information within the suicide prevention arena
and also to explore programming needs. The Marine Corps has
collaborated with the American Association of Suicidology. Both the
Navy and Marine Corps collaborate with Office of the Secretary of
Defense (Readiness), Sister Services, other Federal, and civilian
agencies, to continually adapt our efforts and reflect the latest
public health science; and the ever-changing needs of the Navy and
Marine Corps family.
Question. I am concerned that many programs are only directed to
active duty servicemembers. What are the Navy and the Marine Corps
doing to assist Reservists with psychological health issues as they
transition back to civilian life and may not have access to military
treatment facilities?
Answer. I agree with you that one suicide is too many, which is why
the Department of the Navy continues to build a culture of support for
psychological health and suicide prevention focused on prevention and
early intervention while working to overcome the stigma associated with
seeking needed care for the Total Force, including Reservists and their
families.
Enabling a continuum of service, Reserve commands have trained
Combat/Operational Stress Control (C/OSC) caregivers and C/OSC training
is conducted regularly at all levels in order to prevent suicide,
sexual assault and family violence, and to normalize buddy-care and
help-seeking behavior as early as possible. Reserve Psychological
Health Outreach Program (PHOP) teams, embedded in the Navy and Marine
Corps Reserve communities geographically, support Commanders in
identifying Navy and Marine Corps Reservists and their family members
who may be at risk for stress injuries following deployments or other
transitions and provide outreach, support, assessment, referrals and
follow-up to local resources to assist with issue resolution,
psychological resilience and growth. Along with mental health
referrals, many successful referrals by the PHOP teams involve helping
Reservists with financial and employment concerns that can affect
psychological health and impact performance. Another effective tool is
the Returning Warrior Workshops (RWW), a 2 day weekend program designed
specifically to support the reintegration of returning Reservists and
their families following mobilization. PHOP teams serve as facilitators
at these Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program signature events. In
addition, FOCUS (Families OverComing Under Stress), a family centered
resilience training program based on evidence-based interventions that
enhance understanding of combat and operational stress, psychological
health and developmental outcomes for highly stressed children and
families, is available for reservists serving in areas with a high-
active duty fleet concentration.
Question. What programs have been the most successful? I urge you
to share those best practices with the other services.
Answer. Leadership at all levels is focused and engaged in suicide
prevention, working hard to build individual and unit resilience, and
to encourage sailors and marines to engage helping services.
The Navy suicide prevention program has been successful on a number
of fronts. It builds on the premise that suicide prevention must be a
local effort to be effective. Service level efforts have been designed
to support local command suicide prevention programs. Navy training and
communications emphasize a simple message--ACT: Ask, Care, Treat.
Recent surveys show that more than 80 percent of sailors (and growing)
know the acronym ACT and understand it. More than 90 percent report
that they know what to do if someone talks about suicide, can explain
appropriate actions to take, and believe that their shipmates will get
needed help. We have an increasing number of reports from commands that
describe how members either sought help for themselves or a leader,
peer or family member sought assistance for the individual. We believe
this is a successful element of our program based on survey results and
the increasing number of reports of sailors and family members taking
necessary action.
Navy policy requires commands to have written crisis response plans
that itemize suicide safety precautions and appropriate actions to get
emergency assistance for someone who demonstrates signs of acute
suicide risk. We know of at least 2 specific instances and have several
anecdotal reports that such plans made the critical difference by
reaching someone in time to save their life.
In 2009, the Marine Corps redesigned its suicide prevention and
awareness training with the noncommissioned officer Never Leave a
Marine Behind course. A junior Marine course followed in January 2011,
and officer and staff noncommissioned officer versions are expected to
be released in March 2011. Marines from the operating forces were
included in all stages of course development. The courses contain
various degrees of training in intervention skills, frontline
supervisor awareness, and managing command climate to build resilience
and encourage help-seeking behavior. Marines and instructors in formal
schools, such as recruit training and Corporal's course, continue to
receive suicide prevention and awareness instruction.
The Corps continues to embed behavioral health providers in
deploying units, and recently began providing awareness and
intervention training to those who support behavioral health providers,
such as medical providers, corpsmen, chaplains, and religious
personnelmen. In addition, 40-50 marines in each deploying unit are
offered nonmedical training in how to identify fellow marines
experiencing stress reactions, and how and where to refer them for
additional help if needed. It is that relationship and interaction
between individual marines that is so important to maintaining a
healthy force.
Our programs have many other evidence-informed elements in our
suicide prevention programs including peer-to-peer training, front line
supervisor training, assessment and management of suicide risk for
mental health providers.
Both the Navy and Marine Corps collaborate with Office of the
Secretary of Defense (Readiness), Sister Services, other Federal, and
civilian agencies, to continually adapt our efforts and reflect the
latest public health science; and the ever-changing needs of the Navy
and Marine Corps family.
NUCLEAR FUNDING
Question. Secretary Mabus, in H.R. 1, the House has decided to
protect Defense spending from massive budget cuts proposed in other
departments. This includes preserving research and development funding
for a new generation of Ohio class ballistic missile submarines. It
cuts funding, however, for the National Nuclear Security Administration
which would build the nuclear engine to power the submarines. Can you
reconcile these policy choices?
Answer. Among its other missions, National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) enhances global security by providing naval
nuclear propulsion for the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad,
developing and maintaining the nuclear warheads which arm this
platform, and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The funding provided for NNSA in H.R. 1 is approximately $1 billion
less than the fiscal year 2011 request including a $125 million
shortfall for Naval Reactor's efforts. If funded at the levels in this
legislation, Naval Reactors will not be able to deliver on commitments
made to the Department of Navy. In particular, this bill will adversely
impact the reactor design work for the OHIO Replacement Submarine and
delay refueling of the Land-Based Prototype. Within NNSA, Naval
Reactors has overall responsibility for the reactor plant design for
the next generation ballistic missile submarine, OHIO Replacement, and
its NNSA funding request will continue specific work on the reactor
plant (reactor core and supporting systems). Should the funding level
in H.R. 1 become law, at a minimum, there would be a:
--Six to nine month delay to the OHIO Replacement Program and
resultant loss of synchronization with the Navy's work on the
ship.
--Staffing reduction of over 50 personnel at shipyards and Naval
Reactors' laboratories.
--Deferral in planned hiring of 150 personnel at shipyards and Naval
Reactors' laboratories.
--Deferral in reactor plant component design subcontract placements.
--Other impacts to Naval Reactors, including the delays to the
manufacturing demonstration of alternate core materials and
fuel systems technology, the S8G prototype refueling, and a
large majority of previously planned General Plant Projects
(GPP).
These shortfalls are particularly damaging in the early stages of
the project when we are trying to mature the design and set plant
parameters that will, for the most part, refine the cost and schedule
for ultimate delivery of the reactor plant to support ship
construction.
Question. What impact will the cut for the nuclear engine program
have on the new Ohio class ballistic missile submarine program?
Answer. A strong Navy is crucial to the security of the United
States, a Nation with worldwide interests that receives the vast
majority of its trade and energy via transoceanic shipment. Navy
warships are deployed around the world every hour of every day to
provide a credible ``forward presence,'' ready to respond on the scene
wherever America's interests are threatened. Nuclear propulsion plays
an essential role in this, providing the mobility, flexibility, and
endurance that today's smaller Navy requires to meet a growing number
of missions. About 45 percent of the Navy's major combatants are
nuclear-powered, including 11 aircraft carriers, 53 attack submarines,
14 strategic submarines (the Nation's most survivable nuclear
deterrent), and 4 strategic service submarines converted to covert,
high-volume, precision strike platforms.
The mission of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, under DOE as
Naval Reactors, is to provide militarily effective nuclear propulsion
plants and ensure their safe, reliable, and long-lived operation and
disposal. This mission requires the combination of fully trained U.S.
Navy men and women with ships that excel in speed, endurance, stealth,
and independence from logistics supply chains. Because of the Program's
demonstrated reliability, U.S. nuclear-powered warships are welcomed in
more than 150 ports of call in over 50 foreign countries and
dependencies.
Within NNSA, Naval Reactors is responsible for naval nuclear
propulsion design, technology development and regulatory oversight. The
Navy sets the requirement, and Naval Reactors delivers the reactor
plants.
The funding levels proposed by both the House and the Senate's year
long continuing resolution would not allow Naval Reactors to honor
commitments made to the U.S. Navy to deliver the OHIO class Replacement
submarine on the required schedule. If no additional funding is made
available to Naval Reactors, this would result in at least a 6 month
deferral of planned reactor plant component design subcontracts,
including development of the pressurizer, control drive mechanisms, and
core and reactor component development efforts which support reactor
compartment design and arrangements; a staffing reduction of over 50
personnel at Naval Reactors' laboratories and the shipyard in Groton,
CT for the last 3-4 months of fiscal year 2011; and a deferral in
required hiring of approximately 150 personnel at Naval Reactors'
Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory in Schenectady, New York. The
combination of these factors would result in a delay of at least 6-9
months to the OHIO Replacement program, and ship design and
construction schedules would need to be revised and sub-optimized from
their current cost minimizing approach.
Among the most significant requirements for the OHIO class
Replacement is a life-of-the-ship core. To provide a life of the ship
core for the OHIO class Replacement, NR needs to use an alternate
cladding material. Failure to receive the full fiscal year 2011 request
could prevent the required insertion of alternate core materials and
fuel system technology into the Land-Based Prototype or delay the
refueling schedule. For the refueling of the Prototype, Naval Reactors
will test and demonstrate the manufacturability of the alternate core
materials and fuel system technology required for the OHIO class
Replacement life-of-the-ship core. This work must continue in fiscal
year 2011 to establish production processes for the OHIO class
Replacement core prior to full-scale production and procurement.
In addition to the important research and development mission this
platform performs, the prototype serves as a training platform for our
sailors. Delays to the refueling of the prototype will impact the
readiness of our nuclear fleet by delaying training of our Nuclear
qualified operators. All nuclear operators go through a rigorous
initial training and qualification program that includes qualifying to
operate either one of the Land-Based Prototype or one of the Moored
Training Ships. During this training, operators develop a respect for
the unforgiving nature of nuclear propulsion technology and, from the
very beginning of their careers in the Program, develop confidence in
their ability to safely operate a reactor plant. These highly trained
and qualified operators are key to our record of safe and reliable
operation.
The proposed funding levels are concerning on a higher level in
that Naval Reactors has a long, successful track record of rigorously
defining requirements and executing major projects efficiently on
budget, on schedule, and of the quality demanded by complex nuclear
technology that has a very high consequence of failure.
HUMANITARIAN RELIEF
Question. As evidenced by this past year's events, the U.S.
military's involvement in disaster and humanitarian relief has become
more and more important. I note specifically aid to Haiti both after
the earthquake and the hurricane in 2010, aid to Pakistan after the
2010 floods, and most recently aid to Japan in the aftermath of the
earthquake and tsunami. This type of assistance is vital to our global
relationships and I applaud you for your consistent quick reaction and
comprehensive support. Is the Navy-Marine Corps team adequately
equipped to conduct these missions?
Answer. The Department of Navy (DON) is adequately equipped and
trained to conduct Humanitarian Relief missions when called upon. This
is exemplified by the recent response to the earthquake, tsunami and
nuclear reactor disasters in Japan which had minimal impact on DON
missions. These responses showed the flexibility of Navy and Marine
Corps assets. The same platforms and the same people can conduct a wide
range of missions.
Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HA/DR) is crucial to
fostering and sustaining cooperative relationships in times of calm so
that during crisis previously established working relationships improve
response efficiency and efficacy. We will continue to mitigate human
suffering as the vanguard of interagency and multinational efforts,
both in a deliberate, proactive fashion and in response to crises.
Human suffering moves us to act, and the expeditionary character of the
maritime forces uniquely positions us to provide assistance. With HA/DR
being a core capability as outlined in the current maritime strategy,
it has been, and will continue to be, part of who we are as maritime
services.
Our greatest current concern related to Humanitarian Relief is the
fiscal strain placed on DON by the voluntary departure of military
dependents from the Island of Honshu, Japan. With an estimated cost of
$54.5 million through April 8, and the tremendous strain our sailors
are already bearing due to the reduction of PCS order lead-time from 6
months down to as little as 2 months, we simply cannot absorb these
costs within MILPERS accounts under the Continuing Resolution (CR). The
Department has submitted a CR exception request to the President's
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for additional cash under the
``Safety of Human Life'' exception to fund the additional cost for
travel, lodging, meals, and per diem for evacuees through April 8,
2011. This short-term solution has been approved by OMB. The annual
funding picture remains unresolved and a full year funding strategy
cannot be determined until congressional action on the fiscal year 2011
President's budget is complete. We appreciate any help you can provide
on this matter.
Question. What kind of training do our sailors and marines receive
with respect to humanitarian missions?
Answer. The Navy established Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster
Response (HA/DR) as a core capability of our Maritime Strategy. As
such, it is now a competency that is woven into the fabric of daily
naval operations. The conduct of Global Maritime Partnership missions,
as well as other partner building activities, connect development and
diplomacy priorities to fleet-planned activities. When disasters occur,
the Navy's globally distributed and regionally concentrated forces are
ideally suited for HA/DR operations in the littorals where the
preponderance of the world's population resides. Naval forces can
quickly respond to security related crisis operations in large measure
due to how naval forces are trained, organized, deployed, and employed.
The Department of Navy (DON) sailors and marines provide support for
humanitarian missions by performing functions which are already part of
their daily Service mission.
Two enduring missions that practice proactive HA/DR are PACIFIC
PARTNERSHIP, conducted in East Asia and Oceania, and CONTINUING
PROMISE, conducted in South America and the Caribbean. These missions,
which are coordinated with each Country Team, build critical partner
capacity and improve disaster response readiness for both our partners
and our sailors through the development of habitual relationships with
relevant partner ministries, departments, and officials. The deliberate
day-to-day coordination of the Naval Service with international
partners, joint, interagency, international, and NGO efforts
strengthens relationships and sets the conditions for effective
collaboration and rapid response when an in-extremis response is
required.
Recently, the RONALD REAGAN Strike Group's quick response to the
earthquake and tsunami in Japan highlighted the Navy's unique ability
to provide expeditious humanitarian relief around the globe.
Question. Are there additional resources that would make you more
efficient or effective in providing this type of assistance?
Answer. Additional resources are not required to make the Navy more
efficient or effective in providing Humanitarian Assistance (HA) and
Disaster Relief (DR) to emergent events such as Haiti, Pakistan, and
Japan. These operations are the core capabilities of the Navy's
maritime Strategy.
HA/DR is funded by Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid
(OHDACA) funds approved by Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD). OSD
authorizes designated Combatant Commanders (COCOM) to render
assistance, including transportation of personnel and supplies,
assessments of affected areas and purchase of relief supplies in
coordination with U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)--
lead agency for Disaster response.
With no timetables for disasters, DR cannot be budgeted and OHDACA
reimburses Navy for use of OMN funds to support HA/DR operations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR
Question. Secretary Mabus, the Navy is in the middle of the process
of choosing a contractor for a new Ship to Shore Connector (SSC) to
replace the LCAC's that currently move equipment between ships and the
shore. As the Navy prepares to evaluate the two proposals that are
expected at the end of this month, can you explain how the Navy will
take into account Total Ownership Costs as it makes its decision?
Answer. The exact number of proposals which will be received for
the Ship to Shore Connector (SSC) is unknown. An Offeror's proposal
will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the
final Request for Proposals (RFP). Currently, in the draft RFP, Total
Ownership Cost (TOC) is included in the technical evaluation of the
Offerors' Detail Design and Engineering Approach, as well as Build
Approach.
The evaluation process will consider, among other things, an
Offeror's top three TOC reduction initiatives inherent in their
proposed approaches to developing the SSC Detail Design and producing
the resultant craft. This will be part of the overall best value
determination.
Question. Is there a defined process for considering Total
Ownership Costs (TOC)? If so, how does that work?
Answer. Yes, for this solicitation there is a defined process for
considering Total Ownership Costs outlined in the draft Ship to Shore
Connector (SSC) Request for Proposal (RFP) released on March 1, 2011
via a FedBizOps announcement.
According to the draft RFP, evaluation factors include non-price
(technical evaluation) factors and a price factor. These factors will
be used to evaluate the extent to which proposals address, and meet or
exceed, the requirements of the SSC solicitation. These evaluation
factors are as follows:
--Technical Evaluation: Factor 1--Detail Design and Engineering
Approach; Factor 2--Build Approach; Factor 3--Management
Approach; and Factor 4--Past Performance.
--Price Evaluation: Factor 5--Price.
Total Ownership Cost is included in the technical evaluation of
Factor (1), Detail Design and Engineering Approach, and Factor (2),
Build Approach. For Factors (1) and (2), the evaluation process will
consider, among other things, an Offeror's top three Total Ownership
Cost (TOC) reduction initiatives inherent in their proposed approaches
to developing the SSC Detail Design and producing the resultant craft.
The corresponding technical factors will then be assigned an adjectival
rating, which will be part of the overall best value determination.
Question. What are some examples of TOC initiatives in acquisition
programs?
Answer. Total Ownership Costs (TOC) reduction initiatives include
the following areas: Training, Maintenance, Energy Usage, Supply
Support, Configuration Management, Operations, Environmental Impact,
and Craft Disposal.
Some examples of TOC reduction initiatives in surface shipbuilding
programs include:
--The T-AKE contract was awarded on the basis of TOC, not primarily
acquisition costs. In addition, a formal TOC reduction program
was instituted which incorporated design features projected to
save over $700 million over the life of the class. The ship is
outfitted with an integrated electric drive that allows for
optimum fuel economy over the full range of operation.
--The Mobile Landing Platform design leverages an existing production
design (General Dynamics NASSCO's BP Tanker). As a result,
program risk was greatly reduced and coupled with requirements
tradeoffs, the Navy saved over $2 billion.
--Provided Auxiliary Propulsion System in LHD 8 and LHA 6.
--Reduced permanent manning levels in LPD 17 class, DDG 1000 and
Littoral Combat Ship programs.
--Combined Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) buy across the ship
classes for the Commercial Broadband Satellite Program (CBSP).
The DDG 113 Advance Procurement, T-AKE and JHSV planned buys
were adjusted to take advantage of the stepped pricing
structure of the CBSP equipment contract, which resulted in
approximately $1.4 million in savings per system.
--Issued Stern Flap Modification for DDG 79-112, resulting in a total
savings through the 35-year life span.
--Deleted the port anchor and forward kingpost on DDG 113 and follow-
on ships.
--Combined GFE buys for machinery control system between DDG
Modernization and DDG 113 and follow-on ships.
--Maximize competition for subcomponent procurements for DDG 113 and
follow-on ships (e.g., Main Reduction Gears).
--Use refurbished equipment on DDG 113 and follow-on ships (e.g.,
High Frequency Radio Group).
Question. How does the evaluation process ensure that a competitor
is not penalized for increased acquisition cost that may be necessary
for a TOC initiative that will dramatically reduce operating or
maintenance costs?
Answer. For Ship to Shore Connector (SSC), an Offeror's proposal
will be evaluated based on four non-price (technical) factors and a
price factor. Total Ownership Cost is included in the technical
evaluation of Factor (1), Detail Design and Engineering Approach, and
Factor (2), Build Approach.
For Factors (1) and (2), the evaluation process will consider,
among other things, an Offeror's top three Total Ownership Cost
reduction initiatives inherent in their proposed approaches to
developing the SSC Detail Design and producing the resultant craft. The
corresponding technical factors will then be assigned an adjectival
rating, which will be part of the overall best value determination. A
best value determination is based on an assessment as to which proposal
demonstrates the greatest technical merit at a reasonable cost.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
P-8A BASING
Question. In the President's budget for fiscal year 2012, no money
was included for military construction projects at Naval Air Station
Whidbey Island to begin preparing the facility for P-8A aircraft
basing. When does construction on the necessary MILCON projects need to
begin in order to have NAS Whidbey prepared to receive aircraft by
2017?
Answer. Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island is currently planned
to transition to P-8 outside the FYDP, in 2017 or later. Preliminary
design and subsequent construction would require approximately 3 years
to complete prior to P-8 arrival. As the P-8 program matures and
delivery schedules, operational employment, and transition plans are
implemented, the specific timeline will be determined.
Question. What construction projects are required to upgrade the
base and how much do they cost? Has the Navy given any consideration to
less expensive alternatives for military construction at Whidbey?
Answer. Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island is currently planned
to transition to P-8 outside the Future Years Defense Plan, in 2017 or
later. To support P-8 operations, approximately $330 million would be
required for a 3-bay P-8 hangar, a Fleet Training Center, and P-8
related base infrastructure modifications. The Navy will continue to
give consideration to less expensive alternatives such as reuse and or
consolidation of existing facilities at NAS Whidbey Island as the
transition to P-8 progresses.
Question. When will the Navy make a final decision regarding
whether or not to follow the ROD?
Answer. The 2008 Record of Decision (ROD) is the Navy's current
guidance for long term basing of the P-8 force. The ROD identified five
operational squadrons and one Fleet Replacement Squadron at Naval Air
Station (NAS) Jacksonville, Florida; three squadrons in Marine Corps
Base Hawaii (MCBH) Kaneohe Bay; and four squadrons in NAS Whidbey
Island, Washington. Within the current Future Years Defense Plan
(FYDP), P-8 will be introduced in NAS Jacksonville and MCBH Kaneohe
Bay. NAS Whidbey Island is currently planned to transition to P-8
outside the FYDP, in 2017 or later. Unless otherwise amended by a new
ROD, NAS Whidbey Island will continue to support Airborne Electronic
Attack, Fleet Reconnaissance, and Maritime Patrol squadrons.
Question. What justification (both budget and strategic) would
support an alternate basing plan for stationing P-8A aircraft only at
Jacksonville and Kaneohe Bay? And, are those facilities able to sustain
the additional four squadrons that would have been based at Whidbey?
Answer. The 2008 Record of Decision (ROD) is the Navy's current
guidance for long term basing of the P-8 force. NAS Whidbey Island is
currently planned to transition to P-8 outside the FYDP, in 2017 or
later. Unless otherwise amended by a new ROD, NAS Whidbey Island will
continue to support Airborne Electronic Attack, Fleet Reconnaissance,
and Maritime Patrol squadrons. Any change to the ROD to station four
operational squadrons in NAS Whidbey Island would require strategic,
fiscal, environmental, and facilities assessments to address impacts
across the force.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
AEGIS BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
Question. Secretary Mabus, the Navy has assumed the lead for the
first phase of the European missile defense plan. This first phase
began last Monday with the USS Monterey beginning a 6 month deployment
to the Mediterranean. With the immediate need to support the European
missile defense plan along with the current demand from Combatant
Commanders in other parts of the world for ships, are there enough
ships available to support the ballistic missile defense mission? Can
the current ship maintenance schedule support deployment of phase one
and phase two of the European missile defense plan?
Answer. The Navy currently has sufficient capacity to meet the most
critical demands for multi-mission surface combatants; however, Navy
does not have the capacity to meet all Geographic Combatant Commander
(GCC) demands for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)-capable ships without
breaking established Personnel Tempo program limits for deployment
lengths, dwell and homeport tempo.
In the near-term, surface combatants with Aegis BMD capability are
allocated to GCCs through the Department of Defense Global Force
Management (GFM) process taking into consideration GCC surface
combatant requirements all mission areas. The Navy employs the Fleet
Response Plan (FRP) as the framework to structure, prepare and posture
ready Navy forces to meet GFM requirements, to include BMD. The FRP
balances the requirements to maintain and upgrade equipment, train for
the full spectrum of operations and deploy in support of GCC
requirements.
The required ship maintenance and Aegis Modernization plan supports
the expected requirements of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the European
missile defense plan. To meet the increasing demand for these ships and
reduce the risk to our long term force structure caused by the
increased operational tempo from longer deployment lengths, the Navy,
in conjunction with MDA, has established a plan to increase the number
of BMD-capable Aegis ships from 23 in fiscal year 2011 to 41 in fiscal
year 2016 (see Figure 1 below). This plan balances the need for meeting
current operational requirements against the need to upgrade existing
surface combatants with BMD capability to pace the future threat.
Included in this plan are increases in both the Navy's capacity and
capability of Aegis ships through the installation of Aegis BMD 3.6.1/
4.0.1 suite, the Aegis Modernization program (Aegis BMD 5.0 suite), and
new construction (commencing with DDG-113). The current Continuing
Resolution (CR) and the President's budget for fiscal year 2012 may
impact this plan.
Figure 1.--Aegis BMD Ship Profile, Presidential budget for fiscal year
2012.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
BRUNSWICK NAVAL AIR STATION CLOSURE
Question. The Brunswick Naval Air Station is slated to close as an
active military installation on May 31, bringing to a close a proud era
in naval aviation in Brunswick, Maine. The Senate Armed Services
Committee has provided the necessary conveyance authorities to transfer
property under BRAC quickly. Recently, several of the initial
conveyance packages to Southern Maine Community College have been
delayed without explanation. Buildings 151 and 512 at NAS Brunswick,
which are projected to serve as the new Maine Advanced Technology and
Engineering Center (MATEC) and Southern Maine Community Residence Hall
respectively, are essential resources for the start of the College's
upcoming Fall Semester. The property was originally scheduled to be
conveyed to the College in January through the Department of Education,
but the properties still remain under the Navy's control. Given that
these properties require up to 6 months of redevelopment and the start
of the Fall semester is August 2011, the education of students relying
upon the College's new campus is in jeopardy unless this conveyance
occurs in the near future. Secretary Mabus, will you review the status
of this conveyance and commit to a conveyance date in the near future?
Answer. I share your desire to transfer the property to the
Brunswick community as expeditiously as possible. On March 29, 2011,
Navy assigned 10 acres of Brunswick Naval Air Station, including
Buildings 151 and 512, to the Department of Education for conveyance.
The Department of Education will conduct the conveyance of
Brunswick Naval Air Station property to Southern Maine Community
College through a public benefit conveyance.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
U.S. NAVY ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION ON ADAK
Question. As you might be aware, environmental remediation at
multiple sites on the island of Adak has been ongoing since 1986. The
U.S. Navy, in conjunction with the EPA and the State of Alaska, have
been working since that time to restore the lands on Adak to an
environmentally stable state following the Navy occupation of those
lands. While through fiscal year 2009, the Navy has spent $289.8
million on restoration activities on Adak, it is my understanding that
the Navy anticipates that another $102.5 million would be needed to
complete the restoration projects. I have been recently informed that
the majority of restoration efforts that the Navy has conducted have
been focused on lands that are not available for habitation or economic
development by the communities on Adak. Is there a process by which the
Navy determines which lands receive remediation funding and projects
before others?
Answer. The Navy funds cleanup to protect human health and the
environment and meet legal obligations, including agreements with
States and the U.S. EPA, such as the Adak Federal Facility Agreement
(FFA). For BRAC sites, cleanup schedules are also aligned with property
redevelopment timelines to the best extent possible. If additional
funds are made available by Congress, projects that accelerate property
transfer are then considered.
Question. Does the Navy have a long term plan in place that defines
which lands will be remediated and in which order?
Answer. The Navy has a plan which includes a schedule for
investigation, cleanup and long-term monitoring of all Navy
environmental sites on Adak. The Navy consults with the local
Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) and regulatory agencies when
developing and updating the plan.
Question. What is the Navy's projected timeframe for the completion
of the remediation projects on Adak?
Answer. The Navy has a schedule to complete all cleanup actions by
fiscal year 2016. The remedy selected for some environmental sites
include long-term monitoring consisting of periodic inspection and
repair of landfills, groundwater sampling and analysis, marine tissue
sampling and analysis, and inspection and repair of institutional
controls. Long-term monitoring requirements are documented in the Adak
Comprehensive Monitoring Plan (CMP) and are scheduled to continue until
fiscal year 2041.
Questions Submitted to Admiral Gary Roughead
Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
NAVY SHIFT IN SEA BILLETS
Question. Admiral Roughead, the Navy recently announced its plans
to shift approximately 6,800 billets through fiscal year 2016 to
realign them for warfighting capabilities. A portion of this shift will
increase the number of sea billets while cutting shore billets. What
led the Navy to initiate this shift, and what effect will this have on
the ship to shore rotation of sailors?
Answer. The Navy shifted these billets from support staff to
operational roles to improve warfighting readiness and support the
Navy's future force and warfighting capabilities. The reduction in
staff billets allowed us to increase operational, sea going billets for
the LHA-7, DDG-51 class destroyers, LCS class ships, unmanned and
helicopter aviation detachments to support the LCS, Virginia class
submarines, new E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircrews, and the outfitting of
an additional Riverine Squadron.
With Navy's increased focus on enhancing efficiencies in our
operations, this will require some sailors to serve longer sea tours.
The necessary realignments toward operations will likely require
implementation of risk mitigation strategies to support sea intensive
communities and ratings. Some of the initiatives being considered are
Sea Duty Incentive Pay (SDIP), increased general shore duty billeting
in recruiting commands, and increased in-rate shore duty billets at
regional maintenance centers and waterfront school houses.
Question. Are you concerned that this tighter ship to shore
standard will have a negative effect on families and retention?
Answer. While sea/shore rotation does factor in to retention
decisions, we do not anticipate this realignment to cause retention
statistics to fall outside of historic norms. Currently, the Navy is
experiencing unprecedented retention, which is expected to continue,
based on current economic indicators. Disregarding the current positive
impact of the economy and the high operational tempo, 65 percent of
sailors beyond 6 years of service remain in the Navy and 80 percent of
sailors with greater than 10 years of service decide to Stay Navy based
on historical averages. The Navy has established maximum allowable sea
tour lengths to preserve positive tone-of-the-force and to minimize
retention risk.
The billet realignment was approved only after careful analysis of
operational needs, fleet readiness requirements, and input from fleet
sailors. The increase in manning at sea is anticipated to have positive
effects that will reduce the workload of sailors currently on sea duty
and increase the opportunity for sailors to obtain professional
qualification through participation in Fleet operations.
We remain steadfast in our commitment to provide exceptional
support to mitigate the adverse impacts families may experience during
deployments. We offer a broad array of services through Navy Fleet and
Family Support Centers, military medical treatment facilities, child
care centers, and morale, welfare and recreation programs. These,
coupled with ready access to command ombudsmen and referral services
through Military OneSource, provide a network of support to sustain
families enduring the hardships associated with prolonged family
separations while their loved ones are away.
AEGIS MISSILE DEFENSE
Question. Admiral Roughead, Aegis cruisers and destroyers provide a
crucial capability for conducting ballistic missile defense operations.
The administration's Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) for ballistic
missile defense operations includes operating Aegis ships in European
waters. Do you have sufficient resources to carry out this additional
mission?
Answer. The Navy currently has sufficient capacity to meet the most
critical demands for its multi-mission Aegis ships; however, we do not
have the capacity to meet all Geographic Combatant Commander (GCC)
demands for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) without exceeding
established Personnel Tempo program limits for deployment lengths,
dwell tempo, or homeport tempo. Based on threat analysis and current
indications from GCCs, and assuming standard 6 month deployment
lengths, the Navy and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) concluded that
GCC demand for surface combatants with Aegis BMD capability will
outpace capacity through approximately 2018.
To meet the increasing demand for these ships and reduce the risk
to our long term force structure caused by the increased operational
tempo from longer deployment lengths, the Navy, working in conjunction
with MDA, has established a plan (see Figure 1 below) to increase the
number of BMD-capable Aegis ships from 23 in fiscal year 2011 to 41 in
fiscal year 2016. This plan balances the need for meeting current
operational requirements against the need to upgrade existing BMD-
capable Aegis ships to pace the future threat. Included in this plan
are increases in the Navy's capacity and the capabilities of Aegis
ships through the installation of an Aegis BMD 3.6.1/4.0.1 suite, the
Aegis Modernization program, or new construction (commencing with DDG-
113).
Figure 1.--Aegis BMD Ship Profile, Presidential budget for fiscal year
2012.
Question. Admiral Roughead, are you concerned that the heightened
demand for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense will detract from other,
non-BMD missions?
Answer. With the exception of our SSBN's strategic deterrence
patrols, the Navy does not deploy ships with a single mission purpose.
Single mission use of our Aegis ships for Ballistic Missile Defense
(BMD) will result in shortages in other mission areas and a loss of
operational flexibility for the Geographic Combatant Commanders (GCCs).
To ensure GCCs demands are met, the Navy employs Aegis ships in
multi-mission roles rather than for exclusive missions on an enduring
basis. These ships can perform a variety of other non-BMD missions such
as strike warfare, air warfare, submarine warfare, surface warfare,
information warfare, high-value asset protection, or maritime
interdiction either concurrently or sequentially as the GCC requires.
The Navy has created a flexible operating concept for maritime BMD
which features a graduated readiness posture that allows BMD-capable
Aegis ships to be on an operational tether and available for other
tasking when not directly involved in active BMD operations. Aegis
ships operating in support of a BMD mission do not lose the capability
to conduct other missions; however, specific mission effectiveness may
be affected by ships' position and/or application of ship resources to
those missions.
AEGIS BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE OPERATIONS
Question. Admiral Roughead, the USS Monterey recently deployed as
the first asset in European missile defense. Could you provide the
Committee with an update on those operations?
Answer. While the Navy has previously deployed BMD-capable ships to
the European region, USS Monterey is the first deployed BMD-capable
multi-mission ship to support the European Phased Adaptive Approach
(EPAA). This deployment will lay the foundation for the EPAA, by
developing a better understanding of what is necessary to execute
ballistic missile defense from the sea in Europe and how to operate in
coordination with Allies and partners.
USS Monterey will engage with our NATO Allies and European partners
to promote the U.S. commitment to the EPAA mission and the broader
U.S.-NATO theater security cooperation efforts. To date, this
engagement included participation in the NATO Air Defense Committee
conference in Antwerp, Belgium and future engagements are planned with
our Allies and partners in the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean.
During her deployment, USS Monterey will continue integration and
testing of U.S. BMD capabilities with NATO's existing missile defense
framework, including the emerging NATO command and control network.
As a BMD-capable multi-mission ship, USS Monterey also remains
ready to provide a wide range of capabilities enabling her to promote
peace and security, preserve freedom of the seas and provide
humanitarian aid and disaster response as necessary.
BOW WAVE IN SHIP PROCUREMENT
Question. Admiral Roughead, the Navy's stated force structure goal
is 313 ships. However, your most recent 30-year shipbuilding plan
submitted to Congress shows that beginning in fiscal year 2027, the
Navy fleet will fall well below that number and drop to less than 290
ships. What steps are you taking to mitigate these projected
shortfalls?
Answer. With the need for multi-mission platforms vice single
mission platforms, and recognizing the significantly increased
capabilities of current new construction ships, the Navy cannot
recapitalize our battle inventory to replace its legacy ships at the
same rate at which they were originally procured in the 1980s and 1990s
and maintain an affordable, balanced procurement plan. To manage this
inventory issue with our current fiscal constraints, the Navy will
manage the service lives of our existing ships through modernization
and maintenance over the Future Years Defense Plan and into the 2020s
to mitigate the impact of the upcoming block obsolescence of the ships
procured in large quantities during the 1980s. This management approach
will minimize gaps in capacity through the 2020s in a cost efficient
manner. To enhance our combat capability for our existing ship designs
we will continue our spiral capability upgrades to prevent
technological obsolescence and to extend the service lives of specific
ship classes. Both of these initiatives will mitigate the decline in
our battle force inventory during the 2020s and early 2030s.
During the period fiscal year 2031 to fiscal year 2040, we have
assumed a procurement strategy based on sustaining procurement rates.
Wherever feasible, the Navy will procure new ships at a steady state
reducing the magnitude of annual funding variations and providing a
more stable demand to industry. In some cases, where rapid retirement
rates are anticipated, it may be necessary to start procurement of next
generation ships earlier than might otherwise be required or accept
``bathtubs'' in certain ship classes until procurement rates catch up
with retirement of ships procured during the 1980s. As requirements,
resources and the industrial landscape come into better focus for the
post-2020 timeframe, the Navy will continue to consider mitigation
strategies for these anticipated shortfalls in future plans.
Question. Admiral Roughead, the Congressional Budget Office
estimates that the Navy's ship procurement budget is 19 percent below
what is required to execute your current 30-year shipbuilding plan. Do
you agree with this assessment?
Answer. No, I do not agree with this assessment. Navy's anticipated
annual procurement budget averages about $15.9 billion in fiscal year
2010 per year over the 30 year shipbuilding plan period. This average
includes those funds necessary to recapitalize the OHIO Class ballistic
missile submarines. The Navy and Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
estimates for the near-term (fiscal year 2011-fiscal year 2020) reflect
a less than 5 percent difference. Given known ship capability and
quantity requirements, the Navy cost estimates are judged to be
accurate in this period.
What has driven the 19 percent difference in our estimates has been
the far term (fiscal year 2031 to fiscal year 2040) where CBO and Navy
estimates differ by 37 percent. The requirements during this period are
not as well defined as those for the near or mid-term. The CBO made
several different assumptions than the Navy in its assessment,
particularly in the far-term. Those differences result partly from
different methods of estimating shipbuilding inflation during the
period as well as different assumptions about the design and
capabilities of future ships. The number, types and capabilities of
ships are estimated based on anticipated Joint and Navy war-fighting
requirements, and cost estimates are fluid due to both the uncertainty
of business conditions affecting the shipbuilding industry and the
inherent technology costs of future combat systems.
There are several uncertainties that must be resolved regarding the
Navy's missions in the next decade; the relative threat levels that
will exist at that time and the extent to which we will adjust the
force to meet these challenges. Each of these issues will have a direct
bearing on the overall costs required to recapitalize this force.
Ultimately, this will require that we set funding priorities properly,
adjust capabilities in the ships being built and readdress risk in
those mission areas where appropriate. We must and will continue to
conduct thorough reviews of each facet of our budget to ensure we are
providing the Nation with the needed level of capability in all areas
in the most cost efficient manner.
Question. Admiral Roughead, do you intend to provide an updated
long-range shipbuilding plan to Congress this year?
Answer. No, we do not intend to submit an updated long range
shipbuilding plan to Congress. Section 231 of Title 10, United States
Code (section 231) was amended by the National Defense Authorization
Act for fiscal year 2011, deleting the requirement for the Secretary of
Defense (SECDEF) to submit with the Defense Budget an annual long-range
plan for construction of naval vessels commonly know as ``The 30-Year
Shipbuilding Plan''. As amended, section 231 now requires that
concurrent with submission of the President's budget (PRESBUD) during
each year in which SECDEF submits a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR),
the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) shall submit a long-range
shipbuilding plan that supports the force structure recommendations of
the QDR and will be assessed by Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation
Office (CAPE) to determine if the level of funding is adequate and
determine potential risk in supporting the requirements of the
Combatant Commanders.
In any year in which a QDR is not submitted and the number of ships
decreases in the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), SECNAV shall submit
an addendum to the most recent QDR that fully explains and justifies
the decrease.
Consistent with the amended section 231, the Navy does not intend
to submit an updated long-range shipbuilding plan to Congress this year
because the number of ships has increased with the PRESBUD 2012 Future
Years Defense Plan (FYDP); however, we are providing updated 10-year
data tables per the House Committee of Armed Services request of
February 15, 2011.
EFFECTS OF CONTINUING RESOLUTION ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Question. Admiral Roughead and General Amos, how has the series of
short-term continuing resolutions negatively affected the Navy and
Marine Corps's ability to manage its military personnel accounts? For
example, how much notice is being given for sailors and marines to
prepare to move to their next assignment, and what is the goal?
Answer. Operating the military personnel accounts under a series of
short-term continuing resolutions (CR) and reduced funding has
presented many execution challenges. Under the full year CR, the
Military Personnel, Navy (MPN) appropriation is underfunded by $415
million. This shortfall is due to the difference between the annualized
amount of the fiscal year 2010 appropriation and the requested fiscal
year 2011 President's budget. Additionally, the MPN account is
underfunded by an additional $41 million from additional requirements
and work in the year of execution resulting from high retention. The
added costs associated from the evacuations of Japan and Bahrain, as
well as Operation Odyssey Dawn, will further pressurize the MPN
account.
To preserve cash to pay our sailors and civilians and to avoid an
Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) violation, the Navy deferred 20,000 Permanent
Change of Station (PCS) moves and reduced lead times from 6 months down
to 2 months. Lack of lead time on PCS orders hurts military families as
they have less time to plan for major life changes associated with
moves (i.e. home sales, lease expirations, overseas screening,
uncertainty, etc). Historical goals for lead time are approximately 4
months for CONUS moves and 6 months for overseas moves.
Navy has also reduced Active Duty for Operational Support Orders
(ADOS) by $20 million. ADOS is used to facilitate emergent, unplanned
and non-recurring short term projects. This reduction restricts our
ability to support Fleet operations.
NAVY CYBERSECURITY AND THE TENTH FLEET
Question. Admiral Roughead, as you know, cyber security is one of
the most significant challenges facing our Nation today. Modern warfare
has become highly dependent upon computers and networks; therefore
protecting this capability is vitally important. Could you explain the
cyber security initiatives in the budget, and what are the near-term
priorities you have established for this critical mission area?
Answer. The Navy's focus in cyber security is on delivering game-
changing information capabilities that advance our operational
proficiency in cyberspace and enhance our other information
capabilities. Navy is improving its cyber-security by implementing an
improved Defense in Depth infrastructure that is aligned to the
Department of Defense (DOD) Information Assurance Boundary
Architecture. In our PB 2012 budget request, we include the following
cyber security initiatives:
--Computer Network Defense (CND).--This program's capabilities secure
Navy networks and information systems. This program oversees
our firewall components, Virtual Private Networks (VPNs),
Intrusion Prevention/Detection Systems, Boundary Protection,
Host Based Security System (HBSS), Administrator Access
Controls, and diverse network security tools and filtering
routers.
--Cyber Security Inspection and Certification Program (CSICP).--CSICP
provides the capability to detect vulnerabilities in Navy
networks, provide assistance to network operators to correct
and prevent vulnerabilities, and ensure compliance with Navy
and DOD Information Assurance directives.
--Communications Security (COMSEC).--The Navy's cryptographic
equipment procurements are facilitated through these accounting
lines and include procurement of KIV-7M, a replacement
cryptography suite, Cryptographic Universal Enclosures (CUE),
and various other cryptographic devices.
--DOD-wide deployment of PKI certificates for identity
authentication.
--Procurement of secure voice tactical hardware, Next Generation
Internet Protocol Phones and Navy, and Certificate Validation
Infrastructure Cards.
--Electronic Key Management System (EKMS) upgrades and initiatives
for web based order support.
--Secure Communication Interoperability Protocol (SCIP) Inter-Working
Function (IWF) capabilities to provide sea-shore secure
telephony communications.
Question. Admiral, what advantages do you anticipate as a result of
classifying your Cyber Command as a weapons system?
Answer. Last year, I established the U.S. Tenth Fleet and the
Deputy CNO for Information Dominance. This restructuring has enabled
the Navy to focus on enhancing our capabilities in electronic warfare
and cyber operations. However, Fleet Cyber Command/U.S. Tenth Fleet is
not considered a weapons system. It is a Navy component command that
executes its unique cyber capability at the operational level of war
through the forces under the command of Tenth Fleet. This approach has
provided an alignment of effort through the use of a single operational
commander for Cyber operations that is responsible for the
orchestration of the Navy's global resources and activities in
cyberspace.
Question. Admiral, recently you turned on a new system that gives
the Navy its first real-time view of all traffic into and out of the
networks. What have you learned about the health of your network since
initiating the use of this system?
Answer. We are learning a tremendous amount about the trends and
patterns of information flow. The insights from our trend analysis and
the new data on information flow has allowed us to characterize network
activity faster and allows us to recognize areas that require further
analysis earlier.
NEXT-GENERATION BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINE
Question. The Navy has initiated a program to replace the Ohio-
class submarines beginning in 2029, but concerns have persisted about
the price tag of the replacement. These submarines are an indispensible
part of our nuclear triad, and it is important that we have them ready
on schedule at an affordable cost. Admiral Roughead, could you comment
on the steps that are being taken to make sure that this program does
not suffer the all-too-common problems of being over budget and past
schedule?
Answer. Through thorough research by the Navy and OSD on the
history of the last 50 years of survivable sea-based strategic
deterrence, we have been able to determine the high-level baseline ship
characteristics to establish affordability goals to be used during ship
design for the OHIO Replacement (OR). This early and well understood
basis for all requirements is necessary to prevent cost growth and
control costs.
The Department is committed to provide the required and proper
level of investment in up-front research and development to mature
critical technologies and prove construction techniques to support lead
ship construction. The use of appropriately mature technologies will be
a major driver in controlling construction costs while recapitalizing
the SSBN fleet. Likewise, achieving a sufficient level of maturity in
the overall design will be critical to cost effective construction.
Where practical, OR will use existing VIRGINIA Class technologies and
components.
The OHIO Replacement Program will leverage design and construction
lessons learned from the VIRGINIA Class to continue our ongoing and
highly successful cost reduction initiatives. In addition, Navy will
leverage the same design contract strategies from VIRGINIA to ensure OR
is designed and procured at the lowest possible cost. The Navy is
investing an additional $50 million/year in fiscal year 2012-fiscal
year 2014 to enhance designing the OR for affordability. The Design for
Affordability (DFA) effort will be a joint Government and Shipbuilder
effort focused on reducing Total Ownership Costs. The DFA process will
specifically target reductions in lead ship Non-Recurring Engineering
(NRE) cost, reducing construction time and cost, balancing acquisition
and lifetime operations and support (O&S) costs, and the process will
provide shipbuilder research & development incentives based on
validated proposals for cost estimate reductions, DFA design schedule,
and additional cost reduction initiatives.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
CHINESE MILITARY ADVANCES
Question. Admiral Roughead, we have recently seen a great deal of
discussion about China's development of a new anti-ship missile, the
DF-21D or ``carrier killer'' which is intended to hit a well-defended
target, such as one of our carriers, with pinpoint accuracy. The
concern is that such a missile will put our carriers at risk and hamper
the Navy's ability to intervene in a conflict over Taiwan or North
Korea. Vice Admiral Scott van Buskirk, commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet,
downplayed concerns about the missile noting that it was just ``one
weapons system, one technology that it out there.'' What is your
assessment of the threat this weapon poses to our carrier fleet?
Answer. The DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) is but one
system in China's arsenal that challenges naval operations in contested
areas. To successfully employ an ASBM, or any long-range maritime
weapon, China needs a robust command, control, communications,
computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C\4\ISR)
capability to find and relay targeting information to decision makers
and firing units. While China operates a wide range of ISR assets, the
aggregation of near-real-time information that is required for the PRC
to move quickly from initial detection to engagement is a highly
complex problem, especially against one of our aircraft carriers that
would be maneuvering at sea. Additionally, the Navy has made
significant investment in kinetic and non-kinetic capabilities to
counter anti-ship ballistic missiles and advanced cruise missiles,
including increased investment in Aegis modernization, which will
upgrade our existing Aegis technology to continually improve our
Integrated Air and Missile Defense capability. More details in response
to this question are best provided in a classified setting.
Question. What is the U.S. response?
Answer. The Navy has made significant investment in kinetic and
non-kinetic capabilities to counter the threat of anti-ship ballistic
missiles and advanced cruise missiles, including increased investment
in Aegis modernization, which will upgrade our existing Aegis
technology to continually improve our Integrated Air and Missile
Defense capability. A more detailed response to this question is best
provided in a classified setting.
Question. What other challenges to the U.S. Navy's presence in the
Pacific do you see arising from China and how should we respond?
Answer. There are an increasing number of foreign capabilities,
including those of China, that have the potential to slow or disrupt
the deployment of friendly forces into a theater or cause our forces to
operate from distances farther from a conflict than desired.
Capabilities that impact our forces in this manner are termed ``anti-
access'' capabilities and include long-range, precise, anti-ship and
land attack ballistic and cruise missile systems; advanced combat
aircraft and electronic warfare technologies; advanced Integrated Air
Defense systems; submarines and subsurface warfare capabilities;
surface warfare capabilities; C\4\ISR capabilities, and cyber warfare
technologies. The Navy has and will continue to develop programs and
capabilities to address the anti-access environment emerging in the
Western Pacific and other theaters of operation. Accordingly, we are
mindful of the need to be prepared to respond to all challenges by
strengthening our alliances and partnerships, modernizing our forces,
fielding new capabilities and technologies, and developing new
operational concepts.
NAVAL TACTICAL AIRCRAFT SHORTFALL
Question. In June 2009, the Navy testified to Congress that its
aircraft fleet was facing a potential shortfall of 243 tactical
aircraft in the next decade. We understand that the less than 2 years
later, the Navy is now stating a shortfall of only 65 aircraft. I am
interested in how the Navy determined this new shortfall estimate. Has
the Navy assumed additional risk in order to reduce the shortfall? If
so, what are those risks?
Answer. Based on the 2012 President's budget, the Department of the
Navy projects it will experience a peak inventory shortfall of 65
aircraft in 2018, should the following conditions exist: accelerated
transition of 10 F/A-18 legacy Hornet squadrons into Super Hornets; the
service life extension of approximately 150 legacy Hornets; and
procurement of a total of 556 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. This aircraft
shortfall is manageable.
Question. What are the practical consequences of the strike fighter
shortfall?
Answer. Based on the 2012 President's budget, the Department of the
Navy projects it will experience a peak inventory shortfall of 65
aircraft in 2018, should the following conditions exist: accelerated
transition of 10 F/A-18 legacy Hornet squadrons into Super Hornets; the
service life extension of approximately 150 legacy Hornets; and
procurement of a total of 556 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. This aircraft
shortfall is manageable.
Question. What is the Navy doing to mitigate this shortfall?
Answer. Based on the 2012 President's budget, the Department of the
Navy projects it will experience a peak inventory shortfall of 65
aircraft in 2018, should the following conditions exist: accelerated
transition of 10 F/A-18 legacy Hornet squadrons into Super Hornets; the
service life extension of approximately 150 legacy Hornets; and
procurement of a total of 556 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. This aircraft
shortfall is manageable.
SHIPBUILDING
Question. Admiral Roughead, your budget request includes funding
for 10 ships in fiscal year 2012 with a total of 50 ships over the
Future Year Defense Plan. Will this production rate support your stated
goal of a 313 ship Navy?
Answer. Yes. The Navy plans to procure a total of 55 ships in the
PB 2012 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), an increase of 5 from last
year's plan. This production rate will reach a battle force inventory
of 313 ships in the near-term (fiscal year 2011-fiscal year 2020)
reaching 315 ships in fiscal year 2020. President's budget (PB) 2012
achieves a balanced and executable shipbuilding program which provides
additional capability while gaining stability and efficiency in the
shipbuilding industrial base.
Question. How will the current set-backs related to the constraints
of the Continuing Resolution affect the fiscal year 2012 procurement
rates?
Answer. Without the fiscal year 2011 requested SCN budget, the
future build plan for shipbuilding, including fiscal year 2012, would
have to be reprioritized and rephased. There could be future cost
impacts attributed to revised workload at major shipbuilders, rate
increases associated with protracted schedules, and inefficient
procurement of major systems. There are secondary impacts to the Navy
as delays in delivery could result in delays to initial operating
capabilities or the ability to retire fleet assets as planned. Under
the CR, the inability to increase procurement quantities, initiate new
starts, increase funding levels, or reallocate funding constitutes a
considerable impact to the FYDP for shipbuilding.
Currently, the Navy plans to procure a total of 55 ships in the
fiscal year 2012 President's budget FYDP with 10 ships budgeted in
fiscal year 2012. The CR's limitation in the shipbuilding program to
the fiscal year 2010 funding levels and procurement quantities
negatively impacts Navy's fiscal year 2011 build program. Specifically,
the CR prohibits the procurement of a second Virginia Class Submarine,
a second DDG-51 Class Destroyer, a LHA replacement amphibious ship, an
oceanographic ship, a Mobile Landing Platform, and several smaller
programs. Available funding under the CR does not provide required
advanced procurement funding for future platforms to include the
Carrier Replacement and Carrier Refueling Overhaul Programs, nor does
it provide the final increment of funding required for the CVN 78.
Question. How will the Navy mitigate those effects?
Answer. In developing our shipbuilding plan, we assessed risk
mindful of the uncertainties of the future to achieve the best balance
of missions, resources and requirements possible for our PB 2012 Navy
procurement request.
PB 2012 achieves a balanced and executable shipbuilding program
which provides additional capability while gaining efficiency in the
shipbuilding industrial base. The Navy has requested to procure a total
of 55 ships in the PB 2012 FYDP, 5 more than last year due to our
efficiencies and acquisition strategies. This request includes ten
ships in fiscal year 2012. These ships include: a continuation of the
fiscal year 2010 restart of the DDG 51 program, with an additional ship
in fiscal year 2014; an additional Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) in fiscal
year 2012 to support an acquisition strategy of two 10 ship block
procurements from each contractor, continuation of the SSN 774 program
at two ships per year through fiscal year 2016; acceleration of the new
Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) program aimed at increasing the capacity
and capability of the existing Maritime Prepositioning Ship (MPS)
fleet; continuation of the CVN 78 program; procurement of the eleventh
LPD 17 ship, meeting the Marine Corps lift requirements for this class
of ship; and a substantive increase in the Navy's ability to meet
theater cooperation demands and intra-theater lift requirements through
capitalization of a more robust Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) program.
Overall, the fleet additions represented by the additions to the PB
2012 FYDP will position the Navy to meet its obligations and mission
requirements through the next decade.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
GREAT GREEN FLEET
Question. Has the composition and homeport of the Great Green Fleet
been decided?
Answer. No final decision regarding the composition of the Great
Green Fleet has been made. The individual Navy units that would deploy
in 2016 have not been identified, but the Great Green Fleet will be
composed of ships from various home ports. As such, it will not have a
single home port.
Question. Will the fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution impact
the timeline for the 2012 Green Strike Group? If so, what specifically
will be impacted?
Answer. The continuing resolution (CR) necessitated the
reprogramming of $5.5 million above the $4.5 million received in fiscal
year 2010. This reprogrammed funding for fiscal year 2011 was not
received until April 2011, causing schedule delays to the program.
Currently Navy has received $10 million of $10.8 million programmed for
the testing and certification needed to support the Great Green Fleet.
Efforts are ongoing to identify avenues to mitigate delays. Navy plans
to be back on track within the next 3 months to complete the fuel
certification required for ship and aircraft systems to conduct the
demonstration of the Green Strike Group in 2012.
Question. Where is the Navy getting the fuel currently being used
for testing? When does the Navy think the fuel will be ready for
certification?
Answer. The Navy receives all of its fuels through the Defense
Logistics Agency--Energy through competitive procurement. The test and
certification process of the fuels necessary for the Great Green Fleet
is currently underway. Current funding puts the Navy on track to
complete the fuel certification required for ship and aircraft systems
to conduct the demonstration of the Green Strike Group in 2012.
Question. After the 2012 test, is the Navy planning to transition
more bio-fuels capability to the fleet or will that occur after the
2016 demonstration?
Answer. The Navy plans to use certified, cost-competitive
alternative fuels as they become available. If certified bio-fuels are
commercially available at a competitive price earlier then the
objectives set by the Secretary of the Navy, the Navy will pursue their
competitive procurement.
Question. What is the cost to modify ship and aircraft engines to
use bio-fuels instead of conventional? What are the potential long term
savings for using a renewable energy source for fuel?
Answer. There is no need to modify ship and aircraft engines to use
bio-fuels instead of conventional fuel. Navy requires alternative fuel
suppliers to engineer the fuel so that it closely mirrors the current
fossil fuels of F-76 and JP-5; the fuels are a 'drop-in' replacement
for 100 percent petroleum and can be mixed freely with it. There is a
potential for long-term cost savings by using renewable biofuels if the
cost of petroleum keeps rising and eventually exceeds the declining
cost to produce biofuels.
Question. Does the Navy have any plans to add hybrid tugs to the
Fleet? If so, what is the timeframe by which they intend to acquire
them?
Answer. The Navy does not currently have any plans to add hybrid
tugs to the Fleet.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING
Question. Admiral Roughead, The Naval Meteorology and Oceanography
Command and its associated supercomputing capability have proven to be
valuable assets in a host of mission areas including ocean modeling,
weather modeling, and disaster relief, such as, the Gulf oil spill last
year. Can you describe for the Committee the importance of
Supercomputing capacity and how it has assisted the Navy in
accomplishing its mission?
Answer. The Department of the Navy utilizes High Performance
Computing (HPC) resources to accelerate development and transition of
advanced defense technologies into superior war-fighting capabilities,
and to support our operational needs. Specifically, the Navy Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) community utilizes HPC assets
for modeling and simulation. HPC allows the Navy to develop physics-
based simulations, which create realistic warfare environments that
allow us to evaluate the performance of new technologies and tactics in
real-time. The simulated environments enabled by HPC are essential,
especially in cases where no test range exists to emulate combat
environments, where physical testing has unacceptable safety risks,
where physical testing is prohibitively expensive, and where we have to
rapidly test new systems to counter emerging threats in ongoing
conflicts. HPC allows us to conduct classified and unclassified early
advanced research, and it reduces the cost, acquisition time, and risk
for our major defense programs by optimizing the mix of simulation with
physical testing. The use of HPC enables Navy's RDT&E infrastructure to
deliver necessary capabilities to our sailors faster and cheaper.
The Navy also relies on HPC to support our operations. The Naval
Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO) relies on HPC resources for
operational oceanographic applications, including numerical ocean
prediction, and our Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center
(FNMOC) greatly benefits from HPC resources that support R&D and
production of operational products designed to keep Navy assets safe
from weather threats.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
PHALANX CLOSE-IN WEAPON SYSTEM
Question The Phalanx Close-In Weapons System is an important aspect
of our naval defense, protecting our sailors and marines against
threats ranging from anti-ship missiles to small boats and unmanned
aerial vehicles. I am informed that the Navy has recognized the
importance of this system by investing $1.42 billion to upgrade 252
Phalanx mounts to the appropriate configuration. In your letter to me
dated December 3, 2010, you stated that to maintain these systems the
Navy needed to begin funding 36 overhauls per year, starting with the
fiscal year 2012 budget. I see that the fiscal year 2012 budget request
includes funding for only three Phalanx overhauls in a year, which
would take the Navy 80 years to complete. Given the clear safety and
security implications for our sailors and marines, what is the Navy's
plan to meet this shortfall in fiscal year 2012?
Answer. Navy continues to procure and install Phalanx Block 1B
systems at an accelerated pace and is on schedule to have 252 Phalanx
Block 1B mounts in service by fiscal year 2014. This accelerated
schedule of installations replaces normal Class ``A'' overhauls
necessary to maintain system reliability and maintenance. We will
complete Phalanx Block 1B upgrades as follows: 37 in fiscal year 2011;
29 in fiscal year 2012; 21 in fiscal year 2013; 55 in fiscal year 2014.
As a result of this accelerated upgrade plan, the fiscal year 2011 CIWS
maintenance backlog (all variants) will decrease from 60 systems today
to less than 40 systems in fiscal year 2014.
Question And is there any progress being made to re-prioritize this
overhaul in future years?
Answer. We are not planning to adjust our approach to the Phalanx
Close-In Weapons System. The Navy continues to procure and install
Phalanx Block 1B systems at an accelerated pace and is on schedule to
have 252 Phalanx Block 1B mounts in service by fiscal year 2014. This
accelerated schedule of installations replaces normal Class ``A''
overhauls necessary to maintain system reliability and maintenance. We
will complete Phalanx Block 1B upgrades as follows: 37 in fiscal year
2011; 29 in fiscal year 2012; 21 in fiscal year 2013; 55 in fiscal year
2014. As a result of this accelerated upgrade plan, the fiscal year
2011 CIWS maintenance backlog (all variants) will decrease from 60
systems today to less than 40 systems in fiscal year 2014.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
DDG 51 MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT
Question. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request would
continue DDG 51 ship procurement at a single ship in fiscal year 2012,
two ships in fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2015, and returning
to a single ship in fiscal year 2016. The addition of a second ship in
fiscal year 2014 represents an improvement over last year's budget plan
for DDG 51 procurement, which I applaud. However, buying an average two
or fewer DDG 51s per year raises a number of near-term and long-term
concerns. Admiral Roughead, you have previously expressed concern in
testimony before Congress about the Navy's future force structure in
the next decade, stating that, ``many of our existing cruisers and
destroyers will reach the end of their service lives,'' and in the mean
time, ``our existing BMD ships may experience longer deployments and
less time between deployments as we stretch current capacity to meet
growing demands.'' Would you agree then, that if a way could be found
to procure DDG 51s at a rate greater than one or two per year, the
Fleet would face less operational risk in meeting mission requirements,
there would be less concern regarding the looming cruiser and destroyer
retirements, and the shipbuilding industrial base could produce these
ships at a lesser, and more affordable, unit cost per ship?
Answer. The Navy's shipbuilding plan, combined with our plan for
DDG/CG modernization to upgrade our existing ships, provides the best
balance among capability, capacity, and affordability for our Navy. The
current shipbuilding plan allows continuous, stable construction of 13
ships and related combat system components from fiscal year 2010-fiscal
year 2017, which address the Navy's near term requirements while
mitigating technology/design risk and production limitations. The
shipbuilding plan also permits economic order quantity procurements and
the efficient production and delivery of materiel and services, which
reduces the cost of material and labor. Navy will continuously analyze
force structure requirements over the next decade relative to future
threats, requirements, and fiscal conditions to determine what the
composition of the future force should be and the ability of our Fleet
to meet those challenges.
NAVY SHIPBUILDING PLAN
Question. The Navy's current 30-year shipbuilding plan calls for a
minimum of 88 cruisers/destroyers. Implementing the Navy's current
shipbuilding plan would result in a cruiser-destroyer force that falls
below the 88-ship minimum requirement beginning in fiscal year 2028 and
would remain below the 88-ship floor for 14 years. The shortfall exists
for more than one-third of the timeframe covered by the 30-year
shipbuilding plan and reaches a shortfall of 20 ships in fiscal year
2034. This projected cruiser-destroyer shortfall is the single largest
projected shortfall of any ship category in the Navy's 30-year
shipbuilding plan. Given funding pressures the Navy faces in its
shipbuilding budget during the 2020's by the Navy's need to procure new
SSBN(X) ballistic missile submarines, it would seem prudent to program
additional DDG 51s to the shipbuilding plan in the fiscal years prior
to fiscal year 2019. Admiral Roughead, if the Navy increased the
production rate for DDG 51's under the forthcoming Force Structure
Assessment, would that help reduce the projected cruiser-destroyer
shortfall in fiscal year 2027-fiscal year 2040?
Answer. If the Navy increased the procurement rate of our large
surface combatants in the near-term it would mitigate the shortfall in
the far-term. However, the Navy's current shipbuilding plan represents
a balance among Fleet requirements for presence, partnership building,
humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, deterrence, and war-fighting
by the COCOMs and our resources.
The procurement rates in the late 1980s and early 1990s for large
surface combatants should not necessarily be replicated today. The DDG
51s in the restart program represent three decades of technological
evolution. The warfighting demands for this ship class will define the
inventory requirement for the future and it is undetermined whether
this will involve one-for-one replacement. The inventory objective for
this ship class will be the subject of further study in the future. The
ships procured between fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2031 will
replace our existing CG 47 Class cruisers with Air and Missile Defense
Radar (AMDR) capable destroyers.
The options to shift resources within the budget to increase force
structure are limited. Within the President's budget submittal for
fiscal year 2012's Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP), several ship
construction programs cannot be accelerated at this time due to
technological, design risk or industrial production limitations. For
programs without these risks, the Fleet inventory will reach its
objective with current construction plans. Due to the Navy's
efficiencies and cost savings through our LCS acquisition strategy,
Navy had sufficient resources within the FYDP to procure an additional
DDG 51 in fiscal year 2014. If additional funding was provided to fund
SSBN(X) procurement during the period from fiscal year 2020-fiscal year
2029, the Navy would be able to apply its shipbuilding funds to raise
other ship procurement rates to reduce the impact on the shipbuilding
industry and to increase the overall battleforce inventory. This
additional funding would help reduce future ship inventory shortfalls
and provide a more stable production base.
DDG 51 MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT
Question. Admiral Roughead, I understand that for each of the
previous two DDG 51 multiyear procurement (MPY) contracts, in fiscal
year 1998-2001 and fiscal year 2002-2005, the Navy received MYP
authority 1 year in advance (in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 2001).
The Navy states that it wants another DDG-51 MYP starting in fiscal
year 2013, but the Navy has not requested authority for this MYP as
part of its fiscal year 2012 budget submission. When does the Navy plan
to submit to Congress its request for authority for a DDG-51 MYP
starting in fiscal year 2013?
Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget highlights the
Navy's intent to request congressional approval for a DDG 51 fiscal
year 2013-fiscal year 2017 Multiyear Procurement (MYP). The Navy
intends to submit the MYP legislative proposal as part of the fiscal
year 2013 President's budget commensurate with the first year of
funding for the MYP.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
EARTHQUAKE
Question. Two weeks ago we conducted a hearing in this subcommittee
on the impact that the failure to complete a fiscal year 2011 Defense
Appropriations Bill is having on our military services. That was before
the Navy and Marine Corps were pressed into service in response to the
devastating earthquake and tsunami in Northern Japan which comes over
and above everything else your services are doing around. If the Navy
and Marine Corps were financially stressed in performing their missions
before how does the unanticipated challenge of responding to an
earthquake and tsunami further stress the ability of your service to
perform its mission?
Answer. The Department of Navy (DON) response to the earthquake,
tsunami and nuclear reactor disasters in Japan has had minimal impact
on DON missions. Total costs through March 25, 2011 were $26.5 million
with at least $10.5 million recoverable by reimbursement from the
Overseas Humanitarian Disaster Assistance and Civic Aid (OHDACA)
appropriation.
The greatest impact to our mission and budget has been the prudent,
but voluntary, departure of military dependents from the island of
Honshu, Japan. Through April 8, this operation has cost approximately
$54.5 million. Navy cannot simply absorb these costs within MILPERS
accounts that have already been stressed under the Continuing
Resolution (CR). Navy has submitted a CR exception request to the
President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for additional
appropriation under the ``Safety of Human Life'' exception to fund the
additional cost for travel, lodging, meals, and per diem for evacuees
through April 8, 2011. This short-term solution has been approved by
OMB.
Question. In Alaska we are no stranger to earthquakes and as you
know we are home to the Pacific Alaska Tsunami warning center. Events
such as those in Japan have refocused Alaska on our own level of
preparedness if we were to experience an event like we did in Japan.
And like Japan our runways in the Anchorage Bowl not only vulnerable to
earthquake damage but also to flooding. If Alaska were to experience a
catastrophic earthquake what role would you expect the Navy to play in
a response?
Answer. The Navy in its supporting role to Combatant Commands
(COCOMs) provides maritime forces to accomplish their assigned
missions, which include humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. In
the event of a catastrophic earthquake in Alaska, U.S. Northern Command
and U.S. Pacific Command would coordinate with the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to determine specific Requests for Forces and/or Requests for
Assistance to the Navy and other Services. Navy's forces would
contribute capabilities to the overall response effort performing
evacuation, medical assistance, delivery of relief supplies, and
possibly reconstruction. Additionally, other U.S. Government agencies
such as DHS and FEMA would contribute their capabilities to provide a
more robust, whole-of-Government response to a natural disaster.
______
Questions Submitted to General James F. Amos
Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
EFFECTS OF CONTINUING RESOLUTION ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Question. Admiral Roughead and General Amos, how has the series of
short-term continuing resolutions negatively affected the Navy and
Marine Corps's ability to manage its military personnel accounts?
Answer. This question is overcome by events due to passage of the
fiscal year 2011 Appropriations bill.
Question. General Amos, what is the current dwell time ratio for
the Marine Corps, and what is the goal?
Answer. Our deployment to dwell ratio goal is 1:2. In light of our
operational demands, and through the support of Congress in authorizing
our end strength of 202,100 active duty forces, our combat units are
beginning to realize an approximate 1:2 dwell time.\1\ Other units vary
at more favorable dwell time levels depending on their mission. We
anticipate the 1:2 dwell ratio for combat units to remain relatively
stable provided current deployed force levels are not increased;
however, increased operational demands in Afghanistan or elsewhere may
result in dwell times inconsistent with fostering a resilient Total
Force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Infantry battalions will continue to remain just below 1:2
dwell time due to relief in place/transfer of authority requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some marines in select military occupational specialties continue
to fall into what is known as a high-demand, low-density status. This
is a key indicator that the combat demand for marines with these skills
does not match, or exceeds, the current manpower requirement and/or
inventory. In addition, there are currently 14 of 211 occupational
specialties where the on-hand number of marines is less than 90 percent
of what is required.\2\ Our recently completed force structure review
addressed all these concerns. We are working actively to recruit,
promote, and retain the right number of marines in the right
occupational specialties thus promoting resiliency of our Total Force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Our most stressed occupational specialties based on percentage
of marines beyond a 1:2 dwell are (1) Geographic Intelligence
Specialist, (2) Imaging Analyst/Specialists, (3) Signals Collection
Operator/Analyst, (4) Unmanned Aerial Systems Operator/Mechanic, and
(5) European, Middle East, and Asia-Pacific Cryptologic Linguists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
USMC F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
Question. General Amos, you have testified to the importance of
having strike aircraft that can operate from amphibious shipping and
austere airfields. You have placed the F-35B on a 2-year probation. Can
you please explain what that probation entails?
Answer. Establishing a period of scrutiny for the F-35B was prudent
in light of the progress the Joint Strike Fighter program has made. The
STOVL technical challenges are typical of this developmental stage and
none of the known issues are considered to be insurmountable.
Corrective actions have either already been incorporated into
production aircraft or they are being proactively analyzed. We now have
the time to focus resources, ensure the solutions are effective, and
incorporate them in the most efficient means possible while avoiding
costly design changes.
Question. What are the problems with the program and what are you
expecting to occur over the next 2 years?
Answer. There are three factors impacting delivery of the Joint
Strike Fighter: production delivery delays, flight test progress, and
the rate of software development. For the F-35B, the STOVL variant,
developmental testing lagged last year as the program identified some
anomalies in the design that need to be corrected.
I am personally engaged with the Joint Program Office and prime
contractors to ensure we have instituted the most efficient and
effective processes for resolving these challenges. As a result, the
program will deliver a higher quality of aircraft in the shortest
amount of time.
Question. If there are problems with the aircraft, why are we
purchasing 6 of them in fiscal year 2012?
Answer. Our plan is to reduce fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013
production to a rate of 6 per year. This will prevent the loss of
valuable manufacturing experience gained since the start of production
while the program develops and implements solutions for the technical
challenges discovered in developmental testing. It is prudent to
optimize the production rate to incorporate lessons learned into as
many of the early lot aircraft as possible, to deliver a higher quality
of aircraft in the shortest amount of time.
Question. If the F-35B program does not meet the requirements to
continue, do you have a plan to replace the aging AV-8B Harrier II
population?
Answer. Within our current inventory of our operational tactical
aircraft, the AV-8B is the least affected by service life longevity. We
anticipate flying the AV-8B well into the next decade, giving us time
to develop a replacement plan if F-35B falters. However, the
improvements we have seen in F-35B program since the first of the year
indicate the STOVL challenges will be solved and will meet or exceed
our requirements.
Question. To quote your testimony, ``The F-35B is vital to our
ability to conduct combined arms operations in expeditionary
environments.'' What are the implications to the Marine Corps mission
if they do not have this capability?
Answer. The F-35B is the tactical aircraft we need to support our
Marine Air Ground Task Force from now until the middle of this century.
Our requirement for expeditionary tactical aircraft has been
demonstrated repeatedly since the inception of Marine aviation. Our
ability to tactically base fixed wing aircraft in the hip pocket of our
ground forces has been instrumental to our success on the battlefield.
Given the threats we will face in the future, the F-35B is clearly the
aircraft of choice to meet our operating requirements.
The implications of not having a STOVL tactical aviation capability
reach far beyond the Marine Corps and directly affect our ability to
support our national strategy. I am confident the F-35B will surpass
expectations and be a key resource in our arsenal of expeditionary
capabilities.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
OPERATIONAL IMPACT OF AMPHIBIOUS SHIP DECOMMISSIONINGS
Question. General Amos, the Department of the Navy has determined a
minimum force of 33 amphibious ships is the limit of acceptable risk in
meeting a 38-ship amphibious force requirement. However, the number of
amphibious ships in inventory will reach 29 ships this year as more
ships are decommissioned. With the current unrest in Africa and the
Middle East, and the earthquake in Japan what is the demand for
amphibious ships currently and what has been the demand from the
combatant commanders over the last year or so?
Answer. Demand by Combatant Commanders (CCDR) for naval forces has
remained high during the last 5 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COCOM ARG/MEU Requirement \1\ COCOM Independent Amphib Requirement
-------------------------------------- \1\
Fiscal year -------------------------------------
Demand/Sourced Percent Demand/Sourced Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008................................ 3.4/2.62 77 3.5/1.88 54
2009................................ 3.4/2.47 73 2.58/1.09 42
2010................................ 4.57/2.62 57 3.89/1.49 38
2011 \2\............................ 4.4/2.68 61 3.83/0.76 20
2012 \2\............................ 4.44/2.54 57 4.41/0.93 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ COCOM Amphib Ship Demand Based on Fleet Forces Command Data (Ships required computed at a 1:3.7 Rotation
Rate).
\2\ 2011/2012 Demand reflects Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP) Baseline data . . . does not
include Requests for Forces.
While not able to meet the cumulative annual global CCDR ARG/MEU
demand, the Navy is meeting SECDEF tasks as noted in the Global Force
Management Allocation Process information above. The table shows that
CCDR demand for crisis response forces and engagement are only being
partially met.
As current events in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, much of
Central Command, and in the Pacific reinforce, amphibious forces remain
the cornerstone of our Nation's ability to respond to crisis and
overcome access challenges.
The current inventory of amphibious ships will not support
continuous deployments in the PACOM, CENTCOM, EUCOM and AFRICOM that
are being requested by the combatant commanders today. An inventory of
33 ships (11 large deck/11 LPD/11 LSD) would adequately support these
regions with an ARG/MEU presence. Thirty-eight ships would support the
ARG/MEU demand plus single ship deployments to meet the CCDR
requirements to support additional forward engagement activities.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
EARTHQUAKE
Question. Two weeks ago we conducted a hearing in this subcommittee
on the impact that the failure to complete a fiscal year 2011 Defense
Appropriations Bill is having on our military services. That was before
the Navy and Marine Corps were pressed into service in response to the
devastating earthquake and tsunami in Northern Japan which comes over
and above everything else your services are doing around the world.
If the Navy and Marine Corps were financially stressed in
performing their missions before, how does the unanticipated challenge
of responding to an earthquake and tsunami further stress the ability
of your service to perform their mission?
Answer. Recent USMC support to humanitarian assistance/disaster
relief operations in Japan combined with no-fly zone enforcement
support in Libya has forced the Marine Corps to reprioritize some of
its resources in order to provide maximum support. The Marine Corps
anticipates Overseas Humanitarian Disaster and Casualty Assistance
(OHDACA) reimbursements from the State Department to provide funding
for many of the costs incurred from the Humanitarian Relief effort
associated with Operation Tomodachi. Outside of the relief efforts in
Libya, the Marine Corps has incurred approximately $600,000 in expenses
which are not eligible for OHDACA reimbursement. Reprioritizing
includes the delayed support to a wide range of Theater Security
Cooperation (TSC) events. Specifically, Marine forces postponed planned
exercises with India, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives during the late
March-early April timeframe. Two other planned exercises with South
Korea and Indonesia were cancelled during this same period.
In the cases noted above, events were postponed or cancelled due to
higher priority missions, not because of a lack of funding.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Chairman Inouye. And the next hearing of this subcommittee
will be on March 30. At that time, we'll receive testimony from
the Department of the Air Force.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., Wednesday, March 16, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]