[Senate Hearing 113-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 11 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin, Feinstein, Mikulski, Murray,
Reed, Cochran, Shelby, Collins, Coats, and Blunt.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. RAY MABUS, SECRETARY
opening statement of chairwoman barbara a. mikulski
Chairwoman Mikulski [presiding]. Good morning, everybody.
The Subcommittee on Defense will come to order. The
subcommittee is chaired by Senator Dick Durbin, who is on the
floor giving his speech about the vote that we will shortly
have at 9. So in the interest of time and as a respect to our
distinguished panelists here, the Secretary of the Navy, the
head of the Marine Corps, and the head of the Navy, we are
going to begin. And I would like to say a few opening words,
and then turn to Senator Cochran. And I would also note Senator
Cochran and Senator Shelby are here as well.
So we thought we could do our part, and by that time
Senator Durbin should be here, and we could then proceed. We
know it is a busy morning, and there will be, I think, two or
three votes beginning at noon.
The subcommittee wishes to welcome the Secretary of the
Navy, Mr. Ray Mabus, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the Chief of
Naval Operations, and General Amos, the Commandant of the
Marine Corps. And we will be taking the testimony on the fiscal
2014 request for the Department of Navy at today's hearing.
In behalf, I think, of not only myself, but all of us on
both sides of the aisle, we would like to welcome you here
today. And in thanking you for your service, we really want to
thank the men and women who serve under you. We really
appreciate what they do every day in every way to keep America
strong and to keep America safe. And they do it with
extraordinary competence, dedication, and we call on them a
lot. And often now after 10 years of war, we have asked a lot
from a very few people for a very long time.
We note that also that the Department of Navy is facing, as
is the Department has stressed, the Department of Navy and the
Department of Defense, incredible, incredible stress. We know
that in addition to fiscal 2013, which was wrought with
uncertainty because of the lack of certainty about whether we
would have truly a continuing funding resolution for the rest
of the year, plus sequester has added stress and strains in the
management of the military and our ability to respond. At the
same time, we are asking you--to call upon you with many, many
other issues.
We know that sequester will reduce the Navy and Marine
Corps counts by $10.7 billion, that the enactment of the
defense appropriation bill in the operation and maintenance
(O&M) account provided some relief. I am so pleased to say that
Senator Shelby, my vice chairman on the full committee, and I
worked really hard together--we really worked together to pass
that continuing funding resolution. And on a bipartisan basis,
gentlemen, we passed it 73 to 26.
So, you see, where there is a will, we found the wallet,
and we found that we could govern with sensibility,
affordability, and a sense of civility on the floor. And that
is really the hallmark of the way we want to proceed as this
subcommittee, and the committee operated under Senator Inouye,
and the leadership of Senator Cochran.
We also know, however, as we look forward to this year, the
Navy and Marine Corps will have to absorb sequester and
additional shortfalls for unanticipated increases. And I know
the committee will want to hear more.
But we are asking you to do more with less. We know that
you have deployed over 100 of your 283 ships. We know that the
Marine Corps has 10,000 marines in Afghanistan and
approximately 3,500 marines in the Pacific and in the non-
Afghanistan Middle East area. And we are asking you to have a
presence in Europe and also to be in Latin America. There are
issues related to personnel and also other dynamics within the
budget.
So this is not only about numbers and statistics. It is
about our fighting readiness and how are we ready. And in our
meetings--in my meetings with both Secretary Hagel, Dr. Carter,
General Dempsey, and Admiral Winnefeld, their concern was
around readiness, that what we were doing in our budget was not
only to support those who were already in the line of fire, but
what other things that we needed to do to train and to be ready
to deploy should the President ask for additional.
So we have got a big job to do, but we have so much
confidence in Senator Durbin and Senator Cochran to chair this
subcommittee. We know that they will do it wisely and offer
incredible guidance to the rest of us.
Out of the $1.053 trillion expenditures, $620 billion in
discretionary spending is in this subcommittee. It is big, and
it has a big responsibility. So we look forward to them.
And I would just like to also note that one of the other
things in taking over the chair--Mr. Secretary, I spoke to
you--we really need those within the Department to have a real
understanding of this committee and every member, not only the
full committee chairman and the vice chairman and the chairman
of the subcommittee and Senator Cochran, but all of the
committees. We have been deeply troubled from time to time that
we have been treated in a dismissive way. The chairmen are
always treated with respect. Everybody wants to come see us,
have meetings, exchange coins, and we all Kumbaya together.
But at the end of the day, there are many members here that
want to be on this subcommittee so they can get simple answers
about what is going on in their own State. They worry about
silent base realignment and closures (BRACs), the moving of
airplanes, the fact that a meeting with us is checking the box.
So I bring this up with you. I brought it up with Hagel. I
brought it up with Carter, Dempsey, and Winnefeld. I am
bringing it up with you. Could you let them know that we do not
see this as a choice between guns or butter? We just see that
we need to be able to defend America. So we want meetings, and
we want meetings that count. We do not just want meetings that
give updates for decisions that were made.
Secretary, I talked with you about it earlier. I know I
have your word to correct this problem. I believe you are a man
of honor and that we will address these issues, and the
committee will appreciate it.
So, Senator Durbin.
opening statement of senator richard j. durbin
Senator Durbin [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and
I apologize for being late. I have a bill on the floor, which
turns out to take up a little time when you least expect it.
I now turn to my ranking member, Senator Cochran.
statement of senator thad cochran
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. It is a personal
pleasure for me to welcome Governor Mabus, Secretary of the
Navy, who served as a distinguished Governor of our State and
leader for some time, and is a personal friend. We also
appreciate having with us today General Amos. We appreciate his
special friendship to our State as well. And all of the leaders
of the Navy and the Department, we appreciate your cooperation
with our committee and working together to help ensure that we
have the best Navy in the world.
Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
At this point, I would like to recognize the Secretary of
the Navy, the Honorable Ray Mabus.
summary statement of hon. ray mabus
Secretary Mabus. Chairman Durbin, Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice
Chairman Cochran, senior senator from my home State, thank you
so much for your words, but also thank you and the entire
committee for all that you have done and are doing to support
our Department of the Navy, our sailors and marines, our
civilians, and their families.
General Amos, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Admiral
Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations, and I could not be
prouder to represent those steadfast and courageous sailors,
marines, and civilians. No matter what missions are given to
them, as Chairwoman Mikulski said, no matter what hardships are
asked of them, these men and women serve their Nation around
the world with skill and dedication.
In the past year, the Navy and Marine Corps team has
continued to conduct a full range of military operations. From
combat in Afghanistan, to security cooperation missions in the
Pacific, to disaster recovery operations in the streets of
Staten Island, sailors and marines have gotten the job done.
As the United States transitions from two land wars in
Central Asia to the maritime-centric defense strategy announced
15 months ago, our naval forces will be critical in the years
ahead. This strategy, which focuses on the Western Pacific, the
Arabian Gulf, and on continuing to build partnerships around
the globe requires a forward deployed, flexible, multimission
force that is the Navy and Marine Corps, America's away team.
Within this strategy, we have to balance our missions with
our resources. We are working under Secretary Hagel's
leadership on a strategic choices and management review to
assess how we deal with budget uncertainty facing the
Department as we go forward. He has directed that we review the
basic assumptions that drive the Department's investment in
force structure to identify institutional reforms that may be
required, including, as we should do all the time, those
reforms that ought to be pursued regardless of fiscal
pressures. As he said during recent testimony, everything will
be on the table during this review.
As Chairman Mikulski pointed out, 2013 has been hard
because we began this fiscal year operating under a continuing
resolution that gave us little room to be strategic and to
prioritize, limiting our ability to manage the Navy and Marine
Corps through this new fiscal reality. Thanks to your efforts
and the efforts of your congressional colleagues, we have an
appropriation for this fiscal year, but sequestration is still
forcing us to make across-the-board cuts totaling more than $4
billion from our operation and maintenance accounts, and about
$6 billion from our investment accounts.
These cuts will have real impacts. We have prioritized
combat operations in Central Command and deployments to Pacific
Command. However, we have had to cancel a number of deployments
to Southern Command.
In order to maintain our priority deployments in 2013 and
2014 to meet the Global Force Management Allocation Plan,
funding shortfalls will cause our units back home to cut back
training and maintenance. Pilots will get less flight time,
ships will have less time at sea, and marines less time in the
field. It will take longer for repair parts to arrive when
needed. Our facilities ashore will be maintained at a much
lower level.
The Department's 2014 budget request is a return to a
measured budget approach, one based on strategy and that
protects the war fighter by advancing the priorities that I
have referred to as the four P's--people, platforms, power, and
partnerships. We are working to make sure that our people are
resilient after more than a decade of very high operations
tempo with programs like 21st Century Sailor and Marine.
With this, we aim to bring all the efforts on protection
and readiness, fitness inclusion, and continuing a service
together as one coherent whole. It encompasses a wide range of
issues from preventing sexual assault and suicide to fostering
a culture of fitness, to strengthening the force through
diversity, to ensuring a successful transition following 4
years of service or 40.
In the Marine Corps, we continue decreasing manpower to
meet our new end strength of just over 182,000 by fiscal year
2016. But we are doing this in a way that helps retain the
right level of noncommissioned levels and field grade officers
and their experience. We are also working to make sure that our
sailors and marines have the tools and the platforms they need
to do the missions they are given.
One of the most important of these is our fleet. On
September 11, 2001, the U.S. Navy had 316 ships. By 2008, after
one of the largest build-ups in our Nation's history, that
number was 278. In 2008, the Navy put only three ships under
contract, far too few to maintain the size of the fleet or our
industrial base, and many of our shipbuilding programs were
over budget, behind schedule, or both.
One of my main priorities as Secretary has been to reverse
those trends. Today, the fleet has been stabilized, and the
problems in most of our shipbuilding programs have been
corrected or arrested. We have 47 ships under contract today,
43 of which were contracted since I took office. And our
current shipbuilding plan puts on track for 300 ships in the
fleet by 2019.
The way we power our ships and installations has always
been a core and vital issue for the Department of the Navy. We
continue to lead in energy as we have throughout our history.
From sail, to coal, to oil, to nuclear, the Navy has led in
moving to new sources of power, and every time it has made us a
better war fighting force.
Today, from marines making power in the field to
alternatives on land, on and under the sea, and in the air, the
Navy and Marine Corps are powering innovations that will
maintain our operational edge, building partnerships in our
operability and capacity and capability in our partners in a
crucial component of this defense strategy. This strategy
directs that this be done in a low cost, small footprint,
innovative way. This is precisely what the Navy and Marine
Corps do.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The process we use to craft the Department's budget request
was determined, deliberate, and dedicated to our responsibility
to you and to the taxpayer. And like the Senate and House
budget resolutions, we do not assume that sequestration will
continue in fiscal year 2014.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the budget we are
submitting supports the defense strategy and preserves the
readiness of our people, and it builds on the success we have
in shipbuilding. For 237 years, our maritime warriors have
established a proven record as an agile and adaptable force.
Forward deployed, we remain the most responsive option to
defend the American people and our interests.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ray Mabus
Chairman Durbin and Vice Chairman Cochran, and members of the
committee, today I have the privilege of appearing on behalf of the
Sailors, Marines, and civilians who make up the Department of the Navy.
This is the fifth time that I have been honored to report on the
readiness, posture, progress, and budgetary requests of the Department.
With my shipmates--Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Amos,
and Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Admiral Jonathan Greenert--I take
great pride in the opportunity to both lead and serve the dedicated men
and women of the Department. This statement, together with the posture
statements provided by CNO Greenert and Commandant Amos, present a
comprehensive overview of the state of the Department of the Navy.
For 237 years the United States Navy and Marine Corps have been
deployed around the globe, conducting missions across the full spectrum
of military operations. Whether ashore, in the air, on or under the
world's oceans, or in the vast cyberspace, The Navy-Marine Corps team
operates forward, as America's ``Away Team,'' to protect our national
interests, respond to crises, deter conflict, prevent war or, when
necessary, fight and win. The past year has been no different. Among
myriad missions, our Sailors and Marines have continued to conduct
combat operations in Afghanistan; maritime stability and security
operations around Africa; ballistic missile defense with our allies in
Europe, the Middle East and the Pacific; and humanitarian assistance
and disaster relief missions from the archipelagos of Southeast Asia to
the streets of Staten Island.
Today we continue to transition from a decade of war and counter-
insurgency ashore to a time of increased global uncertainty. Eighty
percent of the world's population live a short distance from the sea
and 90 percent of global trade moves by sea, so our naval forces play a
vital role in delivering the security needed to help address today's
global challenges. The Nation's Defense Strategic Guidance, as
announced by President Obama, directs focus toward the maritime-centric
regions of Western Pacific and Arabian Gulf and uses innovative, low-
cost, light footprint engagements in other regions. These are tasks
tailor made for the Navy-Marine Corps Team. The Commandant, CNO, and I
are confident that with proper resourcing, the U.S. Navy and Marine
Corps will meet today's and tomorrow's missions.
Almost a century ago the United States began a fruitful period of
profound military development between the First and Second World Wars.
Vice Admiral William Sims, commander of our naval forces in England
during World War I, wrote that ``. . . we must be on our guard against
the dangers of a lack of vision.'' As then, strategic thinking and
innovative development of our operating concepts will be central to our
success now and in the future. The ability to think and adapt to
changes in the fiscal and operational environment has been and will be
the key to the success of American naval forces.
The Department of the Navy has a proven track record of effective
and efficient management of our Nation's most important maritime
resources: people, platforms, power, and partnerships. The most
resilient and capable force in our history protects the Nation. In the
past 4 years, we have stabilized the size of the Fleet, and we are
building more capable ships with greater accountability and at a better
value to the taxpayer and we are on a trajectory to restore the Fleet
to 300 ships by 2019. The Navy and Marine Corps are seeking ways to
lessen dependence on fossil fuel and volatile oil prices, some of our
greatest military vulnerabilities, by using more efficient and varied
forms of power. And we are building and maintaining the global
partnerships that are so critical to the Navy and Marine Corps' ability
to project power throughout the world through forward deployment. As we
sail into a new maritime century, the Navy and Marine Corps team is the
most formidable expeditionary fighting force the world has ever known.
naval operations in 2012
Operational tempo in 2012 was high. On a daily basis, almost half
the fleet was at sea and more than 70,000 Sailors and Marines were
deployed; our reserve components mobilized over 3,700 Sailors and 5,000
Marines to support operations. Our forces conducted combat and maritime
security operations, bilateral and multilateral exercises with our
international partners, and humanitarian assistance missions.
Pacific Command (PACOM)
The Asia-Pacific is fundamentally a maritime region, and over 50
percent of the world's population and the world's five largest armed
forces lie within the operating area of the U.S. SEVENTH FLEET.
Emphasizing our existing alliances while also expanding our networks of
cooperation with emerging partners is central to the defense strategy
articulated by the President in January 2012. Our mission is to provide
security with combat ready units, demonstrated by the forward basing in
Japan of USS George Washington and her strike group as well as the USS
Bonhomme Richard amphibious ready group and 31st Marine Expeditionary
Unit. Destroyer Squadron 15 continues to conduct Ballistic Missile
Defense (BMD) patrols that contribute significantly to this mission.
When North Korea conducted launches using ballistic missile technology
in both April 2012 and December 2012, our ships were on scene to
monitor the situation and defend our forces and allies if needed.
The first Marine rotational force arrived in Darwin, Australia
early last year. The Marines, part of the 3rd Marine Expeditionary
Force (MEF) soon after embarked USS Germantown and began operations in
the region. Working with naval assets like the destroyer USS Lassen and
the submarine USS Buffalo the Marines participated in the long standing
Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) exercises with a
number of our allies and partners including Thailand, Singapore, and
Bangladesh. Marines from 3rd MEF also participated in Mongolia's KHAAN
QUEST 2013 exercise as part of a joint force that included the U.S.
Army. The multinational exercise started 10 years ago as a bilateral
training opportunity between U.S. Marines and Mongolian forces and has
grown to include participants from ten countries.
Exercise MALABAR, an annual bilateral exercise between U.S. and
Indian Forces, continued to expand in 2012 and comprised training in
numerous mission areas including maritime security operations and
strike missions. U.S. units, including the USS Carl Vinson strike
group, conducted operations both at sea and ashore with our partners
from the Indian Navy. In cooperation with the Armed Forces of the
Philippines in 2012 we expanded our annual BALIKATAN exercise to
include 20 participating partners from the Association of South East
Asian Nations (ASEAN). This year's exercise focused on Humanitarian
Assistance, Search and Rescue, and helped develop interoperability with
the participating forces.
In 2012 our west coast hospital ship, USNS Mercy executed a 5-month
PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP humanitarian assistance deployment, conducting
medical and civic assistance missions in Indonesia, Vietnam, the
Republic of the Philippines, and Cambodia. PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP began as
a humanitarian response to one of the world's most catastrophic natural
disasters, the 2004 tsunami that devastated parts of Southeast Asia.
The PELELIU Amphibious Ready Group and Marines from the 15th Marine
Expeditionary Unit (MEU) conducted Exercise CROCODILO with the Defense
Forces of Timor-Leste, demonstrating the importance of working with all
partner nations, no matter the size of their naval forces, which share
our commitment to peace and security.
Our largest operation in the Pacific this year was the biennial Rim
of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC). The largest maritime exercise in the
world, RIMPAC in 2012 had participants from 22 nations, including for
the first time the Russian Navy. RIMPAC provides a unique training
opportunity that helps foster and sustain the cooperative relationships
that are critical to maritime safety and security not only in the
Pacific, but across the globe. This year's exercise also displayed the
Navy's commitment to energy security with the Great Green Fleet
demonstration. USNS Henry J. Kaiser conducted an underway replenishment
with USS Nimitz, USS Princeton, USS Chafee, and USS Chung-Hoon,
refueling all the ships and types of aircraft in the Nimitz Strike
Group with a 50/50 blend of advanced biofuels and petroleum-based
fossil fuels. Every type of aircraft that flew from the strike group
flew on this blend and all the surface ships sailed on this blend. No
engines were changed in any way. This demonstrated the effectiveness
and seamlessness of the use of advanced biofuels during operations at
sea.
Central Command (CENTCOM)
Marines and Sailors, active and reserve, remain engaged in
operations in Afghanistan. They have denied the Taliban safe haven and
substantially calmed the violent Helmand Province. Along with Coalition
partners from eight nations and the Afghan National Security Forces
(ANSF), Marines have succeeded in pushing enemy initiated attacks
outside populated areas, diminishing the enemy's ability to disrupt
governance efforts by Afghans and bringing increased security to
population centers.
As 9,000 Marines have been drawn down in Helmand over the course of
the year, our forces there helped to standup the 215th Corps of the
Afghan National Army as well as units of the Afghan National Police and
Afghan Local Police. Through these efforts, ANSF has increasingly taken
responsibility for securing this area. ANSF units currently conduct 80
percent of operations on their own while leading 85 percent of all
operations in Helmand Province.
Aircraft from Carrier Strike Groups in the Indian Ocean conducted
thousands of sorties supporting combat operations in Afghanistan with
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and close air
support. With two Carrier Strike Groups in the region for much of the
year, regular flight operations were also conducted in the Arabian
Gulf. USS Ponce also deployed to the region to demonstrate and employ
the capabilities of our future Afloat Forward Staging Bases (AFSB).
Off the Horn of Africa, we continue to work with partners in
Combined Task Force 151 and other counter-piracy missions. Primarily as
a result of these efforts, there was a dramatic drop in the number of
pirate attacks during 2012. While the primary purpose and goal of
counter-piracy operations is to enhance maritime security in the
region, an additional benefit is the development of operational
relationships with a wide range of partners. For example, in September
USS Winston S. Churchill conducted exercises to expand counter-piracy
expertise and promote interoperability with the Chinese frigate YI
YANG, the first bilateral exercise of its kind between the navies of
the United States and the People's Republic of China.
European Command/Africa Command/Southern Command (EUCOM/AFRICOM/
SOUTHCOM)
U.S. Navy ships teamed with 11 European and African partners for
PHOENIX EXPRESS 2012, a maritime security exercise in the
Mediterranean. AEGIS ships in EUCOM continued their BMD patrols for the
European Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense and planning
continues to forward base four guided missile destroyers in Rota,
Spain. The High Speed Vessel (HSV) Swift circumnavigated Africa for
AFRICAN PARTNERSHIP STATION, making 20 port calls to conduct security
cooperation missions and humanitarian assistance. Marines from Special
Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force (SPMAGTF) Africa trained
counterterrorism forces and provided support to forces across the
Maghreb region of North Africa.
In the Caribbean, western Atlantic, and eastern Pacific work
continued with our regional partners to counter transnational organized
crime. Aircraft from Helicopter Anti-Submarine (Light) and Carrier
Airborne Early Warning squadrons flew detection and monitoring missions
while our ships, working with the U.S. Coast Guard, helped confiscate
millions of dollars of illegal drugs and illicit cargo.
SOUTHERN PARTNERSHIP STATION provided both military to military
training opportunities and humanitarian assistance missions to
countries in Central and South America. The Navy also supported the
annual UNITAS exercises, multinational naval exercises designed to
enhance security cooperation and improve coalition operations. UNITAS
exercises are typically conducted annually in Atlantic and Pacific
waters around South America, and in 2012 U.S. Southern Command
conducted bilateral training opportunities with nations including
Guatemala, Honduras, and Belize. PANAMAX, the annual U.S. Southern
Command-sponsored multinational exercise series, focused in 2012 on
ensuring the defense of the Panama Canal. Personnel from 17 nations,
including the United States, participated in simulated training
scenarios from various U.S. locations.
Northern Command (NORTHCOM)
When Hurricane Sandy came ashore in October, the Navy and Marine
Corps immediately gathered resources to support the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and other Federal agencies in the response to
this disaster. USS Wasp, USS San Antionio, USS Carter Hall, and USNS
Kanawha steamed to the coast of New York and New Jersey and became
logistics bases for relief efforts following the storm, working in
concert with units deployed to Lakehurst Naval Air Station in central
New Jersey. Marines from 26th MEU went ashore from Wasp at Staten
Island to clear debris and reopen streets, while Seabees ran supply
convoys into hard hit areas and set up generators, removed beach sand
from city streets, pumped over a million gallons of water from homes
and removed tons of debris. Sailors from Mobile Diving and Salvage
Units worked with FEMA and State officials in dewatering the World
Trade Center site and the New York subway system, while members of the
Coastal Riverine force cooperated with FEMA at the Hoboken Ferry
Terminal to restore service.
Our sea-based strategic deterrent force of ballistic missile
submarines continues to provide the most survivable leg of the Nation's
strategic deterrent triad. For 50 years, and for more than 4,000
strategic patrols, our Navy's submarine force has patrolled,
undetected, below the sea. Our Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines
promote global stability and provide credible and reliable deterrence.
There are countless other examples of Navy and Marine Corps units
on, above and under the seas, on land both in the United States and in
every corner of the globe, standing watch protecting this Nation.
developing capabilities for future operations
The 21st century presents us with new challenges or threats to both
our national security and to global stability. The Navy and Marine
Corps are working to develop new concepts and capabilities that will
help address sophisticated anti access/area denial (A2/AD) networks,
irregular and cyber threats, and the proliferation of precision guided
munitions. The Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Army are working
together to implement the Air-Sea Battle concept, which seeks to
improve integration of air, land, maritime, space, and cyberspace
forces. The Navy and Marine Corps are also developing the concept of an
integrated battle force, taking many of the lessons we have learned
about joint and combined operations, combining them with the results of
exercises like BOLD ALLIGATOR 2012, the largest amphibious exercise in
over a decade which was conducted on the coast of North Carolina in
early 2012, and developing new frameworks for naval warfare and
expeditionary operations.
Air Sea Battle
In order to ensure that U.S. forces remain able to project power on
behalf of American interests, the Departments of the Navy, Air Force,
and Army continue to develop the Air-Sea Battle concept and its
capabilities. The Air-Sea Battle Office, jointly manned by all four
services, is working on a series of initiatives to achieve the
capabilities and integration required in future Joint forces so that
Combatant Commanders have the tools they need, delivered with the most
efficient use of resources. Air-Sea Battle is building on the lessons
learned by the joint force over the past three decades to enhance
efficiency while confronting the challenge of A2/AD systems in all
theaters of operations.
DON continues to work on the integration of advanced air and cruise
missile defense capabilities, the development of BMD enhancements, and
``soft-kill'' capability. A new generation of Anti-Ship Cruise Missile
(ASCM) remains a priority, which will increase the range and speed at
which we can engage enemy surface combatants, the most capable of which
are armed with advanced ASCMs. We are also developing the Virginia
Payload Module for the Virginia-class submarines, to mitigate the loss
of the undersea strike capacity of our guided missile submarines when
they retire in the mid-2020s.
defending freedom of the seas: law of the sea convention
By custom, experience and treaty the traditional concept of freedom
of the seas for all nations has developed over centuries. This vital
part of the global order has been codified within the Law of the Sea
Convention (LOS Convention). The DOD and DON continue to strongly
support this important treaty. The LOS Convention guarantees rights
such as innocent passage through territorial seas; transit passage
through, under and over international straits; and the laying and
maintaining of submarine cables. Nearly every maritime power and all
the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council except the United
States have ratified the convention. Our absence as a Party weakens our
position and impacts our military, diplomatic, and economic efforts
worldwide. Remaining outside the LOS Convention also undercuts our
ability to challenge expansive jurisdictional claims that, if
unchallenged, could undermine our ability to exercise our navigational
rights and freedoms, conduct routine naval operations in international
waters, and provide support to our allies. Additionally, only as a
Party to the Convention can the United States fully secure its
sovereign rights to the vast resources of our continental shelf beyond
200 miles from shore. The uniformed and civilian leaders of the
Department strongly support accession to the LOS Convention.
departmental priorities
Maintaining the world's most capable expeditionary fighting force
means developing our Navy and Marine Corps as a strategic asset that
provides our Commander-in-Chief with the broadest range of options in a
dynamic and complex global security environment. As Secretary, I
continue to charge the Department to focus on four key priorities:
people, platforms, power, and partnerships, by ensuring we do the
following:
--Support our Sailors, Marines, civilians, and their families;
--Strengthen shipbuilding and the industrial base;
--Promote acquisition excellence and integrity;
--Continue development and deployment of unmanned systems;
--Recognize energy as a strategic national security issue; and
--Build partner capacity to help distribute the burden of securing
the global maritime domain based on alliances, shared values,
and mutual trust.
From training our newest Midshipmen and recruits, to supporting
ongoing operations in Central Asia and the Pacific, to preparing for
the future force, these principles will guide the Department in all of
its many tasks.
supporting our sailors, marines, and their families
Operational tempo is high and getting higher. The BATAAN Amphibious
Ready Group and 22d Marine Expeditionary Unit's spent almost 11 months
at sea, the longest amphibious deployment since World War II. Personnel
with John Stennis Carrier Strike Group spent only 5 months at home
between her two most recent 7-month deployments. Sailors, Marines,
civilians, and their families are being asked to do more with less, and
it is the job of the Department's civilian and military leaders to
provide them with the resources to maintain readiness, both physically
and mentally, and to support families while loved ones are forward
deployed.
The naval strategist and historian Alfred Thayer Mahan once wrote
that being ready for naval operations ``consists not so much in the
building of ships and guns as it does in the possession of trained
men.'' The Department is committed to our most important asset and the
most critical combat payload for our ships, aircraft, and units
ashore--our people. Over the last 4 years, I have visited with Sailors
and Marines deployed in 96 countries across the globe. When our U.S.
Navy and Marine Corps team is on the job, they are far from home and
from the people they serve. One of my core missions is to remind them
we are grateful for their service, and humbled by their sacrifice.
Pay and benefits are the most tangible example of our commitment to
our Sailors and Marines, and an important focus for the Department. The
President's budget includes a 1 percent pay raise for Sailors and
Marines. The amount of this raise reflects the commitment to our
Sailors and Marines, while adhering to the current budget constraints
faced by DOD. We support the modest TRICARE fee increase in the fiscal
year 2014 budget, which Congress has allowed the Department of Defense
to link to CPI to help ensure an efficient and fair benefit cost, as
well as efforts to introduce efficiency and cost savings into military
pharmacies. These are important steps that help us introduce reform to
the Department's personnel costs. The promise of a military retirement
is one of the solemn pledges we make to compensate our service members
when they volunteer for a full career. However, it is time for a review
of this system. We fully support Congress's establishment of the
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission to
conduct a comprehensive review of military compensation and retirement
systems. The commission must maintain a focus on ensuring any suggested
changes support the required force profiles of the services. Keeping
faith with those currently serving is a high priority, and the
Commission and Congress should ensure that any resulting reforms
protect our current service members through grandfathering those who
prefer the current retirement structure.
We must manage resources to ensure support for the most combat
effective and the most resilient force in history. The standards are
high, and we owe Sailors, Marines, and civilians the services they need
to meet those standards. I am very proud of the dedicated service
provided by our civilian workforce, who despite economic sacrifices,
continue to deliver outstanding products and services in support of the
DON mission. The continued development of the 21st Century Sailor and
Marine Initiative will help ensure that Sailors and Marines maximize
their professional and personal readiness with initiatives that cut
across previously stove-piped programs. In March 2012, aboard USS
Bataan, I outlined the five ``pillars'' of the 21st Century Sailor and
Marine which are: readiness and protection, safety, physical fitness,
inclusion, and the continuum of service.
Readiness and protection will ensure Sailors, Marines, and their
families are prepared to handle the mental and emotional rigors of
military service. Ensuring the readiness of the force includes
continuing campaigns by both services to deglamorize, treat, and track
alcohol abuse.
It also means maintaining the standard of zero tolerance for sexual
assault. The DON Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO)
is responsible for keeping the health and safety of our Sailors and
Marines at the forefront. SAPRO has developed training initiatives,
opened new lines of communication, and worked to ensure that offenders
are held accountable while reducing the number of attacks. In the last
year, SAPRO conducted dozens of site visits to Navy and Marine Corps
installations world-wide. Their sexual assault prevention programs for
leadership reached over 5,000 Navy and Marine officers and senior
enlisted personnel at eight operational concentration sites.
Simultaneously, live-acted and vignette-based programs, emphasizing the
importance of bystander intervention in preventing sexual assault, were
presented to packed theaters totaling roughly 15,000 Sailors and
Marines. The Commandant of the Marine Corps has personally championed a
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Campaign Plan that
engages his senior leadership in top-down, Corps-wide training
initiatives anchored on the core values of Honor, Courage, and
Commitment. He and the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps have been
tireless in conveying their expectations in special forums and personal
visits to virtually every Marine Corps installation. Across both
Services, literally every Sailor and Marine is receiving special SAPR
training that emphasizes the concept of Bystander Intervention to
prevent sexual assaults, and additional training tools are in
development.
To enhance capabilities in the area of sexual assault prevention
and prosecution, Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) created an
advanced adult sexual assault training course. They have also launched
a multidisciplinary Adult Sexual Assault Program, which synchronizes
the efforts of investigators, prosecutors, and victim advocates. NCIS
has continued its campaign to train the Department's leaders,
conducting 389 briefings world-wide to over 48,000 service members.
Last year they also introduced a 24-hour text-tip capability to enhance
responsiveness to criminal allegations including sexual assault,
receiving 1,300 Web based referrals.
A ready force is also a force that understands how to respond to
our shipmates in need in order to help stem the tide of military
suicides. The Department will continue to work to improve suicide
prevention programs to eliminate suicide from the ranks. This will not
be easy. The complexities surrounding suicide requires an ``all-hands''
effort and comprehensive approach. New training programs, like the
Marine Corps' R.A.C.E. (Recognize suicide warning signs, Ask one
another about suicide, Care for one another through listening and
support, and Escort fellow Marines to help), are just the start. Navy
and Marine Corps commanders are fully engaged in promoting the
psychological health of our Marines, Sailors, and family members and
are receiving training on how best to provide solutions in their units.
The message to all Navy and Marine Corps leaders is to look out for
each other and to ask for help.
The fiscal uncertainty we live with today not only affects
operational readiness; the impact may also manifest itself in safety
performance. More than ever, we must emphasize safety and risk
management, both on- and off-duty as operational tempo increases and
our Sailors and Marines are asked to do more with resources that are
being stretched. Efforts to ensure the safest and most secure force in
the Department's history include more targeted oversight of our high
risk evolutions and training. To improve risk assessment, the
Department is analyzing safety and safety-related data from a variety
of sources and in 2012 committed to establishing a secure funding
stream for the Risk Management Information System. The Department is
also employing System Safety Engineers in the hazard and mishap
investigation process.
Physical fitness is central to the ability of our Sailors and
Marines to complete their missions. More than just another program, it
is a way of life and supporting it resonates throughout the 21st
Century Sailor and Marine Initiative. Throughout the force personal
fitness standards will be emphasized and reinforced. That commitment
extends to improving nutrition standards at Navy dining facilities with
the ``Fueled to Fight'' program, developed and used by the Marines.
Fueled to Fight emphasizes the importance of nutrition and healthy food
items, and ensures their availability.
A cornerstone of the Department's commitments to individual Sailors
and Marines is to ensure DON is inclusive and, consistent with military
effectiveness, recruits, retains, and promotes a force that reflects
the Nation it defends. The aim to increase the diversity of ideas,
experiences, expertise, and backgrounds to ensure the right mix of
people to perform the variety of missions required of the services.
With military requirements as a guiding tenet, the Department will
reduce restrictions to military assignments for personnel to the
greatest extent possible.
An officer corps must be representative of the enlisted force it
leads. The United States Naval Academy, our Reserve Officer Training
Corps programs, and Officer Candidate School have all continued to
achieve high ethnic diversity rates as minority applications remain at
historic levels. In recent years NROTC units have reopened at some Ivy
League schools, and new units have opened at State Universities with
large minority populations, including Arizona State University and
Rutgers University. The first group of women assigned to the submarine
force have deployed aboard their boats. Three of these trailblazing
officers already earned their qualifications in Submarine Warfare and
were presented their ``Dolphins'' in a ceremony last fall. With success
aboard Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and guided
missile submarines (SSGNs) women will now be assigned to the attack
submarine fleet and enlisted women will soon be included in the
submarine force.
The final pillar, continuum of service, will provide the strongest
transition support in the Department's history. The Navy and Marine
Corps develop future leaders of our Nation, in and out of uniform. For
that reason, and for their service, individuals separating or retiring
from the Naval Service should be provided the best assistance programs
and benefits available to get a positive start in civilian life. The
Department's education benefits, transition assistance, career
management training, life-work balance programs, and morale, welfare,
and recreation programs are keys to their future and have been
recognized by human resource experts as some of the best personnel
support mechanisms in the Nation. Our transition efforts also bolster
our ability to maintain a highly skilled Reserve force, ensuring those
highly trained service members who want to continue to serve in a
Reserve capacity are smoothly and appropriately aligned within the
Reserve component.
Both the Navy and Marine Corps reached our recruiting goals again
in the past year. The Navy is on track to meet its active duty-manning
ceiling of 322,700 Sailors by the end of this fiscal year. The Marine
Corps continues to draw down from 202,001 to the goal of 182,100 by
fiscal year 2016 and stood at about 198,000 at the end of 2012. The
quality of our recruits continues to rise, with high levels of physical
fitness and increasing numbers of recruits with a high school diploma
rather than a GED. With high quality recruits the attrition numbers in
Boot Camp have dropped, and more Sailors and Marines are successfully
completing their follow-on schools, where they learn the basics of
their military specialty.
In order to address many of the asymmetric military scenarios we
face, the Department has initiated programs in our Special Operations
and Cyber Forces to ensure we have the right personnel for the mission.
For instance, the Department conducted a Cyber Zero-Based Review and
developed a Cyberspace Manpower Strategy. Operating in and
strategically leveraging cyberspace requires a sophisticated and
technically savvy force and we must invest in their training and
development. We also need an equally sophisticated officer corps to
lead this force and therefore, I will make the construction of a
cybersecurity studies facility at the U.S. Naval Academy a top priority
in developing the fiscal year 2015-2019 military construction program,
looking for opportunities to accelerate this vital project. With
respect to Special Forces, the Department continues to work closely
with U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) on their manpower
priorities, including emphasis on targeted recruiting of personnel with
language capability and ethnic diversity, compensation issues, and
ensuring the proper balance of SOF manning during times of fiscal
austerity.
The Department constantly evaluates its success at reintegrating
the combat-wounded Sailor or Marine into civilian life. The Navy and
Marine Corps have pressed forward in their efforts to support our
wounded, ill, and injured (WII) Sailors and Marines. The Marine Corps'
Wounded Warrior Regiment, based at Quantico, provides and facilitates
non-medical assistance throughout all phases of recovery. With
Battalions located on both coasts and detachments around the world, it
has the global reach needed to support our men and women. The Navy has
established the Safe Harbor Program to coordinate the non-medical care
of WII Sailors, Coast Guardsmen, and their families. The program
provides a lifetime of individually tailored assistance designed to
optimize the success of our shipmates' recovery, rehabilitation, and
reintegration activities and has representatives at military treatment
facilities all over the world, including partnering with some Veteran's
Affairs facilities.
A key to successful integration is meaningful employment and the
Department continues to lead by example in providing employment
opportunities for Wounded Warriors and veterans. Civilian careers
within the DON offer a wealth of opportunities that allow Wounded
Warriors to apply the wide array of skills and experience gained from
their military service. Last year, veterans represented more than 50
percent of new hires, with nearly 1 in 10 having a 30 percent or more
compensable service-connected disability. Additionally, nearly 60
percent of the Department's civilian workforce has prior military
experience. The Department also continues to share best practices
across the Federal and private sector, and annually hosts the Wounded
Warrior Hiring and Support Conference.
In addition to the successful efforts to help employ transitioning
Sailors and Marines, the Department has also made tremendous strides to
improve overall career readiness through the implementation of the
newly designed Transition Assistance Program. Both the Navy and Marine
Corps have reported compliance with the mandatory components of the
transition program required by the Veterans Opportunity to Work to Hire
Heroes Act (VOW Act) and implemented new and revised curriculum to
facilitate pursuit of post-military goals. By the end of this year,
program enhancements will also include the program's three
individualized tracks for education, technical training, and
entrepreneurship.
strengthening shipbuilding and the industrial base
Much has been said and written about the size of our Fleet. A few
facts are in order. On September 11, 2001, the Navy's battle force
stood at 316 ships. By 2008, after one of the great military buildups
in American history, our battle force had shrunk to 278 ships. In 2008,
the Navy built only three ships, and many of our shipbuilding programs
were over budget or over schedule or both. Over the past 4 years, the
Fleet has stabilized and many problems in our shipbuilding programs
have been corrected or arrested. There are now 47 ships under contract,
many under fixed-price contracts that ensure the Department receives
the best value for our shipbuilding programs.
Maintaining and increasing current Fleet numbers is a challenge in
the current fiscal environment. However, it is important that we
succeed in this effort as our defense strategy calls upon us to focus
on the maritime-centric theaters of Pacific and Central Command, while
still remaining engaged globally. This is why building up the number of
ships in our Fleet has been my priority from day one. With your support
it will continue to be a priority as we allocate our resources moving
forward.
The fiscal year 2013 shipbuilding plan projected that, by the end
of the 5 years of the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), the Fleet,
because of a large number of retirements, would have 285 ships, about
the same number as exist today. Beyond the FYDP, the Fleet would again
experience growth reaching 300 ships before the end of the decade. The
plan maintains a flexible, balanced battle force that will prevail in
combat situations, including in the most stressing A2/AD environments,
while living within the reduced means allocated.
Furthermore, our shipbuilding plan aims to build a Fleet designed
to support the new defense strategy and the joint force for 2020 and
beyond. A force structure assessment was recently completed and it
found, due to the new defense strategy, forward basing and other
variables that about 300 ships will be needed to meet the Navy's future
responsibilities.
Regardless of the final battle force number, the Fleet's ship count
will begin to rise as major surface combatant and submarine building
profiles are sustained and as the Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) and Joint
High Speed Vessels (JHSVs) built during the next 5 years begin to enter
fleet service.
A healthy industrial base is necessary to support the Department's
priorities going forward. Our Nation faces tough economic times, so our
plan, as we noted earlier, to grow the Fleet to 300 ships by 2019 means
we have to work closely with the shipbuilding industry to ensure we
maintain their skill and capability while growing a fleet affordable to
the American people. The industrial base also includes our aircraft
manufacturers, and the industry teams that develop the payloads aboard
our ships. We will work to ensure diversity in supply as we move ahead,
and we will look for opportunities to compete.
promoting acquisition excellence and integrity
One of the most important obligations of public service is a
responsibility to be good stewards of the American people's money; it
is particularly important given today's fiscal realities. Rebuilding
the fleet with the right platforms continues to be a top priority, and
requires efficient and smart spending based on a realistic vision of
the future force. At the heart of the Department's improved stewardship
and leadership is the acquisition excellence initiative in force since
2009.
The central role Navy and Marine Corps play in the Nation's defense
strategy drives the acquisition programs currently underway and those
planned in the future. Contract requirements, aggressive oversight, and
competition drive affordability. At every appropriate opportunity the
Department pursues fixed price contracts like those in use for the LCS
program, or multiyear procurements like those used to purchase the
Virginia-Class Submarines, MV-22 Ospreys and MH-60 helicopters. The
Department continues to look for other innovative funding strategies
that help ensure a consistent workload for the industrial base, as well
as focus on increasing productivity and fostering innovation both in
industry and government. Total ownership costs, eliminating unnecessary
bureaucracy, and unproductive processes are always considered as
programs are developed. Using these methods to inject affordability and
refine requirements in the LCS and DDG 51 programs, the Department cut
over $4.4 billion from the projected cost of the ships, and over $4.9
billion in projected life-cycle costs.
To be responsible with the taxpayer's money also means we must take
action against fraudulent contractors and shoddy work. The DON has
greatly strengthened our suspension and debarment system, and enhanced
its ability to protect the Department from unscrupulous and
irresponsible contractors. NCIS has made significant investments in our
major procurement fraud program and has realized a 300-percent return
on investment through fines and recoveries associated with criminal
prosecutions this year. During fiscal year 2012, the DON Suspending and
Debarring Official (SDO) suspended or debarred 344 contractors, a 75-
percent increase from the previous year. Most of this increase was the
result of aggressive pursuit of ``fact-based'' debarments of
contractors who had been terminated for default or poor performance
under a DON contract or who had mischarged costs against DON contracts,
but also includes conviction-based debarments taken against contractors
for fraud associated with Government contracts. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has recognized the DON for its very active
procurement fraud program, which actively pursues leads of contractor
misconduct from numerous sources, and effectively carries out its
suspension and debarment responsibilities under the Federal Acquisition
Regulations.
To protect the Department's research, development and acquisition
(RDA) process from a counterintelligence (CI) perspective, NCIS has
partnered with intelligence community members at locations of special
interest. For example, integration of NCIS resources at University
Applied Research Centers (UARC) and the Applied Research Laboratories
has allowed NCIS CI agents and analysts to intensify their operational
efforts and investigations that protect these prioritized programs and
technologies. Operation ``Bigger Game'', an integrated RDA CI effort,
resulted in the arrest of seven individuals affiliated with a UARC for
illegally exporting high-tech microelectronics from the United States
to Russian military and intelligence agencies.
Over the past decade and a half the acquisition workforce was
downsized. As a result, our expertise and experience was stretched too
thin. With your support the Department has been slowly increasing the
number of acquisition professionals, restoring the core competencies
inherent in their profession and to our responsibilities in the
Department to organize, train and equip the Navy and Marine Corps.
Since starting the effort 3 years ago, the Department has grown the
acquisition work force by 4,700 personnel, which has been key to
increasing the necessary technical authority and business skill sets,
and improving the probability of program success.
Additionally the Department is keeping program managers in place
longer to build up their expertise in and oversight of individual
programs, which also contributes to program stability and success. The
Department also invests in education for our program managers, who are
sent to an intensive short course at the graduate business school at
the University of North Carolina specifically targeting a better
understanding of defense contractors. A pilot for mid-level managers
began last year for a similar graduate level course at the University
of Virginia Darden Business School. The Department is also changing the
way program leaders are evaluated and now incentivizes them to work
with their industry counterparts to manage costs. Finally, acquisition
workforce professionalization is receiving the attention it deserves,
and more resources are targeted to individual training, education, and
experience for individuals in key leadership positions.
developing and deploying unmanned systems
Unmanned systems will continue to be key military platforms, both
in the maritime domain and ashore. Successful integration of the
unmanned systems begins with the Sailors and Marines who support the
effort. In October 2012, we established Unmanned Helicopter
Reconnaissance Squadron 1 (HUQ-1), the first dedicated rotary-wing UAV
squadron in the Navy, to train Sailors on the aircraft as well as
provide deployable detachments. Across the entire spectrum of military
operations, an integrated and hybrid force of manned and unmanned
platforms is the way of the future. In the past year the Department has
made significant movement forward in the development of unmanned
systems.
In 2012 USS Klakring deployed with four MQ-8B Fire Scouts operated
by Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (Light) 42 to conduct operations
in the FIFTH and SIXTH Fleets. The ship and squadron, which deployed
with a Fire Scout detachment in 2011 in support of counterpiracy
operations and operations off of Libya, continued to develop the
tactics, techniques, and procedures to integrate the Fire Scout
helicopters into fleet operations. Another detachment of three Fire
Scouts flew over 3,000 hours of ISR missions for Marines engaged in
combat operations in Afghanistan. The next generation Fire Scout, the
MQ-8C, made its first flight in 2010 and began production in 2012. It
has greater range and payload capacity and it will fly its first
missions to serve with Naval Special Warfare.
In unmanned rotary-wing aviation, the Marines have continued
experimenting with the Cargo Resupply Unmanned Aerial System (CRUAS),
using unmanned K-MAX helicopters for resupply in Afghanistan. These
UAVs carry cargo to patrol bases and forward operating bases,
eliminating the need for dangerous convoys. The contract was extended
for another 6-month deployment in Afghanistan, in order to build on the
system's success.
A good example of integrating manned and unmanned systems is the
Mine Countermeasures (MCM) Mission Module in LCS. This module includes
the Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV), which will tow the AN/AQS-20A
mine hunting sonar to find mines, paired with a manned MH-60S
helicopter with the Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS) system
to neutralize them. The development team is working with unmanned
surface craft for autonomous mine sweeping and shallow water mine
interdiction, as well as vertical take-off UAVs for detection and
neutralization. USS Independence (LCS 2) has already conducted
developmental testing of the RMMV and continues to develop operating
concepts and procedures.
This spring will bring the first flight of the MQ-4C Triton, the
unmanned element of Navy's maritime patrol system of systems. Based on
the proven Global Hawk, the Triton will play a central role in building
maritime domain awareness and prosecuting surface targets. Further
testing and evaluation will occur in 2013. Its experimental
predecessor, the BAMS-D demonstrator aircraft, continues to provide
maritime surveillance in FIFTH Fleet and to develop operating concepts
for the aircraft.
The Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike
system, or UCLASS, is changing the way reconnaissance and strike
capabilities are delivered from our aircraft carriers. Designed to
operate alone in permissive environments or as part of the air wing in
contested environments, UCLASS will conduct ISR&T and/or strike
missions over extended periods of time and at extreme ranges. Unlike
manned carrier aircraft, UCLASS will not require flights solely to
maintain pilot proficiency. The UCLASS airframe will be employed only
for operational missions and operators will maintain proficiency in the
simulator, extending its useful life expectancy considerably. Its
airborne mission time will not be limited by human physiology but
rather will be determined by tanker availability, ordnance expenditure,
or the need to conduct maintenance. At NAS Lakehurst, the X-47 Unmanned
Combat Air System, Aircraft Carrier Demonstrator (UCAS-D) conducted its
first launch via catapult. In December, the X-47 went to sea for the
first time aboard USS Harry S Truman and conducted integration testing
and evaluation with the flight deck crews for taxi checks and flight
deck operability. Increased autonomy will continue to evolve and will
continue to expand the possibilities of what can be done with unmanned
systems flying from a carrier. Integrated manned and unmanned systems
will provide a more effective fighting force while helping to reduce
risk to our Sailors and Marines.
recognizing energy as a strategic national security issue
How the Navy and Marine Corps use, produce, and procure energy is a
critical operational element. From the adoption of steam power over
sail, the development of oil burning power plants, or the move to
nuclear power more than half a century ago, the Navy has a history of
leading in energy innovation. In this fiscally constrained environment
we must use energy more efficiently and effectively. This fiscal
environment also means that the Department must continue to lead on and
invest in alternative energy. Failure to do so will leave a critical
military vulnerability unaddressed and will expose the Department to
price shocks inherent in a global commodity like oil.
The Department's energy initiatives are about combat and
operational effectiveness. In wartime, energy is a tactical and
operational vulnerability. Because of the massive amount of fuel that
the Department uses, price shocks in the global market have a
significant impact on budget resources. Every time the cost of a barrel
of oil goes up a dollar, it effectively costs the Department an
additional $30 million in fuel costs. These price spikes are mostly
paid out of operational funds, which mean less steaming time, less
flight time, less training time for our Sailors and Marines and lack of
facilities sustainment. To help address these operational
vulnerabilities and threats to our combat effectiveness, in 2009 I
established energy goals for the Department. These goals drive the Navy
and Marine Corps to strengthen our combat capability by using energy
more efficiently and by diversifying our sources of power.
Efficiency and innovation are key starting points to changing the
way we use energy. USS Makin Island, the fleet's newest amphibious
assault ship, is a great example. Designed with energy efficiency in
mind, it has a unique hybrid electric power plant instead of the steam
plant powering the rest of the Wasp class. The ship returned from its
maiden deployment last year and, between the highly efficient systems
and the energy awareness of the crew, saved the Navy $15 million in
fuel costs out of a budgeted $33 million over the 7-month deployment.
Plans for the two following ships, USS America and USS Tripoli, include
hybrid electric systems like Makin Island and we are working on a
similar system to back-fit it onto Flight IIA Burke Class DDGs.
The Marine Corps has proven and is proving that energy efficient
and renewable energy equipment increases combat effectiveness.
Recognizing a combat multiplier, the Marines Corps came up with an
innovative process to shorten the timeline from concept to combat. In
just a year, using the Experimental Forward Operating Base (ExFOB)
process, the Marine Corps equipped Marines with new capabilities that
reduce the burden of fuel and batteries. Since Third Battalion, Fifth
Marines deployed to Helmand Province in fall of 2010 with solutions
identified through ExFOB, this equipment has become a standard part of
the Marine Corps kit. Marine Battalions in Afghanistan are equipped
with these energy technologies so we now have sniper teams, Special
Operations teams, Communication units, Infantry and Artillery Units,
and teams training our Afghan partners employing ExFOB-proven gear,
from solar blankets to power radios, LED lights to illuminate tents,
and solar generators to provide power at forward operating bases and
combat outposts. These capabilities have made a real impact: enabling a
foot patrol to operate for 3 weeks without battery resupply, reducing
the backpack load on Marines, and increasing self-sufficiency at
operations centers. Continuing to aggressively pursue solutions, ExFOB
deployed hybrid power solutions to Patrol Base Boldak in Afghanistan.
With the lessons learned at Boldak, the Marine Corps is now writing
requirements to redefine how they power the Force-with hybrid power
systems and fewer generators that are right-sized for the mission.
Capabilities that increase combat power through greater energy
performance have become fundamental to Marine Corps modernization.
The Department continues to develop the drop-in, advanced biofuel
initiative for our ships, aircraft, and shore facilities. Under the
Defense Production Act, the Department of the Navy has teamed with the
Departments of Agriculture and Energy to fund the Advanced Drop-in
Biofuel Initiative to help the development of multiple, geographically
dispersed biorefineries. Last fall, DOD issued a multi-stage
solicitation under Title III of the Defense Production Act (DPA) that
sought to construct or retrofit through public-private partnerships
multiple, commercial-scale next generation bio-refineries
geographically located and capable of producing cost-competitive, ready
drop-in biofuels that meet or exceed military specifications. Soon, DOD
will finalize negotiations with several companies that have met the
criteria, including demonstrating the ability to domestically produce
alternative fuels by 2016-2017 that are very cost-competitive with
petroleum.
This past year the Navy purchased a B20 blend (80 percent
conventional/20 percent biodiesel) for the steam plant at the St.
Julien's Creek Annex, near Norfolk, VA. The cost of the B20 is 13 cents
per gallon less expensive than conventional fuel, and is projected to
save the facility approximately $30,000 over the 2012-2013 heating
season.
Drop-in fuels are necessary so that no changes to our engines,
aircraft, ships, or facilities are needed to burn the fuel and so we
retain operational flexibility to use whatever fuel is available. After
testing individual platforms in 2011, in 2012 the Department took an
important leap forward toward the goal of globally deploying ships and
aircraft in maritime operations on competitively priced biofuels by
2016. At RIMPAC, the entire Nimitz Carrier Strike Group, from the
surface escorts to the helicopters flying patrol and logistics
missions, conducted operations on a 50/50 conventional and biofuel
blend. The ships of the strike group also demonstrated energy efficient
technologies to reduce the overall energy use, including solid-state
lighting, on-line gas turbine waterwash, and shipboard energy
dashboards.
This year I issued the Department's ``Strategy for Renewable
Energy'' to outline our path to procuring one gigawatt (GW) of
renewable energy for our shore facilities by 2020. For reference, one
GW can power a city the size of Orlando. This strategy will help us
achieve the goal of obtaining 50 percent of our power ashore from
alternative energy sources, at no additional cost to the taxpayer. The
Department chartered a 1GW Task Force to create an implementation plan,
calling on each region of our shore establishment to develop their own
energy plans to help achieve these goals. In fiscal year 2012 we
initiated four power purchase agreements for large scale renewable
energy including three photovoltaic projects, each of which will
provide electricity cheaper than conventional sources and will save a
total of $20 million over the lives of the agreements, and a waste-to-
energy facility at MCAS Miramar that is cost neutral when compared to
conventional power. All four of these projects have been developed with
third party financing.
Continued leadership in this field is vital to the Nation's future.
Our allies and friends around the world are actively exploring the
potential of efficiency and alternative energy to increase combat
effectiveness and strategic flexibility. The Australian Navy is
drafting an alternative fuels policy, and the Department is working
closely with them to ensure interoperability so that our forces can use
alternative fuels together. The British Army, partnered with Marines in
Afghanistan, has begun to use alternative energy equipment developed by
the Marines in their ExFOB program at the bases they operate in
theater. These partnerships are emblematic of the types of engagements
with our allies around the world on important topics such alternative
fuels, energy efficiency and renewable energy that we must continue to
lead to provide secure alternatives, improve reliability of fuel
supplies, and enhance combat and operational effectiveness.
Energy, fuel, and how we power our ships have always been a vital
issue for the United States Navy. Those who question why the Navy
should be leading in the field forget the Navy's leadership in energy
throughout history. From John Paul Jones rebuilding the sailing rig of
USS Ranger in France in order to make the ship faster and more
efficient before raiding the British seacoast, to the deployment of our
first nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, which was just
decommissioned, the energy and fuel to propel the Fleet has been a key
element of the U.S. Navy's success.
maritime partnerships and forward presence
For almost seven decades, U.S. Naval forces have maintained the
stability and security of the global maritime domain, upholding the two
key economic principles of free trade and freedom of navigation, which
have underwritten unprecedented economic growth for the global economy.
As 90 percent of worldwide trade and over half of global oil production
are moved at sea, this system, and the sophisticated set of
international rules and treaties upon which it is based, has become
central to the economic success of the global marketplace. However its
efficiencies, and the demanding timelines of a ``just in time''
economy, place it at risk from the destabilizing influences of rogue
nations and non-state actors. While our engagement with and assurance
of this global system are not without cost, the risk of instability,
stagnant global economic growth and a decline in national prosperity
could be dramatic.
Providing security across the global maritime domain requires more
capacity and capability than any single nation is able to muster
especially within the current fiscal constraints. Building partner
capacity helps distribute the burden of securing the global maritime
domain based on alliances, shared values and mutual trust. The Navy and
Marine Corps are naturally suited to develop these relationships. Trust
and partnerships across the globe cannot be surged when conflict looms
if they have not been established in times of peace.
Forward presence is the key element of seapower, which can help
deter or dissuade adversaries from destabilizing the system or starting
a military conflict. U.S. Naval forces operating around the world
underwrite the credibility of our global leadership, and give meaning
to our security guarantees. They demonstrate shared commitments and
concerns, and reinforce regional security without a large and expensive
footprint ashore. Forward deployed naval forces allow us to provide a
full range of options to the President and the Combatant Commanders;
from a single Patrol Craft to a Carrier Strike Group; from a platoon of
SEALs to a Marine Air-Ground Task Force; that ensure our leaders have
the adaptable and flexible forces needed to respond to any challenge
and retain an element of control in the escalation of conflict. The
ability to concentrate forces for military operations in times of
crisis, or distribute them to engage allies, partners, and friends in
times of relative peace, depends on maintaining naval forces forward.
As does our ability to be present during a crisis and avoid the
appearance of escalation.
In addition to the exercises and operations previously described,
senior leader engagement and training opportunities for our allies,
partners, and friends are important components of building
international relationships and trust. As Secretary, I have had the
opportunity to meet with 35 heads of state and government, over 60
ministers of defense, over 80 Chiefs of Navy, as well as additional
military leaders and many foreign military personnel. The U.S. Naval
Academy, the U.S. Naval War College, Marine Corps University, and the
Naval Post Graduate School host international students who return home
with not only a first-rate education, but with friendships and new
perspectives on the United States and its people that can have a
significant impact on future military-to-military relationships.
fiscal year 2014 budget submission
Every strategy is a balance of responsibilities and resources. The
Department's ability to meet the demands of today's operations, in
support of our Defense Strategic Guidance, depends on anticipating and
preparing for the changing geopolitical landscape and having the proper
resources ready to deploy. The Department will continue to maintain the
capabilities required to ensure that the Navy and Marine Corps is the
finest expeditionary force in the world, however proper resourcing is
needed to maintain our capacity for global operations.
With the resources as laid out in the fiscal year 2014 budget
request, the battle force of 2019 will include the following platforms.
Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carriers and Air Wings
With the 2016 delivery of USS Gerald R. Ford, the first of a new
class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, the number of carriers in
commission returns to eleven. The Department will sustain that number
at a minimum through the middle of this century. The Ford class of
carrier is a completely new ship within a rearranged Nimitz hull. The
Ford class contains new shipboard systems like an electromagnetic
launch system and advanced arresting gear, and with advanced combat
capabilities resident in the F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter,
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, E-2D
Advanced Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft, the MH-60 Sierra and
Romeo tactical helicopters, and new unmanned aerial systems.
Nuclear-Powered Attack Submarines
There are nine Virginia-class submarines already in commission and
seven more at various stages of construction. The planned fiscal year
2014-2018 Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) of nine submarines remains
intact, and, with the 2013 congressional action, advanced procurement
has been authorized and appropriated for a tenth boat to be ordered in
2014. I would like to thank the Congress for their support of our
submarine programs. Your continued support is needed for the advance
appropriation required to complete the procurement of the tenth
Virginia-class boat. This means that these flexible, versatile
platforms will be built at the rate of two per year during the FYDP
with the cost-saving benefits afforded by the multiyear procurement
contract.
With four guided missile submarines (SSGNs) decommissioning in
2026-2028, the Department will continue to invest in research and
development for the Virginia Payload Module (VPM). VPM could provide
future Virginia-class SSNs with four additional large diameter payload
tubes, increasing her Tomahawk cruise missile capability from 12 to 40
and adding other payload options.
Guided Missile Cruisers and Destroyers
Modular construction of the DDG 1000 Class Destroyers is proceeding
apace, with commissioning of all three ships of this class planned
between 2015 and 2019. The Arleigh Burke-class DDGs (DDG 51s) remain in
serial production, with plans in place for a multiyear purchase of up
to ten ships through fiscal year 2017. As part of that multiyear
purchase, the Navy intends to seek congressional approval for
introducing the DDG 51 Flight III aboard the second fiscal year 2016
ship based on the achievement of a sufficient level of technical
maturity of the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) development
effort. The Flight III Destroyer will include the more powerful AMDR
providing enhanced Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Air Defense
capability. The modernization program for in-service Ticonderoga-class
CGs and Arleigh Burke-class DDGs is progressing satisfactorily, with
hull, machinery, and electrical system maintenance and repairs;
installation of advanced open architecture combat systems, and upgrades
to weapons/sensors suites that will extend the service life and
maintain the combat effectiveness of these fleet assets.
Littoral Combat Ships
With their flexible payload bays, open combat systems, advanced
unmanned systems, and superb aviation and boat handling capabilities,
LCSs will be an important part of our future Fleet. This spring we
forward deployed the first LCS, USS Freedom, to Singapore and will
forward deploy four by ca lender year 2016. Crew rotation plans will
allow for substantially more LCS forward presence than the frigates,
Mine Counter-Measures ships, and coastal patrol craft they will
replace, and will free our multi-mission capable destroyers for more
complex missions. The Department remains fully committed to our plan of
purchasing 52 Littoral Combat Ships.
Amphibious Ships
Thirty amphibious landing ships can support a two-Marine
Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) forcible entry operation, with some risk.
To generate 30 operationally available ships, the strategic review
envisions an amphibious force consisting of 33 ships total. The
objective fleet will consist of 11 big deck Amphibious ships (LHA/LHD),
11 Amphibious Transport Docks (LPD), and 10 Landing Ship Dock (LSD). To
support routine forward deployments of Marine Expeditionary Units
(MEUs), the amphibious force will be organized into nine, three-ship
Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs) and one four-ship ARG forward based in
Japan, plus an additional big-deck Amphibious ship available to support
contingency operations worldwide.
Afloat Forward Staging Bases (AFSBs)
The Navy is proposing to procure a fourth Mobile Landing Platform
(MLP) in fiscal year 2014, configured to serve as an Afloat Forward
Staging Base (AFSB). This AFSB will fulfill an urgent Combatant
Commander requirement for sea-based support for mine warfare, Special
Operations Forces (SOF), Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
(ISR), and other operations. The work demonstrated by the interim AFSB,
USS Ponce, has been very encouraging. To speed this capability into the
fleet, and to ultimately provide for continuous AFSB support anywhere
in the world, we are designing and building the fiscal year 2012 MLP 3
to the AFSB configuration, resulting in a final force of two MLPs and
two AFSBs. This mix will alleviate the demands on an already stressed
surface combatant and amphibious fleet while reducing our reliance on
shore-based infrastructure and preserving an important part of our
shipbuilding industrial base.
Naval Aviation
The Department continues to evaluate the needs of naval aviation to
ensure the most efficient and capable force in line with the Defense
Strategic Guidance. The Navy procured the final F/A-18 Super Hornet in
fiscal year 2013 for delivery in fiscal year 2015 for a total of 552
aircraft. EA-18 Growler will complete program of record procurement
with 21 EA-18G in fiscal year 2014 for delivery in fiscal year 2016 for
a total of 135 aircraft. The Department's review of aviation
requirements has validated the decision to purchase 680 Navy and Marine
Corps F-35s. The F-35 procurement remains steady, with 4 F-35C and 6 F-
35B. The Marine Corps stood up the first F-35 operational squadron,
VMFA-121, in November, 2012. The Fleet Replacement Squadron, VFA-101,
is expected to receive its first F-35C in April 2013.
The Department of the Navy continues to monitor strike fighter
capacity. Changes in the USMC force structure, accelerated transition
from the legacy Hornet aircraft to the Super Hornets, high flight hour
extensions for legacy hornets and lowered utilization rates resulted in
an appropriately sized strike fighter aircraft inventory. Based on
current assumptions and plans, strike fighter aircraft shortfall is
predicted to remain below a manageable 29 aircraft through 2023, with
some risk.
In the long term, the Navy will need to replace its F/A-18E/F
Fleet. Pre-Milestone A activities are underway to define the follow-on
F/A-XX aircraft. Navy continues to develop the first-generation
Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System
(UCLASS), which will provide long-range, persistent ISR&T with
precision strike capability, enhancing the carrier's future ability to
provide support across the range of military operations in 2020 and
beyond. UCLASS will utilize the flexibility and access inherent in
carrier operations to provide the Joint Force and Combatant Commanders
with on demand intelligence and strike capability against time-
sensitive targets while on station.
In fiscal year 2014 the DON is seeking approval for a MYP of 32 E-
2D aircraft over a longer term than originally proposed. Over the FYDP,
purchases of P-8s have been reduced by eight aircraft, which reflects
the Department's intent to procure all the aircraft originally planned,
but at a slower rate in order to distribute the costs more evenly.
marine corps
As the Nation's ready response force, the Marine Corps, by
definition, remains at a high state of readiness. The demands of a
ready force require careful balance across these accounts to avoid a
hollowing of the force. The Department is executing an approved multi-
year plan to draw down the Corps from an end strength of 202,100 in
early 2012 to 182,100 by the end of fiscal year 2016. The drawdown is
on pace at approximately 5,000 Marines per year and anticipates that
voluntary separations will be adequate to meet this planned rate. The
Marines will resort to involuntary separations only if absolutely
necessary. But, no matter how a Marine leaves, we remain committed to
providing effective transition assistance and family support.
The Joint Strike Fighter continues as the Marine Corps number one
aviation program. The F-35 will replace the Marine Corps' aging legacy
tactical fleet; the F/A-18A-D Hornet, the AV-8B Harrier and the EA-6B
Prowler, bringing the force to one common tactical fixed-wing aircraft.
The integration of F-35B will provide the dominant, multi-role, fifth-
generation capabilities needed across the full spectrum of combat
operations, particularly to the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF)
and the Joint Force. Having successfully completed initial ship trials,
dropping a variety of ordnance and completing hundreds of successful
test flights, the F-35B continues to make significant progress,
culminating with the standup this past November of the first
operational JSF squadron, VMFA-121, in Yuma, AZ.
The Marine Corps' ground vehicle programs are also a critical
element of revitalizing the force after age and operational tempo have
taken their toll on the equipment. Two key programs for the Ground
Combat Elements are the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) and the
Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV). The JLTV will provide the Marine Corps
tactical mobility with a modern expeditionary light utility vehicle.
The initial planned purchase of 5,500 vehicles has been reduced based
on our constrained fiscal environment, and the Marine Corps will need
to refurbish the remaining High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle
(HMMWV) fleet in order to fill out less dangerous missions. The ACV is
central to the Marine Corps role as an amphibious force providing
forcible entry and crisis response. The ACV program will develop the
next generation amphibious, armored personnel carrier that will help
ensure the Marine Corps can continue to bridge the sea and land
domains. The Marines' Light Armor Vehicle (LAV) Mobility and
Obsolescence program is on track to extend the service life of the LAV
by replacing or upgrading several components including the suspension
and drive systems. The Marine Corps' ability to exploit an obsolete but
already produced suspension system from the Army's Stryker vehicles has
saved at least $162 million taxpayer dollars.
Of particular concern is the fact that the Marine Corps
modernization accounts represent only 14 percent of the Marines' total
obligation authority. Because of this level of modernization funding,
even proportional cuts have disproportionate impact on the many small
programs essential to modernization of the Corps. Combining this with
efforts to reconstitute the force as it returns from Afghanistan, our
reset strategy, which focuses on the most economical way to restore
equipment readiness, is vital to the Marine Corps' future.
Keeping faith with our Marines as we reduce the force, maintaining
our plans for the modernization of the force, and resetting our
equipment after a decade in combat depend on appropriate funding.
conclusion
The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, placed in the Constitution
the requirement that Congress ``provide for and maintain a Navy.'' In
the 21st Century, that force is as vital, or more so, to our national
security as it has been throughout our Nation's history. As we
commemorate the bicentennial of the Battle of Lake Erie, we continue to
recognize our Navy's history in the War of 1812. Captain Oliver Hazard
Perry led his men through a bloody battle, in the end reporting that
``we have met the enemy, and they are ours.'' It was the first time
that an entire squadron of the Royal Navy surrendered to an enemy
force. The battle was a critical naval victory and represents more than
just the skill and daring of our Navy in the Age of Sail. The joint
operations that followed, with Perry's naval forces conducting an
amphibious landing and providing naval gunfire support for an Army
invasion of Canada, were early examples of joint power projection. It
serves as a reminder that the Navy and Marine-Corps Team has a vital
role to play in the defense of our Nation, but is a teammate with our
joint partners who all contribute to success and victory.
The goals and programs we have discussed today will determine our
future as a global force. We have worked to streamline our processes
and increase efficiency, to work toward innovative new solutions to our
21st Century problems, and to eliminate programs that no longer apply
in the current strategic environment. We have done this to ensure that
we retain the ability to deter regional conflict and respond rapidly
and decisively to emerging crises.
Our specific requests are reflected in the President's fiscal year
2014 budget submission. Today's economic environment and our Nation's
fiscal constraints demand strict stewardship and leadership. The
process by which we arrived at the Department's budget requests was
determined, deliberate, and dedicated to our responsibility to you and
the taxpayer. I can assure you that the Department has thoroughly
considered the risks and applied our available resources efficiently
and carefully to align our request with the President's Defense
Strategic Guidance.
Today, your Navy and Marine Corps are deployed across the spectrum
of military engagement around the world, from direct combat operations
to providing security in the maritime domain to humanitarian
assistance. Our Sailors and Marines often seem to be everywhere except
at home. Their hard work and success are based on the unparalleled
professionalism, skill, and dedication that ensure their dominance in
every clime and place. The Commandant, CNO, and I look forward to
answering your questions. This Committee's continued and enduring
support for our policies, payloads, platforms, and people enables us to
fulfill the historic charge of the Founders to sail as the Shield of
the Republic.
Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Now the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan
Greenert. Your written statement will be made part of the
record.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JONATHAN W. GREENERT, CHIEF OF
NAVAL OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES NAVY
Admiral Greenert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Durbin,
Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished
members of the committee, it is my pleasure to appear before
you today to testify on the Navy's fiscal year 2014 budget and
our posture. I am honored to represent the 613,000 Active and
Reserve sailors, Navy civilians, and their families who are
serving today.
I want to thank the committee for Public Law 113-6. That
bill, that appropriation, made a huge impact on our readiness,
and I thank you all very much individually and collectively for
your dedication to that.
This morning, I would like to address three points: Our
enduring tenets for decisionmaking, our budget strategy for
2013 and the subsequent carryover that we will have as we go
into 2014, and our intended course in 2014.
Two important characteristics of our naval forces describe
our mandate, and that is that we will operate forward where it
matters, and that we will be ready when it matters. Our
fundamental approach to meeting this responsibility remains
unchanged.
We organize, man, train, and equip the Navy by viewing our
decisions through what I would call lens or tenets, and they
are war fighting is first, we will operate forward, and we need
to be ready. Regardless of the size of our budget or the size
of our fleet, these three tenets are the lens through which we
will evaluate all of our decisions.
If you refer to the chart that I have provided for you that
is in front, you will see that on any given day we have about
50,000 sailors and 100 ships deployed overseas, providing a
forward presence around the world.
[The chart follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Admiral Greenert. The orange kind of bow ties on the chart
represent what I call maritime crossroads in and around the
world where shipping lanes and our security concerns tend to
intersect.
A unique strength of your fleet is that it operates forward
from bases represented by circles in the continental United
States, and outside the continental United States, and from
places that are provided by partner nations. And they are
represented there on your chart by squares. These places are
critical to your Navy being where it matters because they
enable us to respond rapidly to crises, and they enable us to
sustain forward presence with fewer ships by reducing the
number of ships that need to be on rotational deployment.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Admiral Greenert. The reverse of the chart will describe
the plan for our deployments in the future, clearly showing the
rebalance and shifts to the Asia-Pacific region while
sustaining our presence in the Middle East.
Now in February, we faced a shortfall of about $8.6 billion
in our 2013 operations and maintenance account. Since then,
thanks to the efforts of this committee in particular, we
received a 2013 appropriation in March. In accordance with our
priorities and our tenets, we plan to invest our remaining 2013
operations and maintenance funds to fund our must-pay items,
such as contracts, leases, and utilities to reconcile our 2013
presence with our combatant commanders, and to conduct training
and maintenance for forces that will be next to deploy, and to
prepare to meet the 2014 Global Force Management Allocation
Plan. That is my covenant with the global combatant commanders,
to provide forces. And lastly, to restore critical base
operations and renovation projects.
Although we intend to meet our most critical operational
commitments to the combatant commanders, sequestration leaves
us with a $4.1 billion operation and maintenance shortfall, and
a $6 billion investment shortfall in 2013. This will result in
our surge capacity of fully mission capable carrier strike
groups and amphibious ready groups, for example, being reduced
by two-thirds through 2014. Further, we will have deferred
about $1.2 billion in facility maintenance as well as depot
level maintenance for 84 aircraft and 184 aircraft engines.
All combined, our operations and maintenance and our
investment shortfalls will leave us with a $9 billion carryover
challenge for 2014. A continuation of sequestration in 2014
will compound this carryover challenge from $9 billion to $23
billion. Further, the accounts and the activities that we were
able to protect in 2013, such as manpower, and nuclear
maintenance, and critical fleet operations, will be liable to
reduction in this scenario.
Our people have remained resilient in the face of this
uncertainty, and I frankly have been amazed throughout this
process with their patience and their dedication, both of our
sailors and our civilians, and, of course, their families.
Our 2014 budget submission supports the defense strategic
guidance that enables us to maintain our commitments in the
Middle East and our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. Now, we
prepare the 2014 budget with the following priorities: One, to
deliver overseas presence in accordance with the Global Force
Management Plan; two, to continue our near-term investments to
address challenges in the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific
region; and three, to develop long-term capabilities at the
appropriate capacity to address war fighting challenges in the
Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region.
Our budget submission continues to invest in the future
fleet. We have requested $44 billion in ships, submarines,
manned and unmanned aircraft, weapons, cyber, and other
procurement programs, like the Joint Strike Fighter, combat
ship, unmanned aerial vehicles, the DDG-1000, the P-8 Poseidon,
just to name a few. These investments will deliver a fleet of
300 ships by 2019 with greater interoperability and greater
flexibility when you compare it with today's fleet.
We continue also to fund important high technology and
asymmetric capabilities, such as a laser weapon system for
small boat and drone defense, which will deploy aboard the
ship, Ponce, in the spring of 2014. Also in 2014, we will
deploy on the carrier George Herbert Walker Bush a prototype
system that was tested to detect and defeat advanced wake-
homing torpedoes.
We continue to grow our manpower by about 4,600 sailors
compared to our plan in last year's budget. These new sailors
will reduce our manning gaps at sea, enhance Navy cyber
capabilities, and improve our waterfront training.
We will continue to address critical readiness and safety
degraders, such as sexual assault, suicides, operational tempo
increase, and our at-sea manning.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, this budget places our Navy on a course which
enables us to meet the requirements of defense strategic
guidance today, while building a relative future force, and
sustaining our manpower for tomorrow. We appreciate everything
you and this committee do for our sailors and civilians of our
Navy as well as their families. We again ask for your support
in removing the burden of sequestration so that we may better
train, better equip, and deploy these brave men and women in
defense of our Nation.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert
Chairman Durbin, Vice Chairman Cochran, distinguished members of
the committee; it is my pleasure to appear before you today to testify
on the Navy's fiscal year 2014 budget and posture. I am honored to
represent the approximately 613,000 active and reserve Sailors and Navy
Civilians serving today, as well as their Families.
establishing the baseline for fiscal year 2014
Before discussing our fiscal year 2014 budget submission, we have
to clarify our current situation in fiscal year 2013. This will form
the baseline for our fiscal year 2014 program. In February, Navy faced
a shortfall of about $8.6 billion in our fiscal year 2013 operations
and maintenance (O&M) account due to a combination of requirements
growth, the Continuing Resolution and sequestration. Since then, thanks
to the Congress's efforts, we received a fiscal year 2013 appropriation
in March as part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act of 2013. This appropriation restored about $4.5
billion toward our total need in operations and maintenance. As a
result, we have a fiscal year 2013 shortfall in operations and
maintenance of about $4.1 billion, approximately 10 percent of the
planned amount for this fiscal year.
In accordance with our priorities and strategy, we are applying our
remaining O&M funds to the following:
--Pay ``Must Pay Bills''.--Ensure we have funding for bills such as
utilities, contracts, and reimbursables.
--Reconcile Fiscal Year 2013 Readiness.--Sustain operations and
maintenance for the priority forces in accordance with the
defense strategy that will deploy to meet the current approved
fiscal year 2013 Global Force Management Allocation Plan
(GFMAP), which describes the forces required to be provided by
the services to the Combatant Commanders (CCDR) as directed by
the Secretary of Defense. Our remaining spending plan for
fiscal year 2013 will address furloughs of Civilians and
sustain non-deployed ship and aircraft operations so
appropriate forces prepare to deploy, and other forces operate
enough to be able to safely respond if needed to support
homeland defense.
--Prepare To Meet Fiscal Year 2014 GFMAP.--Conduct training and
maintenance for forces that will deploy as part of the fiscal
year 2014 GFMAP, including guided missile destroyers (DDG)
transferring to Rota, Spain as part of the Forward Deployed
Naval Force (FDNF).
--Restore Critical Base Operations and Renovation.--Sustain base
infrastructure and port and airfield operations to support
training and deployments needed for the fiscal year 2013 and
fiscal year 2014 GFMAP. We will also conduct health and safety-
related facility repairs and continue high-return energy
efficiency projects.
However, sequestration will result in a fleet and bases less ready
than planned. For example, at sea we were compelled to recommend the
fiscal year 2013 GFMAP be changed to cancel one ship deployment to the
Pacific, two ship deployments to Europe and cancel all but one fiscal
year 2013 ship deployment to U.S. Southern Command. We continue to
evaluate opportunities to add deployments to these regions as our
fiscal position becomes clearer. In addition to reducing overseas
deployments, we will also reduce the amount of operations and training
our ships and aircraft will conduct when not deployed.
And, we reduced maintenance, including deferral of depot
maintenance on 84 aircraft and 184 engines, and reducing the scope of
two ship maintenance availabilities. We plan to recover this backlog
during fiscal year 2014. With the Congress's approval of our proposed
fiscal year 2013 reprogramming, we will restore all of our planned ship
maintenance availabilities remaining in fiscal year 2013.
The impact of reduced fleet operations and maintenance will be less
surge capacity, but we will retain the ability to support the fiscal
year 2014 GFMAP. All our forces deploying in fiscal year 2013 and
fiscal year 2014, including two carrier strike groups (CSG) and two
amphibious ready groups (ARG) (one each in the Middle East and the
Asia-Pacific), will be fully mission-capable and certified for Major
Combat Operations. All our forces supporting operations in Afghanistan,
where Navy aircraft fly about one-third of all tactical sorties, will
also be fully mission-capable and certified. For surge, we will retain
one additional CSG and ARG in the United States that are fully mission-
capable, certified for Major Combat Operations and available to deploy
within 1-2 weeks. This is about one-third of our normal surge capacity.
Overall, due to reduced training and maintenance, about two-third of
the fleet will be less than fully mission capable and not certified for
Major Combat Operations. Historically, about half of our fleet is in
this status, since ships and squadrons are in training or maintenance
preparing for their next deployment. While these forces will not be
ready or certified to deploy overseas, they will remain able to
respond, if needed, to support homeland defense missions.
Ashore, we deferred about 16 percent of our planned fiscal year
2013 shore facility sustainment and upgrades, about $1.2 billion worth
of work. Recovering these projects could take 5 years or more, and in
the meantime, our shore facility condition will degrade. We were able
to sustain our Sailor and Family Readiness programs through fiscal year
2013, including Child Development Centers, Fleet and Family Support
Centers, and Sexual Assault and Prevention programs. We also fully
funded a judicious Tuition Assistance program for our Sailors. Despite
these efforts to reduce the impact of sequestration on our people,
however, we must still consider furloughs for our Navy Civilians.
Sequestration reduced the fiscal year 2013 funding for each of our
investment programs by about eight percent, or about $6.1 billion
total. We are still reconciling the impact of this reduction, but due
to the mechanics of sequestration and limited reprogramming authorized
by the fiscal year 2013 Defense Appropriations Act it is likely we will
be compelled to reduce the number of weapons we purchase and the number
of aircraft we buy in some of our aviation programs due to the
reduction--including one E-2D Hawkeye, one F-35C Lightning II, one P-8A
Poseidon and two MQ-8C Firescout. Our ship construction programs will
need to restructure schedules and shift some outfitting costs to future
years to address the nearly 8 percent sequestration reduction in fiscal
year 2013. This will pass on ``costs to complete'' that will need to be
reconciled in future years. These costs will not be an insignificant
challenge as they may compel Navy to cancel the procurement of future
ships to complete outfitting ships that are nearing delivery.
the impact of continued uncertainty
Over the past 4 months we slowed our spending, stopped new program
starts, and proceeded very deliberately in choosing our operations,
deployments, and investments. We brought ``all hands on deck'' to work
on revised plans for everything from how we provide presence to what we
buy in fiscal year 2013. In the Fleet, this is standard procedure for
proceeding through a fog bank--slow, deliberate and with limited
visibility ahead; effectively, most other operations and planning stop
because of the dangerous near-term situation. With a fiscal year 2013
appropriation, we are now coming out of this ``fog,'' increasing speed,
heading toward a national future, and reestablishing momentum behind
our top priorities.
This momentum, however, may be short-lived. While the fiscal year
2014 budget submission includes deficit reduction proposals beyond that
called for by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), it requires the
BCA's lower discretionary budget caps are replaced in fiscal year 2014
and beyond. If the discretionary caps are not revised, our fiscal year
2014 obligation authority could be reduced $10-14 billion. This would
compel Navy to again dramatically reduce operations, maintenance and
procurement in fiscal year 2014, preventing us from meeting the fiscal
year 2014 GFMAP and negatively impacting the industrial base. While
military personnel compensation was exempted in sequestration during
fiscal year 2013, if the lower discretionary budget caps of the BCA are
retained, we will evaluate options to reduce personnel and personnel
costs, including compensation and entitlements.
The uncertainty inherent in our fiscal outlook prevents effective
long-term planning and will begin to affect the ``Health of the
Force.'' We can ill-afford the distraction of planning for multiple
budget contingencies, stopping and restarting maintenance, changing
operational schedules and restructuring investment programs. This
constant change negatively impacts our Sailors and Civilians and their
Families here at headquarters and in the Fleet. It also precludes us
from looking long-term at how we should build, train, develop and
posture the future force as we end two land wars in Middle East and
rebalance our effort toward the Asia-Pacific.
To begin planning for the long-term and ensure we are realistically
confronting our strategic and fiscal challenges, the Secretary of
Defense ordered a Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR). The
review does not assume or accept that deep reductions to defense
spending, such as those from sequestration, will endure or that they
could be accommodated without a significant reduction in military
capabilities. The review does reflect the Secretary's view that the
Department of Defense must constantly examine the choices that underlie
our defense strategy, posture, and investments, including all past
assumptions.
The SCMR will consider the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance as the
point of departure. It will define the major strategic choices and
institutional challenges affecting the defense posture in the decade
ahead that must be made to preserve and adapt defense strategy and
management under a wide range of future circumstances. The results of
this review will frame the Secretary's guidance for the fiscal year
2015 budget and will ultimately be the foundation for the Quadrennial
Defense Review due to Congress in February 2014.
our strategic approach
Our first responsibility is to ensure Navy is able to deliver the
overseas presence and capabilities required by our Defense Strategic
Guidance (DSG) ``Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st
Century Defense'', as manifested in the GFMAP.
Our mandate per the DSG is to be present overseas where it matters,
and to be ready when it matters. A central element of the DSG to Navy
is to field a ready force, with the right capabilities, postured in
each region. The DSG concludes that a prompt, credible response by
forward U.S. forces can demonstrate American resolve and can blunt the
initial actions of an aggressor. This can in turn deter, assure, and--
if necessary--control escalation, contain the conflict and prevent it
from growing into a larger war.
Our fundamental approach to making decisions and implementing the
DSG is unchanged since I assumed the office of the Chief of Naval
Operations. We organize, man, train and equip the Navy by viewing our
decisions through three lenses, or tenets. They are: Warfighting First,
Operate Forward, and Be Ready. Regardless of the size of our budget or
our fleet, these tenets are the key considerations we apply to each
decision.
Warfighting First
``Warfighting First'' is a first principle. It is our fundamental
responsibility; each decision inherent in our fiscal year 2014 program
was viewed in terms of its impact on warfighting. Our forces must have
relevant warfighting capability today to be credible--not at some point
in the future. If the credibility of our forces is lost (or perceived
lost) they cannot rebuild it easily or quickly. In developing our
fiscal year 2014 budget submission we did not ``let perfect be the
enemy of good--or good enough.'' For example, if a new system or
capability would provide a probability of successfully defeating a
threat 60 percent of the time, we will deploy it, particularly if
today's probability of success is zero percent.
To develop future capability, ``Warfighting First'' compels us to
look for the most effective way to defeat a threat or deliver an effect
that can be realistically fielded, efficiently. The logic we use to
identify our most effective capabilities is to analyze the adversary's
``kill chain'' or ``effects chain'' and pursue an asymmetric means to
``break the chain.'' For example, to execute a successful attack, an
adversary has to:
--Find the target.
--Determine the target's location, course and speed (or relative
motion).
--Communicate that information coherently to a platform or unit that
can launch an attack.
--Execute an attack using anything from a kinetic weapon to
electromagnetic systems to cyber.
Each (or any) of these ``links'' in the chain can be broken to defeat
the threat. But some are more vulnerable than others and kinetic
effects are not always the best way to break the chain. So instead of
overinvesting and trying to break every part of the effects chain, we
focus on those where the adversary has a vulnerability we can exploit
or where we can leverage one of our own advantages asymmetrically.
Similarly, we analyze our own effects chains for strengths and
weaknesses; our fiscal year 2014 budget submission emphasizes proven
technologies that limit the adversary's ability to defeat our ability
to project power.
We addressed challenges in the Arabian Gulf throughout 2012 and
into this year by emphasizing ``Warfighting First.'' For example, in
response to a Central Command urgent request and with the help of
Congress, we rapidly outfitted the amphibious ship USS Ponce,
previously an amphibious ship slated for decommissioning, to be an
Afloat Forward Staging Base-Interim (AFSB-I) in support of mine warfare
and special operations forces in the Arabian Gulf. To improve our mine
warfare capabilities we rapidly deployed Mark 18 mine-hunting unmanned
underwater vehicles (UUV) and SEAFOX mine neutralization systems to
Ponce and our minesweepers (MCM). These systems became force
multipliers and enable our forces to find and/or clear mines twice as
quickly as the forces we deployed to the Arabian Gulf in 2012--taking
1-2 weeks instead of 1-2 months depending on the size (and our
knowledge) of the minefield. We tested these new capabilities and
improved our ability to operate with a coalition by organizing and
conducting an International Mine Countermeasures Exercise (IMCMEX) with
34 other navies in the Arabian Gulf last September. We will hold
another IMCMEX next month.
In addition to improving our mine warfare capability in the Arabian
Gulf, we increased our surveillance capability and our ability to
counter fast attack craft and submarines in the region. Through rapid
fielding efforts supported by the Secretary of Defense and the
Congress, we added new electro-optical and infra-red sensors to our
nuclear aircraft carriers (CVN), upgraded the guns on our Patrol
Coastal (PC) ships based in Bahrain, fielded upgraded torpedoes for our
helicopters deployed in the Arabian Gulf and deployed additional anti-
submarine warfare (ASW) sensors in the region. Each of these
initiatives and our mine warfare improvements continue into fiscal year
2014 as part of our budget submission.
We also continued implementing the Air-Sea Battle concept as part
of ``Warfighting First.'' We practiced and refined the concept in war
games and real-world exercises including VALIANT SHIELD and Rim of the
Pacific (RIMPAC) last summer. RIMPAC brought together 40 ships and
submarines, more than 200 aircraft and over 25,000 personnel from 22
nations, including Russia and India for the first time. RIMPAC enabled
forces to practice high-end ballistic missile defense, surface warfare
and anti-submarine warfare in simulations and more than 70 live-fire
missile and torpedo events. RIMPAC 14, supported by our fiscal year
2014 budget submission, will include as many or more live-fire events
and nations, including China for the first time.
We reinvigorated our efforts to conduct integrated operations with
the Marine Corps as the war in Afghanistan draws down and demands for
naval crisis response grow in the Mediterranean and Middle East. The
Navy-Marine Corps team conducted BOLD ALLIGATOR in 2012; our largest
amphibious exercise in more than a decade, yielding dozens of lessons
learned which we are incorporating into our capability development
efforts. Some of these changes, particularly in command control
organizations and communications systems, are reflected in our fiscal
year 2014 program. BOLD ALLIGATOR 14, supported by our fiscal year 2014
budget submission, will build on the results of last year's exercise
and will explore the concepts and capabilities needed for a range of
amphibious operations from single ARG up to large-scale amphibious
assaults.
Operate Forward
The Navy and Marine Corps are our Nation's ``away team'' and first
responders to crisis. History has demonstrated that the Navy is at its
best when we are forward and ready to respond where it matters, when it
matters. To ``operate forward'' we focus our deployed presence at
strategic maritime crossroads such as the Straits of Malacca and Hormuz
or the Suez and Panama Canals. It is in these areas and others where
sea lanes, resources and vital U.S. interests intersect that influence
matters most.
On any given day, about 50,000 of our Sailors are underway on 145
ships and submarines, 100 of them deployed overseas as depicted in
Figure 1. They are joined by about 125 land-based patrol aircraft and
helicopters, 1,000 information dominance personnel, 1,000 Naval Special
Warfare operators, and 4,000 Naval Combat Expeditionary Command Sailors
on the ground and in inland waters.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1
The tenet ``Operate Forward'' compels us to look for new ways to
increase the amount of presence we can deliver at the right places--and
to do so more efficiently. Each of these ways places ships overseas
where they deliver continuous (``non-rotational'') presence, instead of
having to deploy from the continental United States (CONUS) to provide
``rotational'' presence. One ship operating from an overseas port in
this manner provides the same presence as about four ships operating
from homeports in the United States.
There are two basic ways in which we can sustain ships overseas:
--Ships can be homeported overseas as part of the Forward Deployed
Naval Force (FDNF) with their Sailors and their Families as we
do in Japan and will soon do in Rota, Spain. This provides
continuous presence, immediate response to crisis, and the
means to build a strong relationship with the host nation.
--Ships can also Forward Station overseas and be manned by civilian
or military crews that rotate out to the ship. Rotating
civilian crews man our Mobile Landing Platform (MLP), Joint
High Speed Vessel (JHSV), Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB)
and Combat Logistics Force (CLF) ships. Rotating military crews
man our Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and nuclear guided missile
submarines (SSGN).
Both of these ways of operating forward rely on ``places'' overseas
where our partners and allies allow us to use their facilities to rest,
repair, resupply and refuel. Our fiscal year 2014 budget submission
continues to sustain development of these facilities. Overseas military
construction (MILCON) for these facilities comprises only 27 percent of
our fiscal year 2014 MILCON program funding, a slightly smaller
percentage than in fiscal year 2013. These 8 projects will provide
essential support facilities at ``bases'' and ``places'' around the
world such as Guam and Japan. Without this investment our forces will
be less able to operate forward and more dependent on support from
CONUS.
Our posture in the Arabian Gulf will improve this year with the
addition of three PCs in Bahrain for a total of eight. Further, our
fiscal year 2014 program supports the homeporting of two more PCs there
for a total of 10 by the end of fiscal year 2014. During fiscal year
2013 we will permanently homeport all our PCs and our four MCMs in
Bahrain, instead of manning them with crews rotating from the United
States. This will increase the crews' proficiency and continue to build
our relationship with partners throughout the Arabian Gulf.
In Europe, we continued preparations for the planned move of four
destroyers to Rota, Spain, which highlights the benefit of FDNF ships.
Conducting the European ballistic missile defense (BMD) mission today
takes 10 ships deploying from CONUS. This same mission can be done with
four destroyers based forward, freeing up six rotationally deployed
destroyers to deploy to other regions such as the Asia-Pacific.
In the Pacific, we deployed our first LCS, USS Freedom, to
Singapore where it will remain for two crew rotations (8 months) to
evaluate LCS operational concepts. Our posture in the Asia-Pacific will
increase as part of the Department's overall rebalance to the region.
Our fiscal year 2014 program supports the basing of another nuclear
attack submarine (SSN) in Guam (for a total of four) and the increase
in the number of LCS operating from Singapore to four by fiscal year
2017. In addition to the increase in rotational forces made available
by FDNF DDG in Rota and the introduction of new ships such as JHSV in
Africa and South America, our efforts to shift 60 percent of our fleet
to Pacific homeports will increase our day-to-day presence there by 15-
20 percent.
Fundamentally, ``operate forward'' is about making the most
effective and efficient use of what we own. Each of these initiatives
reflects that idea.
Be Ready
Our fleet must be ready to meet today's challenges, today. This
means more than ensuring maintenance is done and parts and fuel are on
hand. Those elements are essential to readiness, but our tenet to ``Be
Ready'' requires that our Sailors be confident in their abilities and
equipment and proficient in their operations. ``Be Ready'' compels us
in our decisionmaking to always consider what our Sailors need to be
confident and proficient. We will buy proven technology that our
Sailors can use and depend on instead of new, unproven equipment. We
will use empirical data, such as Board of Inspection and Survey
reports, as much as possible in our decisionmaking. This is what our
Sailors experience and we must work to make them as confident as
possible in the warfighting capability of themselves and their gear.
Applying our tenet to ``Be Ready'' requires that we consider all the
factors that will detract from our Sailors' ability to effectively
fight when the time comes.
In the past year we increased the proficiency of our Sailors by
conducting more live-fire and practical training events. In addition to
exercises such as RIMPAC and BOLD ALLIGATOR, we increased live-fire air
defense and surface warfare and practical ASW training in our
preparations for deployment and purchased additional training missiles,
sonobuoys, ammunition and targets. To enhance the proficiency of our
operators more efficiently, we funded completion and installation of
trainers for new systems such as the P-8A Poseidon, E/A-18G Growler and
LCS.
current concerns
We are encountering four major factors now that detract from our
Sailors' readiness and hinder our ability to make progress in line
toward the vision described in Sailing Directions. They are: Sexual
assault, suicide, at-sea manning shortfalls, and high operational
tempo.
Sexual Assault.--Sexual assault is a crime that happens to about
two Sailors every day. Sexual assault creates an unsafe workplace and
degrades the readiness of our ships and squadrons. Last year we began a
concentrated effort to change our culture and get after sexual assault
in our Navy. We implemented a series of measures, including:
--Completed training for all Navy military personnel, conducted by
mobile training teams of experts in sexual assault prevention
and response. We have received superb feedback on this
training.
--Refined our reporting criteria for sexual assault to help
understand victim and offender demographics, find out where
these attacks happen and focus our efforts accordingly. We also
required that all sexual assault incidents be briefed by unit
commanders to the first flag officer in the chain of command.
--Established programs in Fleet Concentration Areas such as our Great
Lakes training facility and San Diego which reduced the number
of reported sexual assaults--by 60 percent in the 20-month
program at Great Lakes. We established a similar program in San
Diego in December 2012 and will implement programs in Europe
and Japan this summer. Our San Diego program provided insights
that enabled us to address contributors to sexual assault
there, and we are seeing a near-term downward trend in the
number of San Diego-area Navy sexual assault reports--we'll
watch this closely.
--Continued quarterly meetings with all Navy 4-star commanders to
review the data from our ``first flag officer'' reports, refine
our plan and adjust our approaches as needed.
We are seeing some clear trends regarding sexual assault in the
Navy. There appears to be less stigma associated with reporting sexual
assault, as indicated by an increased number of sexual assault
reports--in particular delayed reports of sexual assaults that occurred
weeks or months earlier. Most sexual assaults are Sailors assaulting
other Sailors; most victims and offenders are junior Sailors; more than
half of incidents occur on base or on ship; and alcohol is a factor in
the majority of sexual assaults. We are applying these findings to
develop our efforts to prevent sexual assault. I see a great
opportunity for future success in three main areas:
--Disrupting the ``Continuum of Harm''.--Or the chain of events and
contributors that tend to be associated with sexual assault. We
continue to focus, in particular, on alcohol as a factor in
sexual assault. This year we fielded Alcohol Detection Devices
to the fleet to help educate Sailors on their alcohol use.
--Prosecuting the offenders using specially trained investigators,
victim advocates, prosecutors, and paralegals. As part of this
effort we established dedicated Naval Criminal Investigative
Service (NCIS) agent-teams in Norfolk, San-Diego, Bangor, and
Okinawa that exclusively handle adult sexual assault
investigations. In Norfolk, these teams reduced the average
sexual assault investigation timeline from 324 days to 80 days.
NCIS is expanding this model during fiscal year 2013 to
Yokosuka, Japan, Hawaii and Mayport, Florida.
--Support for Victims.--We prioritized prompt and effective care for
victims of sexual assault that maximizes the ability to
apprehend offenders. We continue to train and qualify our
military and civilian medical care workers to conduct Sexual
Assault Forensic Exam (SAFE); all our Military Treatment
Facilities and operational settings will be able to perform
SAFE exams by the end of this fiscal year. To support victims
through the investigation and judicial process we will complete
professionalizing our Sexual Assault Response Coordinator
(SARC) and Victim Advocate (VA) cadre by hiring 10 additional
SARCs and 66 full-time VAs in fiscal year 2013.
Suicide.--Suicide is a growing problem in our Nation, our military,
and our Navy. The number of suicides per 100,000 Sailors per year has
risen steadily from 13 2 years ago to 16 in the last 12 months. To help
address this trend, Navy stood up a task force to examine Navy suicide
prevention and resilience-building programs as well as evaluate DOD,
other service, and non-DOD approaches and programs. The task force
completed their assessment this month and is providing a comprehensive
set of actions for implementation. Their findings showed that while no
program to date has stopped suicides in the military, there are some
key factors contributing to suicide that we can address. Their
recommendations are being incorporated into our existing efforts to
prevent suicide, focused on education and awareness; intervention;
Sailor care; and continued assessment of our progress.
In particular, the task force will revise our current collection of
123 programs designed to improve resiliency or prevent suicide and
focus them on the factors they found to be most effective at preventing
suicide. We will implement many of these recommendations in fiscal year
2013 and into fiscal year 2014. The Navy also works with DOD's Defense
Suicide Prevention Office to promote awareness of the Military Crisis
Line, a service that provides 24/7 confidential crisis support to those
in the military and their families. This line provides immediate access
to care for those who may be at risk for suicide, along with additional
follow-up and connection with Metal health services.
At-Sea Manning Shortfalls.--Our goal for at-sea manning is 95
percent of billets filled and 90 percent ``fitted'' with a Sailor
having the right specialty and seniority. At the start of fiscal year
2013, we were at about 90 percent fill and 85 percent fit--5 percent
short of our goal in each measure and about 7,000 short of our goal in
at-sea manning. We put in place a number of initiatives to shift more
Sailors to sea including Sea Duty Incentive Pay, changes to Sea-Shore
rotation and shifts of Reserve Component Sailors to Active Duty. We are
on track to reach our fit and fill goals by the end of fiscal year
2013. An enduring factor behind at-sea manning shortfalls is the fact
we are about 4,000 Sailors below our planned and budgeted end strength.
To permanently address our end strength shortfall we increased
accessions by 6,000 per year and broadened and increased reenlistment
bonuses for undermanned ratings, adding bonuses for 18 specialties and
increasing them for 42 more. We expect to reach our end strength goal
by the end of fiscal year 2013.
High Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO).--Over the last decade, our fleet
shrank by about 10 percent while our deployed presence remained about
the same. As a result, each ship and aviation squadron spends on
average about 15 percent more days away from home per year now than it
did 10 years ago. This is an average, however. Our increased OPTEMPO is
not evenly distributed. Our CSGs and ARGs will deploy on average 7-8
months in fiscal year 2013, but some will deploy for 9 months or more
due to emergent maintenance or the effects of sequestration on
operational schedules. Our BMD ships are similarly deploying for about
9 months at a time. To better understand how unit OPTEMPO affects
individual Sailors, this year we began monitoring the time each Sailor
is away from home (ITEMPO) and will use this information to guide our
future decisions. For the long term, however, we have to adopt a more
sustainable process to provide ready forces. For that reason, we are
shifting to a ``supply-based'' model to prepare forces for deployment
starting in fiscal year 2014. As part of this we will revise our Fleet
Readiness Training Plan (FRTP) to make it more predictable and provide
more presence from the same size fleet.
When Sailors are gone up to 9 months at a time, Family readiness is
vitally important. Our fiscal year 2014 budget submission sustains
family support programs that provide counseling, education, child care
and financial advice. We also continue developing our Sailors'
readiness and protection, safety, physical fitness, inclusion and
continuum of service as part of our 21st Century Sailor and Marine
initiative. The actions described above to address sexual assault and
suicides are part of this initiative. To improve our resourcing,
management and oversight of the programs that support our Sailors and
their Families, I am reorganizing my personnel headquarters to bring
all these aspects of a Sailors' total health and personal readiness
under a 21st Century Sailor office led by a 2-star Admiral.
Our responsibility of support to our Sailors and their Families is
most important when they are wounded, ill or injured. Navy's ``Safe
Harbor'' program helps about 1200 Sailors and Coast Guardsmen and their
Families through their recovery with travel orders for treatment,
lodging, child and respite care, employment and education assistance,
mental health assistance and career counseling. We implemented a
campaign over the past year that increased enrollment in Safe Harbor 30
percent by reaching out to service members who were eligible but had
not signed up. Our fiscal year 2014 budget submission sustains Safe
Harbor and improves the program's level of service.
our course for fiscal year 2014
Our fiscal year 2014 budget submission implements the DSG and
continues our current efforts by making decisions based on our three
tenets. Our approach to building our fiscal year 2014 program focused
on three main areas, in order:
--First, we ensured sufficient forces and readiness to provide the
presence required to meet the current and projected future
GFMAP.
--Second, we sustained our fiscal year 2013 investments required to
support our critical near-term capability to perform DSG
missions.
--Third, we addressed our most relevant future capability
requirements to support the DSG missions.
The resulting fiscal year 2014 program and associated plans
implement DSG direction to rebalance our effort toward the Asia-Pacific
region, support our partners in the Middle East, sustain our alliance
commitments in Europe and employ low-cost, small footprint approaches
to security on other regions.
1. Delivering Presence.--Our fiscal year 2014 submission includes
the investments in force structure needed to meet the presence
requirements of the fiscal year 2014 GFMAP. Our investments in ships
and aircraft are complemented with the funding for training,
maintenance and operations necessary for readiness today and to ensure
they can continue to provide presence over their expected service life.
Figure 2 depicts the presence levels generated by our planned
investments in the fiscal year 2014 Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP). Figure 2 also includes the number of ``non-rotational'' ships
that are either homeported in the region or are Forward Stationed in
the region and manned by rotational crews from CONUS.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 2
Shipbuilding.--We determined the number and type of ships required
over the long-term through a comprehensive, analytically driven Force
Structure Assessment (FSA). The FSA determined the day-to-day presence
required to execute the DSG, informed by today's GFMAP and the
introduction of new ships, systems or payloads, and concepts that
deliver presence more efficiently or that better match capabilities to
their theater. The FSA resulted in a required number of each type of
ship to meet the projected presence requirements. Although presence is
the governing factor for Navy force structure requirements, the FSA
also ensured Navy's force structure would be sufficient to meet the
surge requirements of CCDR operational plans and DOD Defense Planning
Scenarios, informed by the DSG direction to reevaluate those plans in
view of our resource limitations.
The FSA analysis resulted in a battle force requirement of 306
ships. This requirement is different from our previous 313-ship
requirement because of: (1) reduced presence requirements resulting
from the DSG's priorities; (2) increased forward basing of ships; (3)
introduction of new payload capacity for SSNs (replacing the SSGNs);
and (4) the increased use of ships manned with rotating civilian and
military crews which provide more presence per ship.
Our fiscal year 2014 long-term shipbuilding plan is designed and
planned to deliver the fleet, by ship type, required per our FSA over
the long term. Over the fiscal year 2014-fiscal year 2018 FYDP our
program will fund construction of 41 ships. Our investments are not
programmed to reach the precise number and mix of ships within this
FYDP, but do deliver a fleet of 300 ships by 2019 with increased
capability and flexibility compared to the fleet of today. To meet the
required force mix and number, however, Navy will need the means to
resource, in particular, construction of the next generation nuclear
ballistic missile submarine (SSBN). Deputy Secretary of Defense Carter
acknowledged this resourcing challenge in his memo of March 2012 that
forwarded the fiscal year 2013 Shipbuilding Plan to Congress.
Our fiscal year 2014 program continues the construction of ships
that employ rotational military or civilian crews to improve their
ability to operate and stay forward. Our fiscal year 2014 budget
submission funds the final MLP, which will be configured as an AFSB and
manned by rotating civilian crews with military detachments, and four
LCS that will employ rotational military crews. During fiscal year 2014
we will deploy the first JHSV, USNS Spearhead, and continue the first
deployment of USS Freedom. We will use these deployments to integrate
these new, highly adaptable platforms into the fleet and evaluate the
ways we can employ their combination of persistent forward presence and
flexible payload capacity.
During fiscal year 2014, seven ships will enter the fleet,
including two new classes of ships. The first Zumwalt class DDG will
deliver next year, bringing with it an all-electric integrated
propulsion system and the Advanced Gun System, able to reach targets
with precision up to 60 miles away. The amphibious assault ship USS
America will join the fleet in fiscal year 2014 and empower new
concepts for amphibious operations that take advantage of its expanded
aviation capacity. Over the next 5 years, we will deliver 47 ships,
including the Gerald R. Ford, the first of a new class of CVN that will
provide much higher sortie generation with about 500 fewer Sailors.
Aviation.--Our aviation requirements are tied to requirements for
the ships from which they operate, and on our required forward presence
of land-based aircraft such as the P-8A Poseidon. Our fiscal year 2014
program invests in aircraft to meet those requirements. To support our
carrier air wings and independent deploying ships, our fiscal year 2014
budget submission continues construction of the proven and adaptable
MH-60R/S Seahawk and E-2D Hawkeye. We also continue investment in
development and low-rate production of the F-35C Lightning II to
replace our older F/A-18 Hornet models (A-D).
Readiness.--Our funded operations and maintenance in fiscal year
2013 will complete the manning, training, maintenance and other
preparations necessary to enable Navy to meet the fiscal year 2014
GFMAP. Our fiscal year 2014 budget submission, combined with
anticipated Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding, fully funds
our planned ship and aircraft maintenance and the ship and aircraft
operations needed to execute the fiscal year 2014 GFMAP.
Our overall fiscal year 2014 readiness is dependent on OCO funding.
OCO funding subsidizes about 20 percent of our ship and aircraft
maintenance costs in fiscal year 2014, including depot maintenance, as
our fleet supports operations in Afghanistan. We are requesting OCO
funding for about 20 percent of our planned ship operations to support
training and certification for deployment and deployed operations. Our
dependence on OCO funding for baseline operations has decreased from
$3.3 billion in fiscal year 2011 to $2.3 billion fiscal year 2013 as we
``migrate OCO to base'' funding. A more enduring funding strategy will
eventually be required for Navy to maintain its current readiness and
level of overseas presence into the future.
The Navy also continues to develop more efficient ways to generate
presence. Our fiscal year 2014 budget submission requests investments
needed to modify the Fleet Readiness Training Plan (FRTP), which is the
means Navy uses to train and maintain ships and aircraft in our CSGs
and ARGs in preparation for deployment. This change, called ``Enhanced
CSG Presence,'' will enable increased overseas presence of
rotationally-deployed CSGs by: lengthening the overall FRTP cycle;
adding time for maintenance and training; and increasing the total
deployed time of each CSG per operating cycle. This transition will
take about 2 years to complete, but when completed we will have
established a more sustainable process for training and maintaining our
rotationally deploying ships, aircraft and crews.
Enhanced CSG Presence addresses increased use and increased
overseas presence of CSGs over the last decade, since the current FRP
was first developed. The current FRTP organizes the training and
maintenance of ships and aircraft in the CSG to conduct one deployment
(nominally 7 months) per 32-month cycle; the CSG is then available to
deploy for contingencies for another 12 months. In the last several
years, Requests For Forces (RFF) added to the GFMAP compelled Navy to
routinely deploy CSGs twice in each operating cycle. This caused
personnel to exceed DOD personnel tempo limits and expended the CVNs
nuclear fuel at a higher rate than planned--causing some CVN to be
constrained in the amount of operations they can do before they are
refueled. Enhanced CSG Presence is designed to deploy CSGs twice each
operating cycle while providing the time at home needed to stay within
PERSTEMPO limits and maintain ships and aircraft. This model is more
efficient because it trains and maintains the CSG once for up to two
deployments. It is also a ``supply-based'' model because it delivers a
set amount of overseas CSG presence and does not include ``on demand''
surge capacity except in most extreme contingencies. Our fiscal year
2014 program includes the near-term investment in personnel and
shipyard capacity needed to implement Enhanced CSG Presence, but future
investment in CVN and aircraft recapitalization may be needed to
address increased usage over time.
Our shore establishment is a key contributor to our operational
readiness. Sequestration in fiscal year 2013 reduced by more than half
our planned facilities sustainment, renovation and modernization (FSRM)
projects. This $1.2 billion reduction in shore investment will be
``carried over'' into fiscal year 2014 and beyond and will degrade our
shore readiness over time. Our fiscal year 2014 budget submission funds
FSRM at acceptable levels of risk overall, but this ``carryover'' will
have to be addressed.
One particular area of emphasis in our facilities investment
remains unaccompanied Sailor housing. In 2001, 21,000 of our junior
Sailors had to live on their ship even when the ship was in port
because there were no quarters ashore for them. Our military
construction in fiscal year 2013 will complete our effort to provide
every Sailor a room ashore by 2016, while our FSRM investments going
forward will improve the quality of our Sailor's quarters. These
efforts are important to our Sailors' quality of life and personal
readiness, but also will improve the safety and security of our on-base
housing.
Arctic.--Emerging projections assess that the Arctic will become
passable for shipping several months out of the year within the next
decade--about 10 years earlier than predicted in 2009 when we first
published our Arctic Roadmap. This will place new demands on our fleet
for presence in the Arctic and capabilities to operate in the Arctic
environment. Between now and the start of fiscal year 2014 we will
update our Arctic Roadmap, and accelerate many of the actions Navy will
take in preparation for a more accessible Arctic. During fiscal year
2014 we will implement this revised roadmap, including developing with
the U.S. Coast Guard plans for maintaining presence and search and
rescue capability in the Arctic and pursuing exchanges with other
Arctic countries to familiarize our Sailors with Arctic operations.
2. Fielding Near-Term Capabilities.--Mine warfare continues to be a
significant emphasis in the near-term. Our fiscal year 2014 program
increases investment in the new AQS-20 towed mine hunting sonar and the
new unmanned surface vehicle that will tow it, freeing up manned
helicopters and ships and further expanding our mine hunting capacity.
Our budget submission funds upgrades for our existing helicopter-towed
mine hunting sonar and MCM hull-mounted sonar and accelerates fielding
of the Mk-18 UUV and Sea Fox mine neutralization system. To support our
MCMs and PCs in Bahrain, Navy's fiscal year 2014 program sustains USS
Ponce as an AFSB-I in the Arabian Gulf and funds the outfitting of its
replacement--the first MLP modified to be an AFSB.
To address the near-term threat from submarines, our fiscal year
2014 program sustains accelerated procurement of Mk-54 torpedoes,
improves sustainment and replacement of today's fixed and mobile
undersea sensors and improves our current periscope detection radars on
surface ships and aircraft. To counter wake-homing torpedoes we
installed a prototype Surface Ship Torpedo Defense (SSTD) system on USS
George H.W. Bush this year and it is being tested. The SSTD system will
deploy with Bush during fiscal year 2014.
Small boats with explosives or anti-ship missiles remain a
potential threat to our forces in the constrained waters of the Arabian
Gulf. Our fiscal year 2014 program funds integration of the Advanced
Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) onto our MH-60R helicopters to
counter this threat. We also will test the new Laser Weapons System
(LaWS) during fiscal year 2014 in the Arabian Gulf aboard USS Ponce.
LaWS brings capabilities to defeat small boats and unmanned air
vehicles (UAV) for about $1 a shot compared to thousands or millions of
dollars per artillery round or missile. To improve our ability to
defeat larger surface combatants, our fiscal year 2014 program invests
in development and testing of near-term modifications to existing
weapons that would enable them to be used for surface warfare.
3. Developing Future Capabilities.--Our development of future
capability is bench-marked to support our rebalance toward the Asia-
Pacific and is guided in large part by the Air-Sea Battle concept,
which implements the Joint Operational Access Concept. Both these
concepts are designed to assure U.S. forces freedom of action and
access to support deterrence, assurance of our allies and partners, and
the ability to respond to crises. Our investments focus on assuring
access in each domain, often by exploiting the asymmetric capability
advantages of U.S. forces across domains
Undersea.--Navy's dominance of the undersea domain provides U.S.
forces their most significant asymmetric advantage. Our fiscal year
2014 program continues improving our capability to deny the undersea to
adversaries, while exploiting it for our own operations. Our ASW
concepts combine U.S. air, space, cyber, surface and subsurface
capabilities to prevent adversaries from effectively using the undersea
domain. Navy's fiscal year 2014 budget submission sustains and plans
production of proven ASW platforms including MH-60R Seahawk
helicopters, P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, Arleigh Burke
class destroyers and Virginia class nuclear submarines (SSN)--including
a second SSN in fiscal year 2014 thanks to Congressional support in
fiscal year 2013. Our budget submission also funds Advanced Airborne
Sensors for the P-8A Poseidon, accelerates torpedo defense systems for
our aircraft carriers, transitions the PLUS system to an acquisition
program and improves Navy's Integrated Undersea Surveillance System. To
tie these manned and unmanned air, surface and undersea systems
together in a networked, our fiscal year 2014 budget submission
continues development of the Undersea Warfare Decision Support System.
Our submarines and undersea vehicles can exploit their ability to
circumvent anti-access challenges to conduct missions such as
surveillance, strike, and ASUW into the air and surface domains with
near-impunity. In addition to building two Virginia-class SSNs in
fiscal year 2014 our budget submission continues development of the
Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV) and additional
payloads for our existing submarines.
Air.--Our fiscal year 2014 program continues to improve the
capability of our CSGs to project power despite threats to access. In
fiscal year 2014 our budget submission funds two squadrons E/A-18G
Growler electronic warfare aircraft and the Next Generation Jammer. E/
A-18G provides key and critical capabilities to our CVW and
expeditionary forces by jamming or deceiving adversary electromagnetic
sensors while providing improved capability for sensing of adversary
electromagnetic emissions. Our fiscal year 2014 budget submission also
continues to invest in the development and low-rate production of the
new F-35C Lightning II. We will continue to evaluate how to best
integrate F-35C into our CVW from a training, logistics and operational
perspective. In particular, we are concerned about the sustainment
model and costs for F-35C and how to manage them. While we expect the
F-35C to be able to do all the missions of today's F/A-18 E/F, it will
also bring improved C4ISR capabilities that will make possible a number
of new operational concepts.
Our fiscal year 2014 program funds the fielding of new ``kill
chains'' that are better able to defeat adversary jamming. One chain
uses infra-red sensors and weapons to provide air-to-air capability
that operates outside the radiofrequency (RF) band and is therefore not
susceptible to traditional RF jamming. The other kill chain uses
networked sensors and weapons in the Navy Integrated Fire Control-
Counter Air (NIFC-CA) system. NIFC-CA uses the Cooperative Engagement
Capability (CEC) datalink between Aegis ships and E-2D aircraft and
Link-16 between E-2D and F/A-18 aircraft to seamlessly share threat
information between Navy ships and aircraft. NIFC-CA enables each
platform to engage targets on another platform's data, even if the
shooting platform does not even see the target on its own radar due to
jamming or extreme range. Since NIFC-CA incorporates Link-16, other
Link-16-equipped sensors such as the Army's Joint Land Attack Cruise
Missile Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) and Airborne Warning and Control
System (AWACS) could also participate in the network. We will field the
first NIFC-CA equipped CSG in 2015 and will pursue greater Joint and
coalition employment of NIFC-CA as part of the Air-Sea Battle Concept.
Enhancements to our manned aircraft are still limited by the range
and persistence of manned platforms. Our fiscal year 2014 program
continues testing and development of the X-47 Unmanned Combat Air
System Demonstrator (UCAS-D) UAV, which completed flight deck trials at
sea aboard USS Harry S Truman, its first land-based catapult launches,
and is slated for its first at-sea catapult launch and recovery in late
May. This spring we will finalize the requirements for the follow-on
Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Strike and Surveillance (UCLASS)
system, followed by an initial request for proposals from industry. By
fiscal year 2020, UCLASS will enhance the reach and persistence of our
CSGs by conducting surveillance and strike missions several hundreds of
miles from the carrier and with two to three times the endurance of a
manned aircraft. The UCLASS can also be equipped to take on missions
such as tanking that today take several F/A-18 E/F out of the tactical
missions for which they were designed.
Electromagnetic Spectrum (EMS) and Cyber.--Future conflicts will be
fought and won in the electromagnetic spectrum and cyberspace, which
are converging to become one continuous environment. This environment
is increasingly important to defeating threats to access, since through
it we can disrupt adversary sensors, command and control and weapons
homing. Our fiscal year 2014 budget submission aggressively supports
Navy's efforts to exploit the EMS and cyberspace. In addition to E/A-
18G aircraft and Next Generation Jammer, our fiscal year 2014 budget
submission funds seven SLQ-32 Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement
Program (SEWIP) Block 1 upgrades and fields new deployable decoys to
defeat anti-ship missiles. The fiscal year 2014 program also
accelerates research and development on SEWIP Block 3, which expands
the frequency range of the SLQ-32 electronic warfare system to address
emerging missile threats and provides enhanced electronic attack
capabilities. To disrupt adversary surveillance and communications, our
fiscal year 2014 budget submission continues procurement of
improvements to Navy's Ships Signal Exploitation Equipment (SSEE),
which will host a growing number of electronic surveillance and attack
payloads.
Improving the defense of our computer networks depends on reducing
our ``footprint'' or the number of different networks; reducing the
number of different applications on our networks; improving our day-to-
day cyber ``hygiene''; and developing an effective cyber workforce. Our
fiscal year 2014 program continues fielding the Consolidated Afloat
Network and enterprise Services (CANES) on ships and the Next
Generation Network (NGEN) ashore to reduce the number of Navy networks
and applications while we continue to expand the inspection of our
cyber ``hygiene'' with improving results. To expand our cyber warfare
capabilities, our fiscal year 2014 program funds the manpower and
training to man and train a cyber force increase of about 1,000
personnel by fiscal year 2016 in addition to the 800 billets realigned
in fiscal year 2013 from other specialties. These cyber specialists
will help form 40 computer defense, attack and exploitation teams at
U.S. Cyber Command. Navy studied the challenges associated with the EMS
and cyber domains in 2012. We are now building on these initial
capabilities with a comprehensive plan to improve our ability to
exploit the EMS and cyberspace.
Amphibious Warfare.--Not all threats to access are from enemy
missiles or torpedoes. Adversaries will exploit geography and coerce
neighbors to not allow our forces to use their facilities. Naval forces
also need the flexibility to come ashore in unexpected areas or from
less predictable directions to catch the adversary off guard.
Amphibious warfare exploits the inherent maneuverability of naval
forces to provide an asymmetric advantage against adversary anti-access
efforts. Our fiscal year 2014 budget submission funds construction of
an 11th ``big deck'' amphibious assault ship (LHA), LHA-8, which will
bring enhanced aviation capacity and a traditional well deck to expand
its ability to support the full range of amphibious operations. Our
fiscal year 2014 program also extends the life of USS Peleliu through
fiscal year 2015 and sustains our ship to shore connector capacity
through life extensions and recapitalization. We are complementing this
investment with revised concepts for Marines to operate at sea on a
larger number of ships to conduct missions from peacetime security
cooperation to wartime amphibious assault.
While developing new Navy-Marine Corps operating concepts, we will
address in the near-term the need for improved communications systems
on our amphibious ships. Our fiscal year 2014 program continues to
install the CANES on San Antonio-class Amphibious Transport Dock ships
(LPD) and on LHAs and LHDs. This only addresses a part of our
shortfall. We are analyzing the need for upgraded communications on our
older amphibious ships and will correct those shortfalls in the near-
term. We are also developing changes to our command and control
organizations to enable our amphibious forces to scale their operations
from disaggregated Amphibious Ready Groups (ARG) up to large scale
operations involving multiple ARGs and CSGs.
Asia-Pacific Rebalance.--Our fiscal year 2014 program continues
rebalancing our efforts toward the Asia-Pacific region in four main
ways:
--Increased Presence.--As indicated in Figures 1 and 2, our fiscal
year 2014 budget submission enables Navy presence in the Asia-
Pacific to increase by almost 20 percent between now and 2020.
This is in large part a result of more ships operating from
forward locations, including an additional SSN homeported in
Guam, LCS operating from Singapore and JHSV, MLP and AFSB
operating from ports throughout the region. It also reflects
additional DDG and amphibious ships rotationally deployed to
the Asia-Pacific after being made available by forward
homeporting of DDG in Rota, Spain or because they were replaced
by JHSV and LCS in Africa and South America.
--Homeporting.--We implemented a plan in fiscal year 2013 to shift 60
percent of our fleet to be homeported on the Pacific by 2020.
Our fiscal year 2014 program continues this plan.
--Capabilities.--Our capability investments for the Asia-Pacific are
guided by the Air-Sea Battle concept and the future
capabilities described above will be deployed preferentially
and first to the Asia-Pacific region. For example, the P-8A
will conduct its first deployment to the Asia-Pacific in 2014,
followed by the MQ-4C and F-35 later this decade. Our improved
aviation kill chain capabilities will go first to the CVW in
Japan and NIFC-CA will be first fielded to the Pacific Fleet
once it completes its operational testing.
--Intellectual Capital.--Our investments in education, exercises,
interoperability and engagement continue to focus on the Asia-
Pacific region. We continue to conduct more than 150 exercises
annually in the Asia-Pacific and our plan for RIMPAC 14 is to
continue growing in sophistication and participation, including
China for the first time. We established a permanent squadron
staff to support LCS in Singapore and manage Navy security
cooperation activities in the South China Sea.
conclusion
Budget uncertainties or reductions may slow progress toward our
goals, but the tenets which guide our decisions will remain firm. Along
with our primary joint partner the U.S. Marine Corps we will remain
America's ``force in readiness,'' prepared to promptly respond to
crises overseas. On behalf of the approximately 613,000 Navy Sailors
and Civilians, I appreciate the support that the Congress has given us
to remain the world's preeminent maritime force. I can assure the
Congress and the American people that we will be focused on warfighting
first, operating forward and being ready.
Chairwoman Mikulski [presiding]. Thank you, Admiral.
General Amos, we are going to ask you to proceed. And we
are glad to see you. I remember this time last year when you
testified, you had had your back surgery and were under a lot
of stress. You are under a different kind of stress, but we can
see that you are fit, and ready for duty, and participating. So
we welcome you with warmth and glad to see you in good health.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES F. AMOS, COMMANDANT, UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS
General Amos. Chairwoman, you have got a great memory. It
was a little bit painful last year, but it has been fixed, and
I feel great. And thank you for remembering that.
And, Chairwoman, it is good to see you again. Vice Chairman
Cochran, ranking--or members of the committee, I am pleased to
appear before you today to outline the 2013 posture of your
United States Marine Corps. I am equally pleased to be sitting
alongside my service Secretary, the Honorable Ray Mabus, and my
good friend and fellow shipmate, Admiral Jonathan Greenert,
Chief of Naval Operations.
For more than 237 years, your Corps has been a people
intense force. We have always known our greatest asset is the
individual marine. That has not changed during 12 years of hard
combat. Our unique role as America's premiere crisis response
force is grounded in the legendary character and war fighting
ethos of our people. Today's marines are ethical warriors,
forged by challenging training and made wise through decades of
combat. You can take great pride in knowing that as we gather
here in this storied hearing room, some 30,000 marines are
forward deployed around the world, promoting peace, protecting
our Nation's interests, and securing its defense.
Sergeant Major Barrett and I recently returned from
Afghanistan and can attest to the progress there. Marines have
given the Afghan people a vision of success and the possibility
of a secure and prosperous society. I am bullish about the
positive assistance we are providing the people of the Helmand
Province, and I remain optimistic about their future.
Afghanistan Security Forces have the lead now in almost
every single operation. Our commanders and their marines assess
the Afghan National Security Forces that they over match the
Taliban in every single way and in every single engagement.
Speaking today as both as the service chief and a member of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the foundations of our Nation's
strategic guidance depends upon persistent regional stability
and an international order to underwrite the global economic
system. Failing to provide leadership in the collective
security of the global order will have significant consequences
for the American people. Worse, a lapse in American leadership
in forward engagement will create a void in which lasting
security threats will be left unaddressed and new security
challenges will find room to grow.
The reality of today's security environment reveals the
value of forward naval presence. With declining resources to
address the emerging security challenges, neo-isolationism does
not advance our country's national interests. Forward deployed
sea-based naval forces do, however. They support our proactive
security strategy while remaining capable of shaping,
deterring, and rapidly responding to crisis, all while treading
lightly on our allies and our partners on their sovereign
territory.
Amphibious ships and forces are a sensible and unmistakable
solution in preserving our national security. Naval forces and
the Marine Corps are in particular our Nation's insurance
policy, a hedge against uncertainty in an unpredictable world.
A balanced air ground logistics team, we respond in hours and
days to America's needs, not in weeks and not in months. This
is our raison d'etre. It has always been that way.
This year's baseline budget submission of $24.2 billion was
framed by our following service led priorities: First, we will
continue to provide the best-trained and equipped marine units
in Afghanistan; second, we will protect the readiness of our
forward deployed forces and our rotational forces; third, we
will reset and reconstitute our operating forces as our marines
and equipment return from nearly 12 years of persistent combat;
fourth, as much as is humanly possible, we will modernize our
force through investing in the individual marine first, and by
replacing aging combat systems next; and lastly, as
importantly, we will keep faith with our marines, our sailors,
and our families.
We have remained committed to these priorities despite the
fiscal year 2013 significant reductions in our facility
sustainment and home station unit training accounts due to the
loss of $775 million in operations and maintenance funding due
to sequestration. We have, however, traded long-term
infrastructure and unit readiness for near-term deployable
forces capable of meeting all current deployment requirements.
We cannot continue to sustain this level of reduction in
fiscal year 2014 without immediate impact to our deployed and
next-to-deployed forces, and our non-deployed crisis response
forces at home. Sequestration in fiscal year 2014 will mean a
direct loss to the readiness of the United States Marine Corps.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Marine Corps is well aware of
the fiscal realities confronting our Nation. During these times
of constrained resources, the Marine Corps remains committed to
being responsible stewards of scarce public funds. In closing,
the success of your marines and your Marine Corps is directly
linked to the unwavering support of Congress and the American
people.
PREPARED STATEMENT
You have my promise that during our economic challenges,
the Marine Corps will only ask for what it needs, not for what
it might want. We will continue to prioritize and make the hard
decisions before coming to Congress. We will continue to offer
a strategically mobile force optimized for forward presence and
rapid response. Your Marine Corps stands ready to respond
whenever the Nation calls, wherever the President may direct.
Once again, I thank the committee for your continued
support, and I am prepared to answer your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of General James F. Amos
marines and the nation's defense
Our Nation has long recognized the need for a ready expeditionary
force, one able to deter those who would do us harm, swiftly intervene
when they act to do so, and fight to win where the security interests
of our Nation are threatened. I am pleased to report that your Marines
remain that ready force. Because of the faithfulness and trust of the
American people, Marines are forward deployed today; on ships at sea,
at our diplomatic posts, in key security locations, and alongside our
allies. They are poised to respond wherever crisis looms. Thousands of
your 21st Century Marines and Sailors remain deployed to Afghanistan
where they are putting relentless pressure on a disrupted enemy, while
setting the conditions for a transition of security responsibilities to
the Afghans themselves. Marines here at home are in the field, training
at their bases and stations. Wherever they serve, whatever their
mission, your Marines are ready, motivated, and eager. Their
professionalism and patriotism are undimmed by over a decade of combat.
They carry the timeless ethos and deep pride Marines have built over
237 years of service to this Nation. You can be proud of their service.
The need for this highly capable and ready force is more pressing
now than ever. Today, we see a world marked by conflict, instability,
and humanitarian disaster. We see the disruptive changes that accompany
a rapidly modernizing world; a world in which tyranny is challenged,
power is diffused and extremism finds fertile ground in the
disenfranchised. While America's continued prosperity and security are
found in a stable global order; instability, extremism, and conflict
create disorder instead. In what has been described as a ``new
normal,'' extremism, economic disruption, identity politics, and social
change generate new potential security threats at an accelerating pace.
While we desire peace as a nation, threats to our citizens, allies and
national interests compel our response when crisis occurs.
The unpredictable and chaotic security environment in which we find
ourselves presents security challenges that are aligned exactly with
the core competencies of the Marine Corps. While Marines have acquitted
themselves well during two long campaigns ashore, our fundamental ethos
and character remains that of the Nation's Expeditionary Force in
Readiness. The Marine Corps is purpose-built for the very world we see
emerging around us . . . purpose-built to intervene in crisis, purpose-
built to forge partnerships in collective security, purpose-built to
defend our Nation from the wide range of security threats it faces
today.
This unique role is grounded in the special nature of the
individual Marine. America's Marines hold to a professional ethos
anchored in honor, discipline, fidelity, and sacrifice. Today's Marines
are ethical warriors, forged in hard training and made wise through
years of experience in combat. Courageous in battle and always
faithful, Marines stand as pillars of just action, compassion, and
moral courage. This ethos defines our warfighting philosophy and is the
timeless scale upon which we continually measure ourselves . . . it has
always been this way.
The Marine Corps remains first and foremost a naval service,
operating in close partnership with the United States Navy. We share
with them a storied heritage that predates the signing of our
Constitution. Together, the two naval services leverage the seas, not
only to protect the vast global commons, but also to project our
national power and influence ashore where that is required. The world's
coastal regions are the home to an increasing majority of the human
population, and are thus the scene of frequent conflict and natural
disaster. These littoral regions comprise the connective tissues that
connect oceanic trade routes with the activities of populations ashore.
In an era of heightened sensitivities over sovereignty, and where large
foreign military footprints are unwelcome, the seas provide maritime
forces with a means of less obtrusive access. Maritime expeditionary
forces can be located close enough to act when crisis threatens and
hours matter, without imposing a burden on host nations. Expeditionary
maritime forces can operate in the air, at sea, and on land, without
the necessity of infrastructure ashore. They can loiter unseen over the
horizon, and can move swiftly from one crisis region to another.
Importantly, maritime forces also have the ability to rapidly return to
the sea when their mission is complete.
This flexibility and strategic agility make Marine forces a key
tool for the Joint force in major contingencies. Operating in
partnership with the Navy, the Marine air-ground-logistics task force
creates the strategic asymmetries that make the joint force so
effective on the modern battlefield. Amphibious and expeditionary
capabilities contribute to each of the 10 mission areas of the joint
force, and are directly responsive to the security demands articulated
in the President's ``Defense Strategic Guidance for the 21st Century''.
By design, Marines smoothly integrate with the other elements of the
joint force, enable our interagency partners in response to disaster or
humanitarian crises, and provide a naturally complementary team when
working with special operations forces.
As the Nation prepares for an uncertain future, its expeditionary
Marine forces provide a highly utilitarian capability, effective in a
wide range of scenarios. Marines remain a cost-effective hedge against
the unexpected, providing a national ``insurance policy'' against
strategic surprise. Thanks to the support of American people, the
Marine Corps remains responsive to its Congressional mandate to be the
``most ready when the nation is least ready.''
2012 Operational Highlights
This past year, Marines have been actively engaged in every corner
of the global security environment. The Marine Corps continued to meet
operational commitments in Afghanistan, while simultaneously working
with more than 90 allies and partners to train, to learn, and to build
effective security institutions. In addition to forces committed to
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), our Marine Expeditionary Units
(MEUs), in partnership with Navy Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs),
continued to patrol regions of likely crisis. Other task-organized
Marine Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs), operating from expeditionary
locations, supported U.S. national security objectives through forward
presence, deterrence, multinational theater security cooperation
exercises, and building partner capacity. Marines have been active in
every geographical combatant command, serving as a key component of the
joint force. Even under fiscal restraint, we will continue to support
these strategically important activities to the greatest extent
possible.
Afghanistan
Our number one priority remains providing the best-trained and
best-equipped Marine units to Afghanistan. As long as we are engaged
there, this will not change. Active and Reserve Marines continue
operations in Helmand Province, comprising approximately 7,000 of the
16,000 Coalition personnel in Regional Command Southwest (RC-SW). By
the end of this year, we expect our contribution will be closer to half
its current size. Through distributed combat operations conducted with
their Afghan counterparts, Marines have continued to deny the Taliban
safe haven. Your Marines, with Coalition partners from nine nations and
the Afghan National Security Force (ANSF), have restored stability in
one of the most critical regions of Afghanistan, creating breathing
space for the establishment of effective tools of governance. These
combat operations have been marked by the continued bravery and
sacrifice of American, Coalition, and Afghan service members.
One measure of our battlefield success is the continued progress in
implementing the mechanisms of effective governance in Helmand
Province. In 2012, citizens of Helmand conducted three successful
elections for district community councils, with more than 5,000
participants vying for approximately 45 council seats. There are new
district governors in 12 of 14 districts, and new provincial
authorities in the capital of Lashkar Gah. Within the provincial
judicial system, the numbers of judges, prosecutors, and defense
counselors are steadily growing.
Provincial social conditions also show marked improvement. Marines
have helped open 86 schools, providing a new normal of daily classroom
participation by over 121,000 children. This total includes more than
28,000 female students, a 432-percent increase since 2005.
Healthcare is another area of vast improvement. In 2006, only six
health clinics served the needs of the population of Helmand province,
an area nearly twice the size of Maryland. Six years later, 57 health
care facilities provide basic health services to more than half of the
population. Infrastructure improvements currently underway include a
$130 million major electrical power system project and additional major
road construction projects.
Transitioning from counter-insurgency operations to security force
assistance in Afghanistan, we are adjusting our force posture into an
advisory role in support of the ANSF. U.S.-led missions have given way
to U.S.-Afghan partnered missions; and now are transitioning once again
to missions conducted entirely by Afghan forces with only advisory
support from U.S. forces. As nearly all Districts in RC-SW have entered
the transition process, the next year remains a delicate and extremely
important time. Afghan local authorities, supported by the ANSF and
their citizens, have welcomed their responsibility to lead and are
taking it upon themselves to contribute to the transition process.
I recently returned from visiting your Marines in Helmand province,
and I can attest to the progress there. Marines have given the people
of Helmand a vision for a secure and prosperous society, and the
responsibilities that come with that freedom. The Marines are proud of
what they and their predecessors have accomplished, and want to see
this mission through to completion.
That mission is not complete until the massive project of
retrograding our equipment from our dispersed operating locations
across southern Afghanistan is completed. I am happy to report to you
the tremendous progress our Marines have made in recovering and
redeploying our equipment. Our logisticians have spearheaded a recovery
effort that has been proactive, cost-effective, and in keeping with the
high stewardship of taxpayer resources for which the Corps is known.
Much of our equipment, unneeded in Afghanistan but required for home-
station training, has been successfully returned to the United States,
where it can be refurbished and reissued. We are proud to preserve our
reputation as the frugal force.
Global Crisis Response
Concomitant with our Afghan commitments, Marines have been vigilant
around the globe, responding to crises ranging from civil conflict to
natural disasters. Crisis response is a core competency of your
expeditionary force in readiness. The Marine Corps provides six MEUs
operating from the continental U.S., and one operating from its bases
in Japan. Teamed with Navy ARGs, these expeditionary forces provide a
rotational forward presence around the globe. Special-purpose MAGTFs,
capable of rapidly responding when conditions deteriorate, augment the
MEUs from forward security locations in key regions. The recent
deployment of our 24th MEU and the Iwo Jima ARG is instructive. As this
Navy-Marine expeditionary team transited the Mediterranean Sea and
operated off the horn of Africa, they participated in their normal
syllabus of exercises and operations to include African Lion with the
Moroccan military, Eager Lion with the Jordanian Navy and the
International Mine Countermeasures Exercise that included more than 30
international partners. While forward deployed participating in these
partnership initiatives, however, they also provided an essential
response capability for our national leadership when U.S. interests or
citizens were threatened due to violence in Syria, Gaza, Sudan, Libya,
Egypt, and Yemen. These forces planned against a variety of scenarios
and were poised to swiftly intervene from the sea in each of these
cases. Although past the end of their scheduled deployment, this Navy-
Marine team was extended on-station, and maneuvered throughout the
region in order to ensure our Nation could respond if crisis
necessitated intervention to protect our citizens. If even one of these
smoldering situations had ignited into the flames of crisis, our
Marines would have been quickly on the scene, protecting human life,
preserving our interests, and evacuating our citizens. For our
diplomats and citizens in these troubled parts of the world, there is
no substitute for the capabilities brought by forward-deployed Marines
and their Navy partners. Their ability to quickly respond to a variety
of missions gave decision makers at all levels time to develop their
plans, created options for execution, and provided assurance that there
was a force ready to be called on if needed. This utility, flexibility
and forward presence is an essential feature of our Nation's ability to
respond to crisis at a moment's notice.
In 2012, our diplomatic posts and embassies remained highly visible
symbols of U.S. presence and commitment. In the threat environment
posed by the new normal, the protection offered by host states is often
threatened by groups and organizations that do not respect the
conventions of the state system. Marines are a key component in
ensuring the security of these most vulnerable nodes of U.S. presence.
Marine Security Guards are currently deployed to 152 embassies and
consulates around the world. With Congressional guidance, we are
seeking to increase this number in close coordination with the State
Department. Marine Embassy Security detachments and Fleet Anti-
terrorism Security Teams (FAST), alongside their State Department
colleagues, also protect our diplomatic missions against a range of
threats. During 2012, specialized FAST Marines deployed to reinforce
U.S. diplomatic missions abroad, providing physical security and force
protection. Last year we provided each Geographic Combatant Commander
with FAST support to aid in protecting U.S. interests worldwide. These
teams provided immediate relief in Libya following the deadly terrorist
attack on the consulate that claimed the lives of the Ambassador and
three other Americans. As demonstrations spread across the Middle East
and North Africa, Marines from an additional FAST platoon deployed to
Yemen when violent protests threatened American diplomatic personnel.
These specially trained Marines remain forward deployed at naval
commands around the globe, poised to respond on short notice when our
citizens and diplomats are threatened.
Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief
Over the past decade, in the Asia-Pacific Area alone, major natural
disasters have claimed the lives of an average of 70,000 people each
year. American leadership in response to global natural disaster is a
clear and unambiguous demonstration of our strength, our values, and
our good intentions. This demonstration gives credibility to our
security promises, strengthens the value of our deterrence, and creates
goodwill among our potential partners. Although built for war and
maintained forward to protect our security interests, the utility of
expeditionary Marine forces makes them a natural response option when
disaster strikes. Forward-deployed Marines responded to numerous
natural disasters over the past year, smoothly integrating as a
contributor to multiagency and multinational relief efforts. As an
example, just this last December, Marines from the III Marine
Expeditionary Force supported a USAID-led response by providing
disaster relief in the aftermath of super typhoon Pablo in the
Philippines. When hours mattered and the survival of large populations
was at stake, Marines from their forward bases in Japan quickly
organized and executed their participation in the U.S. relief effort.
KC-130J Hercules transport planes delivered critical food packages and
other supplies to Manila for distribution by the Philippine military.
This is but one example of a regular feature of the global security
environment, and the utility of your forward-postured Marines.
Defense Support to Civil Authorities
In a similar vein, when Hurricane Sandy struck our own Nation in
October 2012, more than 300 Marines and Sailors from the 26th Marine
Expeditionary Unit provided critical recovery and relief operations in
support of Americans in need in New York City and Long Island. Marines
were one part of a multiagency response that included ships of the USS
Wasp ARG and other military assets. Marine aviation conducted disaster
relief assessments and provided the necessary airlift for Marines to
deploy into the hardest-hit areas. On the ground, Marines successfully
coordinated with local leaders and residents for priority relief
requirements, providing critical supplies and assisting with clearing
debris and helping restore normalcy to people's lives. The swiftness of
the Marine response, and their ability to conduct relief efforts from
the sea made them an important contributor, without imposing additional
strain on the roads, airfields, and infrastructure supporting the
broader relief effort.
Security Cooperation
In 2012, Marines participated in more than 200 security cooperation
engagements, including multilateral and bilateral exercises, training,
and military-to-military engagements. Forward-deployed MEUs
participated in joint and coalition exercises around the globe from
Morocco to the Philippines, strengthening our partnerships with allies
such as Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan,
Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Korea, and Japan.
In Europe, Marine trainers deployed to support battalions of the
Georgian Army, strengthening a decade-long partnership with that
nation. Because of this small investment of Marines, Georgian
battalions have been effectively fighting alongside U.S. Marines in
Afghanistan since 2008. Marines continue to provide forces and
leadership to activities such as the Black Sea Rotational Force, an
annual U.S. European Command initiative with the Romanians, Bulgarians,
and other Black Sea regional allies.
In Africa, a Special Purpose MAGTF, tailored to conduct theater
security cooperation in support of OEF-Trans Sahara, trained counter-
terrorism forces, and supported coalition forces combating al-Qaeda
affiliates across the Maghreb region. This MAGTF also trained with
forces from the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), providing
well-trained African peacekeeping forces that are currently countering
the Al Shabaab terrorist group in Somalia.
In Australia, our new rotational units continued to expand the
training and partnership opportunities offered by one of our strongest
and oldest allies in the Pacific. This past year, Marine Rotational
Force Darwin conducted bilateral training with their hosts on the
superb training ranges available in Northern Australia. The partnership
of our Australian allies is a cornerstone of our Pacific rebalance.
Marines are natural partners for an Australian military that continues
to expand its expeditionary capabilities. As the Australians take
delivery of their new big-deck amphibious ships, U.S. Marines look
forward to more combined training opportunities and reinforced crisis
response capabilities. From Darwin, Marines embarked aboard USS
Germantown to participate in the annual Landing Force Cooperation and
Readiness Afloat Training (LF CARAT) amphibious patrol of the Southeast
Asian neighborhood. Through LF CARAT, Marines conducted training
exercises with our partners in Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
Maintaining a sound international economic system and a just
international order are the foundations of our Nation's Defense
Strategic Guidance. Your Marines remain forward deployed around the
world, projecting U.S. influence, responding to contingencies, and
building strong international relationships. By doing so, we
significantly enhanced the security and stability of the global commons
and contributed to the mechanisms of collective security that underpin
the global economy and our own return to prosperity.
fiscal year 2014 budget submission highlights
As we move into fiscal year 2014 and beyond, our budget submission
balances our force structure, our readiness, and our capability to meet
national security commitments. A critical measure of the effectiveness
of our Marine Corps is its readiness. Our readiness is preserved
through a careful balance of high-quality people, well-trained units,
modernized equipment, well-maintained installations, and a force level
sufficient to accomplish our many missions. Failure in any one of these
pillars of readiness begins to set the conditions for an eventual
hollowing of the force. We will do everything within our power to avoid
this outcome and request your continued support. The linkage between
resources and readiness is immediate and visible, and our fiscal
restraint has caused us to pay keen attention to our priorities. To
guide us as we optimize investments and readiness in our force, our
priorities are as follows:
--We will continue to provide the best-trained and equipped Marine
units to Afghanistan.
--We will continue to protect the readiness of our forward-deployed
rotational forces within the means available.
--We will reset and reconstitute our operating forces as our Marines
and equipment return from more than a decade of combat.
--We will modernize our force through investments in human capital
and by replacing aging combat systems.
--We will keep faith with our Marines, our Sailors, and our families.
This year we are seeking $24.2 billion to fund our baseline
operations. This funding allows the Marine Corps to continue to provide
forward-deployed and engaged forces, rapid crisis response
capabilities, and the necessary training to ensure readiness for our
forces to fulfill strategic demands. In addition, this funding provides
adequate resources for us to reset our combat-worn equipment, rebalance
to the Asia-Pacific region, and keep faith with our Marines, Sailors,
and their families.
Two years ago, the Marine Corps initiated a Force Structure Review
(FSR) whose mission was to re-shape the Marine Corps for a Post-OEF
environment. This FSR sought to find ways to meet our national security
responsibilities in the most resource-efficient manner possible. Our
goal was to provide the most ready, capable, and cost-effective Marine
Corps our Nation could afford. Last year, we reported on our approved
multi-year plan to draw down the Corps from the end strength of 202,100
in fiscal year 2012 to 182,100 by the end of fiscal year 2016. I am
pleased to report that these reductions are being made in a measured
and responsible way, maintaining our commitment to provide adequate
transition time, effective transition assistance, and family support
for our Marines who have given so much to our Nation . . . we remain
committed to doing so.
We will continue to reshape the force, ever mindful of our
operational requirements and our responsibility to keep faith with the
Marines that fulfill them. As the Nation's principal crisis response
force, we must maintain a continuous high state of readiness in both
our forward deployed and ready forces at home station. Maintaining an
expeditionary force in a high state of readiness creates a hedge
against the unexpected, giving the Nation the ability to swiftly
contain crisis, respond to disaster, and buy time for strategic
decisionmakers. For us, a hollow force is not an option. This not only
enables joint success, but also allows selected follow-on capabilities
of the joint force to be maintained at more cost-effective readiness
levels. Marines are poised to swiftly fill the temporal gap between
crisis initiation and when the joint force is fully prepared to conduct
operations; buying time for the deployment of the larger joint force in
major contingencies. Readiness is a key to making this possible.
This high state of readiness is necessary for security of our
global interests, but financing near-term readiness has caused us to
continually decrement our modernization and infrastructure accounts. To
meet strategic guidance during the current period of fiscal austerity,
the Marine Corps has funded near-term manpower and readiness accounts
at the cost of significantly increased risk in longer-term equipment
modernization. Over the long-term, resourcing short-term readiness by
borrowing-forward from long-term investment resources is unsustainable,
and will eventually degrade unit readiness to an unacceptable level.
Full implementation of sequestration and the associated cap reductions
in the coming years will require a top to bottom re-examination of
priorities, missions, and what it will take to continue to be the
Nation's Expeditionary Force in Readiness.
The current period of fiscal austerity significantly pressurizes
each of our appropriation accounts, especially operations and
maintenance, equipment modernization, and military personnel. Our
challenge in balancing modernization and end-strength costs is
especially acute, as we invest nearly 60 cents of every appropriated $1
on our most vital assets, our personnel. Our ground materiel
modernization investment accounts comprise a mere 10 percent of our
baseline budget. Because of this significant variance between personnel
and ground modernization funding, even proportional cuts across the
Services have disproportionate impacts on our already pressurized small
investment programs. In the Marine Corps' ground investment portfolio,
the top 25 programs consume 60 percent of the available budget, while
the remaining 40 percent supports 171 small programs. These small
programs are essential to equipping individual Marines and providing
their qualitative edge. These programs, and the small businesses they
support, have limited flexibility to respond to reduced funding, and
are increasingly vulnerable as resource shortfalls become more acute.
Sustained combat operations in the harsh environments of Iraq and
Afghanistan have also significantly degraded the readiness of our
existing ground equipment. Our combat equipment has aged far faster
than it would have given normal peacetime utilization rates.
Accordingly, we are requesting funding to support the reset and
restoration of our equipment to ensure we provide Marines the most
combat-ready equipment needed to respond to future crisis and
contingencies around the world.
We are proud of our reputation for frugality, and will always
remain good stewards of every defense $1 we are entrusted with. In a
period of budget austerity, we offer a strategically mobile force
optimized for forward presence and rapid crisis response for a notably
small portion of the Department of Defense (DOD) budget. The Marine
Corps will remain ready to fulfill its role as the crisis response
force of choice for our Nation's leaders.
shared naval investments
The Department of the Navy's (DON) investment in amphibious
warships, maritime prepositioning ships, ship-to-shore connectors, mine
countermeasures, and the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC)
represent critical Navy investments that also support the Marine Corps.
Due to current fiscal challenges, we have agreed to take risk in the
number of amphibious ships to a fiscally constrained fleet of 33
amphibious warships, producing 30 operationally available ships if
readiness levels are significantly improved. Thirty operationally
available amphibious warships allow for the employment of two Marine
Expeditionary Brigades (MEBs), the minimum capability and capacity
necessary to fulfill our Combatant Commander commitments for sea-based
forcible entry. This represents a minimal capacity for a maritime
nation with global interests and key dependencies on the stability of
the global system. By way of comparison, a two brigade force was
necessary to wrest control of the mid-size city of Fallujah from
insurgents in 2004. Two brigades of forcible entry capacity are
required to create access for the rest of the joint force should
defense of our interests make it necessary. There are no acceptable
substitutes for this capability within our national defense inventory.
This fiscal year, the total amphibious warship inventory will rise to
31 ships with the delivery of LPD-25. Within the next 2 years, the
inventory will decline before rising to an average of 33 amphibious
warships across the 30-year shipbuilding plan.
The Navy's programs and plans to sustain fleet quantities of
landing craft include the Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) Service
Life Extension (SLEP), LCAC Fleet Maintenance Program (FMP), and the
Ship-to-Shore Connector (SSC) program which will produce the
replacement LCAC-100 class craft to maintain the non-displacement ship-
to-shore capability of the fleet. The LCU Sustainment Program is the
single program to maintain the displacement component of the connector
fleet. The Surface Connector (X) is Navy's planned program to replace
and recapitalize the aging LCU. These Navy programs are important to
Marines, and are essential for our Nation's ability to project its
influence from the sea. Additionally, we support the Navy's idea to
extend the life of select LCAC SLEP craft for 10 years to reduce
inventory shortfalls in the 2020s. The Marine Corps actively supports
and depends upon these programs.
To complement our amphibious capabilities, the Maritime
Prepositioning Force (MPF) program is designed to rapidly deploy the
combat equipment and logistics required to support Marine Air Ground
Task Forces from the sea. The MPF provides the capability to rapidly
equip MAGTF personnel, who fly in to marry up with their gear. Although
Maritime Prepositioning Ship Squadron One (MPS Squadron One)--home
ported in Rota, Spain--was eliminated in 2012, efforts are currently
underway to enhance MPS Squadron Two (Diego Garcia) and MPS Squadron
Three (Guam) to ensure the two remaining squadrons are optimized for
employment across the full range of military operations. The current
12-ship inventory has been re-organized into two Maritime
Prepositioning Ship Squadrons that possess new sea basing-enabling
capabilities, including at-sea selective offload of equipment and
supplies, thereby providing Combatant Commanders a greater range and
depth of sea-based capabilities. An additional two ships will be added
during fiscal year 2015, for a total of 14 ships, seven in each MPS
Squadron. Additionally, the Marine Corps Prepositioning Program in
Norway (MCPP-N) is being reorganized to provide Combatant Commanders
with balanced MAGTF equipment set for training and operations. This
combination of prepositioned equipment locations, afloat and ashore,
greatly enhances our ability to swiftly establish critical combat
capabilities in times of major crisis.
investing in our marines
The core of our overall readiness and combat effectiveness resides
in the individual Marine. Recruiting and retaining high-quality people
is essential to attaining a dedicated and professional Marine Corps.
Recruiting provides the lifeblood of our Corps; the foundational step
in making Marines. To maintain a force comprised of the best and
brightest of America's youth, the Marine Corps uses a variety of
officer and enlisted recruiting processes that stress high mental,
moral, and physical standards. We retain the most qualified Marines
through a competitive career designation process for officers, and a
thorough evaluation process for enlisted Marines. Both processes
measure, analyze, and evaluate our Marines performance and
accomplishments for competitive retention.
Our ability to attract young men and women is tied directly to our
ability to establish and foster a dialogue with the American people. We
do this through an aggressive outreach and advertising campaign that
seeks to reach all sectors of American society. We continue to seek
qualified young men and women of any race, religion, or cultural
background who are willing to commit to our demanding standards.
Marine Reserve Forces continue to serve as a strong force
multiplier of the total force, and are a high-payoff investment in
capability. Since September 11, 2001, more than 60,000 Marine
Reservists, from all across the United States, have participated in
over 80,000 activations or mobilizations. Our Reserve Marines are
uniquely well-positioned to seamlessly integrate with the active
component, to reinforce our service priorities, and to provide a
reservoir of capacity for future national emergencies. Our Reserve
Marines are well-equipped and highly trained professionals, providing
an essential shock absorber for the active component in the uncertain
global environment.
Professional Military Education (PME) is designed to produce
leaders who are proficient in the thinking skills necessary to face the
complexity of conflict we expect in the future. As such, PME represents
a key, cost-effective investment in our most valued resource--our
Marines. Marine Corps University (MCU), a part of Training and
Education Command (TECOM), is a regionally accredited, degree-granting
institution committed to providing world-class educational
opportunities through both resident and distance/outreach programs.
Marine Corps University is a globally recognized, world-class PME
institution that is designed to advance the study and application of
the operational art. Our commitment to improve the quality of our PME
programs and advance the PME opportunities for our Marines is
unwavering. Beginning in fiscal year 2011, military construction
projects totaling $180 million have helped dramatically improve MCU's
educational facilities, to include staff noncommissioned officer
academies across our installations as well as an expansion of our
primary campus in Quantico. In addition, we will continue to improve
the quality and quantity of our active duty and civilian faculty.
investing in ready units
The Marine Corps will continue to meet the requirements of
strategic guidance while resetting and reconstituting the force in-
stride. Our reconstitution efforts will restore our core combat
capabilities and will ensure units are ready for operations across the
spectrum of conflict. Sustaining combat operations for more than a
decade has required the use of a large share of the available assets
from our home bases and stations. This has produced ready forces where
they have mattered most, but has taken a toll on nondeployed Marine
units. Currently, 65 percent of nondeployed units are experiencing
degraded readiness due to portions of their equipment being
redistributed to support units deploying forward. While necessary in
times of crisis, this commitment of our ``seed corn'' to current
contingencies degrades our ability to train and constitute ready units
for their full range of missions over time. Unbalanced readiness across
the force increases risk to timely response to unexpected crises or
large-scale contingencies. We will continue to emphasize our reset and
reconstitution efforts that cost-effectively restore combat equipment
and return it to units for training.
Vital to maintaining readiness is the operations and maintenance
(O&M) funding to train in our core missions and maintain our equipment.
MAGTF readiness continues to improve with larger scale naval exercises
that are maximized to enhance our ability to operate from the sea. Over
the next 2 years, we anticipate incremental increases in the core
training readiness of units as Marines return home from Afghanistan and
have time to train to their full range of capabilities. The peacetime
availability and readiness of amphibious warships and maritime
prepositioning ships are critical dependencies for training readiness,
and for supporting expeditionary, amphibious operations around the
globe.
The Geographic Combatant Commanders (GCCs) continue to register an
increased demand for crisis response and amphibious forces in order to
meet requirements across the range of military operations. Forward
deployments provide deterrence, reassure our allies, posture our forces
for crisis response, and enable rapid contingency response to major
conflict. GCCs recognize and appreciate the agility and operational
reach of ready expeditionary capabilities. As we construct the forces
for the next decade, we will continue to seek cost-effective ways of
saying ``yes'' to joint commanders on the leading edge of our national
security effort, while preserving skills and training necessary for
larger contingencies. The multipurpose nature of Marine forces makes
them a cost-effective investment for a wide range of application.
In addition to our traditional crisis response and expeditionary
capabilities, the Marine Corps has reinforced its contributions to our
Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) and Marine Forces Cyber
Command (MARFORCYBER). The demand for our expeditionary MARSOC forces
remains high as these Marines provide critically needed capability and
capacity to theater special operations commands supporting both Special
Operations Command (SOCOM) and the GCC operational requirements.
Marines have excelled as special operators, combining the Marine ethos
with the training and skills of the special operations community.
Additionally, the Marine Corps continues to expand its capability and
capacity for cyberspace operations; including offensive and defensive
cyber capabilities. The Marine Corps Information Operations Command
(MCIOC) supports deployed MAGTFs, integrating information operations in
support of forward-deployed forces and joint commanders.
investing in modernization
Across the spectrum of conflict, our adversaries have adapted their
tactics to counter our significant technological advantage. Even many
``low-end'' threats are now equipped with modern technologies and
weapons. Our adversaries oppose us with tools of the information age,
including modern communications, intelligence, and cyber capabilities.
While state-sponsored opponents continue their development of advanced
technologies, non-state threats have likewise become increasingly
sophisticated and lethal. An increasing number of threats now possess
intelligence capabilities, precision munitions, and unmanned systems.
This ``rise of the rest'' erodes the technological advantage we have
enjoyed for decades, making the qualitative advantages of the modern
Joint force even more important. This situation creates an imperative
for maintaining our investments in new equipment, better technology,
research, and development.
Our desire for our Marines to maintain a qualitative edge over
their opponents applies equally to both our large-scale weapons
programs, and the numerous small programs that equip our individual
Marines with modern capabilities. This modernization mandate is a
fundamental pillar of a ready force, shared by all of the services.
With the smallest modernization budget in the Department of Defense,
the Marine Corps continually seeks to leverage the investments of other
services, carefully meting-out our modernization resources to those
investment areas which are the most fiscally prudent and those which
promise the most operationally effective payoffs.
Innovative war-fighting approaches and can-do leadership are
hallmarks of the Corps, but these cannot overcome the vulnerabilities
created by our rapidly aging fleet of vehicles, systems, and aircraft.
Long-term shortfalls in modernization will have an immediate impact on
readiness and will ultimately cost lives on the battlefield. At some
point, sustaining fleets of severely worn vehicles becomes inefficient
and no longer cost-effective. This inefficiency reduces available
modernization resources from an already small account, degrading our
ability to effectively operate in today's complex security environment.
Our modernization investment requires a balanced approach across the
Air-Ground-Logistics Team.
Aviation Combat Element Modernization
On average, more than 40 percent of our aviation force is deployed
at any time, with an additional 25 percent preparing to deploy. All
told, this means two-thirds of Marine Aviation forces are currently
deployed or preparing to deploy. This creates an increasing cost burden
as we work to sustain our heavily used and rapidly aging fleet of
aircraft.
Accordingly, even as we invest in new aircraft as a part of our
aviation modernization, we must take every opportunity to drive down
operations and sustainment (O&S) costs while ensuring the continued
safety, reliability, and operational relevance of our ``legacy'' and
recently fielded platforms. The F/A-18A-D, originally designed for a
6,000-hour service life, has reached an average usage of 6,800 hours.
Ongoing upgrades and analysis have extended service life to 8,000
hours, but this buys only limited time. A service life extension
program to increase service life to 10,000 hours would rely heavily on
depot capacity, rapid engineering assessment, and adequate funding. Our
aging AV-8B fleet depends on careful stewardship of its supply chain
and targeted capability enhancements to keep it relevant through the
mid-twenties. Similar oversight and investment in the CH-53E, UH-1N,
and AH-1W will keep our helicopter fleet operating while the next
generation is fielded. On a positive note, the MV-22 program has
continued to excel in combat and crisis environments, even as it has
reduced flight hour costs by 18 percent over the past 2 years. We
intend to find similar savings throughout Marine aviation.
To do so, we will use our Aviation Plan--a phased, multiyear
approach to modernization that encompasses aircraft transitions,
readiness, aircraft inventory shortfalls, manpower challenges, safety
and fiscal requirements. The following programs form the backbone of
our aviation modernization effort:
--F-35B.--As we modernize Marine fixed-wing aviation assets for the
future, the continued development and fielding of the short
take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B Joint Strike
Fighter remains the centerpiece of our effort. The capability
inherent in a STOVL jet allows the Marine Corps to operate in
harsh conditions and from remote locations where few airfields
are available for conventional aircraft. It is also
specifically designed to operate from amphibious ships--a
capability that no other tactical fifth-generation aircraft
possesses. The ability to employ a fifth-generation aircraft
from 11 big-deck amphibious ships doubles the number of
``aircraft carriers'' from which the United States can employ
this game-changing capability. The expanded flexibility of
STOVL capabilities operating both at-sea and from austere land
bases is essential, especially in the Pacific. Once fully
fielded, the F-35B will replace three legacy aircraft--F/A-18,
EA-6B, and AV-8B. Training continues for our F-35B pilots. In
2012, we flew more than 500 hours and trained 15 pilots. Just
recently, in November 2012, we established our first
operational squadron, VMFA-121, at MCAS Yuma. Continued funding
and support from Congress for this program is of utmost
importance for the Marine Corps as we continue with a plan to
``sundown'' three different legacy platforms.
--MV-22B.--The MV-22B Osprey has performed exceedingly well for the
Corps and the Joint Force. This revolutionary tiltrotor
aircraft has changed the way Marines operate on the
battlefield, giving American and Coalition forces a maneuver
advantage and an operational reach unmatched by any other
tactical aircraft. The MV-22B has successfully conducted
multiple combat deployments to Iraq, six deployments with MEUs
at sea, and is currently on its seventh deployment to
Afghanistan. In the Pacific, we have fielded our first
permanent forward-deployed Osprey squadron, VMM-265, in
Okinawa. Our squadron fielding plan continues apace as we
replace the last of our Vietnam-era CH-46 helicopters. The MV-
22B's proven combat capability reinforces the necessity that we
continue to procure the full program of record quantities. The
record of performance and safety this aircraft brings in
support of Marines and the joint force on today's battlefields
has more than proven its value to the Nation.
--CH-53K.--The CH-53K is a new-build heavy lift helicopter that
improves on the legacy CH-53E design to increase operational
capability, reliability, maintainability, and survivability;
while reducing cost. The CH-53K will transport 27,000 pounds of
external cargo under high altitude/hot conditions out to 110
nautical miles, nearly three times the lift capacity of the
legacy CH-53E. It is the only naval rotorcraft able to lift all
Marine Corps air-transportable equipment from amphibious
warships and the Maritime Prepositioned Force. Our Force
Structure Review has validated the need for a CH-53K program of
record of eight CH-53K squadrons.
--UH-1/AH-1.--The H-1 program, composed of the UH-1Y utility and the
AH-1Z attack helicopters, is a single acquisition program that
leverages 85 percent commonality of major components between
the two platforms. This commonality enhances deployability and
maintainability while reducing training requirements and
logistical footprints. Both aircraft are in full-rate
production. The H-1 procurement objective is 160 UH-1Ys and 189
AH-1Zs for a total of 349 aircraft. Currently, 181 H-1 aircraft
are on contract, with 72 UH-1Ys and 30 AH-1Zs delivered to
date. The UH-1Y has supported sustained combat operations in
OEF since November 2009. The AH-1Z completed its first
deployment alongside the UH-1Y in June 2012 as part of the 11th
MEU. The AH-1Z performed extremely well on its initial MEU
deployment. These aircraft had high Mission Capable (MC)
readiness rates while deployed (89.9 percent MC for AH-1Z, 94.4
percent MC for UH-1Y). All subsequent West Coast MEUs are
sourced with UH-1Y and AH-1Z aircraft. The continued
procurement and rapid transition to these two platforms from
legacy UH-1N and AH-1W assets in our rotary-wing squadrons
remains a priority.
--KC-130J.--The new KC-130J Hercules has been fielded throughout our
active component, bringing increased capability, performance,
and survivability with lower operating and sustainment costs to
the Marine Air Ground Task Force. Using the Harvest HAWK weapon
mission kit, the KC-130J is providing extended endurance Close
Air Support to our Marines in harm's way. Currently, we have
procured 48 KC-130Js of the stated program of record
requirement totaling 79 aircraft. Continued procurement of the
program of record will allow us to fully integrate our active
and reserve force with this unique, multimission assault
support platform.
--Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS).--Marine Corps operations rely
heavily on a layer of small UAS systems that complement the
larger systems provided by the joint force. These smaller
systems provide direct support for forces operating from sea-
based platforms, and enable critical low-altitude and immediate
responsiveness that enable small units on the ground. The RQ-7B
Shadow unmanned aircraft system has provided excellent
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and battlefield
management capabilities in Afghanistan. The RQ-21A Small
Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System is uniquely capable of
operating from ship or shore, is transportable by High Mobility
Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV), and will be an integral
part of the future MAGTF. We remain committed to these two
critical programs.
--Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR).--The TPS-80 G/ATOR system
is the three dimensional short/medium range radar designed to
detect low observable/low radar cross section targets such as
cruise missiles, UAS, aircraft, rockets, mortars, and artillery
shells. G/ATOR replaces five legacy radar systems and supports
air surveillance, fire finding, and air traffic control
missions. G/ATOR provides fire quality data that supports the
integrated fire control concept and the extension of defensive
and strike capabilities from the sea to landward in the
littorals.
Ground Combat Element Modernization
Age and operational tempo have taken a toll on our Ground Combat
Element's (GCE) equipment, creating a requirement to recapitalize and
modernize key components. Essential to modernizing the GCE is a
comprehensive technologically advanced vehicle portfolio. Two key
initiatives to modernize the GCE are the Amphibious Combat Vehicle
(ACV) and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). These systems,
coupled with the recapitalization of our Family of Light Armored
Vehicles (LAV), a refurbishment of a portion of our legacy High
Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) fleet, and improvements
in advanced simulations systems, are critical to sustaining individual
and unit combat readiness while ensuring core capabilities of the GCE.
Amphibious operations are a core mission of the Marine Corps.
Amphibious operations is a category which includes a broad range of
missions including reinforcing diplomatic facilities from sea-based
platforms, conducting strikes and raids against terrorism targets,
delivering aid in the case of humanitarian disaster, and conducting
forcible entry where our forces are not invited. The future security
environment dictates that we maintain a robust capability to operate
from the sea, placing special demands on our equipment. When operating
in a maritime environment, Marine systems are exposed to the effects of
salt water and extreme weather. Our operational concepts depend on
rapid maneuver in littoral waters by which we avoid threat strengths
and exploit weaknesses. Thus, our combat systems must bridge the gap
between sea and land. Our tactics exploit swift action by Marines
ashore, mandating a seamless transition from maneuver at sea to
maneuver on land. In every operating environment we must provide a
modicum of protection for our Marines while preserving all-terrain
mobility and minimizing weight. The specialized craft utilized by
Marines support the unique missions of the sea-based crisis response
force and are essential for swift maneuver and forcible entry across a
range of environments.
Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV).--Many of our systems show the
signs of age, but none more than the current Amphibious Assault Vehicle
(AAV) which has been in service since 1972. The legacy AAV has served
the Corps well for over 40 years, but faces multiple component
obsolescence issues that affect readiness, sustainment costs, safety,
and our ability to respond from the sea. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle
(ACV) is needed to replace this aging fleet. To meet the demands of
both amphibious crisis response and forcible entry, the ACV program
will develop and field an advanced generation, fully amphibious,
armored personnel carrier to Marine Corps expeditionary forces. The ACV
will provide the ability to maneuver from the sea and to conduct
amphibious operations and combat operations ashore by providing the
capability to self-deploy from amphibious ships and to seamlessly
transition between sea and land domains. The ACV will enable the
efficient, tactical mobility of infantry combat forces from ships to
inland objectives across beach landing zones under uncertain,
nonpermissive, or hostile conditions in order to facilitate the rapid
buildup of combat power ashore. Bridging this sea-land gap with surface
vehicles is a necessary complement to the maneuver capabilities brought
by our MV-22 aircraft. Our objective in the ACV acquisition program is
to provide a sufficient quantity of vehicles to ensure we can meet the
requirement of the surface assault force for forcible entry and sustain
MAGTF operations.
During the interval in which we design, build and field the ACV, we
must ensure the continued safety, reliability, and operational
capability of our ``legacy'' AAV. The current AAV platform faces
significant maintenance challenges and obsolescence issues.
Accordingly, AAV sustainment efforts, to include the AAV Upgrade
program, remain a top Marine Corps recapitalization effort priority
until fielding of the ACV.
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV).--The Joint Light Tactical
Vehicle (JLTV) will provide the Marine Corps with modern expeditionary
light combat and tactical mobility while increasing the protection
afforded our Marines in the light utility vehicle fleet. Working
closely with the Army as the lead Service, the Marine Corps is a
partner in developing this key system for the tactical-wheeled vehicle
fleet of the Joint Force. A relatively light system is necessary to
retain our expeditionary capabilities aboard amphibious warships, and
to support transport by rotary wing aircraft. The program also seeks to
provide a level of protection that is an improvement over the HMMWV. As
a reflection of a constrained fiscal environment, our initial planned
purchase is 5,500 vehicles, only enough to meet critical needs in the
most dangerous combat mission profiles of the light vehicle fleet. The
JLTV development will benefit from early user and life cycle cost
analysis to ensure its long-term cost-effectiveness. The Marine Corps
also seeks funding to refurbish the balance of the HMMWV fleet that
will be retained. This is a cost-effective strategy to use these older
vehicles in mission profiles where a lack of the advanced capabilities
of the JLTV can be mitigated.
Light Armored Vehicle (LAV).--The Family of Light Armored Vehicles
(LAVs) enables combined arms reconnaissance and security missions in
support of the GCE. This family of vehicles has proven itself over more
than two decades of combat, and is an essential element of the combat
power of the MAGTF. Heavily utilized in crisis response, conventional
combat, irregular environments and stability operations, this fleet now
requires robust recapitalization and modernization in order to sustain
its capabilities. Additionally, obsolescence issues with several
critical components threaten the sustainability of the LAVs through the
expected end of service. Funding is requested to maintain the
operational availability of these platforms and provide upgrades to
adapt to the current and anticipated operating environments.
Ground Training Simulation Systems.--Modernization efforts in
ground training simulation systems have capitalized on advancements in
technology developed over a decade of preparing Marines for combat
deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Leveraging our success with these
programs, we will further enhance combat training to maintain our
readiness for the current and future security environments. These
critical simulation systems develop combat unit proficiency in core
skills such as command and control, leadership decisionmaking, and
combined arms coordination. They develop proficiency in individual
skills through combat convoy vehicle operator training, advanced
gunnery training, and individual marksmanship. These systems complement
necessary live ammunition and range training, but allow the
fundamentals of these capabilities to be practiced in a much more cost-
effective manner. Training simulation systems conserve training and
maintenance funds, reduce ammunition expenditures, and mitigate limited
availability of training ranges.
Joint Nonlethal Weapons Program.--As DOD's Executive Agent for the
Joint Nonlethal Weapons Program, the Marine Corps also continues its
efforts, in concert with the other Services, to advance nonlethal
technologies, and to provide capabilities in support of operational
commanders and our Allies to minimize collateral damage and unnecessary
loss of life. These capabilities are becoming increasingly relevant in
the security environment of the new normal of instability, non-state
actors, and a desire to minimize collateral damage.
Logistics Combat Element Modernization
Our logistics modernization efforts include the Global Combat
Support System-Marine Corps (GCSS-MC) as the Information Technology
enabler for logistics supply chain management throughout the Marine
Corps. When fully developed, GCSS-MC will provide an unprecedented
capability for inventory accountability, providing accurate logistics
data to commanders and logisticians in near real-time at any location
in the world.
The past decade's operational tempo and the continuing evolution of
warfare have also emphasized the importance of engineer equipment
modernization. Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) capability has become
increasingly important with the rise of the improvised explosive device
as the enemy's weapon of choice. Development of the Advanced EOD
Robotics System and Route Reconnaissance and Clearance Sets have proven
themselves in combat, saving lives and preempting casualties.
Energy Modernization
Expeditionary Energy is a multiyear initiative integrated with our
approach to amphibious and expeditionary operations. Over the last
decade of combat, Marines have increased their lethality and
situational awareness, but at the expense of increased requirements for
fuel and batteries. These dependencies increase the logistics footprint
and combat weight of our force, impairing our expeditionary
responsiveness. The Marine Corps takes seriously the necessity to
increase energy efficiency, deploy renewable energy technology where it
makes sense, and train Marines to employ resources more efficiently. We
have made tremendous strides in weaning ourselves from external energy
dependencies, and we remain committed to continue our investments in
expeditionary energy. For expeditionary Marines operating in austere
environments, these energy efficiency measures represent a significant
increase in combat effectiveness.
investing in installations and infrastructure
Infrastructure Sustainment
Marine Corps Installations are a foundational support element to
our Air-Ground-Logistics teams. Our bases and stations serve as launch
platforms for our combat deployments, and are host to the realistic
training and facilities that make our Marines successful on the
battlefield. Our installations also provide for the safety and support
of our military families, our combat equipment, and our civilian
workforce. The quality of life for our Marines, Sailors, and families
is measurably impacted by the condition of our facilities. Our
installation commanders are required to be good stewards of their
properties, to respect natural and cultural resources and to operate in
a manner that sustains the environment and their mission. We will
continue to ensure that Marine Corps facilities are well-planned,
built, and maintained, and that they cost-effectively support Marine
Corps readiness. To maintain our physical infrastructure and the
complementary ability to train and deploy highly ready forces, we must
adequately resource the sustainment and readiness of our bases and
stations.
In fiscal year 2014, the Marine Corps Facilities Investment
strategy ensures that our infrastructure can adequately support Marine
Corps' needs. The proposed fiscal year 2014 budget provides $653
million for facilities sustainment of Marine Corps facilities and
infrastructure, maintaining funding at 90 percent of the sustainment
model requirement. Our budget request adequately supports environmental
compliance, family housing improvements, and the replacement of
inadequate and obsolete facilities across our installations. The fiscal
year 2014 budget request provides proper stewardship of Marine Corps
infrastructure. Sequestration necessitates significant cuts in
facilities investments and subsequent degradation in infrastructure
conditions and readiness.
With over $800 million requested in fiscal year 2014 for required
Military Construction projects, we are prioritizing funding to support
new mission and new platform requirements, force structure
repositioning, replacement of aging infrastructure, and support to
enduring missions. Our efforts to improve force protection, safety, and
physical security requirements are continuous.
The fiscal year 2014 budget provides $69 million for military
construction and $31 million for operations and maintenance funding to
continue improvements in our installations energy posture. This funding
will target energy efficiency goals established by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 aimed at reducing consumption by
30 percent from a 2003 baseline. Additional efficiencies will be gained
by decentralizing older, inefficient steam heating plants and by
improving our energy management and control systems. Overall, our
planned investments are intended to increase energy security on our
installations while reducing the cost of purchased utilities. Lean and
efficient basing infrastructure allows us to put every precious $1 to
use making Marines and deploying them where they are needed most.
To enable essential changes in training requirements as well as new
weapon systems, we are seeking Congressional support to expand the
Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, California, extend the existing
withdrawal of land for the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range,
California, as well as purchase private property to expand the Townsend
Bombing Range in Georgia. At Twentynine Palms, we are requesting the
withdrawal of approximately 150,000 acres from the public domain as
well as the purchase of approximately 2,500 acres of California State
Land and 10,000 acres of privately held land enabling it to support
training and exercises for a Marine Expeditionary Brigade size force.
The Marine Corps is also requesting to extend the existing withdrawal
of land for the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range in southern
California. The current withdrawal expires in 2014 and requires renewal
by Congress so that this vital range can continue its use for air and
ground training. Finally, the current 5,000 acre Townsend Bombing
Range, adjacent to Savannah, is not large enough to meet the required
safety or space requirements for use of precision guided munitions. We
are seeking to purchase privately held land to increase this facility
as well, allowing us to drop a wider range of ordnance in training.
This is a critically important Marine Corps aviation training
requirement that would be safely supported with the proposed expansion
by approximately 28,000 acres. For decades, Townsend Range has been
used by the joint aviation community as a centrally located and
preferred Air-to-Ground training facility on the east coast; the
fielding of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to all three Services makes
the expansion of Townsend Range even more critical.
orienting to the future
Rebalancing Toward the Pacific
As the world's leading democracy and largest economy, the United
States is a global Nation with economic and security interests
inextricably linked to the Asia-Pacific. The arc extending from the
chain of our own Alaskan islands down the Asian continent follows a
vast littoral and archipelagic swath that is home to close allies,
emerging partners, and potential threats. It contains vast resources,
vibrant populations, and great cities. It continues through the narrow
straits of Southeast Asia and extends all the way into the Indian
Ocean. Our return to prosperity as a nation (and thus achieve our
lasting security) depends on the restoration of global growth. No
engine of growth is more powerful than the Asia-Pacific. Rebalancing to
the Pacific theater is a central element of strategy. Geographically,
culturally, economically, even by name, the ``Pacific'' is a maritime
theater. The vast stretches of ocean, the thousands of small islands
that dot its map, and the vast inland waterways that shape its
demography are all artifacts of this maritime character, and have
implications for the types of forces required to achieve our security
there. The tyranny of distance underscores the value of forward
deployed maritime forces in the Pacific region. The Navy-Marine Corps
team is uniquely suited to operate in this vast blue water and littoral
environment. Marines have a long legacy of serving in the Pacific; it
is where the Marine Corps ``came of age.'' We are proud of our heritage
in that theater through a world war and the many smaller conflicts,
crises, and contingencies that have followed. Strategic imperatives
demand that our Nation continues to build on the presence of Sailors
and Marines who operate daily throughout this region.
As we draw down our presence in Afghanistan we will reset in
stride, resuming our Unit Deployment Program in Okinawa and re-
establishing our force posture in the Pacific. The Marine Corps has
developed a comprehensive campaign for a future force lay down in the
Pacific that retains the ability to contribute a stabilizing presence,
continues to contribute to deterrence and regional stability in
Northeast Asia, revitalizes our traditional partnerships while
developing new ones, and postures forces to take advantage of key
partnership opportunities in Southeast Asia. Our desired end state
through this rebalance is four geographically distributed and
operationally resilient Marine Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs) trained
and prepared to conduct combined arms and amphibious operations in
support of the global requirements of the joint force.
In the Pacific, forward presence is a key necessity for timely
response to crisis. Where hours matter, a response measured in weeks or
months wanes in relevance. Expeditionary Marine forces operating in the
Western Pacific can trim 2 weeks off the response time of units coming
from the continental U.S. Forward naval presence and training with our
Pacific allies demonstrates our commitment to the region, and builds
trust that cannot be surged during times of crisis.
Innovation and Experimentation
The Marine Corps has remained at the forefront of innovation,
especially during the last decade. Through experimentation and
realistic training, the Marine Corps has adapted to the challenges of
the modern operating environment, and has developed new concepts,
tactics, techniques, and procedures to ensure Marines are prepared to
meet the challenges of the future. Two key components of our training
innovation are our Marine Corps' Tactics and Operations Group (MCTOG)
and our Marine Corps Logistics Operations Group (MCLOG). These
organizations represent the collective wisdom of years of combat
operations rapidly turned directly into our training curricula.
Combined with the Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron One
(MAWTS-1), we are implementing a professionalization syllabus and
certification process for our mid-level combat leaders.
Through a rigorous process of wargaming, technological assessment,
and experimentation, the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL),
works closely with the Office of Naval Research and other partners to
produce material and nonmaterial solutions for our operating forces.
This mix of combat veterans, technical experts, and forward thinkers
conducts timely innovation to meet current needs and emerging threats.
We intend to build on this ability to adapt and innovate through MCWL
and the Marine Corps University. Leveraging the human capital
represented in a combat-proven generation of Marines is essential for
our future force.
Large Scale Exercises
Nations around the world, many of whom are our allies, are
purchasing and constructing amphibious capabilities at an increasing
rate. Even as total fleet numbers decline, the number and tonnage of
amphibious fleets is on the rise, and the growth of expeditionary
maritime capabilities is similarly resurgent. Our allies and partners,
especially in the Pacific, continue to improve amphibious arsenals and
realize the importance for this capability, as do our competitors and
potential adversaries. The forward-deployed Navy-Marine Corps
amphibious team continues to be a significant power projection
capability and a compelling model for other countries to emulate. Our
ability to train with and mentor this global force development is
essential.
In 2012, the Navy-Marine team conducted a number of large-scale
amphibious exercises to revitalize, refine, and strengthen our core
amphibious competencies. Exercises such as Bold Alligator on the U.S.
East Coast, Cobra Gold in Thailand, and SsangYong in South Korea each
draw significant international participation. Our allies have seen the
broad utility of expeditionary forces in achieving national security
objectives, and are investing to achieve these capabilities themselves.
These large exercise series, and others like them, leverage the
explosive growth of amphibious capabilities among our allies and
partners. They contribute not only to the training readiness of our own
forces, but also achieve combined training objectives with our allies.
They demonstrate our collective ability to provide the mechanisms of
collective security in the global commons. The investment of operating
funds to conduct these large-scale exercises not only trains forces,
but also builds strong security relationships.
keeping faith with our marines, sailors and families
Family Readiness
The Marine Corps remains acutely aware of the critical relationship
between quality of life and Marine Corps combat readiness. The strong
support of Congress in providing quality of life funding continues to
yield needed enhancements in family support programs. Our Marine Corps
Family Team Building (MCFTB) trainers and Family Readiness Officers
support the Unit, Personal and Family Readiness Program to ensure
Marines and their families maintain a high level of family readiness.
Over the last year, we have made significant strides in making our
entire syllabus of MCFTB training available online via computer based
training modules. As of March 1, families are now able to register for
an account and utilize computer-based training on our Marine-Net
training Web site. With over 227,000 subscribers and growing, our
online family readiness Web site, e-Marine, continues to be a valuable
and innovative tool to securely and safely share family readiness
information while improving lines of communication within individual
commands. Marines, family members, and unit commanders can access
documents, view photos and videos, participate in forums, and receive
important information about their Marine's unit from anywhere in the
world.
Wounded Warriors
The Marine Corps' Wounded Warrior Regiment (WWR) is a fundamental
component of the Marine Corps' pledge to ``keep faith'' with those who
have served. The WWR supports Marines wounded in combat, those who fall
severely ill, and those injured in the line of duty. The WWR
administers the Marine Corps' Recovery Care Coordination Program that
ensures medical and nonmedical needs fully integrate with programs such
as the Warrior Athlete Reconditioning Program. Facilities such as our
new Warrior Hope and Care Centers provide necessary specialized
facilities that allow us to support our wounded warriors and their
families.
Key to this care is ensuring Marines execute recovery plans that
enable their successful return to duty or reintegration to their
civilian communities. Around the country, we have established District
Injured Support Cell Coordinators who assist Marines transitioning from
active duty to veteran status. Our WWR Medical Staff provides medical
subject matter expertise, advocacy, and liaison to the medical
community. The Sergeant Merlin German Wounded Warrior Call Center
conducts an average of 7,000 outreach calls per month and receives
calls for assistance 24 hours a day from both active duty and veteran
Marines. Our contact centers conduct outreach to Marines who remain
with their parent command ensuring their needs are met. Depending upon
the individual Marine's requirements, these programs and services are
coordinated for optimal care delivery, proving that Wounded Warrior
care is not a process, but a persistent relationship between the Marine
Corps and our Marines.
One of my greatest concerns is the long-term care and support for
our wounded veterans. Many of our young men and women have sustained
injuries that will necessitate support for the remainder of their
lives. Given the youthfulness of this wounded population, this
represents a debt to our Nation's warriors that will have to be paid
for several decades. Our Wounded Warrior capabilities are an enduring
measure of our commitment to keep faith with our young men and women,
and we expect this capability will continue well beyond our return from
Afghanistan.
Resiliency
We continue to invest, treat, and care for our Marines with Post-
Traumatic Stress (PTS) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). We are working
to ensure that Marines understand that, ``it's OK to not be OK.'' Our
efforts will continue to ensure that Marines seek help and are provided
effective care when they need it. We stress that all Marines and
Sailors have a responsibility to look out for one another and to assist
anyone who might be struggling.
PTS and TBI are invisible enemies we cannot ignore. We are
thoroughly screening all Marines and Sailors prior to deployment,
enhancing the delivery of care in theater and identifying and testing
all at-risk personnel as they return from deployment. Enhanced
resilience, achieved through training and improved physical, spiritual,
and psychological fitness, can decrease post-traumatic stress, decrease
incidents of undesirable and destructive behaviors, and lead to greater
likelihood for future good health. Most service members who seek and
receive psychological health support improve, and are eligible to
remain on active duty.
Since January 2010, we have been building Operational Stress
Control and Readiness (OSCAR) teams at the unit level. These teams
consist of selected unit Marines, leaders, medical and religious
personnel, and mental health professionals who work together to provide
a network of support. This model empowers Marines with leadership
skills to break stigma and act as sensors for the commander by noticing
small changes in behavior and taking action early. OSCAR teams
strengthen Marines, mitigate stress, identify those at risk and treat
those who need support, with the goal of swiftly re-integrating Marines
back into the force. This investment comes at a cost, and places
increased demand on an already stressed Navy medical capacity.
In fiscal year 2013, we will continue to advance our Marine Total
Fitness concept to develop Marines of exemplary physical,
psychological, spiritual, and social character. Marine Total Fitness
infuses fitness-based information and concepts into all aspects of a
Marine's training and readiness and prepares Marines to successfully
operate in and respond to the rigors, demands, and stressors of both
combat and garrison.
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR)
Sexual assault is a crime. Like other serious crimes, it is
incompatible with our core values, negatively impacts individual
Marines, and directly undermines readiness, unit cohesion, and morale.
Protecting our Marines and eradicating sexual assault from our ranks
are top priorities for me and our Corps. I believe we are making real
and tangible progress. Over the last year, we have taken deliberate and
substantive steps toward dramatic changes in our sexual assault
prevention and response capabilities. The focus of effort has been on
changing our culture--specifically, changing the behavior of those who
might commit sexual assault and the actions of those who respond to it.
We believe that all Marines are part of the solution, from small unit
leaders to peer and bystander intervention, to legal professionals, to
unit commanders. In April 2012, I handpicked a two-star general to lead
an Operational Planning Team (OPT) comprised of our Corps' most
credible officers and senior enlisted Marines. They were tasked with
defining the sexual assault problem in our Corps and providing me
recommendations on how we could eliminate it from within our ranks.
This study led to our Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Campaign
Plan. While recognizing that there is no single solution to preventing
and responding to sexual assault, this plan makes every Marine
accountable in our fight against it. We reconfigured the entire SAPR
program at the Headquarters level, assigning oversight to a General
Officer and a newly established team of experts. In an unprecedented
move, we pulled one of our very best Colonels from his operational
command to implement the initiatives outlined in the Campaign Plan. We
brought back all of our General Officers to Quantico in July for 2 days
of training and cross-leveling of their responsibilities in turning
this crime around. On the heels of that effort, the Sergeant Major of
the Marine Corps brought all of his top senior enlisted leaders back to
D.C. in August to deliver the same message.
The campaign's first phase consisted of 42 tasks, including new
large-scale training initiatives at all levels. It was comprised of
Command Team Training for senior leaders, bystander intervention
training for Non-Commissioned Officers, and All Hands training for
every single Marine. In these training sessions, we employed ethical
decision games and interactive discussions to engage all Marines in
this difficult topic. To achieve long-term cultural change, this
training will be sustained through enhancing the training curricula in
all of our professional schools, customizing the training based on the
rank and experience of the individual Marine.
Protection of the victims of sexual assault, even while cases make
their way through the legal system, is an immediate and enduring
requirement which we take very seriously. Regarding response to sexual
assault, we professionalized our victim advocate community by revising
our advocacy training and implementing credentialing requirements for
SAPR personnel. Additionally, we have added 47 full-time Sexual Assault
Response Coordinator and Victim Advocate billets for fiscal year 2013.
We have completely reorganized our legal community to improve our
ability to successfully prosecute these complex cases after they have
been investigated. The centerpiece of this new model is the Regional
Complex Trial Team, which ensures we have the right prosecutor on the
right case. Our complex trial teams are staffed with experienced
military prosecutors and augmented by civilian--Highly Qualified
Experts--giving us a wealth of experience to prosecute complex sexual
assault cases. These teams will not only be able to prosecute ``special
victims'' type cases, but all types of complex cases.
This effort complements our Campaign Plan's central Phase II
initiative: the establishment of Sexual Assault Response Teams (SARTs).
SARTs will be established regionally to prevent a fragmented approach
to victim care. This requires continued collaboration with various
entities, such as the U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery and
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), adding to the enhanced
training and surge capability that NCIS has already implemented to
expedite assault investigations.
Perhaps counter-intuitively, one potential manifestation of our
intensified institutional response will likely be an increase in
unrestricted reported cases. If this represents an increase in the
bonds of trust between our junior Marines and their chain of command, I
will consider that a successful step on the path to eliminating this
issue in the Marine Corps. Eliminating sexual assault in our ranks is
our ultimate goal, and I will stay personally and actively engaged in
leading this campaign.
Suicide Prevention
During 2012, the Marine Corps experienced a rise in suicides and
suicide attempts after 2 encouraging years of declining numbers. During
calendar years 2010 and 2011, 37 and 32 Marines, respectively, died by
suicide. For calendar year 2012, the number of suicides increased to
48. We remain committed to preventing this great tragedy. Suicide is an
issue that belies simple or quick solutions; it is an important issue
that demands our continual attention. We have learned that the most
effective methodology for us to prevent suicides is vigilant and
persistently engaged leadership at every level. Proactive leaders are
alert to those at risk for suicide and take action to help Marines
optimize their physical, psychological, social, and spiritual aspects
of their lives. To counter suicide, affirming and restoring the
indomitable spirit of Marines is an enduring mission.
Our primary challenge remains teaching Marines to engage our many
services early, before problems worsen to the point where they
contemplate or attempt suicide. Last year we signed the first formal
policy and procedural guidance for the Marine Corps Suicide Prevention
Program. ``Never Leave a Marine Behind'' suicide prevention training
focuses on how Marines can help one another, and how they can seek help
early before a situation becomes a crisis. In 2012, we also expanded
our successful--DSTRESS--Line worldwide, which provides anonymous 24/7
counseling services to any Marine, Sailor, or family member.
Additionally, we have trained and implemented Suicide Prevention
Program Officers for every battalion and squadron. We will continue
focusing our efforts on preserving the health of our greatest and most
cherished resource, our Marines, Sailors, and their families.
Civilian Marine Workforce
Civilian Marines exemplify our core values. They embrace esprit de
corps, teamwork, and pride in belonging to our Nation's Corps of
Marines. The 95 percent of our civilian workforce that is employed
outside the Headquarters element in the Pentagon, are located at our
installations, bases, and stations; they are the guards at our gates,
the clerks who pay our bills, the therapists who treat our wounded, the
experts who repair our equipment, our information technology support,
and the teachers who instruct our children. Sixty-eight percent of our
civilian Marines are veterans who have chosen to continue to serve our
Nation. Of those, a full 13 percent have a certified disability. Still,
our civilian workforce is very small in comparison with similar
organizations. The Marine Corps maintains a very frugal ratio of one
civilian to every 10 active duty Marines. Our civilian nonappropriated
funded workforce continues to steadfastly provide vital support to our
Marines, reserve Marines, their families, and our wounded, ill, and
injured. Since 2009, the Marine Corps has taken proactive measures to
prioritize civilian requirements and realign resources to retain an
affordable and efficient workforce directly linked to our mission. In
our effort to restrain growth, we implemented a hiring freeze from
December 2010 through December 2011 to achieve our appropriated funded
civilian end strength commensurate with a goal of 17,501. We started
into this era of budgetary uncertainty not fully recovered from the
hiring freeze and we have no chance of recovering in fiscal year 2013.
In pursuit of the leanest possible institution, the Marine Corps' 2013
budget restrains growth in our civilian Marine workforce; our 2014 and
beyond budget plans are based on a stabilized workforce. Further
civilian reductions will severely jeopardize our ability to meet
mission requirements.
Women in Service Restriction Review
The Marine Corps continues its efforts to review the laws,
policies, and regulations that restrict the service of female Marines.
As our policies evolve, we must ensure the effectiveness of our combat
units, the long-term physical well-being of all of our Marines, and the
broadest possible career opportunities for all. To that end, I
initiated a measured, deliberate, and responsible research effort to
provide the meaningful data necessary to make fact-based
recommendations to the senior leadership of the Department of Defense
and Congress. Our research efforts will continue as we implement the
January 24, 2013 Secretary of Defense decision to rescind the 1994
Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule. Additionally, in
order for us to collect performance data in our most demanding and
rigorous ground combat skills training environment, female graduates of
our Basic Officer Course at The Basic School are afforded the
opportunity to volunteer to attend our Infantry Officers Course. That
effort is ongoing and will continue into 2016 as we collect the
necessary data.
During this past year, we requested and received approval for an
exception to the 1994 Ground Combat Exclusion Rule. Under this
Exception to Policy (ETP), the Marine Corps opened 371 Marine and 60
Navy positions in combat arms units previously closed to females. These
19 previously closed operational units include artillery, tanks,
assault amphibians, combat engineers, and low altitude air defense
communities. The assessments and feedback from these units to date has
been encouraging.
Following SECDEF's required notification to Congress later this
spring, we intend to further expand the ETP beyond these original 19
battalions to include opening Military Occupational Specialties (MOSs)
within Air-Naval Gunfire Liaison Company units and the 0203 Ground
Intelligence Officer MOS. During 2013, ETP participants and Commanders
will continue to provide assessments which will afford our leadership
the opportunity to address issues such as optimum cohort size,
mentorship, and career development. Currently, 90 percent of our
military occupational specialties are open to females.
Additionally this year, the Marine Corps will continue our
measured, deliberate, and responsible research effort by completing our
review and validation of standards for those MOSs with the greatest
physical demands. Once complete, our goal is to correlate and norm
these proposed physical standards with our already established Physical
Fitness Test (PFT)/Combat Fitness Test (CFT). The goal is to develop a
safe, predictive mechanism to use during the MOS assignment process for
all Marines, both male and female, to ensure they are assigned where
they have the greatest likelihood to excel to their fullest potential.
Returning Quality Citizens
It is vital that we meet the needs of our Marines who transition
from service. In March 2012, we implemented the new Transition
Readiness Seminar (TRS) to maximize the transition-readiness of all
service members. In accordance with the Veterans Opportunity to Work
(VOW) to Hire Heroes Act, TRS revolutionized our approach to meet the
individual goals of each Marine as he or she transitions to the next
phase in their life. The seminar is a week long program which includes
a mandatory standardized core curriculum and also provides four well-
defined military-civilian pathways: (1) College/Education/University,
(2) Career/Technical Training, (3) Employment, or (4) Entrepreneurial.
Each pathway has associated resources and additional tools to better
prepare our Veteran Marines. An essential feature of the TRS is that it
allows Marines to choose and receive transition information and
education in line with each Marine's future goals and objectives.
summary
Even in challenging times, our great Nation remains the world's
largest economy and an indispensable leader in the global community of
nations. Our interests span the globe, and our prosperity and security
are to be found in the protection of a just international order. That
order is threatened daily by the instabilities of a modernizing world,
putting our citizens, our interests, and our allies at risk. While we
seek peace as a nation, the headlines remind us that those who would do
us harm continue to bring conflict to our doorstep. The Marine Corps
remains the Nation's ready hedge against unpredictable crises, an
insurance policy that buys time when hours matter. In special
partnership with the Navy, and on the ready leading edge of the larger
Joint force, your Marines provide the capability to respond to today's
crisis, with today's force . . . TODAY. The American people can rest
assured that their Marines are poised around the globe, ready to
respond swiftly when danger, difficulty or disaster strikes.
I pledge that your Marine Corps will continue to work with Congress
and the Department to provide the Nation's ready expeditionary force
with economy, frugality, and good stewardship. Through Congress, the
American people entrust us with their most-precious capital: their
sons, their daughters, and their hard-earned resources. With your
continued support, we will carefully invest this capital to provide
young Marines with the ethos, training, and equipment that have made
them successful for over two centuries. We will uphold high standards
of training, leadership and discipline. We will keep faith with our
Wounded Warriors. We will care for our families. Most importantly, we
will ensure that your Marines are ready when the Nation needs us the
most. We will do this all with dignity, humility, and a keen
sensitivity to the sacred trust the American people have placed in us.
Thank-you for your continued faith in us. We remain . . . Semper
Fidelis.
MARINE CORPS DEPLOYMENTS
Senator Durbin [presiding]. Thank you very much.
I might remind my colleagues that we have a 12 o'clock
vote. I am going to try to give everyone a chance to ask
questions before we have to leave for that vote. I will ask the
following question: General Amos, we were advised this morning
that the Marine Corps has just received approval to deploy a
task force to Moron Air Base in Spain. They started moving
aircraft and personnel this past weekend. There was an article
that was published in February, but at the time, the location
and makeup of the force had not been released. The purpose of
the deployment I understand is to help U.S.-Africa command more
rapidly respond to events in North Africa. I would like to ask
you this question: What precipitated this decision, and what do
you anticipate the marines will be called on to do in this new
assignment?
General Amos. Chairman, thanks for the opportunity to talk
about it. Yesterday morning, six MV-22 Ospreys left New River
to stage in Maine on their way across the Atlantic. They will
be followed by--the force will be comprised of about 550
marines and sailors, and they will predominantly be based, to
begin with, out of Moron, Spain.
Their job is to provide a crisis response capability for
the combatant commander. General Ham, when he was the combatant
commander, and I talked about it. You take a look at the forces
that would be available in the Africa theater, and with the
exception of just a few special operations forces (SOF) and, of
course, marines at embassies and security forces, there are
very few others that he has available to respond to a crisis.
So this is an opportunity now to provide that crisis
response force. It will have a marine infantry company
reinforced. It will have signals intelligence, cyber
capabilities, and logistics. And they will be able to respond
to both--he and to the combatant commander, EUCOM, as they see
fit.
Senator Durbin. It is my understanding that current
deployment to Sigonella in Italy has resulted in the frequent
deployment of 15- to 20-man teams to advise, assist, and train
friendly militaries in Africa. The most recent iteration
deployed from Camp Lejeune was about 130. The numbers you have
given us sound at least comparable, if not substantially more,
than Sigonella. What will be the difference in the types of
assignments that this new unit might face?
General Amos. Chairman, the Sigonella detachment, which we
stood up almost a year ago now, is predominantly for training,
advising, and assisting, giving General Ham then, now General
Rodriguez, the ability to actually do in small teams, train
with his African partners.
This response team that I just described, the crisis
response force, it can do training, but it also if something
happens, you now have an asset that you can move very quickly,
along with the C-130 tankers and the V-22s. You can move it
very quickly in the Africa continent to respond to a crisis.
Senator Durbin. So have you been given any indication of at
least the area of potential deployment?
General Amos. Sir, I do not right now. When I talked to
General Ham to begin with, I told him, I said, ``You can--we
will provide this force. You can put it on the African
continent anywhere that you have--the State Department makes
arrangements.'' Right now, they are temporarily going to Moron,
Spain as a placeholder. But, sir, I cannot tell you where they
are going to go. I think they are going to move some time, and
I would not surprise me to find them moving around the Africa
continent.
F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. I just have a minute
and a half remaining. The question I am about to ask is going
to be the subject of a later hearing, but I would like to at
least get a response from Admiral Greenert or Secretary Mabus
about the current status of the Joint Strike Fighter program as
it relates to your branch of the service.
Admiral, this has been going on for 12 years. Some $9
billion has been spent. It is my understanding the average cost
of the aircraft, even discounted in volume, is going to be 50
percent more than anticipated. I am also told that as of this
point, only 43 percent of the program has been flight tested
some 12 years after it was initiated.
Can you tell me your feeling about the status of this
program and whether or not it is going to provide the aircraft
that the Navy needs at a sustainable cost?
Admiral Greenert. Well, we are--the Navy is looking at the
C version, the carrier version. It is the third of the three.
So the tests are more in the beginning stages for that class.
So far I am satisfied with those tests, but most of them
are aeronautics and the airplane itself; that is, the frame and
the engines. Satisfactory so far. But for me, we still need to
get the tail hook to work right. That is on a track. And for
me, we have to be able to have software that can employ all the
weapons that the Hornet, our Super Hornet, plays because this
aircraft has to integrate into the air wing at sea. I cannot
just have it as an adjunct.
And so what we need is a tail hook, the helmet to get done,
the software to get done, and test it properly so that it can
employ all the weapons so that at that time, right around 2017,
2018, it can embed into the air wing.
Right now, I am optimistic, but we will see.
Senator Durbin. I am not going to dwell on this. There are
plenty of questions I could ask both General Amos, Secretary
Mabus, and yourself to follow up. There will be a separate
hearing on this Joint Strike Fighter. I think it is important
that we at this level, at the Appropriations Committee, ask
some of these important questions about this critical program.
I am trying to now to take a look at the order of
precedence and recognition here, and it is my understanding
that Senator Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate
Appropriations Committee, is next.
Senator Shelby. Well, you are kind. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. We have a lot of rank issues here, which we
have to resolve.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary,
the Navy's joint high speed vessel, as you are familiar with, I
think is a valuable addition to the Navy. You have said that
here before. It has an expansive mission bay of some 20,000
square feet, which enables a ship to move 600 tons of cargo at
over 35 knots, while carrying over 300 combat ready troops.
Given the speed--given the ship's speed, cargo capability,
and ability to maneuver in the shallow waters, would it not be
prudent for the Navy to look at expanding the joint high speed
vessel mission beyond theater transport, or what do you have in
mind?
JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL
Secretary Mabus. And as the Commandant said, thank you for
the opportunity to talk about this vessel that we are so proud
of. It is one of our most flexible platforms. It does the
things that you described, and we have already begun to expand
its role into theater cooperation.
I visited the first joint high speed vessel, the research
vessel, the Swift, off the coast of Africa when it was doing
African partnership station. And I also saw the same ship off
the coast of Panama when it was doing partnership related
activities with our Central American partners and allies.
And so from everything from transporting marines, soldiers,
and their equipment for either combat or training or lift
throughout the vast distances of the Pacific, for example, to
doing partnership engagements, to other missions that as we get
these ships into the fleet, see their capabilities, we can
expand. But we are very happy with this ship and with this
program.
Senator Shelby. You like what you see, do you not?
Secretary Mabus. We do.
Admiral Greenert. Senator, may I make a comment? I have
just assigned a three-star panel to do exactly what you said,
to expand the concept of the operation working with the Marine
Corps to find out what we can do. This, in my view, is a vessel
with a lot of potential.
Senator Shelby. The 300 combat, you are generally speaking
of marines, are you not?
Admiral Greenert. Generally speaking, yes, sir, and more.
LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP
Senator Shelby. Admiral, I have one quick question for you.
It is my understanding that the littoral combat ships (LCSs) 4
through 8 have experienced some schedule delays beyond their
originally scheduled delivery date. Could you provide
clarification to the committee on the revised delivery schedule
for these ships, and do you believe that the delay in delivery
of these ships represents anything out of the ordinary for that
of a second ship of a new ship class? In other words, are you
satisfied that the current delivery schedule will meet the
needs of the Navy, I think is the bottom line.
Admiral Greenert. Bottom line is, Senator, I believe that
the current delivery schedule will meet the needs of the Navy.
I will provide for the record the exact delivery.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Admiral Greenert. But these were mostly scheduling. It was
mostly just some hitches that you get here and there when you
get a new class of ship. Mr. Stackley and I are very
comfortable with the schedule they are on now.
Senator Shelby. Secretary Mabus, when the authorized dual
buy acquisition strategy that you are very familiar with comes
to a conclusion in 2015, what factors will the Navy consider
when determining how to proceed with procuring additional
littoral combat ships? Some of the criteria.
Secretary Mabus. Senator, one of the things that the Chief
of Naval Operations (CNO) has done is set up another panel on
LCS to come up with the way it should be used, the concept of
operations, lessons learned. We just deployed Freedom (LCS-1)
to Singapore. It got there this week for an 8-month deployment.
We are planning to put four in Singapore. And it is our plan
today to buy 52 of these incredibly capable vessels.
And as we see the operational qualities and capabilities of
both variants, and how it fits into the existing fleet, and how
it fits into our existing deployments, we will be making those
decisions. But right now, from everything we have seen, both
versions are performing very well.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much to all of you for being
here and your testimony. I want to thank you all for
specifically addressing sexual assault in your written remarks
and testimony, and I am encouraged by some of the efforts that
are being taken on these incredibly important issues.
SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION PROGRAMS
I understand that Secretary Hagel released a new Department
of Defense Instruction on Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Program Procedures on March 28. Secretary, let me
start with you. How did those efforts that you took within your
service inform the development of that instruction in
particular?
Secretary Mabus. Thank you, Senator. The office, our Sexual
Assault Prevention Office unique in the Pentagon, reports
directly to me. I put it in the Secretariat because I think
this is such a crucial issue facing our force. That office
worked very closely with the DOD-wide effort to come up with
best practices, to come up with some of the lessons that we are
learning and beginning to learn, but also to highlight perhaps
some of the differences that services face because of our
different circumstances and the different ways we deploy and we
are employed.
I will give you one very quick example. We, after a very
close look, found that we had few problems at boot camp, but
our problems began at A-school where all our enlisted sailors
go immediately after boot camp. And so our focus--part of our
focus has been on correcting the problems at that school, which
perhaps may be unique to the Navy.
The other thing that we deploy at sea on myriad different
kinds of ships and types of ships and making sure that we can
get the--number one, the instructions to the entire fleet, the
training to the entire fleet, but also sexual assault response
coordinators, Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)
investigators, to the sites where these things may be needed.
And if I could be permitted, just one other thing. I have
been asked if I am concerned about sexual assault, and my reply
has been that is not an accurate description, and I do not
think it applies to either General Amos or Admiral Greenert. I
am angry about it. This is an attack on our sailors and
marines, and it is an attack from the inside. And it is
something we simply have to fix.
If somebody was walking around taking shots at random at
our sailors and marines, we would fix it. And this is no less
of an attack on the integrity and the structure of our force.
Senator Murray. I appreciate that response.
General Amos, let me ask you. In your testimony, you
described a number of good steps you have taken to combat
military sexual assault in the Marine Corps, and talked about
how sexual assault is entirely incompatible with the culture of
the Marine Corps. But I am just concerned by a recent USA Today
article that talked about the results of the survey. And
according to the report, of all the services, the Marine Corps
has the highest percentage of female servicemembers reporting
they were sexually assaulted. Do you have any thoughts on why
that might be?
General Amos. Senator, thanks, and I thought you would
bring that up. If you were not, I was going to because I
thought the article, while well written, the historical data in
there is shameful. It is shameful for the Marine Corps, not for
USA Today. But it is historical data. When I saw that article,
I went back and I sat with my team that has been after this now
for--since probably about last May. And we have a major
campaign plan under way to change the culture of the Marine
Corps.
The data that was collected to accommodate that survey,
while shameful, it is historical data. It was taken 10 months
before the implementation of what we are doing right now. It
begins with me. It begins with the Sergeant Major of the Marine
Corps.
And, Senator, I want you to know we are committed to
changing the culture. Everything I put in my posture statements
are things that we are doing. I went back yesterday and I just
said, ``Okay, help me understand why this is--what is the
reality versus what might have appeared in the paper?'' And if
you would not mind, I would like to just read a couple of
things to you as a result of the survey.
The survey was conducted at the height of what we call
phase one, which is the strike phase, the thing to change our
culture from the top to the bottom. So it covers the period
that was 10 months before we even began these latest efforts.
Confirmed our reports that 97 percent of all marine members
indicated that they received training within the last 12
months. I mean, high quality staffer training in the last 12
months, 97 percent. It indicates that 93 percent of the females
and 88 percent of the male marines would actively intervene in
the situation where they saw or observed a sexual assault
taking place. I mean, that is significant. That is the
bystander training intervention that Secretary Mabus was
talking about, and that is key to turning around sexual
assault. You cannot just turn your back to your brother or your
sister. You have to intervene to do something about it.
It shows that Marine Corps women are more likely than other
service women to indicate awareness of victim advocates present
on their installation and to do something about it. It
indicates that Marine Corps women are more likely than other
service women to indicate that, one, they were offered chaplain
services, medical forensic services, satisfied with the
quality--this is important to me--of sexual assault advocacy
services, satisfied with the quality of counseling.
Some of the things that also came out as a result of this
is what we have done to reorganize the actual legal aspect----
Senator Murray. My time has expired, and I want to
recognize that. I appreciate your looking back at the
historical data, but I think it is just imminent upon all of us
to really take this seriously. And I appreciate your doing it,
and we are going to stay on top of that.
And my time unfortunately is out. And, General, if I can
talk with you again on this in the future, I would appreciate
it.
General Amos. Senator, I will come by and pay an office
call with you.
ASIA-PACIFIC FOCUS OF FORCES
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Let me ask, I suppose, the Secretary and
then the others of the panel can respond to this, too.
Our posture in the Asia-Pacific is obviously increasing,
and this is a focus of some importance in our military force
generally, but particularly for the Navy and Marine Corps. More
and more ships are being deployed to the area. More attention
is being paid to Asia--the Asia-Pacific region.
Is this giving anybody cause for concern, or do we also at
the same time have an initiative under way to try to be
sensitive to countries like China specifically, who may be
having thoughts that we are doing this in a provocative way?
What is the situation with that; is there an overview comment
that can be made?
Secretary Mabus. You described what we are doing very well,
Senator, in terms of moving assets into the Pacific, in terms
of moving both ships, sailors, and marines into that area. We
have been very transparent about doing this, and we have been
very transparent about the reasons for doing this. America is a
Pacific power. America and our economic well-being depends in
large measure on free access, free commerce, free trade in the
Pacific.
Now I would argue that the U.S. Navy, of which you were a
proud part a few decades ago along with me, has never left the
Pacific, and we have been a stabilizing force in the Pacific
for scores of years. This is not aimed at any one country. This
is not aimed at any particular event. What this is aimed at is
the recognition of the importance of the Western Pacific, of
the importance of our alliance there, of the importance of
making sure that we have the--an adequate presence to keep
those open sea lanes, to keep those--that freedom of trade, to
keep the global economies free and moving as we have done for
so many years now.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEQUESTRATION IMPACTS
Senator Durbin. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
have three quick questions.
Admiral Greenert, in reading your written remarks, page 4
and 5, you say that sequestration in fiscal year 2013 is 8
percent, about $6.1 billion total. And then if the caps are not
revised, the 2014 number would be $10 to $14 billion, which
over 2 years could add up to $20 billion.
What kind of a blow would that be? I think, you know, we
have to look at this now as a continuing thing and what it is
going to do to us. It is fine for 1 year, but you add year 2,
year 3, year 4, and it is a real problem. So in 2 years if this
continues, what impact would it have on the United States Navy?
Admiral Greenert. Senator, my concern, particularly in that
regard is that when you look at what we were able to do in 2013
in the investment account, $6 billion, we lost some units; that
is, units of purchase, some aircraft. We were able to retain
most of the ships we were building by taking a part of that
budget, that 6 to 8 percent, that you would use to build a
ship, and it is called ``the cost to complete.'' That is your
documents. That is your training. That is your ancillary
equipment. And we deferred that to when the ship would be
complete so that we did not lose the ship in that year.
I have taken that shot. So now when I get into the next
year and I have that kind of billions of dollars, I am very
concerned being able to sustain the shipbuilding account and
the aircraft account.
We are very tightly wound in those two accounts and the
industrial base. Senator, the bottom line is, my concern is the
industrial base, that somewhere along the line I am building
not enough ships or not enough aircraft to sustain the
competitive industrial base, not just the big primes, but the
secondary and tertiary people and industries that provide
components.
MARINE SECURITY GUARDS
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Do you mind if I just take a
minute more?
General Amos, the last time we talked, you were going to
send 1,000 marines to various posts, diplomatic posts. Has that
begun, and what is the result?
General Amos. Senator, it has been approved via the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), as you are aware, we
have three embassies right now that the State Department has
approved to try to stand up a marine security guard detachment
there between now and June. There are five more between now and
the end of the fiscal year.
We are in concert with the State Department. We are working
with them because, as you know, they have to provide the
facilities for the marines to go to. So we are on track for
that right now. It will be a gradual growth of that thousand,
and we are excited about it.
JOHNSON VALLEY LAND ACQUISITION
Senator Feinstein. Good. Thank you very much.
Secretary Mabus, in 2009, and this is a big California
problem right now, I met with Major General Eugene Payne, then
the Assistant Deputy Commandant for Installations and
Logistics, and Major General Melvin Spiese, then Commanding
General of Training and Education, to try to find a compromise
between the Navy and off road recreation enthusiasts regarding
the expansion of Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at
Twentynine Palms.
We have the largest off-road vehicle area--I did not
realize this--with hundreds of thousands of people using it in
a place called Johnson Valley. To make a long story short, we
got a solution in the following ways: Certain lands were
reserved for off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), lands were transferred to
the Navy to become part of the Twentynine Palms Base, and lands
to be jointly used by both marines and for OHV recreation. This
arrangement was called Alternative Six in the Navy's
Environmental Impact Statement for Base Expansion and Joint
Use.
The Navy ultimately selected this option as their preferred
alternative and issued a record of decision on February 11,
2013. Last week, legislation was introduced in the House by
Representative Paul Cook, which proposed a new strategy for
this marine training at Twentynine Palms. The bill would not
transfer any Johnson Valley land to the Navy for base
expansion, but instead require the Secretary of the Interior to
authorize military use of the area twice a year for sustained
combined arms live fire training.
What is the Marine Corps view of this particular
legislation, and will it eviscerate the agreement that we came
to in 2009?
Secretary Mabus. Senator, you laid out very accurately how
much work went into that agreement and the compromises reached.
And as you pointed out, the Navy--the Department of the Navy
working with the Marine Corps made that its record of decision,
and that is the position that we stand by.
Senator Feinstein. So you will stand by it with respect to
the House bill.
Secretary Mabus. Senator, I am not familiar with the House
bill.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. I think it will become familiar.
Secretary Mabus. But I am very familiar with what we have
done.
Senator Feinstein. Right, okay. But you are still
supportive of that, and that is what I wanted to know. So thank
you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, Admiral, General, thank you for being here
today. I very much appreciate your service and have enjoyed
working with all of you.
Secretary Mabus, last year you testified before us that the
Navy would certainly like to take advantage of the opportunity
to use competitive multiyear procurements in order to procure
more ships and achieve savings to the taxpayers. And as you are
well aware, Congress has been very eager to work with you in
that regard. We authorized these competitive multiyear
contracts and authorized the Navy to procure up to 10
destroyers in last year's authorization act, and provided an
additional billion dollars for that purpose.
We risk throwing away significant savings on the order of
hundreds of millions of dollars as well as undermining the
stability of the industrial base that we have worked so hard
together to preserve if we do not take advantage of this
opportunity. It is my understanding that the Navy would need to
notify Congress in the next 2 weeks in order to sign the
contracts before the current bids from the shipbuilders expire
because they were submitted some 10 months ago.
What is the status of the multiyear procurement contract
for the DDG-51? And if this is something the admiral should
comment on, whichever one of you should comment.
DDG-51 PROCUREMENT
Secretary Mabus. I will take the first view and ask Admiral
Greenert to come in with more details. But we have been, as you
pointed out, we get a big savings from this multiyear. And
thanks to particularly this committee authorizing an additional
DDG-51 up to 10 ships in the next 5 years, 5-year multiyear, we
will see significant savings. And the--putting a third DDG in
fiscal year 2012--fiscal year 2013 to be--which will make 10
over this 10-year period.
We have been working very closely with the two shipyards
involved to make sure in terms of their bids expiring, in terms
of locking in these savings. And frankly, the culprit here is
sequestration because you provided the correct amount of money
in the appropriations bill for 2013 to accomplish this.
Sequestration then took its percentage out of the amount of
money that you provided.
So that is what we have been working on internally and with
this committee, with the shipbuilders, to make sure that we
have those funds to do that. But we are very cognizant of that,
and Secretary Stackley has been working with--both CNO and I
have both been very involved in this because of the importance
of it and because of the amount of money that we can save and
get more ships for the Navy.
Senator Collins. It really is a win-win for the Navy and
for the taxpayers as well.
On Monday, the Navy delivered a 118-page report on the
investment plan for the modernization of naval shipyards. I
know that others need to question, and my time is going to
expire, so I am going to put a question into the record on that
report with the chairman's permission.
But I want to thank you for the comprehensive nature of the
report and for accelerating a project that is important in
consolidating some of the workshops at the Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard in Kittery. That is going to help the yard be even
more efficient.
And I think it is important that the Navy validated
concerns that a lot of us had that the GAO had identified about
the huge backlog at our four public shipyards. So I look
forward to continuing to work with you on that. And I will
submit my other questions for the record in the hopes of giving
my colleagues more time.
Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Senator Collins. Of course, that
will be included in the record.
VIRGINIA-CLASS SUBMARINE PROCUREMENT
Senator Durbin. Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Gentleman, thank you for your distinguished service to the
Navy, and to the Marine Corps, and to the Nation.
One of the most successful shipbuilding programs is the
Virginia-class submarine in terms of cost, and on time
delivery, and many other dimensions. And, Mr. Secretary or the
CNO, I understand that you are ready to award the Block IV
contract. Do you have a sense of timing when that might take
place?
Admiral Greenert. I will take that for the record and get
back to you, sir.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Admiral Greenert. It is coming along very well, but I will
get you the details.
[The information follows:]
Contract award is expected in October 2013.
Senator Reed. Do you have also a notion of the size of the
block? There has been some discussion of 10 ships or----
Admiral Greenert. Ten.
Senator Reed. Ten, very good. Thank you. And as you know
from Senator Collins' comments, we have been able to structure
this as a multiyear procurement. We have two boats in this
budget. And it helps in terms of efficiency, and I think,
again, it is one of those programs that is very cost-effective
and very necessary.
Secretary Mabus. If I could just add----
Senator Reed. Absolutely, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Mabus [continuing]. It is one of our very best
programs. These boats are coming in ahead of schedule in the
case of the----
Senator Reed. Mississippi.
Secretary Mabus [continuing]. Incredibly well-named USS
Mississippi.
It came in probably a year ahead of schedule and right on
budget.
OHIO-CLASS SUBMARINE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Senator Reed. That is a tribute to Senator Cochran and the
Secretary of the Navy just coincidentally. But it is very aptly
named.
Let me just shift to another program which is critical to
our national security, and that is the Ohio-class replacement.
And, in fact, given its recognized ability to avoid detection,
its invulnerability, it becomes more and more critical to the
triad. And I wonder, Mr. Secretary or the CNO, if you can
comment on its growing importance in terms of the need for it
at sea.
Secretary Mabus. Well, that need has been amply documented,
justified. We are on track with all the research and
development (R&D) and early development work to begin
construction in 2021 for the first boat to put to sea in 2029,
which would be exactly on schedule. We are also working very
closely with our partners, the British, on the common missile
compartment since they are buying for their successor class the
same missile compartment using the same missiles.
But one word of caution: We are on track today. It is a
large program. It is an expensive program. Actually two words
of caution: One is sequestration holds the potential to upset
this timeline in a fairly dramatic way; and second, as we get
closer to time, there will have to be, as I believe Deputy
Secretary of Defense Carter said in his transmittal of the
shipbuilding report last year, a discussion in terms of the
Ohio-class replacement and the rest of our shipbuilding
programs in terms of how we finance this, because for a period
of time they are building these Ohio-class replacements. As I
said, a very expensive, incredibly important program. But we
need to keep the rest of our shipbuilding base intact.
Senator Reed. If I can follow up, Admiral Greenert: Is
there a possibility that if we slip this, that it will reach a
point at which we cannot have as many ballistic missile
submarines at sea as we need for deterrence and for strategic
posture?
Admiral Greenert. That is feasible, but unacceptable, I
would say, Senator. Yes, so we cannot slip it. And the
Secretary had it right. People ask me what is my number one
program of concern, and I would tell you it is the Ohio
replacement program. I look at that more than any other one.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you, Admiral. Just one point is
that this is, I would say, the most survivable leg of the
triad. And it is not just the Navy's program. It is a national
program. And I wonder if there is any consideration of
supporting the Navy's efforts with funds that are more
generically defense rather than more specifically Navy.
Secretary Mabus. I think that was the conversation I was
referring to that we had.
Senator Reed. Oh, I thank you very much. I wanted to make
sure that was clear.
One final point. My time has expired. But, General Amos,
thank you for your great marines and what they do. And I know
you have got money in for Bold Alligator. It is important to
let these marines test their skills before they are called upon
to do it against hostile fires. And so I thank you.
Senator Durbin. Senator Coats. We are on the roll call.
Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am conscious of
the fact that we have to leave shortly, so I will be as brief
as I possibly can. But I know that if you are not there before
me, the majority leader will hold it open. I am not so sure
that that applies to the other--works the other way around.
Sequester has been brought up numerous times here, and I
would just throw my two cents worth in here. I was happy to be
part of the group that gave you the flexibility you needed. My
thought on all of this is that this is not the best way to
address our spending problems. We need to replace sequester
with a long-term plan that puts us on the right direction
toward fiscal health.
In that regard, clearly the ability, at least on the
spending side, to separate the essential functions from the
like to do but cannot afford to do right now, from the--you
know--maybe that has run its course and we do not need to do it
anymore from the why did that get in there in the first place.
That flexibility absolutely has to be part of what I think a
long-term plan that replaces sequester is. I am glad you had
the flexibility, but we need to provide that in the long-term
plan.
And then unless we recognize that entitlement reform is
eating up the discretionary, everything this committee has to
deal with here. Getting to the essential functions and
providing for the common defense is the highest, in my view,
the highest essential function that this country has to address
and that the Congress has to address. So I want to be part of
doing that and making that the top priority because it affects
America's security. And then if we could throw in tax reform
with that, we might have something.
But let me just say, Admiral Greenert, in 2012, in an
article in Proceedings, you said, ``Future conflicts will be
won in the arena of electromagnetic spectrum and cyber space.
We must merge then master those realms.'' Now, first of all, I
want to thank you for your visit to Crane where we do a lot of
this stuff, and I know it is not necessarily in the highest
profile of the Navy because it is not on the coast. But you met
some of the 3,000 engineers, scientists, and technicians out
there, and I very much thank you for doing that.
General Amos, Secretary Mabus has been there also, and it
would be a great trifecta for us if you would--if I could host
you on a visit out there. I would ask you to talk to Admiral
Greenert in terms of the value of that because we do a lot of
things there for the Marines across the range of functions, and
it would be a great honor for you if, say, on a trip somewhere
you could make a stop at that point.
So, but, Admiral Greenert, just in the interest of time, if
you could just comment a little bit about this article and this
future warfare preparation that we need to address, and give me
your thoughts on that for the record.
Admiral Greenert. Well, what I have found is a lot of
potential adversaries and really a lot of technology today is
in the electromagnetic spectrum. And what I mean is people
detecting what we emit in that entire spectrum.
We are using it for everything today: Wi-Fi, cell phones,
you name it. So what do we--how do we--what do we know about
it? What do we know? Our ships and airplanes and all of our
units, what is our electromagnetic spectrum signature we did
not know?
So, number one, we have got to get our electromagnetic
hygiene right. How much energy are we putting out and what
frequency, because in the cold war we called that emission
control, and we need to get back to that. Number two, then we
have got to look at our radar, sonars, and all of those things,
why we are using the frequency we use, and then reduce the
number of antenna we have and make them more flexible and then
frequency hop so we can control our own. Then number three, our
detection. How do we use it? That is, the things that we use to
detect electromagnetic, things in the electromagnetic spectrum.
And then lastly, let us know it, use it, understand it, control
it, and then we can take cyber to a whole new level because it
is another domain that we can enter with our cyber
capabilities.
Senator Coats. Thank you. Thanks to the three of you for
all your years of service. I think it is extraordinary what you
have provided the Nation, and very much appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Senator Coats.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
We are on the roll call, which is going to end very
briefly. I want to thank our witnesses for coming today. The
dialogue will continue about the fiscal year 2014 budget.
[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
Question Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
Question. The Defense Department (DOD) spent $660 million on
Tuition Assistance in fiscal year 2012. Servicemembers took almost
900,000 voluntary education courses across DOD, including more than
130,000 courses in the Navy and more than 77,000 courses in the Marine
Corps. We know from an investigation by the Senate HELP Committee that
half of those funds go to for-profit colleges. The report concluded
that, ``it is unclear whether the revenues translate into meaningful
educational benefits for military students.''
What is the Navy doing to ensure that Sailors and Marines receive a
quality education and also what is Navy doing to ensure that Tuition
Assistance has the high standards our servicemembers rely on to perform
in the military and wherever their career takes them?
Answer. The Navy and Marine Corps only authorize tuition assistance
funding to educational institutions accredited by a U.S. Department of
Education-recognized accrediting organization, as required by
Department of Defense and Department of the Navy policy.
The Navy and Marine Corps do not distinguish between non-profit and
for-profit schools as long as the institution has signed the DOD
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which establishes eligibility
criteria for institutions that provide education programs through the
DOD Tuition Assistance program, and meets the U.S. Department of
Education accreditation standards.
The Navy and Marine Corps ensure accountability by requiring
Sailors and Marines to have a Navy College Office or Marine Corps
Education Services Office approved educational plan before tuition
assistance funding can be approved and before classes may begin.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. Secretary Mabus, you have been clear that the Navy and
Marine Corps must operate forward and be ready to respond when called
upon. Would you discuss the consequences of reduced funding on
readiness this year and what it means for next year? What are you doing
this year to mitigate the impact and can you describe in more detail
what the degradation of surge capacity would mean?
Answer.
navy
Under sequestration, Navy is focusing readiness efforts on deployed
and next-to-deploy units to meet the approved fiscal year 2013 Global
Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP) and prepare to meet the fiscal
year 2014 GFMAP. While this allows us to meet the adjudicated Combatant
Commander (COCOM) needs, it comes at the cost of surge capacity.
Navy projects that over two thirds of all Fleet units will not meet
material and training conditions for deployment by the end of fiscal
year 2013. Historically, this would be near 50 percent given our tiered
training and rotational force. Under historical funding levels (base
plus OCO--overseas contingency operations), it would take most of
fiscal year 2014 to recover to normal surge force generation capacity.
Continued sequestration in fiscal year 2014 would exacerbate Navy's
surge capacity shortfall, delay recovery by further reducing training
and operations for non-deployed units, and build maintenance backlogs
requiring years to recover.
The immediate impacts of the current $4.1 billion fiscal year 2013
shortfall in Operations and Maintenance, Navy (OMN) funding include a
reduction in deployments (one fewer carrier in CENTCOM and no further
SOUTHCOM ship deployments), reduced steaming days and training
opportunities for non-deployed ships, and reduced flying hours for non-
deployed air wings (resulting in two air wings being at minimum safety
levels by the end of fiscal year 2013). As the proficiency of non-
deployed crews and air wings degrades, the ability to respond to
emergent COCOM demands in a timely manner will be reduced. Any need for
these forces to deploy would require extensive just-in-time training
and preparations, delaying availability of ready forces to the COCOM.
The total impact to Navy's surge capacity will depend on the length
and magnitude of the OMN funding shortfall. As crews train at minimal
levels for longer periods and maintenance backlogs grow larger, the
time and costs required to recover increase dramatically.
marine corps
America's ``Force in Readiness'' must maintain a high state of
readiness at all times to respond to contingencies and commitments
throughout the globe. Despite the constrained funding resulting from
sequestration, the passing of H.R. 933 mitigated most of the near-term
operational impacts in fiscal year 2013. The Marine Corps will meet
near-term readiness commitments for deployed and next-to-deploy forces
and continue to rebalance to the Pacific and support the Marine
Rotational Force Darwin and the Unit Deployment Program.
While the Marine Corps is capable of meeting all deployment
requirements for our near-term deployable forces in fiscal year 2013,
we have mortgaged our long-term infrastructure and the unit readiness
of our home station units. We cannot continue to sustain these levels
of reductions in fiscal year 2014 without immediate impact to our
deployed and next to deploy forces and our non-deployed crisis response
forces at home.
Facilities sustainment reductions, that were used to mitigate
shortfalls in fiscal year 2013, would be unsustainable and would
degrade home station training and quality of life for Marines and their
families. The curtailment of training and maintenance would degrade the
readiness of non-deployed crisis response forces. Over half of Marine
Corps ground units and one-third of Marine Corps aviation combat units
would remain below acceptable readiness levels. Sequestration would
also adversely impact operations and exercises in fiscal year 2014 and
beyond.
Sequestration's impacts on the availability of amphibious and
maritime prepositioning ships are a concern for maintaining the Marine
Corps' forward amphibious presence. The combat readiness of these ships
is a foundational requirement for training for and executing
expeditionary force presence and amphibious force projection
operations. As such, reduced amphibious ship availability and readiness
could present a significant challenge to the training and maintenance
of Naval Expeditionary Forces, thus driving overall readiness levels
lower. Continued Congressional support for the Navy's shipbuilding and
surface ship-to-shore connector programs is vital to retain and
maintain an adequate fleet of modern combat-ready amphibious ships,
which provide continuous naval expeditionary presence and project power
across the globe.
automated test and retest
Question. Would the use of Automated Test and Retest (ATRT)
technology decrease costs associated with testing on naval platforms,
to include surface ships, submarines and aviation assets?
Answer. Automated test and analysis technologies, like ATRT by
Innovative Defense Technologies (IDT), possess the capability to reduce
time associated with testing and analysis through automation. To date,
automated test and analysis technologies have provided opportunities
for cost avoidance and improved testing processes vice cost savings.
Automated test and analysis technologies provide an opportunity to
increase the depth and breadth of testing coverage, typically
unachievable through manual methods, thus improving quality for complex
computer programs without a budget increase for testing and evaluation.
Question. Are there instances in which the Department of the Navy
SBIR policy with respect to ATRT technologies has not been observed? If
so, what corrective actions were taken?
Answer. No, the Navy has always adhered to its Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) policy with automated test and analysis
technologies. The Navy awarded SBIR contracts to IDT in 2006 (Phase I)
and 2011 (Phase III) for ATRT and has obligated over $50 million
against those contracts for ATRT SBIR projects within Program Executive
Offices for Submarines, Integrated Warfare Systems, Carriers, Ships,
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and Command, Control, Communication,
Computers and Intelligence. The Navy's support of the ATRT SBIR
directly aided in the maturity of this capability through its broad
usage across many Navy programs, thus enabling this small business to
become competitive in the automated testing and analysis marketplace.
Specifically, IDT was recently selected by Lockheed Martin Mission
Systems and Training (LM MST) to accomplish the automated testing and
analysis requirements under the AEGIS Combat System Engineering Agent
(CSEA) contract.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. In its fiscal year 2014 budget, the Navy chose to
terminate funding for the Reentry Systems Application Program (RSAP).
RSAP is an important national security program essential to sustaining
the ballistic missile industrial base and reentry capability of our
nuclear forces. Without adequate RSAP funding, the ballistic missile
industrial base will be significantly weakened, and our military will
lose the benefit of hundreds of technical experts striving to maintain
and improve missile technology. Why would the Navy eliminate an entire
program that seems to be so important to our nuclear deterrent?
Answer. In order to sustain the sea-based strategic deterrent,
research and development is required to ensure a safe, credible,
reliable, and effective Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile
capability. The Reentry Systems Application Program (RSAP) is a
research and development (R&D) program that successfully contributed to
the development of the Trident II D5 Life Extension Program (D5LE).
Due to fiscal constraints and allocation of funds to higher Navy
funding priorities, such as the Ohio Replacement Program, the Navy did
not fund RSAP in the fiscal year 2014 budget. The Navy will continue to
assess the scope and requirements of this program for inclusion in
future budget submissions based on funding availability and the ability
of D5LE to serve as the initial payload for the Ohio Replacement
Program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
Question. Section 231 of title 10, United States Code, requires the
Secretary of Defense to provide the Annual Naval Vessel Construction
Plan providing a detailed construction plan of combatant and support
vessels for the Navy over the next 30 fiscal years. This document is
supposed to be delivered with the budget request, but the Congress has
not yet received this document.
What is the status of the Annual Naval Vessel Construction Plan?
Answer. The Department of Defense submitted the Annual Report to
Congress on the Long-Range Plan for the Construction of Naval Vessels
for fiscal year 2014 to Congress on May 10, 2013.
Question. On April 22, 2013, the Navy delivered a 118-page report
on the Investment Plan for the Modernization of Naval Shipyards. This
was a report that I and other Senators requested following a 2010 GAO
report that identified significant shortfalls in shipyard
infrastructure. I want to thank you for the comprehensive nature of
this report and for accelerating a project to consolidate some of the
workshops at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard to the fiscal year 2014 budget.
This project will make the yard even more efficient than it already is.
I want to share two findings from your report with the Committee
because they really sum up the overall report. The first finding is
that the overall condition of the shipyard infrastructure is worse than
Navy infrastructure on average. The average naval shipyard facility age
is 60 years But what amazed me the most is that the average drydock is
79 years old, and some facilities as old as 198 years old. Overall,
Naval shipyards have a $3.45 billion facility maintenance backlog,
which is higher than the overall Navy average. This backlog includes
$1.18 billion of critical backlogs, which are defined as mission
essential facilities with a rating of less than 60. I understand that
the Navy would like to implement an investment plan to eliminate the
$3.5 billion backlog in 10 years, but the Navy is unable to eliminate
the backlog for 17 years because of fiscal constraints.
Would you elaborate on what specific barriers exist delaying the
backlog for 17 years?
Answer. The current fiscal environment compounded by competing
priorities has created barriers to infrastructure investment. The Navy
recognizes the importance of infrastructure investments to improve
mission-essential facilities as quickly as possible, especially given
the critical nature of Naval Shipyard facilities and requirements for
uninterrupted service for aircraft carrier and submarine depot
maintenance, and increased the level of investment to address the
backlog at mission essential facilities. This investment is
approximately 40 percent higher than the average investment in other
Navy installations, which is appropriate considering that naval
shipyard infrastructure is below the Navy average. Ideally, we want to
accomplish these efforts within a decade; however, due to competing
requirements for our resources, we plan to accomplish our goals by
2029.
Question. Secretary Mabus, in your testimony you describe that the
forward presence Seapower provides helps to deter or dissuade
adversaries and demonstrates American resolve and commitments to
security of sea lanes and regions around the world without a large and
expensive footprint ashore. It is this unique and important
characteristic that, in my view, makes the Navy well-suited to
protecting and extending U.S. interests around the world, especially
given the Nation's weariness with large land wars and occupations.
Can you elaborate on your vision for the Navy's role during the
next several decades?
Answer. A key element of our global defense posture is forward and
ready naval forces that serve as a central element of America's
capacity to act and influence where it matters, when it matters most.
The Navy/Marine Corps team will provide America's leaders with an
expansive range of options to shape and respond to the challenges of
the 21st century:
--Because we operate forward while respecting the sovereignty of
others, naval forces will remain particularly well-suited to
build the trust and confidence that underpin our strong
alliances and partnerships, strengthen international
cooperation, promote maritime security and ensure free access
to the maritime commons.
--As they have done for decades, forward-operating naval forces will
continue to be poised to respond rapidly to crises. Naval
forces' inherent mobility allows them to quickly move to areas
affected by unforeseen developments, employing forward-deployed
forces that are versatile enough to respond to a range of
missions in varied locations, and then reinforce and sustain
expeditionary power as needed.
--Operating forward around the world, naval forces strengthen
homeland defense by detecting and defeating threats as far from
the United States as possible. From ballistic missile defense
to the screening and high seas interdiction of suspicious
ships, the Navy will continue to provide a wide spectrum of
capabilities that seamlessly integrate with the joint force,
other elements of the U.S. Government, as well as our
international allies and partners.
--Naval forces will reassure our allies and partners and deter
aggression through the certain ability to rapidly deny an
adversary's objectives or to impose unacceptable costs. Our
ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) force--the most survivable
leg of the strategic nuclear triad--will continue to play an
essential role in the Nation's ability to deter adversaries
from employing weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
--Should deterrence fail, the Navy-Marine Corps team stands ready to
defeat adversaries in combat. Naval forces--operating as
integral elements of a joint or combined force--will enable the
United States and its allies to take the fight directly to the
enemy whenever and wherever required.
As the United States continues to fulfill its global
responsibilities in an evolving world, forward and ready naval forces
will be ever more vital to America's national security and prosperity.
______
Questions Submitted to Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert
Question Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
Question. Admiral Greenert, I understand that you are ready to
award the Block IV contract. Do you have a sense of when that might
take place?
Answer. Contract award is expected in October 2013.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. Admiral Greenert, you have been clear that the Navy and
Marine Corps must operate forward and be ready to respond when called
upon. Would you discuss the consequences of reduced funding on
readiness this year and what it means for next year? What are you doing
this year to mitigate the impact and can you describe in more detail
what the degradation of surge capacity would mean?
Answer. Under sequestration, Navy is focusing readiness efforts on
deployed and next-to-deploy units to meet the approved fiscal year 2013
Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP) and prepare to meet the
fiscal year 2014 GFMAP. While this allows us to meet the adjudicated
Combatant Commander (COCOM) needs, it comes at the cost of surge
capacity.
Navy projects that over two thirds of all Fleet units will not meet
material and training conditions for deployment by the end of fiscal
year 2013. Historically, this would be near 50 percent given our tiered
training and rotational force. Under historical funding levels (base
plus OCO), it would take most of fiscal year 2014 to recover to normal
surge force generation capacity. Continued sequestration in fiscal year
2014 would exacerbate Navy's surge capacity shortfall, delay recovery
by further reducing training and operations for non-deployed units, and
build maintenance backlogs requiring years to recover.
The immediate impacts of the current $4.1 billion fiscal year 2013
shortfall in Operations and Maintenance, Navy (OMN) funding include a
reduction in deployments (one fewer carrier in CENTCOM and no further
SOUTHCOM ship deployments), reduced steaming days and training
opportunities for non-deployed ships, and reduced flying hours for non-
deployed air wings (resulting in two air wings being at minimum safety
levels by the end of fiscal year 2013). As the proficiency of non-
deployed crews and air wings degrades, the ability to respond to
emergent COCOM demands in a timely manner will be reduced. Any need for
these forces to deploy would require extensive just-in-time training
and preparations, delaying availability of ready forces to the COCOM.
Our ability to assess the longer term impact to Navy's surge
capacity will depend on the status of the fiscal year 2014 budget
request (to include OCO), the amount of general transfer authority
received in fiscal year 2013 and the number of fiscal year 2013
operations and maintenance issues which carry over to fiscal year 2014
as a result of sequestration. Generally speaking, as crews train at
minimal levels for longer periods and maintenance backlogs grow larger,
the time and costs required to recover increase dramatically.
Question. Admiral Greenert, the Navy has made significant progress
in development of the Electromagnetic Railgun. Could you describe the
Navy's efforts and plans concerning the railgun and also describe the
potential advantages of the technology? Are there cost benefits of
employing this technology?
Answer. Railgun is an innovative technology with promising
potential to impact multiple war-fighting gaps both afloat and ashore,
including integrated air and missile defense, naval surface fire
support, strike, surface warfare, and air warfare missions. Railgun is
in a science and technology phase. Key technology developments and
demonstrations are still required in the areas of power storage,
transfer and replenishment, shipboard integration and safety,
repetitive-rate fires, and hypervelocity projectile development and
control prior to it transitioning to an acquisition program.
Navy has invested $334 million during the period fiscal year 2005-
2013. Progress to date is very promising in critical technologies for
barrel life, power system density, and tactical barrel design.
The ongoing development plan calls for ONR to continue Railgun
development at the current level of effort through fiscal year 2017.
This phase is focused on developing an actively cooled tactical Railgun
barrel and pulsed power components that are cooled for repetitive
firing rate operations. This year ONR also initiated a science and
technology effort to develop a hypervelocity projectile (HVP) that can
travel atspeeds greater than Mach 5 (1700 m/s). The HVP design goal is
to enable multimission capability and compatibility for use in multiple
gun platforms including Railgun. Critical projectile technologies are
being developed and test fired from both Railguns and powder guns.
We are committed to cost-saving collaboration with the Office of
the Secretary of Defense Strategic Capabilities Office, which recently
initiated an experiment to test Railgun as part of a forward base
defense strategy. Savings through common system design and shared
technology products are anticipated.
The potential advantages of this technology are illustrated by
operational analyses and physics-based modeling. The results of a
growing body of analysis support Railgun's war-fighting impact across a
range of mission sets. Lethality modeling and kinetic impact testing
have shown the lethal effectiveness of a Railgun hypervelocity
projectile. Additionally, the compact size of the projectile and
elimination of gun powder and rocket motor propellants leads to
increased safety as well as many more rounds being stored in ship
magazines.
A large cost benefit can be anticipated across the entire mission
set from successful development and implementation of Railgun
technology that meets performance requirements. The relatively low cost
projected for a Railgun precision guided projectile means that each
engagement including missile threats is much cheaper than using current
defensive methods, even when multiple Railgun rounds are required.
Railgun has great potential to shift the cost curve sharply to our
advantage.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
Question. Admiral Greenert, you state in your testimony that the
2014 budget submission supports the defense strategic guidance to
enable the Navy to maintain commitments in the Middle East and the
rebalance to Asia-Pacific. Secretary Mabus, in your testimony you
characterized the Navy's operational tempo in 2012 as ``high'' and that
almost half the fleet was at sea and more than 70,000 Sailors and
Marines were deployed on a daily basis conducting combat and maritime
security operations, exercises with our international partners, and
humanitarian assistance missions.
Following the Navy's $10.7 billion reduction in fiscal year 2013
funding due to sequestration and the budget uncertainty in fiscal year
2014 and beyond, can the Navy possibly maintain the same pace of
operations it is currently conducting?
Answer. In response to fiscal pressures in fiscal year 2013, we
were compelled to recommend the fiscal year 2013 GFMAP be changed to
cancel one ship deployment to the Pacific, two ship deployments to
Europe and cancel all but one fiscal year 2013 ship deployment to U.S.
Southern Command. We continue to evaluate opportunities to add
deployments to these regions as our fiscal position becomes clearer. In
addition to reducing overseas deployments, we have also reduced the
amount of operations and training our ships and aircraft conduct when
not deployed.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget fully funds Navy's
commitments under the fiscal year 2014 Global Force Management
Allocation Plan (GFMAP). Our ability to assess the longer term impact
to Navy's pace of operations will depend on the status of the fiscal
year 2014 budget request (to include OCO), the amount of general
transfer authority received in fiscal year 2013 and the number of
fiscal year 2013 operations and maintenance issues which carry over to
fiscal year 2014 as a result of sequestration. Generally speaking, as
crews train at minimal levels for longer periods and maintenance
backlogs grow larger, the time and costs required to recover increase
dramatically.
Question. In January 2013, the Navy modified the long-standing goal
of a 313-ship Navy to a goal of a 306-ship Navy. In its July 2012
report on the cost of the fiscal year 2013 30-year shipbuilding plan,
the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the plan would cost an
average of $20 billion per year in fiscal year 2012 dollars, or
approximately 19 percent more than the Navy estimates, to implement.
Do you believe the Navy will reach its goal of 306 ships in the
future?
Answer. Yes. The Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval
Vessels for fiscal year 2014 reaches 300 ships in 2019, and the Navy
force structure reaches the required inventory level of 306 ships in
2037.
In the 2020s, we reach the required levels of large surface
combatants, nuclear attack submarines (SSNs), amphibious ships, and
aircraft carriers, leaving us short of only small surface combatants
and support ships.
Question. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has announced yet
another strategic review of the Department of Defense, which is
expected to be completed by the end of May. There have been no less
than six comprehensive reviews since 1989, and yet the relative share
of the DOD budget allocated to each of the services has remained nearly
constant throughout all of these reviews. If the real, tough choices
were being made to reflect the changing strategic environment over
time, I would expect to see at least some shift in how the budget is
allocated among the military services.
Do you agree that reallocations within the budget rather than equal
budget cuts across each of the services is a reasonable expectation
following a strategic review?
Answer. With any change in strategic direction, it's reasonable to
expect changes to capability and force structure requirements that may
not align to a constant relative share of funding. Pending the results
of future strategic reviews, I cannot speculate on specific resource or
funding allocations.
Question. The strategic guidance and related defense priorities
call for rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific region and put heavy
reliance on unmanned systems and special operations forces.
How many ships and what types of ships are being relocated to the
Asia-Pacific region in support of this new posture during the next 5
years?
Answer. Navy's President's fiscal year 2014 budget continues our
emphasis on the Asia-Pacific rebalance to achieve 60 percent of the
fleet homeported in the Asia-Pacific region by 2020 and providing
deploying platforms with the newest capabilities to the region.
From fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2018, the Navy will deliver
the following new construction ships to San Diego: two America-class
amphibious assault ships (LHA); two San Antonio-class amphibious
transport docks (LPD); three Arleigh Burke-class guided missile
destroyers (DDG); two Zumwalt-class DDGs; and ten total Freedom and
Independence-class littoral combat ships (LCS). One additional new
Arleigh Burke DDG will be delivered to Pearl Harbor.
From fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2018, the Navy will relocate
the following ships: nine Virginia-class fast attack submarines (SSN)
to San Diego and Pearl Harbor to backfill decommissioning Los Angeles-
class SSNs; one SSN to Guam from San Diego; and two aircraft carriers
(CVN) back to San Diego upon completing their midlife refueling. Also
from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2018, the Navy's Military Sealift
Command (MSC) will relocate four new Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSV)
and one High Speed Transport (HST) in the Asia-Pacific Region. In
accordance with MSC's business model, these MSC ships operate without a
designated homeport.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
Question. The Navy's fiscal year 2014 budget request for sonobuoy
procurement is a significant increase over previous year's levels. I'm
aware of how important these acoustic sensors are to the Navy's anti-
submarine warfare capability. Could you please comment on this increase
and its importance to the Navy's overall mission readiness?
Answer. The increase in sonobuoy procurement funding will improve
Navy's overall Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) mission readiness. Most
importantly, this funding puts sonobuoy procurement on a trajectory to
meet the minimum inventory requirements for the entire family of air-
delivered acoustic sensors by the end of the Future Years Defense
Program (FYDP). Additionally, the Air ASW community is migrating from a
primarily passive to a more capable and sophisticated Multi-static
Active Coherent (MAC) capability, which will enable a more effective
and efficient wide area search for submarines. The MAC capability
provides the foundation for the P-8A Poseidon's ability to detect
submarines. Accordingly, our inventory of MAC sonobuoys must be built
up to support Combatant Commander ASW mission execution requirements.
Finally, this funding profile will enable Navy to train more frequently
with sonobuoys, improving the readiness of our forces to support Fleet
and Combatant Commander ASW requirements.
Question. I am concerned that 2025 is too long to wait for the Navy
to realize its goal of improved Electromagnetic decisionmaking across
the fleet given the vast array of threats we face today. Are there any
laws or regulations that need to be changed to accelerate this
timetable?
Answer. Currently there are no laws or regulations that need to be
changed to accelerate a delivery date. Major efforts are underway to
improve Electromagnetic decisionmaking, the majority of which are
scheduled to deliver prior to 2025. Examples are available upon
request.
Question. What opportunities exist for greater cooperation between
the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard? What is the status of the National Fleet
Program?
Answer. The U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard have and will continue
to seek opportunities for closer cooperation. In these times of fiscal
austerity, seeking these opportunities enables both Services to
leverage each other's capabilities and resources. Some current examples
include:
--Numerous formal agreements exist between the Navy and Coast Guard
to promote the sharing of capabilities and resources. This
includes leveraging each other's training systems through the
use of common schools for several enlisted ratings, pilot
training, and system-specific technical training that provides
significant savings in training overhead costs to both
services. Last year, Navy and Coast Guard finalized an
agreement to base our ships and aircraft at each other's
airfields, port facilities, and shore installation to help
reduce infrastructure costs. Navy and Coast Guard have already
exercised this agreement to base Coast Guard Cutter Valiant at
Naval Station Mayport and are currently exploring other
cooperative basing opportunities.
--Both Services utilize several common systems and platforms. For
example, both Services operate the H-60 and C-130 aircraft
which provides efficiencies in the procurement and life cycle
sustainment costs of these aircraft. Similarly, the Coast
Guard's National Security Cutter and the Navy's Littoral Combat
Ship share many common systems and spare parts facilitating
Navy-Coast Guard logistics integration initiatives.
--Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments routinely embark Navy ships
for counter-drug, counter-piracy, and other operations which
leverage the naval warfighting capability of our ships and the
law enforcement capability of the Coast Guard all from the same
platform.
--The Commandant and I and our staffs regularly hold formal talks to
discuss opportunities for increased cooperation. Additionally,
the Coast Guard and Navy have assigned liaison officers to
corresponding staffs to help identify and promote opportunities
for increased cooperation between the services.
The National Fleet Program remains a central tenet of the Navy and
Coast Guard's cooperative efforts. The Navy and Coast Guard best serve
the Nation when we deliberately prepare our forces for integrated
maritime operations. Such preparation ensures the Nation has capable
and ready forces to address the full spectrum of national requirements
from routine peacetime operations to crisis and sustained conflict.
Discussion of the National Fleet Program was a central topic at the
May 2012 Warfighter Talks between myself and the Commandant of the
Coast Guard (Commandant). At these talks, the Commandant and I directed
our staffs to update the National Fleet Policy to include the creation
of a flag-level National Fleet Board to provide oversight and
governance to the multiple Navy-Coast Guard teams working on
interoperability and commonality issues. This board will ensure the
Navy and Coast Guard continue to develop complimentary and non-
redundant multi-mission assets that optimize our effectiveness across
the full spectrum of naval and maritime missions. The Commandant and I
also signed a joint shipbuilding letter re-emphasizing our commitment
to the National Fleet Program and highlighting the complementary and
non-redundant nature of our respective shipbuilding programs.
The U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard remain committed maritime
partners both now and in the future. The capability we each provide is
critical to the defense of this Nation and our national interests. As
we both face challenging fiscal times, our Services will continually
seek opportunities for closer cooperation.
Question. I salute the Navy for making an unprecedented effort to
find areas of commonality between Navy SSP and the Air Force. Despite
significant technical differences between the Minuteman and Trident II
D5, do you feel there are potential areas where efforts can be shared
by both the Air Force and the Navy in order to gain efficiencies,
preserve the knowledge base, and reduce total costs? Is this something
you are willing to discuss with your Air Force counterpart?
Answer. Yes, there are potential opportunities for strategic
collaboration between the Air Force and the Navy for sustainment of
ballistic missile systems, and we are investigating those
opportunities. The Navy and the Air Force are both addressing the
challenges of sustaining aging strategic weapon systems and have begun
to work collaboratively to ensure these capabilities are retained in
the long-term to meet our requirements. We are seeking opportunities to
leverage technologies and make the best use of scarce resources. We are
already seeing benefits to the department from efforts on the Joint
Warhead Fuze Modernization program, which are adaptable to the Navy's
W88 and the Air Forces W87 and W78 reentry systems.
The Navy and the Air Force have established an Executive Steering
Group to identify and investigate potential collaboration opportunities
and oversee collaborative investments for sustainment of our strategic
systems. As a part of this effort, technology area working groups have
been established to study collaboration opportunities in the areas of
Reentry, Guidance, Propulsion, Launcher, Radiation Hardened
Electronics, Ground Test and Flight Test systems, and Nuclear Weapons
Security/Surety. We are assessing the spectrum of potential commonality
with the goal of using commonality where appropriate while ensuring
essential diversity where needed to ensure that one technical issue
does not overly impact the Nation's strategic deterrent.
Question. Why is it important for the U.S. Navy to have a state-of-
the-art museum in the Nation's Capital? How will a relocated National
Museum of the U.S. Navy, leveraged with non-Federal resources, raise
public awareness on the need for a strong U.S. Navy? Do you plan on
charging admission fees?
Answer. The move of the National Museum of the United States Navy
would be a major step in the Navy's strategic plan to energize public
and private awareness of the integral role Navy plays in our defense
and in the protection of our interests as a maritime nation. The move
is designed to galvanize internal and external support for Navy history
and heritage and to leverage non-Federal resources to accomplish that
mission. A state-of-the-art museum in the Nation's Capital would:
--Make Navy history and heritage readily accessible to the American
public by moving the National Museum of the United States Navy
outside of the security boundary of the Washington Navy Yard.
--The museum has been in its current location without significant
renovation, since its founding in 1963 by Admiral Arleigh
Burke.
--Since September 2001, public access to the Museum has been
increasingly difficult due to increasing security
requirements. The result has been a significant decrease in
visitorship, from a high of nearly 400,000 annually in the
late 1990s, to less than 100,000 in 2012.
--Enable the Navy to preserve the entire Navy Headquarters Art
collection (over 18,000 items) at the new location, as well as
preserving numerous other ``at risk'' artifacts.
--The new facility would significantly expand the capability and
capacity for the museum to conduct educational programs for
students in the National Capital Region through a state-of-the-
art STEM program. In addition, it would support the STEM
efforts of the Navy museum system across the country and at all
educational levels from K-12 to undergraduate to graduate.
--Finally, the move to a publicly accessible, state-of-the-art
facility in the Nation's Capital would significantly increase
private/non-profit support for the museum and thereby decrease
the requirement for appropriated funds. The goal is for the
non-profit partner to fund exhibit design, development,
construction, and installation at a cost of approximately $150
million. Further, the goal is for a combination of non-profit
and volunteer support to defray approximately two-thirds of the
sustained operating costs of the National Museum.
Navy does not plan on charging admission fees.
Question. The multi-volume Dictionary of American Naval Fighting
Ship (DANFS) is woefully out of date. How much would it cost over the
FYDP to update DANFS?
Answer. Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC) defines as ``out
of date'' any ship's history that is either incomplete or non-existent.
There are many other complete ships histories in DANFS that do not meet
current historiographical standards, but are not included in this
response.
The total cost to use contract labor over the FYDP to update DANFS
would be $10,800,000 or $2,160,000 annually. Using term Federal
employees would probably cost less, based on a GS-9 pay grade
requirement for the work. The estimated cost over the FYDP to use 22
term GS-9 Federal employees from fiscal year 2015-2019 would be
$9,143,200 or $1,828,640 annually. The positions would be eliminated
once the work was completed. However, due to the Federal employee
hiring freeze and challenging budget environment NHHC currently is not
authorized the additional term FTE discussed above.
Once DANFS is up to date, projected historian capacity at the
command by fiscal year 2019 would reach a level where the program would
be self-sustaining.
______
Questions Submitted to General James F. Amos
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. In 2009, I met with Major General Eugene Payne, Jr. (then
Assistant Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics) and Major
General Melvin Spiese (then Commanding General Training and Education
Command) to try to find a compromise between the Navy and off-road
recreation enthusiasts regarding the expansion of the Marine Corps Air
Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms.
While the Navy's initial proposal contemplated an expansion that
may have required nearly all 188,000 acres of Johnson Valley, the
largest off-road recreation area in the Nation, to be dedicated to
military training, General Payne and General Spiese graciously agreed
to study an alternative that would allow the area to be apportioned in
the following way:
--Lands reserved for OHV recreation and managed by the BLM;
--Lands to be transferred to the Navy to become part of the
Twentynine Palms base; and
--Lands to be jointly used by both the Marines and for OHV
recreation.
Under this arrangement, described as Alternative 6 in the Navy's
Environmental Impact Statement for the base expansion, the joint-use
area would be available to the Marines for 2 months each year to
conduct Marine Expeditionary Brigade-level training and available for
recreational use the remaining 10 months of the year. The Navy
ultimately selected this option as their preferred alternative and
issued a Record of Decision on February 11, 2013.
Last week, legislation was introduced in the House by Rep. Paul
Cook which proposes a new strategy for Marine training at Twentynine
Palms. It is my understanding that the bill would not transfer any
Johnson Valley land to the Navy for base expansion, but instead require
the Secretary of the Interior to authorize military use of the area
twice a year for sustained, combined arms, live-fire training.
What is the Marine Corps' view of this legislation?
Answer. Although H.R. 1676 proposes to withdraw Johnson Valley for
recreational and military use, the bill limits military readiness by
not allowing the Marine Corps to adequately train for the full range of
military operations; namely, Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) level
training. The hallmark of Marine Corps combat success is their
effective use of combined arms techniques. Successful employment of
this highly specialized and complex war fighting approach requires air-
ground training that includes simultaneous live-fire and maneuver. H.R.
1676 significantly restricts training to only the proposed 42 days per
year and imposes severe limitations on allowed equipment, weapons
systems, and ordnance; restrictions that effectively negate any
training value. Specifically, the bill does not include an exclusive
military use area, thereby limiting the use of dud producing ordnance--
such as artillery rounds and aviation delivered bombs. Use of these is
an essential part of combined arms training. In short, this proposal
prevents the Marine Corps from accomplishing the necessary MEB level
training, the precise reason why the Marine Corps requested the
withdrawal of Johnson Valley in the first place. Accordingly, USMC does
not support this bill. We believe the DON record of decision addressing
MEB training at Twentynine Palms and the Administration's legislative
proposal strikes the balance between military training, public access
and safety in Johnson Valley.
Question. If Congress were to approve the House bill, what impact
would this have on military readiness?
Answer. This bill would have a negative effect on Marine Corps
readiness by not filling the current lack of a Marine Expeditionary
Brigade (MEB) level, combined arms training area. MEBs must train to be
able to conduct intensive operations over extended distances--to
include integrating live-fire artillery, mortars, tanks, and aviation
fires with maneuver--while simultaneously receiving real-time
logistical support. Nine years of study and analysis validated that the
only viable alternative to support MEB level, combined arms, live-fire
training was to expand the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center
(MCAGCC) training area into Johnson Valley.
It is my understanding that the House bill is inspired largely out
of concern for the economic impact that base expansion will have on the
local economy. The fear is that if the Johnson Valley OHV Area is
dramatically reduced from its current size, fewer people will visit the
area, reducing local tax revenues.
Question. What is the latest available information regarding how
base expansion will impact the local economy?
Answer. The Final Environmental Impact Statement analyzed how the
base expansion would impact the local economy. The analysis indicates
that the expansion would generate an additional 110 jobs, $4 million in
salaries, and $7.5 million in additional regional sales. This would
offset a projected loss from the recreational and film industries of
$1.5 million in sales and $216,000 in taxes. For point of reference,
the Retail Trade and Accommodation/Food Services sectors of Yucca
Valley, Apple Valley and Victorville (the three largest local
communities realizing economic benefits from the off-highway vehicle
(OHV) community for which data is available) generate about $1.1
billion annually in sales. Of particular note, the King of the Hammers
Race, the single largest generator of economic activity associated with
OHV recreation in Johnson Valley that constitutes an estimated 15
percent of the total yearly visitation to Johnson Valley, would
continue under the Administration's proposal.
Question. Is there anything the Navy do to try to off-set the
impact that base expansion might have on the local economy and
potential lost revenue to local government? For example, does the
Department of Defense have authority to provide funds to local
jurisdictions to mitigate the impact of base expansion?
Answer. As indicated above, the additional 110 jobs, $4 million in
salaries, and $7.5 million in additional regional sales would offset
the loss from the recreational and film industries of $1.5 million in
sales and $216,000 in taxes. The Department of the Navy has no
mechanism to make payments in lieu of taxes; however, it should be
recognized that even before the expansion, the base is a significant
economic contributor to the local economy. For example, the base's 2012
workforce payroll is approximately $600 million, most of which is spent
in the local area by personnel stationed and employed on the base. In
addition, the U.S. Department of Education contributes to San
Bernardino County school impact aid of approximately $1.8 million a
year, and in 2012 the base contracted with local vendors in the amount
of $28 million.
The potential loss of Johnson Valley land is a serious concern for
OHV-users and others who visit the area to camping, hiking, rock-
hounding and general outdoor recreation.
Question. Can you please describe the efforts the Navy has taken to
address these concerns in the expansion plan?
Answer. The Administration proposal would set aside 43,000 acres of
Johnson Valley exclusively for recreational use and an additional
43,000 acres for shared use with exclusive recreational use 10 months
out of the year. USMC would use and manage the shared use area for only
two 30-day periods per year. We propose Congress designate the shared
use area and remaining portion of Johnson Valley as an off-highway
vehicle recreation area. This designation would ensure that this 86,000
acre area would be forever available for off-highway vehicle
recreation. USMC and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would coordinate
management of the Johnson Valley off-highway vehicle recreation area
via a Recreation Management Group, which would include the views of
stakeholders such as off-highway vehicle user groups and race
organizers, the State of California, and environmental advocates. A key
component of the plan will be development and implementation of a
barrier plan to ensure safe public access. This plan will include
installation of fencing, berms, gates and signs as well as increased
security during training events and an educational component. The
Administration's proposal would establish an exclusive military use
area of 103,000 acres.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. General Amos, you have been clear that the Navy and
Marine Corps must operate forward and be ready to respond when called
upon. Would you discuss the consequences of reduced funding on
readiness this year and what it means for next year? What are you doing
this year to mitigate the impact and can you describe in more detail
what the degradation of surge capacity would mean?
Answer. America's ``Force in Readiness'' must maintain a high state
of readiness at all times to respond to contingencies and commitments
throughout the globe. Despite the constrained funding resulting from
sequestration, the passing of H.R. 933 mitigated most of the near-term
operational impacts in fiscal year 2013. The Marine Corps will meet
near-term readiness commitments for deployed and next-to-deploy forces
and continue to rebalance to the Pacific and support the Marine
Rotational Force Darwin and the Unit Deployment Program.
While the Marine Corps is capable of meeting all deployment
requirements for our near-term deployable forces in fiscal year 2013,
we have mortgaged our long-term infrastructure and the unit readiness
of our home station units. We cannot continue to sustain these levels
of reductions in fiscal year 2014 without immediate impact to our
deployed and next to deploy forces and our non-deployed crisis response
forces at home.
Facilities sustainment reductions, that were used to mitigate
shortfalls in fiscal year 2013, would be unsustainable and would
degrade home station training and quality of life for Marines and their
families. The curtailment of training and maintenance would degrade the
readiness of non-deployed crisis response forces. Over half of Marine
Corps ground units and one-third of Marine Corps aviation combat units
would remain below acceptable readiness levels. Sequestration would
also adversely impact operations and exercises in fiscal year 2014 and
beyond.
Sequestration's impacts on the availability of amphibious and
maritime prepositioning ships are a concern for maintaining the Marine
Corps' forward amphibious presence. The combat readiness of these ships
is a foundational requirement for training for and executing
expeditionary force presence and amphibious force projection
operations. As such, reduced amphibious ship availability and readiness
could present a significant challenge to the training and maintenance
of Naval Expeditionary Forces, thus driving overall readiness levels
lower. Continued Congressional support for the Navy's shipbuilding and
surface ship-to-shore connector programs is vital to retain and
maintain an adequate fleet of modern combat-ready amphibious ships,
which provide continuous naval expeditionary presence and project power
across the globe.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
Question. The Marine Corps has had considerable success in
leveraging the Navy's technical base, like that which exists at NSWC
Crane. What do you see as the Marine Corps' way forward in leveraging
the Navy's technical activities like NSWC Crane?
Answer. For several years, the Marine Corps has placed a priority
on leveraging the Navy's government technical workforce, to include the
Naval Surface Warfare Center-Crane. We have been able to gain access to
a superior workforce that provides experienced technical expertise to
assist the Marine Corps' acquisition, engineering and technical
functions.
Our partnership with institutions like NSWC-Crane allows the Marine
Corps to benefit from world class government engineers and scientists
to leverage investments made by other Services to develop essential
technical expertise directly relevant to our mission. We are able to
avoid unnecessary costs associated with developing and sustaining these
capabilities in-house and provide the best value to the Marine Corps
and other stakeholders we support and represent.
We expect to continue to rely on NSWC-Crane to provide the Marine
Corps with the best long-term technical and engineering solutions.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Durbin. The Defense Subcommittee will reconvene on
Wednesday, May 8, at 10 a.m., to receive testimony from the
Department of the Air Force. And the subcommittee stands in
recess.
Secretary Mabus. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., Wednesday, April 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
May 8.]