    [Senate Hearing 115-448, Part 2]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                     S. Hrg. 115-448, Pt. 2

    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
                   2018 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                   before the

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                    S. 1519

         TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 FOR MILITARY
    ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
       FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
       MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER
                                    PURPOSES

                                   ----------

                                     PART 2

                                    SEAPOWER

                                   ----------

                              JUNE 6, 13, 21, 2017

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
               2018 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM--Part 2
                                    SEAPOWER

                                                     S. Hrg. 115-448, Pt. 2

    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
                   2018 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                   before the

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                    S. 1519

         TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 FOR MILITARY
    ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
       FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
       MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER
                                    PURPOSES

                                   __________

                                     PART 2

                                    SEAPOWER

                                   __________

                              JUNE 6, 13, 21, 2017

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov/

                              ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     37-503 PDF           WASHINGTON : 2019

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman           JACK REED, Rhode Island
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma                BILL NELSON, Florida
    ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi             CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                    JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
    TOM COTTON, Arkansas                     KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                         JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
    THOM TILLIS, North Carolina              MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                     TIM KAINE, Virginia
    DAVID PERDUE, Georgia                    ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    TED CRUZ, Texas                          MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina           ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    BEN SASSE, Nebraska                      GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama

                      Christian D. Brose, Staff Director
                      Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff
                                   Director

                            Subcommittee on Seapower

    ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi,     MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    Chairman                          JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
    TOM COTTON, Arkansas              RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota         TIM KAINE, Virginia
    THOM TILLIS, North Carolina       ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama

                                      (ii)

                             C O N T E N T S

                                  June 6, 2017

                                                                       Page

    Marine Corps Ground Modernization................................     1

    Walsh, Lieutenant General Robert S., USMC, Deputy Commandant for      5
      Combat Development and Integration; Commanding General, Marine
      Corps Combat Development Command; and Commander, United States
      Marine Forces Strategic Command; Accompanied by: John M.
      Garner, Program Executive Officer, Land Systems Marine Corps;
      and Brigadier General Joseph F. Shrader, USMC, Commander,
      Marine Corps Systems Command.

    Questions for the Record.........................................    32

                                 June 13, 2017

    Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Programs..........................    35

    Grosklags, Vice Admiral Paul A., USN, Commander, Naval Air           39
      Systems, Department of the Navy; Accompanied by Lieutenant
      General Jon M. Davis, USMC, Deputy Commandant for Aviation,
      United States Marine Corps; and Rear Admiral DeWolfe H. Miller,
      III, USN, Director, Air Warfare (OPNAV N98), Department of the
      Navy.
    Questions for the Record.........................................    93

                                 June 21, 2017

    Navy Shipbuilding Programs.......................................   117

    Stiller, Allison F., Performing the Duties of Assistant Secretary   120
      of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition;
      Accompanied by: Vice Admiral William K. Lescher, USN, Deputy
      Chief of Naval Operations for INTEGRATION OF Capabilities and
      Resources, N8; Lieutenant General Robert S. Walsh, USMC, Deputy
      Commandant for Combat Development and Integration; Commanding
      General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command; and
      Commander, United States Marine Forces Strategic Command.

                                     (iii)

      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR
             FISCAL YEAR 2018 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2017

                                   U.S. Senate,
                              Subcommittee on Seapower,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                                                        Washington, DC.

                       MARINE CORPS GROUND MODERNIZATION

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:29 p.m. in
    Room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Roger F.
    Wicker (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Committee members present: Senators Wicker, Cotton, Rounds,
    Tillis, Sullivan, Hirono, Blumenthal, Kaine, and King.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROGER F. WICKER

        Senator Wicker. The hearing will come to order.
        The Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower convenes
    this afternoon to examine the Marine Corps ground system
    modernization programs.
        This afternoon we welcome Mr. John M. Garner, Program
    Executive Officer for Land Systems Marine Corps; Lieutenant
    General Robert S. Walsh, who serves as Deputy Commandant for
    Combat Development and Integration. General Walsh is also the
    Commanding General of Marine Corps Combat Development Command,
    and Brigadier General Joseph F. Shrader, Commander of the
    Marine Corps Systems Command.
        Our subcommittee thanks these distinguished witnesses for
    their selfless and steadfast service to the Nation.
        As the saying goes, there is no better friend than a
    marine. There is also no worst enemy than a U.S. Marine. I
    truly believe this sentiment captures the professionalism and
    tenacity of the Marine Corps. That perseverance, ingenuity, and
    smarts are traits engrained in the Marine Corps' DNA
    [deoxyribonucleic acid]. These traits have served the marines
    well during the last 15 years of war.
        However, even marines have limits. An unrelenting
    operational tempo has damaged readiness and undermined critical
    modernization efforts to replace aging equipment. Today the
    subcommittee will focus on modernization, but I cannot
    emphasize enough the connection between readiness and
    modernization.
        In terms of modernization, for too long many Marine Corps
    modernization programs have suffered from drown-out development
    timelines and unrealistic requirements and cost overruns. These
    factors have often conspired to prevent fielding replacements
    for aging systems. An ever-increasing array of threats is
    exacerbating the need to modernize, which include explosive
    foreign projectiles, IEDs [Improvised Explosive Devices]; long-
    range rocket artillery; anti-tank guided missiles; electronic
    warfare drones; and cyber threats, just to name a few.
    Additionally the use of anti-access/area denial tactics is
    putting a premium on increasing the lethality and survivability
    of smaller, more dispersed ground units. Today our witnesses
    will update us on the Marine Corps' efforts to meet these
    threats head on.
        First, the subcommittee wishes to discuss the Marine Corps
    strategy for modernizing its vehicle fleet, particularly
    amphibious combat vehicles. These programs are crucial for
    enabling the marines to maintain their amphibious assault
    capabilities while providing mobile armored protection for
    ground maneuver forces.
        There are two key vehicles. One is the Assault Amphibious
    Vehicle (AAV), survivability upgrade program, which modernizes
    some of the AAVs remaining in service. The other program is the
    amphibious combat vehicle, ACV 1.1 program. Both programs will
    provide increased maneuverability and protection over current
    platforms until the future ACV 1.2 is ready, hopefully around
    2025. The Marine Corps intends ACV 1.2 to match capabilities
    similar to those envisioned for the canceled expeditionary
    fighting vehicle.
        However, a recent GAO report contends that the Marines may
    be overstating potential savings when comparing the ACV 1.1 to
    the retiring AAVs it will be replacing. The subcommittee is
    interested in hearing the Marine Corps' perspective on the
    GAO's findings and a current update on these programs.
        The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated the
    urgent need for increased protection and mobility offered by
    the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle [JLTV]. The subcommittee wants
    to hear how the Marine Corps plans to acquire its fleet of
    5,900 JLTVs particularly in light of the fiscal year 2018
    budget request for just 527 vehicles. That figure is about half
    the level that the Marine Corps projected to procure in the
    fiscal year 2017 budget request. Such shortfalls have an impact
    on capability, readiness, and program costs that should be
    addressed so our Humvees can be replaced as soon as possible.
        While the Army is upgrading its Stryker infantry fighting
    vehicles and planning Abrams main battle tank, or MBT,
    modernization, it is worth nothing that the Marines use the
    Light Armored Vehicle 3 (LAV-3), a vehicle very similar to the
    Army's Stryker and also the Abrams. The subcommittee is
    interested in the Marine Corps' plans for modernizing these two
    platforms.
        In addition to tactical vehicle modernization, the
    witnesses should discuss Ground-Air Task Oriented Radar (G/
    ATOR) development, a system which will replace five older
    radars. G/ATOR is an all-purpose radar system that can provide
    marines with early warning from missiles, indirect fire, and
    aerial systems, and also eventually provide air traffic control
    capabilities. The subcommittee wishes to learn more about this
    complex program and its future role.
        We are also going to hear our witnesses discuss less
    prominent equipment essential to the Marine Corps mission, such
    as small arms. Over the past year, the Marine Corps has
    collaborated with the Army on a joint 5.56 millimeter round.
    Recent testimony, however, has cast doubt on the effectiveness
    of this round in light of the proliferation of advanced body
    armor. The committee looks forward to getting a better
    understanding of this strategy.
        The subcommittee is also concerned with potential
    capability gaps within the Marine Corps ground tactical
    formations centered primarily on short-range air defense
    systems and long-range precision fires. Given the Marine Corps'
    close relationship with the Navy, this subcommittee is very
    interested in how the two services can leverage each other's
    capabilities to meet these requirements, especially given the
    Navy's experience in long-range fires and air defense systems.
        Finally, this subcommittee is committed to maintaining a
    healthy industrial base which fosters innovation and
    competition. The Marine Corps leveraged competition to assess
    technological feasibility and affordability early on in the ACV
    and JLTV programs. Competition requires viable competitors
    which we do not always have. This might be why the prototypes
    of the last two contenders for the ACV 1.1 program are based on
    designs from Italy and Singapore. I would like our witnesses to
    address the state of the U.S. industrial base for ground combat
    and tactical vehicles and perhaps to suggest options to sustain
    its viability.
        The Marine Corps budget accounts for approximately six
    percent of DOD's total budget. I remain concerned about the
    impact of budget uncertainty on modernization and readiness
    across the Defense Department but especially for the Marine
    Corps. As such, I hope our witnesses today will elaborate on
    the impact that such uncertainty would have on our
    expeditionary marines, their ability to execute our country's
    national security strategy, and the vitality of our defense
    industrial base.
        For these reasons, it is imperative that Congress and the
    Corps continue to work together to ensure that the brave young
    men and women of the Marine Corps have the very best to
    accomplish their dangerous missions.
        So I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
        In the meantime, Senator Hirono, our distinguished ranking
    member, is recognized for her statement.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAZIE HIRONO

        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, of
    course, for holding this important hearing on Marine Corps
    ground modernization.
        I also, of course, would like to welcome our witnesses to
    today's hearing and thank you for your service to our country.
        Some of the areas that I will highlight or focus on in my
    short remarks today will be areas that the chair has already
    talked about, but it just means that the chairman and I are on
    the same page, on the same wavelength.
        Last year, I had the honor of attending the change of
    command ceremony for the 3rd Marine Regiment at Marine Corps
    Base Kaneohe Bay in Hawaii. The 3rd Marine Regiment has a proud
    and storied history as a fighting unit. They fought in some of
    the fiercest battles of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
    including the battle of Marjah, the second battle of Fallujah,
    and Operation Khanjar in Helmand Province. In the years to
    come, these marines will continue to be an integral part of
    supporting our strategic interests in the Indo-Asia-Pacific
    region.
        We ask our marines to do an awful lot. We ask them to take
    on some of the toughest jobs on the front lines. Given the
    evolving nature of the threats we face, it is also crucial that
    our marines remain ready and capable to address contingencies
    at a moment's notice. We owe it to these men and women to
    ensure that resources are available for training and readiness
    activities and to ensure that they have fully functional
    equipment to get the job done.
        To ensure that our marines will be supplied with the most
    effective equipment, the fiscal year 2018 budget request makes
    targeted investments in the ground combat and tactical vehicle
    portfolio of the Marine Corps. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle
    (ACV), is one of the most important Marine Corps ground
    modernization programs. The ACV will eventually replace the
    amphibious assault vehicle, the AAV, that has been in operation
    for over 40 years.
        As part of the ACV acquisition strategy, the Marine Corps
    has awarded contracts to two vendors, each tasked with building
    16 prototypes for testing and evaluation. Following the
    testing, the Marine Corps plans to down select to a single
    vendor in 2018 with the goal of purchasing 204 vehicles for the
    program. I welcome an update from our witnesses on the status
    of this program and if our witnesses anticipate any problems
    with the program's schedule.
        While we wait for the ACV to come into service, it will
    remain critically important to modernize our existing AAVs.
    This vehicle has been in the Marine Corps inventory, as I
    mentioned, for more than four decades and requires
    modernization to meet today's threats. The Marine Corps has
    decided to modernize a portion of their AAV fleet with
    survivability upgrades to address obsolescence and increase the
    vehicle's capacity. Currently 10 prototypes are undergoing
    testing, and I would welcome any updates from our witnesses on
    the progress of this update program.
        The joint light tactical vehicle is another priority in the
    Marine Corps combat vehicle program. The JLTV is a joint Army
    and Marine Corps program that will replace the high mobility
    multi-wheeled vehicle, the Humvees. The fiscal year 2018 budget
    included $234 million to procure 527 vehicles. Over the course
    of the program, the Marines will procure at least 5,500
    vehicles to replace roughly one-third their legacy Humvee
    fleet. The Marines are scheduled to receive approximately 300
    JLTVs in 2020. However, it is my understanding that the Marine
    Corps would like to procure additional quantities for future
    JLTV increments if resources are available. I would be
    interested in hearing more from our witnesses on this matter
    and this need.
        In addition to the major ground modernization programs that
    I have highlighted, the Marine Corps is also developing the
    Ground-Air Task Oriented Radar, G/ATOR, which the chairman also
    mentioned. The G/ATOR is an expeditionary radar system that
    will replace legacy radar systems currently fielded by the
    Marine Corps Ground Task Force. The Marine Corps has begun
    testing the block 1 variant of the G/ATOR, and I would welcome
    an update from our witnesses on the status of this program.
        Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing,
    and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
        Gentlemen, I understand from a discussion beforehand that
    Lieutenant General Walsh will make an opening statement that
    will suffice for all three of you. So, Lieutenant General
    Walsh, we are delighted to have you, and you may proceed with
    your statement.

     STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT S. WALSH, USMC, DEPUTY
     COMMANDANT FOR COMBAT DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION; COMMANDING
         GENERAL, MARINE CORPS COMBAT DEVELOPMENT COMMAND; AND
       COMMANDER, UNITED STATES MARINE FORCES STRATEGIC COMMAND;
    ACCOMPANIED BY: JOHN M. GARNER, PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LAND
    SYSTEMS MARINE CORPS; AND BRIGADIER GENERAL JOSEPH F. SHRADER,
             USMC, COMMANDER, MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND

        Lieutenant General Walsh. Thank you, Chairman Wicker,
    Ranking Member Hirono, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee for this opportunity to testify before you today.
        Joining me today are my combat development partners,
    Brigadier General Joe Shrader, who is the Commander of Marine
    Corps Systems Command, and Mr. John Garner, who is our Program
    Executive Officer for Land Systems Marine Corps.
        The Marine Corps' ability to serve as our Nation's premier
    crisis response force is due in large part to the
    subcommittee's continued support, and on behalf of all marines,
    I thank you.
        The United States is a maritime nation with global
    responsibilities. These responsibilities include guaranteeing
    freedom of navigation and commerce on the seas, promoting
    international stability and order, and protecting ourselves and
    our allies and partners from threats and aggression. Our Navy
    and Marine Corps' persistent presence and multi-mission
    capability represent U.S. power projection across the global
    commons. Where adversaries would prefer to keep us distant, we
    are already present on scene, engaging with our allies and
    partners, and operating routinely inside the potential
    engagement zone of threat weapons as a deterrent force.
        Today we are at an inflection point. Our priority of effort
    over the 15 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan has been
    meeting the immediate requirements of combat operations. We
    risked modernization to ensure the combat readiness of
    deploying marines. While our focus was elsewhere, our potential
    enemies modernized, reducing the technological advantage
    American forces once stood or took for granted. In many
    theaters, we can no longer assume superiority in any domain:
    sea, air, surface, or the electromagnetic spectrum.
        Growing instability in multiple areas around the globe is
    increasingly a requirement for forward naval forces to protect
    our national interests. Potential adversaries seek to secure
    their objectives by taking a continuous series of small steps
    to incrementally establish new conditions favorable to their
    objectives, undermining existing authority and eroding
    prevailing norms without resort to actual fighting. As a
    result, the traditional technological and professional
    advantages enjoyed by U.S. forces for decades is eroding.
        Over a period of 18 months, the Marine Corps conducted an
    extremely exacting capabilities-based review of our force
    structure. This iterative effort examined end strength, force
    structure, equipment of all types, and across all warfighting
    functions in order to identify needed changes to meet this
    threat. This effort, which is collectively called Marine Corps
    Force 2025, sought to define a Marine Corps optimized to meet
    future challenges. The Marine Corps Force 2025 effort
    identified both broad capability gaps and specific requirements
    in developing a fifth generation Marine Corps.
        Within current budget and end strength limits, the Marine
    Corps has prioritized its efforts across the Marine Air-Ground
    Task Force. Ground program priorities include modernizing the
    amphibious vehicle fleet, the combat and tactical fleet, and
    our sensor and command and control capabilities. We are
    committed to delivering the required warfighting capabilities
    to our marines in a timely and affordable manner. However,
    continued budget uncertainty risks our ability to fulfill this
    commitment.
        The Marine Corps is at a critical juncture. We have delayed
    modernization so long that our technical advantage over our
    adversaries has been diminished. The continuing need to
    maintain and update legacy systems takes the focus off
    innovation and is costly in its own right. Experience tells us
    that investing in new capabilities and technologies is a proven
    cornerstone for your marines and sailors to achieve mission
    success and into an uncertain but no less demanding future.
        The Marine Corps continues to improve our essential ground
    capabilities through a series of strategy of stability and
    affordability. We recognize the need for continued vigilance in
    achievement of a proper balance between current readiness and
    long-term imperatives of modernization and innovation. This
    balance is critical to ensuring the Marine Corps and the
    individual marines have the ability to fight and win in the
    future battlefields and are prepared to respond to our Nation's
    force in readiness.
        Principal combat and tactical vehicle modernization
    programs account for a significant portion of the Marine Corps'
    ground combat modernization investment. The Marine Corps
    overarching combat and tactical vehicle investment priority,
    the modernization of our amphibian capability, the amphibious
    assault vehicle survivability upgrade, and the amphibious
    combat vehicle programs are a means to replace the legacy AAV
    and are both in engineering and manufacturing and development
    phase.
        The second highest priority for combat and tactical vehicle
    investment remains the replacement of a portion of the high
    mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle, or Humvee, fleet that
    is most at risk. Those trucks have performed a combat function
    and are typically exposed to enemy fires. In partnership with
    the Army, the Marine Corps has sequenced the joint light
    tactical vehicle, or JLTV, program to ensure affordability
    while, in the first increment, replacing about one-third of our
    legacy Humvee fleet with a modern tactical truck in conjunction
    with fielding the ACV.
        Our third priority concerns our ability to coordinate and
    synchronize command and control sensors and systems to ensure
    the critical success of the MAGTF [Marine Air-Ground Task
    Force] both afloat and ashore. These capabilities are ever more
    important as our adversaries' technological capabilities
    continue to advance. Our top priority in this area is the
    ground/air task oriented radar, or G/ATOR radar. The state-of-
    the-art ground-based medium range multi-role radar is designed
    to detect low and low radar cross section air threats for the
    MAGTF. It adds superior tracking capability and sensor
    coverage, flexibility to the MAGTF. This critical MAGTF enabler
    is central for identifying and destroying air and surface
    targets. Combined with the common aviation command and control
    sensors ensures no other service is more capable in controlling
    MAGTF airspace.
        On behalf of the marines and sailors who provide the Nation
    with the forward-deployed crisis response capability, we thank
    you for your constant support in an era of competing
    challenges. We are proud of our reputation for frugality, and
    we remain one of the best values for the defense dollar. These
    critical modernization investments, among many others, will
    ensure our success not if but when the future conflict occurs.
    Fiscal uncertainty is threatening both our capability and
    capacities. Recognizing these fiscal challenges, we remain
    committed to fielding the most ready Marine Corps the Nation
    can afford.
        Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, on
    behalf of your marines, we request your continued support for
    our modernization strategy.
        [The prepared statement of General Walsh, General Shrader,
    and Mr. Garner follows:]

      Prepared Statement by General Walsh, General Shrader, and Mr. Garner
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hirono, and distinguished members of
    the Subcommittee, we thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today to discuss Marine Corps Ground Programs. Our testimony will
    provide the background and rationale for the Marine Corps' fiscal year
    2018 budget request which is aligned to our strategic priorities and
    budgetary goals.
        The United States is a maritime nation with global
    responsibilities. These responsibilities include guaranteeing freedom
    of navigation and commerce on the seas, promoting international
    stability and order, and protecting ourselves and our allies and
    partners from threats and aggression. Our Navy and Marine Corps'
    persistent presence and multi-mission capability represent U.S. power
    projection across the global commons. Where adversaries would prefer to
    keep us distant, we are already present on scene, engaging with our
    allies and partners, and operating routinely inside the potential
    engagement zone of threat weapons systems.
        The Marine Corps is the Nation's expeditionary force-in-readiness.
    By Congressional mandate, it has a unique role and structure described
    as a `` . . . balanced force-in-readiness, air and ground.'' Our forces
    enable global reach and access through presence, sea control, mission
    flexibility and when necessary, direct interdiction. This mandate also
    requires the Marine Corps to maintain a high state of combat readiness
    and to be ``most ready, when the Nation is least ready.''
                               current operations
        The past three decades have seen an incessant and growing demand
    from our regional combatant commanders (CCMDs) for forward naval
    forces, Marine Corps forces in particular. Last year alone, the Marine
    Corps executed over 210 operations, 20 amphibious operations, 160
    Theater Security Cooperation (TSC) events, and participated in 75
    exercises. Marine Corps units deployed to every geographic combatant
    command (GCC) and executed numerous TSC exercises to help strengthen
    relationships with allies and build partner capacity. Advise and Assist
    teams from Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force--Crisis
    Response (SPMAGTF - CR)--Central Command helped enable Iraqi Army
    operations at multiple sites in Iraq. SPMAGTF-CR-Africa's crisis
    response force maintained alert postures from Naval Air Station
    Sigonella, Italy, Moron Air Base, Spain and Djibouti during multiple
    Special Operations Command operations in North Africa. In Afghanistan,
    the Marine Corps deployed Task Force Southwest to Helmand Province to
    train, advise and assist the Afghan National Army and Police.
        Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU) deployed to multiple GCCs over the
    year and successfully integrated with U.S. Special Operations Command
    in support of operations in North Africa and the Southern Arabian
    Peninsula. Marine Security Augmentation Unit (MSAU) teams deployed 64
    times in 2016 at the request of the State Department, executing 20
    Embassy/Consulate security missions and 46 VIP security missions.
    Additionally, at the request of the U.S. Agency for International
    Development, Joint Task Force-Matthew was activated in October 2016 in
    response to Hurricane Matthew, a Category four hurricane which made
    landfall in Haiti and left over 750,000 people in need of assistance.
    Within 48 hours, SPMAGTF-Southern Command (SC) self-deployed to provide
    much needed aid to the people of Haiti. Shortly thereafter, the 24th
    MEU deployed to Haiti aboard amphibious shipping to provide additional
    support. Overall, SPMAGTF-SC and the 24th MEU delivered 578,491 lbs. of
    relief supplies to the disaster stricken area.
                          future operating environment
        Today we are at an inflection point. Our priority of effort over
    the 15 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan has been meeting the
    immediate requirements of combat operations. During this period, we
    risked modernization to ensure the combat readiness of deploying
    marines. While our focus was elsewhere, our potential enemies
    modernized, reducing the technological advantages American forces once
    took for granted. In many theaters we can no longer assume superiority
    in any domain; sea, air, land, space or the electromagnetic spectrum.
    In short, the Marine Corps is not organized, trained, or equipped to
    meet the demands of the future operating environment.
        Growing instability in multiple regions increases the necessity of
    having forward postured naval forces to protect our national interests.
    Some regional actors seek to secure their objective by taking a
    continuous series of small steps to incrementally establish new
    conditions favorable to their objectives. This undermines existing
    authority and erodes prevailing norms without resorting to actual
    fighting. Simultaneously, these actors seek to challenge us in new ways
    within the littorals, advancing their ability to locate, track, and
    attack the naval fleet and testing current naval force designs and
    operating concepts. As a result, the traditional technological and
    professional advantages enjoyed by US forces for decades are eroding.
        The Marine Corps Operating Concept (MOC), published in September of
    2016, articulates these problems and several drivers of change
    affecting the future operating environment. First, increasingly complex
    and highly populated urban coastal regions magnify the challenges of
    operating in the littorals. Second, technology proliferation grants
    many adversaries access to high end technologies that allow them to
    engage our forces more effectively, from greater distances and in any
    environment. Third, our adversaries increasingly use information as a
    weapon, soliciting local support and effecting global opinion. Fourth,
    every observable aspect of our force is a vulnerability, be it visual,
    audible, or electro-magnetic. Lastly, the maritime domain is becoming
    ever more contested, with adversaries challenging our in and around the
    global commons.
        In order to compete in the future operating environment
    characterized above, the MOC identifies five critical tasks which are
    guiding our efforts to change how we organize, train and equip our
    forces. In support of our title 10 responsibilities to serve as the
    Nations' expeditionary naval force, we must first integrate the naval
    force to fight at and from the sea. The MAGTF's ability to rapidly
    deploy, employ, and sustain versatile combat power from the sea to the
    shore and back is crucial to the security of the Nation.
        Second, we must evolve the MAGTF by maintaining and improving its
    ability across the Range of Military Operations, enhance Special
    Operations Force integration, exploit automation and manned-unmanned
    teaming, and improve the agility the MAGTF through improved command and
    control. Third, the MAGTF must be able to operate with resilience in a
    contested network environment by reducing signatures, improve our
    networks, enhance the effectiveness of massed and precision fires, and
    improve our ISR. Fourth, we must enhance our ability to maneuver in and
    around the littorals, broaden our idea of combined arms to include
    information warfare, and improve our mobility and ability to disperse
    in increasingly complex urban terrain.
        The fifth and final task identified in the MOC is to exploit the
    competence of the individual marine. This requires seeking high-quality
    human capital first and foremost. Accomplishing this task also requires
    training and educating marines in ways that prepare them for the
    complexity of the future operating environment. Lastly, it requires
    developing leaders at every level and managing our talent to improve
    our return on investment.
                        the 5th generation marine corps
        The MOC defined the problem, offers a framework for developing
    solutions, and an azimuth for the Marine Corps to follow. What remained
    was the detail work, work that would clearly articulate specific
    requirements. Over a period of 18 months, the Marine Corps conducted an
    extremely exacting capabilities-based review. This iterative effort
    examined end strength, force structure, equipment of all types and
    across all warfighting functions, in order to identify needed changes.
    The output of this work, which is collectively called Marine Corps
    Force 2025, seeks to define a Marine Corps optimized to meet future
    challenges. Marine Corps Force 2025 also identifies several immediate
    priorities that must be addressed in order to fight and win against
    highly capable enemies.
        First, within the fiscal year 2017 NDAA authorized endstrength of
    185,000 marines, the Marine Corps will focus its personnel growth in
    areas such as intelligence, electronic warfare, cyber and information
    warfare. This growth will compliment both planned and current equipment
    modernization efforts. While I want to express my gratitude to the
    Congress for the additional endstrength authorization, it is also
    important to be clear about the gaps these extra 3,000 marines do not
    fill. For example, we are nearing the official activation of the office
    of the Deputy Commandant for Information, but our information warfare
    and cyber capabilities will still be constrained under current
    endstrength levels.
        Most critically, 185,000 marine endstrength only improves the
    deployment-to-dwell ratio slightly. A 1:3 deployment to dwell ratio is
    our goal, which merely means that if a marine deploys for seven months,
    they are non-deployed for 21 months. At the individual and personal
    level, a 1:3 deployment-to-dwell ensures our marines achieve a minimal
    level of work-life balance, taking care of their families and their own
    personal needs. However, the 1:3 metric serves a broader purpose which
    is directly linked to providing for the Nation's defense. The 1:3 ratio
    is the only way to ensure marines are afforded the training time
    necessary to build full-spectrum readiness necessary to fight peer
    adversaries. Operating below a 1:3 ratio also forces us to choose
    between the readiness of deploying units and modernizing the force.
        The Marine Corps operating forces are currently averaging, in the
    aggregate, less than 1:2 deployment-to-dwell ratio. Individual unit
    deployment tempo remains on par with the height of our commitments in
    Iraq and Afghanistan. Deliberate and measured capacity increases,
    reduction of our operational tasking, or a combination of the two, are
    solutions that would put us on the path to improve our deployment-to-
    dwell ratio..
        Naval forces postured forward in formations appropriately tailored
    to the requirements of a region are essential to continual engagement
    and underscore our commitment to allies. Fielding naval forces at the
    capacity needed to operate forward is critical to projecting a credible
    deterrence. Insufficient endstrength creates a lack of capacity. Marine
    Corps Force 2025 attempts to mitigate some of these shortfalls.
                        requirements of the future force
        In addition to force structure changes, the Marine Corps Force 2025
    effort identified broad ground equipment capability gaps and specific
    requirements of the future force. Within current budget and endstrength
    limits, the Marine Corps has prioritized its efforts across the MAGTF.
    Ground program priorities include modernizing the amphibious vehicles,
    combat and tactical vehicles, sensor and command and control
    capabilities, and long range precision fires.
    Modernize the amphibious vehicle fleet
        The combat and tactical vehicle modernization programs account for
    a significant portion of Marine Corps modernization investment. The
    overarching combat and tactical vehicle investment priority is the
    modernization of the assault amphibian (AA) capability with a
    combination of complementary platforms. The Amphibious Assault Vehicle
    Survivability Upgrade (AAV SU) and the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV)
    programs are the means to replace the legacy AAV.
        The AAV SU program will ensure the current fleet of AAVs is more
    survivable and combat effective until ACV and future systems are fully
    developed. The AAV SU program will modernize 4 of 10 Assault Amphibian
    (AA) companies and requisite elements of the supporting establishment.
    This quantity supports the phased modernization of this critical
    capability while sustaining sufficient capacity to meet a 2.0 MEB
    Assault Echelon lift through 2035. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV)
    1.1 program will modernize 2 of 10 AA companies. The program was
    certified Milestone B in the fall of 2015. Two vendors, BAE and SAIC,
    were selected to produce 16 prototypes each for further testing. The
    vendors are currently building and delivering their prototypes for
    developmental testing. Milestone C is planned for 3rd quarter fiscal
    year 2018, with an Initial Operating Capability (IOC) planned for
    fiscal year 2020, and Full Operating Capability (FOC) by fiscal year
    2022. ACV increment 1.2 will modernize 4 of 10 AA companies and is
    expected to achieve IOC by fiscal year 2023, FOC by fiscal year 2026.
    Increment 1.2 will also add mission role variants for command and
    control and recovery.
        We plan to replace AAV SU by 2035. We remain committed to
    evaluating ways to extend the amphibious task force's operational
    reach. We have identified a decision point in the mid-2020s that will
    allow us to assess technologies and materiel alternative to enable
    extended reach without unacceptable trade-offs and unaffordable costs.
    Science and Technology (S&T) lanes have been established to (1) improve
    water speed and fuel economy, (2) research future sleds and connectors
    to transport lower water speed platforms at higher speed and (3) to
    develop and experiment with small unmanned amphibious vehicles and
    swarms with modular payloads. This mid-2020s decision point will set
    conditions to begin a program to replace the Survivability Upgrade AAV.
    Modernize ground vehicles
        Replacement of the portion of the high mobility multi-purpose,
    wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) fleet that is most at risk remains our second
    highest priority. Our most at-risk HMMWVs are those that perform combat
    functions which typically expose them to enemy fires. In partnership
    with the Army, the Marine Corps has sequenced the Joint Light Tactical
    Vehicle (JLTV) program to ensure affordability while in the first
    increment replacing about one third of the legacy HMMWV fleet in
    conjunction with the fielding of ACV 1.1. This first procurement
    constitutes Increment 1.0, which achieves the Approved Acquisition
    Objective (AAO) of 5,500 vehicles. This AAO is fully funded and will
    achieve IOC in fiscal year 2020 and FOC in fiscal year 2022. Future
    increments will address the remainder of the HMMWVs.
    Modernize our ability to command and control
        The ability to coordinate and synchronize distributed Command and
    Control (C2) sensors and systems is critical to the success of the
    MAGTF both afloat and ashore. These capabilities are ever more
    important as our adversaries' technological capabilities rapidly
    advance. Our top priority in this arena is the Ground/Air Task Oriented
    Radar (G/ATOR). G/ATOR Block 1 provides the MAGTF a state-of-the-art
    air defense/surveillance capability. Block 1 is currently in low rate
    initial production (LRIP) and the first two systems were received by
    the Marine Corps this spring for testing. G/ATOR Block 2 provides the
    MAGTF new counter-battery/target acquisition capability and is in the
    Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of acquisition.
    Block 1 and 2 systems will achieve IOC during fiscal year 2018 and FOC
    by 2024.
        In addition to these major programs, the Marine Corps is developing
    and procuring several critical enablers for the MAGTF of 2025. Common
    Aviation Command and Control System (CAC2S) provides common, modular,
    and scalable solutions to replace legacy aviation Command and Control
    (C2) systems in C2 nodes such as the Direct Air Support Center (DASC)
    and Tactical Air Command Center (TACC). The system integrates G/ATOR
    and AN/TPS-59 radar feeds with tactical data link information from
    other networks in order to conduct air command and control. CAC2S Phase
    2 fielding began on May 8th at Marine Air Control Group 28, Cherry
    Point, NC. The first nine systems will be fielded by February 2018.
        The MAGTF of 2025 must also improve the networking capability of
    ground systems. Networking on the Move (NOTM) is being procured to
    enhance networking among both ground vehicles and aviation platforms.
    NOTM provides the MAGTF with robust beyond-line-of-sight command,
    control and communication capabilities while on the move or stationary.
    Using existing commercial or military broadband SATCOM, this system
    extends the digital network to marines at the furthest reaches of the
    battlefield. This system will enable the distributed Marine Forces of
    2025.
        The Marine Corps continues to make rapid progress in the use Small
    Unmanned Arial Systems (SUAS). Within the next 18 months, every
    infantry battalion in the Marine Corps will have multiple SUAS
    platforms for conducting Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition
    and Reconnaissance (ISR), enhancing the reach of current communications
    equipment, and for use in training for countering enemy UAS platforms.
    As recently as February 2017, 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance
    Battalion conducted a proof of concept during training using SUAS as
    the primary observer for the adjustment of mortar fires. The Marine
    Corps is using some commercial off-the-shelf systems as well as systems
    produced through the use of additive manufacturing. Simultaneously, the
    Marine Corps is advancing the digital interoperability between these
    systems and digital communications systems in order to synchronize as
    well as control SUAS platforms.
        Lastly, the Marine Corps must advance its long range precision
    fires capabilities. In support of this requirement, we have prioritized
    the reactivating 5th Battalion, 10th Marines as a High Mobility
    Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) unit. Due to reach IOC in fiscal year
    2021, this battalion will expand long range fires capability to II
    Marine Expeditionary Force based in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In
    addition, we are exploring the ability to launch Guided MLRS rockets
    from aboard ships and modifications to the rockets to enable engagement
    of moving targets.
        Create opportunities to innovate and achieve rapid advances in
    capability (separate section, not linked to ``ground programs''
        Innovation, both at the individual and institutional level, is key
    to building the future force. The Marine Corps Warfighting Lab/Futures
    Directorate (MCWL/FD) leads the Marine Corps' innovation efforts. In
    constant pursuit of leap ahead technologies and innovative ideas, MCWL,
    along with the operating forces, the supporting establishment, and
    coalition partners, conducts exercises and experiments to test ideas
    that will enable the amphibious force of the future. Just over a month
    ago, MCWL and its Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) lead the Ship to
    Shore Maneuver Exploration and Experimentation (S2ME2) demonstration,
    part of the Advance Naval Technology Exercise series of experiments.
    The exercise explored over 110 technologies focused on enabling
    amphibious operations in a contested maritime environment. Technologies
    on display included unmanned systems and robotics, additive
    manufacturing and autonomous technologies and weapons platforms. At
    little cost to the Marine Corps, the exercise identified several
    technologies with potential that will be further explored at exercises
    like Bold Alligator 17, and subsequently provide operational prototypes
    for employment and assessment by the operating forces. For fiscal year
    2018, MCWL and DASN, RD&E will seek opportunities to equip marine units
    with emergent and disruptive capabilities in areas such as long-range
    precision fires, swarming unmanned systems, and tactical Information
    Warfare.
        Experiments and exercise like S2ME2 enable the pursuit of
    practical, cost effective advancements in technology. Authorized
    funding for these low-risk, potentially high-reward efforts must be
    protected as the Congress seeks cost savings across the federal budget.
    The fiscal year 2017 NDAA enabled the Marine Corps' rapid acquisition
    process through section 804 and 806. Though successful, our efforts
    have been funded by sacrificing funding in other related programs.
    Access to the funds authorized under the Rapid Prototyping Fund,
    referred to in section 84, will enable the service to make the most out
    of these new authorities.
                  continued relevance of the amphibious force
        I must take a moment to emphasize our title 10 responsibilities to
    serve as the nations' amphibious force in readiness. The MAGTF's role
    in the nation's defense is to serve as part of the naval force. Our
    ability to project power and respond swiftly to any crisis is
    contingent upon the mutually supporting relationship between the Navy
    and Marine Corps. The ground programs highlighted previously serve
    little purpose if they cannot be projected to the point of crisis.
    Power projection from the sea requires a forcible entry capability,
    capability that is provided by Marine Expeditionary Brigades (MEB)
    embarked on amphibious warships. Current strategy requires us to be
    able to response to two crises simultaneously, referred to as the 2.0
    MEB requirement. While the on hand number of amphibious warships falls
    short of the mutually agreed upon 38 ship requirement, the current 30
    year shipbuilding plan supports a 38 ship amphibious fleet. The Marine
    Corps fully supports the 38 ship amphibious fleet and the allocation
    requisite funding to improve the readiness of the current amphibious
    fleet.
        The requirement for 38 ships remains relevant despite the
    increasingly contested maritime domain. Peer and near-peer adversaries
    with increasingly capable technology have caused us to re-examine how
    we operate and how we gain and maintain access to the littorals. We
    continuously study the problem, and we explore possible solutions in
    the form of concepts, such as Littoral Operations in a Contested
    Environment, through exploration of new technologies such as those
    highlighted at S2ME2, and through cooperation with the Joint Force and
    coalition partners. Access to the littorals is a requirement for United
    States to remain a credible force on foreign shores and to deter
    aggression.
        Lastly, the Marine Corps Operating Concept requires surface and
    vertical lift capability to transport personnel, supplies and equipment
    from within the sea base and maneuver them to objectives ashore. The
    ability to project credible power from the sea is contingent upon the
    availability of high speed, heavy lift, long range surface connectors
    that allow future expeditionary force commanders the flexibility to
    operate in contested environments. We will continue to use multiple
    complementary systems that buttress the strengths or mitigate the
    weaknesses of sister systems to set the conditions for forcible entry
    operations. However, the current fleet of surface connectors, the
    Landing Craft Air Cushioned (LCAC) and Landing Craft Utility (LCU), are
    reaching the end of their services lives. The Marine Corps supports the
    current Navy Connector Strategy to procure replacement LCAC 100s, but
    remains extremely concerned with any delay in delivery of these
    platforms. Further delay risks creating gaps in this critical
    capability.
                                   conclusion
        We are committed to delivering required warfighting capabilities to
    marines in a timely and affordable manner. However, continued budget
    uncertainties risk our ability to fulfill this commitment. The Marine
    Corps is at a critical juncture. We have delayed modernization so long
    that our technical advantages over our adversaries have been
    diminished. The continuing need to maintain and update legacy systems
    takes the focus off innovation and is costly in its own right.
    Experience tells us that investing in new capabilities and technologies
    is a proven cornerstone for your marines and sailors to achieve mission
    success today and into an uncertain, but no less demanding future.
        The Marine Corps continues to improve our essential ground
    capabilities through a strategy that is stable and affordable. We
    recognize the need for continued vigilance in achievement of a proper
    balance between current readiness and the long-term imperatives of
    modernization and innovation. This balance is critical to ensuring the
    Marine Corps and the individual marine has the capability to fight and
    win future battles while being prepared to respond today as our
    Nation's force in readiness.
        On behalf of the marines and sailors who provide the Nation with
    its forward deployed crisis-response force, we thank you for your
    constant support in an era of competing challenges. These critical
    modernization investments will ensure our success not if, but when
    future conflict occurs . Recognizing fiscal challenges faced by the
    Nation, we remain committed to fielding the most ready Marine Corps the
    Nation can afford. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished committee members,
    on behalf of your marines, we request your continued support for our
    modernization strategy.

        Senator Wicker. Well, thank you. You were kind enough to
    thank the committee, but thank you.
        With regard to your record of frugality, we appreciate
    that, but frankly I think frugality can only go so far. We need
    to get you what you need, General. I hope this hearing will
    enlighten us and perhaps those who are watching this hearing
    about what we need.
        So let us drill down on some of the things that Senator
    Hirono and I mentioned in our opening statements. Walk us
    through the concept of operations for getting ashore from the
    amphibious ships in the future, the roles of ship-to-shore
    connectors, utility landing craft, and amphibious combat
    vehicles.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Thank you, Chairman.
        I would start with whatever the mission may be. The Navy-
    Marine Corps team forward deployed is ready for a number of
    missions. Those could be from the lower end humanitarian
    assistance missions to the higher end of joint forcible entry
    operations where we may be the first ones on the scene. So
    taking a look at that capability, I would start with whatever
    the mission is, and we always start with what that threat may
    be and defining how we will approach that threat based on the
    capabilities that not only we but also the naval force and the
    joint force at large.
        So with that said, the first thing that we always have to
    do is take a look at the threat and set the conditions to
    operate in that environment. So depending on that threat
    bringing in joint and naval capabilities to set those
    conditions right to be able to allow us to operate from those
    amphibious ships to conduct amphibious operations is a critical
    part of setting those conditions right.
        We have got the landing force that is out on those ships on
    the amphibious task force that we have got. To be able to get
    ashore to move those both marines, sailors, and equipment
    ashore, we start with the AAV, or our primary vehicle that we
    have today that we are upgrading, to be able to move those
    marines ashore in a requirement that we have today for a two
    marine expeditionary force forcible entry capability that would
    allow in that size operation in a large-scale operation.
        Now, those same vehicles can be used all the way down to
    the low end for humanitarian assistance all the way to more
    crisis response type missions. Those AAVs are those first
    capabilities that bring those marines ashore to conduct those
    amphibious operations.
        At the same time, we are developing the amphibious combat
    vehicle 1.1. That 1.1 capability will be a follow-on amphibious
    capability that we will be using into the future.
        Senator Wicker. Well, let us go ahead and then talk about
    the 1.2 and the 2.0.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. The 1.1 is--again, it is two
    companies or two battalions--an amphibious company supports a
    Marine battalion. So the ACV 1.1 is 204 vehicles to be able to
    support Marine operations with two battalions of marines. So
    that is the next increment.
        The program itself is designed along an incremental
    approach. So these vehicles, as we talked about at the
    beginning, were by two contractors right now, two vendors, that
    we will evaluate over the next year to be able to decide as we
    downsize which one has the best capabilities. But those
    capabilities are really designed to get the marines, once they
    are ashore, to operate in a lethal and maneuverable fashion.
        As we evaluate what we see out of the 1.1 capability, those
    204 vehicles, about 3 years behind that is we are developing
    the 1.2 capability. That 1.2 capability is going to be a little
    over double in size the requirement of the 1.1. So we will
    learn from the 1.1 capability, and as we then look to see how
    the incremental approach towards the 1.2 capability to spiral
    in new capabilities into that, that would provide the
    capability for four battalions to operate once they are ashore.
    So between the AAV with the amphibious assault capability of
    four battalions, two battalions on the 1.1, and four battalions
    on the 1.2, that would be our requirement for 10 battalions'
    worth of amphibious capability.
        Senator Wicker. Very good. I really anticipated that that
    question would take my entire first round. So Senator Hirono,
    you are recognized, and then Senator Cotton.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you very much.
        General, I noted in your testimony that you paint a very
    serious picture of where we are in terms of our capabilities. I
    quote. While our focus was elsewhere, our potential enemies
    modernized, reducing the technological advantages American
    forces once took for granted. In many theaters, we can no
    longer assume superiority in any domain: sea, air, land, space,
    or the electromagnetic spectrum. In short, the Marine Corps is
    not organized, trained, or equipped to meet the demands of the
    future operating environment. So clearly, you need help. That
    is what we are here to do.
        So the various vehicles like the ACV, are really critical
    to your mission. The ACV is your highest priority in the ground
    combat and technical vehicle portfolio, as it will replace, as
    you said, the existing AAV.
        In November 2015, the Marine Corps awarded, as I mentioned,
    two contracts. I just want to make sure that these contracts
    are on time, and there has already been a bid protest. So do
    you feel confidant, General, that the program is on track and
    will still meet the development and testing guidelines because
    there are 32 vehicles that are going to be developed by these
    two companies, and there will be all kinds of testing? Can you
    assure us that things are on track?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Yes, ma'am. We are just getting
    ready to start the testing, and we are on track for that. But
    if I could, I would ask if I could defer the question to Mr.
    Garner, who has really the expertise and can really walk you
    through that.
        Mr. Garner. Yes, Ranking Member. This is actually a good
    day for me to do this because we have had some successes as
    recently as today.
        Both contractors are delivering. It is a competitive
    environment. One of them is ahead on the delivery schedule, is
    meeting all criteria, is ahead on testing, and by the end of
    this week, we will have 13 vehicles from one of them. We
    currently have 12 already from them.
        The other one--we are accepting four vehicles today, which
    is why I say it is a good day to do this. We already had two.
    So we will have six.
        By the end of next week, it will be 15 from one and it will
    be 12 from the other. That is enough to fully support the test
    schedule to maintain the critical milestone, the milestone C,
    about this time next year, next July or August time frame.
        These are in many cases well developed vehicles and are
    doing well in the testing and are in fact exceeding some of our
    expectations. So we are very much comfortable that we are on
    course. Between the two competitors, we are going to have a
    very good selection that will bring really good capabilities to
    the Marine Corps, and we will be prepared to move forward this
    time next year into production.
        Senator Hirono. To follow up, the GAO [Government
    Accountability Office] office noted in an April 27 report that
    the protest, as I mentioned, resulted in testing delays for the
    program. While you are articulating that we are on track, I
    have a concern that there will be an overlap between the
    testing and the production. So what should follow is the
    testing is completed and then you produce the vehicles. But
    apparently with the time frame, there may be an overlap? So
    there may be some vehicles that will be built that potentially
    will require costly modifications. So what are you doing to
    make sure that that----
        Mr. Garner. Well, ma'am, we have done a couple of things.
    One is that we actually adjusted the schedule to accommodate
    the protest. So we actually moved the schedule almost three
    months to the right in terms of the testing and the milestone
    C. So the protest did slow down the overall program, but it did
    not affect the testing. The testing that we are conducting is
    all of the testing prior to milestone C, is all of the testing
    that was originally in the testing plan that was approved by
    DOT&E [Department of Test & Evaluation] and all the agencies.
    All of the critical testing required prior to milestone C will
    still be done. On practically any program, some testing like
    continued reliability growth, other testing continues after
    milestone C. That is considered to be actually very low risk.
        Our budget includes the ability to do the retrofit for the
    initial vehicles which is actually a pretty low number of
    vehicles. It is in the 20s. So we believe we have accommodated
    that.
        Frankly, DOD non-concurred with that GAO report, to include
    the DOT&E strongly non-concurred with it. They believe we are
    doing what we need to do.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Cotton?
        Senator Cotton. Thank you.
        Thank you, gentlemen.
        General Walsh, I found a line from your opening testimony
    to be particularly notable. You said on page 3: Some regional
    actors seek to secure their objective by taking a continuous
    series of small steps to incrementally establish new conditions
    favorable to their objectives. This undermines existing
    authority and erodes prevailing norms without resorting to
    actual fighting. That is pretty much the definition of
    strategy. Is it not?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Yes, Senator, it is.
        Senator Cotton. To achieve a preponderance of force and
    strategic position from which to deploy to force your enemy to
    submit to your will, preferably without fighting.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Cotton. As you say, without resorting to actual
    fighting, that is because the forces in defense of the
    international order that are attempting--that is being
    challenged are refusing to commit to fighting to defend that
    order against such incremental steps.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Yes, sir. Like I said, I think
    since we have been so focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, that a
    lot of things have gone on around the world, and we are being
    challenged in areas where we have not--we have taken for
    granted in the past.
        Senator Cotton. So you say some regional actors. Who are
    those regional actors?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I would start with Russia, China,
    North Korea, Iran would be the four main actors, and certainly
    a lot of violent extremist state actors around the world.
        Senator Cotton. Are Russia and China the biggest
    challengers since they are the ones who have global or at least
    continental ambitions?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. As we look at the threats that
    are out there, obviously there are threats like North Korea and
    a very conventional fight in North Korea, a major adversary for
    us to deal with. But I think as we have looked at modernizing
    the force and looking at the future operating environment,
    there is no question that as we look at as regional actors,
    Russia, China, and Russia operating in areas well outside of
    where we have seen them operate before, the capabilities that
    they are developing are certainly capabilities that work
    asymmetrically against our strengths. I think that is what we
    are seeing is that for us to be able to stay with overmatch
    wherever we go we expect our marines to have, we are going to
    have to continue to look at that threat and outpace that threat
    in a lot of areas that we have not had to deal with in the last
    15 years.
        Senator Cotton. Can you say more about those asymmetrical
    capabilities that they are developing, in particular Russia and
    China?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Things I think that we focus on
    is when we talk about maneuver warfare, maneuvering today in
    all domains. So when we talk about maneuvering in the
    electromagnetic spectrum, we see today capabilities that while
    Russia kept a lot of their Cold War capabilities when it came
    to electronic warfare, they have kept those, they have improved
    on those, and they have kept a lot of their fielded formations
    that we have let those capabilities recess that we did not
    need. A lot of our EW [Electronic Warfare] capabilities--we
    worked in the counter-IED areas. We did not work against
    counter long-range fires, counter-battery, electromagnetic
    spectrum denial, the EW capabilities that we had back in those
    days. So I think the electromagnetic spectrum we see, we see in
    cyber them operating in that area, along with capabilities and
    information operations that we have seen expand tremendously
    when you look at some of the operations that they have done in
    Ukraine.
        Long-range precision fires, now capabilities that in the
    Cold War days we would constantly have to meet that threat and
    outpace that threat. We see in a lot of cases today that their
    long-range precision fires, their ability to sense, make sense
    of the area, then act, and use long-range precision fires is
    well beyond what we have been looking at over the last few
    years in our own arsenal.
        Senator Cotton. Long-range precision fires, whether that is
    in Eastern Europe with Russia advancing a more advanced air
    defense system or on the Chinese shore with anti-access/area
    denial weapons--we often focus on what that means for air power
    pushing, for instance, ships out of the first island chain in
    East Asia or even out to the second. What does it mean, though,
    for amphibious warfare? How will the marines conduct amphibious
    warfare in a hostile A2/AD [Anti Access/Area Demand]
    environment?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. The first thing I would say is
    pushing us out--that is some of the things that we do, your
    forward-deployed naval forces do every day. We operate inside
    that contested space every day, building alliances, building
    partners, working with our allies. So with the hope that we are
    there, we build partners. We have done the deterrence that we
    never go the war.
        At the same time, when you see China building some of the
    islands that they have done in the South China Sea, those kind
    of things challenge not only freedom of navigation, but they
    also threaten our allies. So building those kind of
    partnerships to ensure we can persist and operate with advanced
    expeditionary bases is a piece of that.
        But when it comes to operating in that contested
    environment, it is certainly going to take not only our
    amphibious force and our marines, but the entire joint force
    and probably more specifically, the entire naval force when it
    comes to submarines, aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers to
    be able to persist and operate in that contested environment.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you, gentlemen.
        Senator Wicker. Senator King?
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We are talking mostly about amphibious vehicles here so
    far. Over the last 20 years, what percentage of marine
    deployments have involved amphibious assaults? Any idea?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. We kind of track that and show
    that over the years, depending on what type of amphibious
    operation, but between exercises, deployments, humanitarian
    assistance operations, we use our amphibs all the time. I mean,
    there are times--I mean, we use examples where we were
    conducting humanitarian assistance, disaster relief operations
    that were conducted in Pakistan at the same time we were doing
    deep strike operations into Afghanistan from the same three
    ships, and the third ship doing maritime counter-piracy
    operations. So these type of operations are going on every day
    with those amphibious ships.
        Senator King. These amphibious attack vehicles, though--
    were they used in those?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Certainly in the case of our
    humanitarian assistance in Pakistan specifically, they would
    have been used. Anytime our marines are going ashore, they are
    taking these vehicles with them to operate. In many cases, they
    are coming ashore where they do not need any type of pier
    capability to be able to come ashore. They can come ashore,
    bring their capabilities with them, along with the connectors
    we bring like our LCACs [Landing Craft Air Cushion] and our LCU
    capability.
        Senator King. These vehicles that we are talking about, the
    AAV and now the ACV--how effective are they on land? They will
    drive up on the beach. Are they effective fighting vehicles on
    land, or does that have to be an entirely different vehicle?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. That is a great question. So one
    of the things that we were struggling with the EFV
    [Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle] program that was canceled was
    trying to design a vehicle that could go fast like a connector
    would, like an LCAC, something like that, and could fight
    ashore. What we decided with that was the tradeoff was just too
    high to try to do both things within one vehicle. So the effort
    that we have put into now with the ACV is to be able to get a
    vehicle that can get us ashore, but when it operates, it is
    probably going to operate 99 percent of the time ashore. It is
    going to be able to operate a fighting vehicle with our marines
    when they get ashore.
        Senator King. When it is ashore.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. When it is ashore.
        Senator King. So the ACV is designed to do both.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. It is designed to do both, but I
    would argue where we were with the EFV where we were trying to
    optimize in warfare at sea, the ACV is more optimized to
    operate and fight ashore.
        Senator Wicker. So what will it not be able to do that you
    hoped the----
        Lieutenant General Walsh. What we had hoped is we had speed
    desirements up to about 25 knots back on that vehicle, to try
    to be able to come from the ships to shore at about 25 knots.
    Now we are looking at vehicles that are at a much lower number
    than that because of the technology. To get them to go that
    fast, we are trading off too many capabilities, armor
    protection, lethality, and mobility, the ability to maneuver
    quickly when they got ashore.
        Senator King. Our question is how effective is it as an
    onshore vehicle.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Once it gets ashore?
        Senator King. Correct.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I think that is where we are
    going to see the real benefit. It is a wheeled vehicle, number
    one, which is probably going to operate much better ashore than
    we had with some of the tracked vehicles that we have had in
    the past. So I think by going in this direction, the marines
    that are going to be optimized when they are ashore--they are
    going to have a much better capability now with the two vendors
    we are using today as we compete those two capabilities that we
    will see as probably a much better fighting vehicle ashore than
    we have in our current AAV force today.
        Senator King. How heavily armored is this? Is there any
    consideration of active defensive measures?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. The armor protection that we have
    got in those vehicles today would be what we call a two times
    armor protection capability. So on the order of what we have
    got in our MATVs [Mine Resistant-All Terrain Vehicle] or MRAP
    [Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle] capabilities. So
    built into that vehicle is high protection capability once that
    vehicle gets ashore.
        Going back to what we were talking about earlier with the
    threats that we are seeing today, the active protection system,
    by buying a new vehicle like the ACV with the growth capacity
    that the vehicle will have, we will be able to bring in active
    protection systems into the future. It is something we are
    looking at very hard right now. The technology really has just
    not been where we wanted it to be. It is starting to get there.
    Coming from the sea as more of a light force, these active
    protection systems have weighed an awful lot, and we did not
    want to be able to put them--some of it is a buoyancy thing
    being able to get the vehicles ashore. The technology is
    getting better, and we are looking at that. We think in the ACV
    in the future we will be able to do that. With General Shrader,
    we are already, along with the Army, experimenting with an
    active protection system, the Trophy system, on our M1A1 tank
    because it can carry a lot more weight than our amphibious
    vehicles can.
        Senator King. I hope when you are designing, testing, and
    developing the manufacturing that modularization is part of the
    concept so that we do not have to build new platforms as
    technology changes. I think that is a key thought because
    technology is developing so fast. We have to be able to plug
    and play different systems and different types of technology.
    General, is that part of your design concept?
        Brigadier Brigadier General Shrader. Yes, sir, absolutely.
    Right now, speaking about active protection systems, the
    challenge right now is size, weight, and power. As General
    Walsh said, a lot of the systems--right now, what we have
    basically non-developmental or off-the-shelf--are heavy and
    they draw a lot of power. So while we are looking at those to
    how it would adapt to the M1A1 tank, we are also looking at how
    can we now take that and design it into future vehicles so that
    we can plug and play because maybe we only want to buy a
    battalion's worth of set----
        Senator King. We do not want to be bringing marines ashore
    in a vulnerable vehicle given development of offensive
    capability.
        Brigadier General Shrader. Yes, sir.
        Senator King. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. General Walsh, before I recognize Senator
    Rounds, if we came back early on a Monday morning and went to
    Aberdeen, what could this subcommittee--what sort of testing
    could you show this subcommittee?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. We need to defer that to Mr.
    Garner, if you do not mind, Senator, because he is probably a
    little bit more familiar than I am in the exact testing. I know
    a lot of it is how the vehicle can sustain damage hits. We have
    got the testing going on in a lot of different places, but
    specifically to Aberdeen, which is close by, if you do not
    mind, I would like to defer to Mr. Garner, sir.
        Mr. Garner. Mr. Chairman, had you gone this morning, you
    would have seen the final live fire shot on the AAV-SU [Assault
    Amphibious Vehicle Survivability Upgrade] which was successful,
    the survivability upgrade. So AAV-SU, as of about 10 o'clock
    this morning, has met all of its survivability requirements.
        Senator Wicker. I did not get the invitation. I was with
    General Goldfein on this originally.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Garner. So Aberdeen does a lot of our testing. We do a
    lot of the swim testing out at the amphibious vehicle test
    branch in California. What is primarily done at Aberdeen is all
    of the live fire testing. We do a lot of the reliability
    testing where they run it over various mobility courses. In
    fact, they will swim it up there and they do reliability growth
    testing. They do a lot of the other what we call just general
    mobility testing, how it handles rough courses, how it goes
    over obstacles, et cetera. That is the bulk of it--the
    mobility. The live fire is the big one up there. But we
    currently have ACVs up there doing testing every single day
    from both vendors.
        Another thing they do is what we call transportability
    testing where they hook onto the tie-downs and pull on them to
    make sure they do not break and that you could hook the vehicle
    down on a ship or on a connector, an LCAC.
        If you were to go up on a Monday morning, you would see
    right now primarily ACV doing those sorts of things because AAV
    is pretty much finished up there. They are within the last week
    of their operational assessment, and they are done with their
    first round of testing leading to a potential milestone here in
    about two months.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Rounds?
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, thank you for your service.
        General Walsh, in testimony before the full committee,
    General Dunford identified inventories of Javelin, TOW [tube-
    launched optically tracked wire-guided missile], and HIMARS
    [High Mobility Artillery Rocket System] weapons programs as
    insufficient to meet U.S. Marine Corps requirements. Can you
    describe in more detail the risks being assumed by these
    shortfalls and your efforts to mitigate them?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Senator Rounds, we have had those
    shortfalls that were identified because of the numbers that we
    had been using. During the last year and into this budget year,
    we are plusing up all three, the Javelin, the TOW, the HIMARS,
    to include the new HIMARS AW [Advanced Warhead] round,
    alternate weapon. So we have seen that, and I think with the
    focus with the additional money that Congress has been giving
    us, the Secretary of Defense has had us focused on near-term
    readiness, along with filling holes, as we have called it, in
    2018 with looking at more modernization growth into 2019. In
    that filling holes, one of it was exactly what you are talking
    about, filling holes in our ammunition accounts. The ones that
    have been focused on in this budget was the Javelin, TOW, and
    certainly the HIMARS pieces.
        Senator Rounds. Any other weapons systems that are facing
    similar shortages?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. The 155. As you have probably
    seen in the paper, we have been firing a lot of 155 HE [High
    Explosive] rounds in Syria and Iraq. That is an area that we
    are funding and plusing up that account also, Senator.
        Senator Rounds. Can you update the subcommittee on the
    Marine Rotational Force Darwin? They will be conducting
    exercises and training on a rotational basis with the
    Australian defense force. Can you kind of give us an update on
    what is going on? I understand that the intent in the coming
    years is to establish rotational presence of up to, I believe,
    2,500 Marine Air/Ground Task Force members in Australia.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Thanks for that question,
    Senator.
        I tell you, the partnership that we have always had with
    the Australians is it is just a tremendous ally all the way
    back to the days where marines were working with the
    Australians in World War II. This has become a very good
    partnership. As you know, the Pacific is such a huge area, and
    trying to find good locations where we can train as a Marine
    Air/Ground Task Force Darwin operating down there, along with
    other places in Australia, has been a great place to now train
    and operate in the Pacific.
        We have been at it now for a few years. We continue to gain
    and learn from that. This last cycle that we--we go there in
    what is considered the dry period, which is April through
    October. We are there right now. For the first time, Senator
    Hirono, we flew four MV-22's all the way from Hawaii all the
    way to Australia. So we now have four MV-22's. You have seen
    them fly from the east coast or the west coast going over to
    the CENTCOM [Central Command] AOR [Area of Responsibility]. We
    just flew them all the way to the Pacific in a lot of areas
    marines throughout World War II had flown.
        Now we have got 1,250 marines there. We are continuing to
    maintain that. We have got ambitions to grow up to 2,500, and a
    lot of that so far has been fiscally constrained. But we have
    got a lot of great ideas we have to work with our partners over
    in Australia.
        Senator Rounds. Either for General Walsh or Mr. Garner.
    During the full committee as well as the Airland Subcommittee
    testimony, Army leadership and outside experts have cast doubt
    on the ability of the 5.56 round's ability to penetrate modern
    composite body armor that is proliferating at an alarming rate.
    We are concerned that Marine infantry units could find the
    standard issue M4A1 ineffective, which naturally we would
    consider to be wholly unacceptable.
        How closely is the Marine Corps working with the Army in
    terms of fielding a new round that can penetrate enemy body
    armor? Is there a strategy in place to accomplish this? If so,
    please provide an update.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. We are. We have been after this
    for quite a while with the Army trying to--and Congress has
    pushed us in this direction too to try to find a common round
    with the Army. Just as you said, we are seeing more body armor
    wherever our marines and soldiers deploy, more of it and better
    quality or better capability.
        So the rounds that we currently have are 855 rounds. We
    have been in the process of looking at a SOCOM [Special
    Operations Command] round, the 318A1, along with the 855A1 that
    the Army is using. We have been testing with them now for well
    over a year, trying to figure out the best round to go with.
    Indications are that we are trying to go with the direction
    that the Army is. In fact, right now our marines that are
    deployed into Afghanistan with our weapons are using the Army
    round. So there is a lot of good reason to have commonality.
        The good news with that round--both rounds actually--much
    more capable, and specifically the Army 855A1, much better at
    penetrating armor, along with personal armor protection. So
    that is a good reason to go with that. We have to work through
    a lot of things on our own weapons. The M-4, our M-27's, our
    IAR [infantry automatic rifle], infantry advanced weapon, along
    with our M-16's that we are working through some of the
    reliability things we are learning and testing. But we will
    make some adjustments from that, and I think in the end our
    marines will have a much better capability when we are done
    with it.
        Senator Rounds. So you think are moving in the right
    direction with regard to the new----
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I do, sir. Not only that, we are
    looking with the Army at another weapon that would give us
    increased capability for our marines, to include a higher
    caliber weapon.
        If you do not mind, I would like to let General Shrader who
    knows a little bit more about the testing of the 5.56, if he
    has time for that.
        Brigadier General Shrader. So, sir, General Walsh is
    referring to the testing that we have been doing with the Army
    on the EPR [Enhanced Performance Round] round, which is their
    advanced round. It is the M855A1 round. That is the one we have
    heard a lot about. The Marine Corps and the Army have been
    working toward trying to get to the same round.
        The testing that we are doing is that round has had some
    durability--it causes some durability issues for our new
    infantry automatic rifle that we fielded, the M-27. The testing
    will be complete by July of this year, and along with
    performance, specifically stopping power, effect on the
    durability of that weapons system, the ancillary equipment like
    the rifle combat optic--it has a flatter trajectory than the
    round that we currently have. Also training facilities--that
    round requires a larger surface danger area that we have to
    take into account for our ranges. So those four areas is what
    we are looking at for testing to inform us to make a decision
    how we will go forward.
        With regard to maybe a higher caliber, to answer the
    question about proliferation of body armor, we are working with
    the Army and SOCOM. As late as last week, there was a limited
    technical demonstration that was done with SOCOM on a higher
    caliber round specifically for their sniper rifle suite that we
    are working with them on. That could potentially address that.
    So we are very in tune with that. We do understand that that is
    a capability we have to pay attention to.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, gentlemen.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Kaine?
        Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thanks to the witnesses. Good discussions so far. There are
    a couple of things I wanted to ask about.
        Power source increasingly is a limiting factor that I know
    we are all trying to grapple with. Secretary Mattis, when he
    was General Mattis, used to come before the committee and once
    testified that we needed to unleash us from the tether of fuel,
    and recently Tesla surpassed GM in market capitalization. There
    is a lot of potential in markets for alternative power sources,
    and I wondered if you would talk about how you are looking at
    new power sources either for amphibious or ground combat
    vehicles.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Thank you, Senator Kaine.
        This last year, as we were looking at where the force
    should go, one of the things that we did was we took 3rd
    Battalion 5th Marines as experimentation force. We took that
    battalion, redesigned the way they were configured by each
    company designed in a different configuration, and we gave them
    different capabilities from weapons, electronic warfare
    capability, intelligence.
        One of the things that we have been working very hard with
    is how do we save power differently, and not only how do we
    save power, how do we do things like purify water in different
    ways so we are not carrying as much water to things like
    General Shrader is looking at, how do we use polymer casing to
    lighten the load on the ammo to be able to do that.
        We did a lot of solar efforts with the experimentation
    force and hybrid generators. What we are seeing is with that
    experimentation battalion, between those different efforts, we
    are allowing them to maneuver much further and much faster
    because they have much less logistics requirements and able to
    operate on their own.
        One of the things that we are trying to do is operate in a
    distributed manner. The more we can distribute, the more we can
    maneuver and out-maneuver the enemy. But to distribute, you
    have got to have a lot of capabilities and be able to go
    further, and some of it is on the power side.
        So we are moving forward. We realize that that is something
    that has been our weak link, and it is going to allow us to
    operate in new ways. So I think between the hybrid generators
    that we are able to pull dirty power from a lot of different
    places, along with the solar capabilities that we are getting
    down to the squad level, it is moving us in the right
    direction.
        Senator Kaine. That is exciting and something that we focus
    on a little bit in the Readiness Subcommittee too, and we will
    continue to ask questions about that.
        Another innovation question that I am interested in Ranking
    Member Hirono talked about is the G/ATOR system in her opening
    comments. This one interests me because it is an open systems
    architecture model. I wonder about pursuing open systems
    architecture. Are there acquisition challenges to that? Is that
    relatively easy? Are you finding the private contractors you
    are working with are excited about that model? Talk a little
    bit about open systems architecture and the G/ATOR system and
    what you are learning as you are using that model.
        Mr. Garner. Senator, that is the way to go because it
    allows you to have the flexibility, obviously, to continue to
    develop a system for the future. That is one of the reasons
    that G/ATOR will actually replace five other radars and will
    fill multiple roles that will fill the role of air defense. It
    will fill the role of counter-battery, counter-mortar, and
    eventually it will do traffic control. It is the open system
    that allows us to do that.
        Back to Senator Hirono's remarks, G/ATOR is also doing
    extremely well. We are on track to field around February of
    next year the first block, which is the air defense, and later
    next year, the second block, which is the counter-battery
    radar. As we speak, it is down at Wallops Island conducting
    very, very successful DT [developmental testing] and, I would
    comment, linking with the common air command and control
    system, which provides an overall capability to the Marine
    Corps to detect but also to communicate. When you link that
    with shooters, that is a big part of your counter-UAS [unmanned
    areal systems] and other evolving threats.
        So I could have given a shorter answer which says we are
    very focused on it. Industry works with us on it. It is
    absolutely the way we have to go, and it is being very
    successful.
        Senator Kaine. It is vendor independent. It is
    nonproprietary. It allows interoperability among a number of
    different platforms. It allows private contractors to kind of
    use the open architecture and then build add-on units that you
    can more easily incorporate as you are working on----
        Mr. Garner. Absolutely, sir. All of those things and very
    successful.
        Senator Kaine. You know, the open architecture in G/ATOR--
    is this something that you are doing in other acquisition
    programs? I just have not focused on this as much in other
    hearings we have had, and I was interested in the use of the
    open systems architecture on the G/ATOR.
        Mr. Garner. Generally, yes, sir. We are mandated, but we
    would do it anyway whether we were mandated or not. But that is
    across our acquisition programs we want to do that.
        Senator Kaine. That is great.
        Mr. Garner. Because we absolutely want to be able to--the
    ACV is a perfect example. The mention was made earlier of plug
    and play. We can plug and play weapons systems on that. We can
    plug and play things like the active protection. We can plug
    and play all the communications type systems, eventually even
    engines and transmissions. So we focus on it.
        Senator Kaine. If I could ask just one more question, Mr.
    Chair. Did the open systems architecture create security
    challenges of, you know, easier to hack? I mean, by being a
    more open system, are there unique security challenges to it?
        Mr. Garner. To be perfectly honest, sir, everything we do
    right now is creating----
        Senator Kaine. They have their own challenges.
        Mr. Garner. We have to go through the same measures
    regardless, and that is a growing and very complicated thing.
    But I would not say it is any harder because it is open
    architecture. You get into the issues of who is providing it
    and what the sources are for a lot of the stuff, but we have to
    do that with everything we do anyway.
        Senator Kaine. I appreciate it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Tillis?
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
        General Walsh, in your opening testimony in closing, I
    think you said that you are working to have the most ready
    Marine Corps the Nation can afford. The question that I have
    is, is the Marine Corps the Nation can afford the best possible
    Marine Corps to protect our troops and to project lethality on
    the battlefield? What is the gap, if there is one?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I think that has been a real
    challenge or us looking back to where we have been. We have
    been so focused on forward-deployed readiness, very high tempo,
    and looking at the constant, same area we were deploying to,
    Afghanistan and Iraq, pretty much the same threat--it changed a
    little bit--trying to keep the readiness up so those marines
    had the best ready equipment to go forward.
        What we see now, though, as I touched on earlier, is if you
    continue to do that and do not modernize your force, you are
    not going to be ready to fight the next threat or these threats
    today with the high technology we are seeing, for example,
    unmanned aerial systems, some of the signals intelligence
    capabilities that they are getting. These things are pretty
    off-the-shelf technologies that they can buy, and now we are
    putting our marines at risk if we do not modernize also.
        So the challenge that I am seeing that we are working with
    the Commandant on is we cannot modernize across the entire
    force. So we are looking at where we can buy two battalions'
    worth, four battalions' worth of a capability to get modernized
    in these different areas so that we are getting these advanced
    capabilities but it is unaffordable to get them across the
    force in many cases. So the focus now is to modernize in
    discrete ways where we see a capability that we have got to
    have and try to bring that in as fast as we can, maybe at
    smaller quantities than we would have in the past.
        Senator Tillis. The next question has more to do with just
    the underlying processes of modernization and going from the
    concept to actual testing and certification. What work is being
    done to look back at the current processes and drive out
    efficiencies, compress timelines, and reduce cost? What
    specific efforts, beyond just fielding the capability, can you
    point to that you think are good practices to get to leaner
    execution?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Two areas I would say is, one,
    the amphibious combat vehicle is one. It is an example of
    taking a non-developmental program that is pretty far along
    that somebody else has put the R&D [research and development]
    into, that you can look at it, compete it, and be able to
    procure that right in, bring that right in like we are doing
    right now. That is one example.
        The other one that I would say--and a lot of the help that
    Congress has done with the law with rapid acquisition that now
    what we are able to do much more effectively is something that
    works underneath me down at Quantico is the Marine Corps
    warfighting lab where we are able to bring in--buy a
    capability, experiment with our experimentation force, with our
    marines, experiment that, use that within our rapid
    capabilities office, and if we like what we see, to bring this
    in very quickly instead of in a slow developmental process
    where we would develop the requirement and go through our
    normal requirements process that in many cases can take years.
    So I think what we are seeing is being able to buy things
    quickly that have already been developed, a lot of technologies
    that way, and bring them in much later that when we experiment
    with it, try it, and then go out and buy it very quickly.
        Senator Tillis. Are you moving to a point to where when you
    are looking at fielding new capabilities, that you would use
    rapid acquisition process before you choose a more lengthy or
    costly process? Is that a standard operating procedure?
        Brigadier General Shrader. Senator, I think what you are
    describing is probably the rapid prototyping effort where we go
    out on the market and see if there is something out there that
    matches a need that we need. If we find it, we will go after
    it, buy it, and try it. Once we have tried it, if we think it
    is worthy of then fielding, the challenge, frankly, is trying
    to figure out how to take it from that to fielding and the
    funding that goes along with that, making sure that you have a
    long-term funding stream to support it, once it is fielded
    because if you buy it, try it, and then field it and if it is
    not supported in the long term, then you can run into problems
    there downstream with readiness and how do you refresh it.
        Senator Tillis. So that speaks to our ability to provide
    reliable funding streams on the tail end after you determine
    you need to deploy it.
        Brigadier General Shrader. Yes, sir.
        Senator Tillis. Today, how would you rate our reliability
    in terms of providing those kind of reliable funding streams?
        Brigadier General Shrader. I would say there have been some
    challenges in the past, sir.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Wicker. Were you asking the witness to rate the
    Congress, Senator?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Wicker. Good question.
        I have been an advocate, gentlemen, of giving the Ukrainian
    military the weapons they need to get the job done. General
    Walsh, you and I discussed this earlier when you came by the
    office. What does that mean? What do I mean when I say what is
    going to be necessary and what are the Russians doing that we
    will have to combat? We are not going to put ground troops
    there. If we give them lethal weapons so they have a chance to
    win, which I think is in the vital national security interests
    of the United States' taxpayer, what are the dynamics there,
    sir?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I think the dynamics would be the
    same whether it is equipping the Ukrainian forces--and I really
    probably am not smart enough to talk to exactly what they need
    specifically. However, what we see and how they are operating
    against Russian forces or Russian-supported forces is the same
    thing that we are viewing on how we would operate against them.
    So as we study them and watch, it is literally becomes a
    laboratory both for the Russian forces and the Russian-
    supported forces and also what we are seeing. It is a
    laboratory both ways. They are testing their capabilities. They
    are using their capabilities, and then we are having to see
    what they are doing, just like we did in a lot of cases in the
    Cold War, but this is on an actual battlefield.
        So as I look at that and look at a lot of the ways the
    forces are being used--I mentioned to you earlier, Senator
    Wicker, a lot of this is stuff we had never dealt with for a
    long, long time, Cold war capabilities that certainly to be
    able to detect our radios when we operate. Everything we are
    doing today is the ability to share information, sharing
    information as our computers are up, our radios are up. We are
    emitting. In Afghanistan and Iraq, we took that for granted. We
    did not in the Cold War. We knew what our signatures were, what
    the requirements for signature management was.
        So in today's force, as we are experimenting based on what
    we see the Russians doing and what we now have to do in our own
    force-on-force training that we are doing today and the
    equipment that we are buying, is looking at how we can detect
    how we are emitting, what our electromagnetic signature is.
    Some of it is training. Some of it is capability on much they
    emit. But if they turn their radios on, what we see there, they
    are quickly detected. The Russian capabilities will know what
    units are located, just like they did in the Cold War and just
    as we did. We could locate units very quickly.
        A lot of what the UAS capability, unmanned systems that we
    see today that lots of proliferation of unmanned systems that
    are up that have electronics capability, along with EOIR
    [Electro Optical Infrared] capability, can quickly figure out
    where the units are located based on their electromagnetic
    signatures, and then with that, be able to target them very
    quickly with long-range precision fires that can move. How that
    equates to is if the enemy has better capabilities and they are
    able to bring that into their command and control construct
    better, that they can outpace and out-tempo the enemy. So in
    essence, when a force like us would turn on our gear to try to
    detect where an enemy force that has a higher capability, by
    the time we can pull it all together and target them, they have
    already got incoming rounds at us before we can target them.
        Senator Wicker. But how does that translate into what the
    Ukrainian forces need?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I think it is a lot of cases, the
    same type of capabilities that we need, the ability to sense
    the electromagnetic spectrum, how we are emitting, where are
    our radios, how far out the distances are going, how we can
    detect enemy signals, where they are located, how strong they
    are, and quickly be able to figure out what type of unit that
    is located, get precision locations against those units to be
    able to jam those units, and be able to target them with
    precision fires.
        Senator Wicker. How helpful would this be to the Ukrainian
    effort to combat what the Russians are doing?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I think just as helpful as it is
    for our own forces.
        Senator Wicker. It might be a game changer. Might it not?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I will give you an example. One
    of the things, if you are familiar with our CREW jammers, are
    jammers that have been used to detect and defeat IEDs on the
    ground. We have got good capabilities against that. Now today,
    we are looking at those CREW jammers to use them to be able to
    sense the electromagnetic spectrum and also jam enemy
    capabilities. That is one example of repurposing what we
    already have in a way that we are going to be able to use that
    to get all of our ground formations the ability to operate in
    an electromagnetic way that we have never done since probably
    the Cold War. So those same kind of capabilities that we are
    trying to develop in our own force would be useful for the
    Ukranians or any other friendly force.
        Senator Wicker. What would your advice be to the commander
    in chief about what our policy should be with regard to
    supplying lethal weapons to the Ukrainians?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Sir, I would have to take that
    for the record, and that would be one that would be outside my
    lane to be able to talk into that area. I could talk to
    capabilities, but what they should be getting and what they do
    not have today is something that----
        Senator Wicker. No reason I should not try. But I did
    expect that answer.
        Senator Hirono?
        Senator Hirono. General Walsh, you describe scenarios where
    it is really important that technologically we are able to keep
    up with whatever our enemies are doing in terms of detection
    and jamming. In line with some of the modernization questions
    that Senator Tillis was asking, are you satisfied with the
    targeted investments in research and development that are
    included in this budget request, and do we need additional
    investments? Because they are constantly improving their
    ability to see what we are doing and prevent us from doing
    whatever we are doing. We have to do the same thing. So are we
    keeping up or advancing actually?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. You know, I think, Senator, in
    the past--I think we have to look at research and development
    and experimentation in a new way. In the past, when we have put
    research and development out there, the money that we put into
    R&D is tied to a specific program in most cases. So as we
    develop an amphibious combat vehicle, we review the
    requirements process. We know we have to do the R&D to develop
    the program. We kind of know where we are going. The technology
    is moving so fast today that we do not necessarily know where
    it is going. A large vehicle like an F-35 or a Ford-class
    carrier or an ACV, you have got to put that R&D into the
    program to develop the program.
        What I think what we really need is, as General Shrader was
    touching on, money for R&D past the S&T [Science & Technology]
    world, but in the R&D world where we can have money that we can
    experiment and use some of these non-developmental capabilities
    that are out there to be able to procure some of it, to use it,
    test it, experiment with it, and see where those capabilities
    are going to take us. If we learn from it quickly--we may fail
    in certain cases and say that is not the direction we go. But I
    think in a lot of cases, what we are seeing is as we experiment
    in that area--I will give you an example of what Senator King
    was talking about.
        We have got a lot of light utility vehicles that are
    lightening the load. They are ATVs [All Terrain Vehicles] that
    can move marines and equipment very quickly around the
    battlefield, go on our MV-22's, and give mobility as we go
    forward. We were just out in an experiment that we did out at
    Camp Pendleton where we had over ten different vendors come in
    that allowed us to kind of see what their wares were, and we
    experimented with those capabilities. Afterwards, we went
    forward with contracts to buy a few more of those capabilities
    to put them into our next series of exercises like Bold
    Alligator.
        In the past when we have gotten the money for that R&D is I
    have had to tie to that to say, hey, this is tied to ship-to-
    shore maneuver, and I would squeeze John's programs, Mr.
    Garner's programs, out of money he needed for something that it
    was already designed for. What we need is money in the R&D
    budget to be able to experiment with to be able to move forward
    in ways that we can learn from that experimentation as we see
    this technology moving so fast. It is almost a way to look at
    colorless money that we could work with Congress on set areas
    that we want to work on with congressional oversight, but yet
    we have got the ability to experiment and demonstrate
    capabilities.
        Senator Hirono. Is there such monies in the fiscal year
    2018 budget?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. We put some money in this year.
    We put about $10 million to do this. What I am hoping to do is
    that the appropriators--we can have the right conversation with
    the appropriators that they see what we are doing, and we can
    explain to them the different project areas that we are working
    and that money can stay in the budget. I think we can do a lot
    more of this. But the law that you have written allows us to
    move in that direction, but I think there is some hesitancy to
    allow us to have funds that may not have the discrete money
    tied to existing programs like we have had in the past. I think
    that is the old way of thinking, and I think you may have to do
    that on the large programs, but some of the things we are
    talking about we are talking about spending $10 million to $50
    million in a year to be able to move things much faster in our
    acquisition process.
        Senator Hirono. I am very intrigued by your approach. Are
    other services also wanting to do these kinds of experimenting,
    and do they have monies in their budgets, the Navy, the Air
    Force?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. On the Navy side, we tried that
    last year from the Department of the Navy, and I think it was
    around $55 million that was put into that. When it got up, it
    was taken.
        Senator Hirono. When you say it was taken, it was taken
    away?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. It was taken away when it got up
    with the Congress.
        I think this is something that we just need to have better
    dialogue back and forth. As we put the money in, what are we
    going to use it so Congress understands it may not be on a
    specific because we cannot, a year in advance, figure out
    exactly, but we know areas that we want to experiment in. It
    could be electronic warfare jamming capability. It could be how
    we are going to have unmanned vehicles get us ashore in a
    different way. We know we want to kind of go in that direction.
    We do not have the exact project a year out. Then when we see
    what is out there and having that dialogue with Congress so you
    know where we are going to spend the money, and then it is
    appropriated in the right way.
        Senator Hirono. Well, it make sense to me. It is very
    intriguing. I would want to have further dialogue with you, and
    I would like to be as supportive as I can be. I hope the chair
    is there too.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
        Gentlemen, I said I would ask about the industrial base. So
    who would like to take that question? Assess the state of our
    industrial base for ground combat and tactical vehicles and
    suggest options.
        Mr. Garner. Senator, on my programs, which covers that
    portfolio of basically all the ground vehicles and G/ATOR and
    common aviation command, we do not really have significant
    industrial base issues right now in the traditional sense of
    your thinking of the heavy steel or the turrets or things of
    that nature.
        Part of our strategy is that a lot of the things we use
    have commercial applications. So to use again ACV as an
    example, the engines and transmissions and things of that
    nature are used in a lot of agricultural applications and they
    are worldwide.
        Where we do have an issue is sometimes with some of the
    suppliers of not the major components but the lesser components
    and the fact that if you do not have enough demand for them,
    they will go out of business and then you do not necessarily
    have a supplier. So we use a lot of mechanisms to deal with
    that, including foreign military sales in the case of the AAV.
        But quite frankly, at our scale--now, the Army may have a
    very different issue, but at our scale with our heavy
    vehicles--for example, when we did the ACV competition, we did
    have five vendors, and all of them had the industrial
    capability that they could have built it. It is not the
    standard model that it was in the past. But, for example, with
    ACV, about 80 percent of those vehicles and eventually more is
    being transitioned to U.S. production, and it has not been a
    major issue with us yet.
        What is an issue is when you go low and then you come back
    up. So it is true that some of the major producers--BAE, being
    a perfect example--went into a trough a couple of years ago. So
    now they are having to ramp back up, and it is less their plant
    capacity. It is the skilled workers. It is the highly trained
    welders, people of that nature. That is a challenge as they
    ramp back up to production.
        Senator Wicker. On the BAE situation, what was the reason
    for that?
        Mr. Garner. It was just lack of demand, Senator. It was the
    fact that they were not doing enough work to keep the size
    workforce they had had in previous years. In a place, for
    example, like York, Pennsylvania, those skilled workers will
    move away. They will go somewhere else. Then it takes a while
    to train them and grow them back up. So I would say on the
    labor end of it, it is an issue. In terms of plant capacity and
    things of that nature, it has not been as much of an issue for
    us.
        Senator Wicker. I also said in my opening statement--on
    short-range defense systems and long-range precision fires, can
    you give us anything on the Navy and the Marine Corps
    leveraging each other's capabilities?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I think, Senator, one example
    that I would say that we have had is looking at this threat. It
    was a little bit the piece that Senator Cotton was touching in
    the Pacific--is to be able to operate inside that A2/AD
    environment. So many times people ask this question. How are
    amphibs going to be able to operate in that environment? Well,
    they are not going to operate in a contested environment in the
    big shooting or all by ourselves. It is going to be the Navy
    and the Marine Corps working together, along with the joint
    force.
        Over the last year, one of the things we focused on very
    heavily--and I co-chair the Naval Board for the CNO and the
    Commandant, along with Vice Admiral Aquilino--is operating
    together. We have developed a concept called littoral
    operations in a contested environment. That has driven many war
    games and experiments. One exact experiment that we are doing
    here--I think it is next month--is to put a HIMARS rocket
    firing battery or capability, one of our HIMARS shooters, onto
    an LPD-17 ship. That is just one example on how we could use
    that, but there are many more on how we are using our long-
    range precision fires to try to use them in more a sea-
    controlled role going from shore to sea, then using them from
    just on land in that capability. So there are many
    capabilities. I think we do like that.
        I think another example would be our F-35's operating off
    the amphibious ships and how they would support the Navy in a
    sea-controlled mission.
        Senator Wicker. General Shrader, we have a budget request
    for 527 JLTVs. The Marine Corps says they want to acquire
    5,500. Do you acknowledge that is an unrealistic budget request
    in light of what it will buy?
        Brigadier General Shrader. Sir, I would love to answer the
    question, but John manages it, so I am going to defer to John
    Garner, sir, on JLTV.
        Mr. Garner. Sir, the 5,500 is the ultimate acquisition
    objective over many years. The 527 is, of course, this year.
        Senator Wicker. Are you okay with that for a year?
        Mr. Garner. Would I like it to go higher? Yes, sir. But
    there are always other competing priorities, including things
    like ACV. So that is balanced. Right now, that works fine for
    2018. What we would like to do is probably in future years, we
    may decide we would like to accelerate and increase that
    requirement. But for right now--remember, Senator, we are still
    in the low rate initial production phase. We have not completed
    the IOT&E [Initial Operational Test & Evaluation]. So between
    our buy and the Army buy, we are pretty much against the LRIP
    [Low Rank Initial Production] cap right now.
        Senator Wicker. Well, we will have some questions for the
    record.
        Senator Hirono. I just have one question----
        Senator Wicker. Senator Hirono?
        Senator Hirono.--regarding the JLTVs. So the ultimately
    goal is 5,500 JLTVs. So what is the time frame for that 5,500
    to be procured?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Senator Hirono, so right now, as
    we look at the requirement, the initial acquisition objective
    was 5,500. Just as Mr. Garner said, with the delays in the
    program initially, that slid the full rate production decision
    a year. So that caused some of the reduction in the vehicles
    that we would have been buying. But in the long-term, we have
    got that 5,500 objective. But our entire Humvee fleet is up
    over 17,000 vehicles. We are not exactly sure what that
    objective is going to be in the long term on those numbers. It
    is going to be much higher than 5,500 we think out in the
    future. But what we do not know is also do all those Humvees
    need to be JLTVs. Could they be some other type of lighter
    truck that does not have the same protection requirements that
    a JLTV would have? Because not all our vehicles may be
    operating in a highly contested threat environment. So that is
    part of the decision as we continue to build this increment
    from increment 1 to increment 2 to increment 3. We will look
    through what that long-term requirement will be.
        Senator Hirono. So setting aside any potential further
    delays with the JLTVs, what is the time frame for when you will
    be getting to the 5,500 number? Are we talking about 2030? What
    kind of time frame?
        Mr. Garner. Ma'am, I would like to take that one for the
    record. I believe it is within the FYDP [Future Years Defense
    Program].
        Senator Hirono. Within the what?
        Mr. Garner. Within the next 5 years. It is in the 2022-2023
    time frame.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Mr. Garner. Because we hope to kick up significantly as
    soon as we hit the full rate production decision.
        Senator Hirono. My understanding is that you would like to
    get to more than 5,500.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Senator Hirono, if I could
    correct that. Actually what I have got is within PB-18, we
    funded a quantity of 7,241. So we move into increment two
    inside the FYDP.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Might some of those vehicles continue to be
    Humvees for a long time?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. So the 7,241 that I just
    briefed--that would be coming from the 17,000. There would be
    plenty of Humvees out there for many, many more years until we
    figure out how many we are going to turn into JLTVs.
        Senator Wicker. Gentlemen, thank you very much. We
    appreciate your service and we appreciate your information
    today.
        The hearing is closed.
        [Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

        [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
                           amphibious combat vehicle
        1. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Garner, on Friday, June 2nd, Inside the
    Navy published an article regarding the status of the Amphibious Combat
    Vehicle (ACV) 1.1 program. The article indicated that the Marine Corps
    intends to modify the prototype vehicle delivery schedule for ACV 1.1
    due to ``challenges'' and ``technical issues'' experienced by one of
    the contractors. Will this adjustment to the prototype delivery
    schedule delay program milestones and eventual fielding to the marines?
        Mr. Garner. The modifications to the contractor's delivery schedule
    of prototypes will not delay the ACV 1.1 milestones or fielding. The
    developmental testing is well underway with the prototypes already
    delivered, and it is anticipated that testing will remain on schedule.

        2. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Garner and General Walsh, your joint
    written statement discusses increments 1.1 and 1.2 for the Amphibious
    Combat Vehicle identifying that increment 1.1 vehicles will reach full
    operating capability in fiscal year 2022 and increment 1.2 vehicles in
    fiscal year 2026. Will the improvements from increment 1.1 to increment
    1.2 be backfit on all the increment 1.1 vehicles to ensure the same
    capability across the fleet of vehicles?
        Mr. Garner and Lieutenant General Walsh. It is anticipated that the
    improvements from increment 1.1 to increment 1.2 will be back fitted on
    the increment 1.1 vehicles.
                                 cybersecurity
        3. Senator Shaheen. General Walsh, in light of the focus on
    cybersecurity and modernizing your command and control systems, what
    steps are you taking to ensure the security of all your networked
    systems?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. The Marine Corps takes cybersecurity
    seriously. It is vital to the protection of our data, users, systems,
    connections, and networks. We understand the ever-changing cyber threat
    environment and continue to pursue and implement agile and responsive
    defense-in-depth for the Marine Corps Enterprise Network (MCEN), both
    in garrison and deployed environments. We are taking the following
    steps:
          Implementation of DOD's Comply to Connect on the MCEN:
    This is an automated capability that ensures information systems comply
    with cybersecurity and technical standards (e.g., patch management,
    end-point/end-user protections, security standard configurations)
    before connecting to the network. The end result is improved
    cybersecurity through automated end-to-end network visibility and
    assured interoperability through a single security architecture
    framework. We are currently testing this capability prior to full
    implementation across the MCEN.
          Cybersecurity Assessments: These assessments occur in
    coordination with MARFORCYBER's Cyber Readiness Reviews and Cyber
    Protection teams and in conjunction with named operations. These occur
    monthly at the regional level and cover all Marine Corps bases, camps,
    stations.
          Mission Assurance Assessments: These assessments identify
    cybersecurity issues that could impact ground, air, and logistics
    missions areas in order to resolve vulnerabilities. The Marine Corps
    Operational Test and Evaluation Activity conducts test and assessments
    throughout the acquisition process to determine cyber resiliency of
    tactical systems.
          Marine Corps Cyber Range: Aggressive testing occurs at
    the Marine Corps Cyber Range (part of the DOD Cybersecurity Range) to
    resolve cybersecurity weaknesses before they become a compromised
    vulnerability. We are currently growing this capability and capacity.
          Cryptographic Modernization: The Marine Corps is moving
    out on the DOD's mandate to meet improved NSA Communications Security
    (COMSEC) and encryption standards by 2024. Specifically, the USMC
    tactical radio portfolio is being modernized ($600 million +
    investment) to meet advanced cryptography standards, limit adversary
    threat, and improve security of our tactical networked systems.
          Communications Military Occupational Specialty (MOS)
    (06XX) modernization. Improves Cybersecurity training across the
    spectrum of communications occupational fields. Network and System
    Operators take over an increased responsibility for Cybersecurity,
    while Cyber defense technicians are trained to enhanced standards and
    capabilities.
          Completed the ``MAGTF Defensive Cyberspace Operations
    Internal Defensive Measures Company Concept of Employment'' in July
    2017. This concept supports CMC's intent and direction to increase the
    service's ability to defend the MAGTF (in and through Cyberspace). USMC
    has approved force structure force both Active and Reserve components
    for fiscal year 2019. CD+I is currently working development of tool set
    requirements and training to round out the full capability. Proof of
    concept to begin later this year and next spring.
        The Marine Corps has also maintained compliance with the DOD
    Cybersecurity Scorecard, and we have had success in software assurance
    testing (as directed by NDAA 966) and Command Cyber Readiness
    inspections. We will increase security by transitioning from the
    Electronic Key Management System (EKMS) to the new Key Management
    Infrastructure (KMI) by the end of CY17. The Marine Corps is also
    improving how we measure and analyze cyber risk. We must continue to be
    proactive in the cybersecurity environment, counter adversary threats,
    and ensure the security of our networked systems.
                                   __________
               Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
                         laser warning receiver system
        4. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Garner, Lieutenant General Walsh,
    Brigadier General Shrader, since 1994, the Marine Corps has had a
    requirement generated from a joint Mission Need Statement and follow on
    Operational Requirements Document to incorporate a laser warning
    receiver system to protect Marine Corps combat vehicles from threats.
    The requirement was a part of a joint effort between the Marines Corps
    and the US Army and included the M1A1 Main Battle Tank, Light Armored
    Vehicle (LAV), and the Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV). Why has this
    laser warning system requirement not been fielded? Are you working
    toward fielding it in the near term? What are the obstacles? What can
    this capability bring to the Marine Corps' armored fleet?
        Mr. Garner, Lieutenant General Walsh, Brigadier Brigadier General
    Shrader. The Marine Corps has an overall survivability requirement for
    the M1A1 tank which laser warning receiver systems can help satisfy in
    some cases. The USMC tested several LWS systems in June 2011 and
    determined that they provided a mixed level of performance against
    threats that employ lasers to either locate or designate the M1 prior
    to or during attack. After completion of the testing, the USMC reviewed
    options for development of an integration kit and fielding but did not
    pursue a LWS program at that time based on service priorities. As part
    of ongoing efforts to improve M1A1 vehicle protection, including
    addition of Active Protection Systems, the USMC is reviewing the
    integration and benefits of LWS systems along with other survivability
    improvements. A key enabler will be improvements in the integration of
    M1A1 displays and battle management systems which will allow operators
    to take immediate advantage of LWS warnings and indicators. Without the
    ability to fuse LWS data into a complete battle management picture to
    enable rapid response from the crew, the utility of an LWS system is
    limited.
         united states-israel cooperation on active protection systems
        5. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Garner, Lieutenant General Walsh,
    Brigadier General Shrader, Israel has deployed Active Protection
    Systems (APS), such as the Trophy and Iron Fist systems, to provide
    protection for combat vehicles against rocket-propelled grenades and
    anti-tank missiles--a threat US forces also must contend with. I
    understand the Marine Corps is evaluating the integration of Israeli
    Active Protection Systems (APS) into our own efforts. Where do marine
    efforts stand in upgrading their armored fleets to defend against
    current and future threats by deploying active protection system
    technologies?
        Mr. Garner, Lieutenant General Walsh, Brigadier Brigadier General
    Shrader. The Marine Corps has just completed the initial testing of the
    Trophy Active Protection System (APS) on the M1A1, observing good
    intercepts against the evaluated threat. We are in the process of
    evaluating the impact of the additional weight, power and space claim
    of the APS system on other tank systems. For example, the APS system in
    the current configuration blocks vision in some angles and reduces the
    ability to traverse the main gun in some situations. The operational
    impact of these issues and how they can be mitigated is ongoing.
    Presently, the USMC has programmed procurement beginning in fiscal year
    2021. However, options to accelerate the program to achieve early
    system fielding in fiscal year 2019 and maintain program alignment with
    U.S. Army timelines are being developed. Our APS effort is a
    cooperative effort with the Army using the Army's existing Project
    Agreement with the Israeli Ministry of Defense. As such, the Marine
    Corps has been able to leverage a significant amount of work and test
    data completed by the Army and the USMC plans to continue to move
    forward with the Army on APS efforts.

        `6. Senator Blumenthal. General Walsh, last year at this hearing
    you noted that the Marine Corps is working to ``try to buy or lease
    some Trophy systems . . . and put those on our M1A1 tanks.'' How soon
    will APS technologies be integrated on-board Marine armored platforms?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. The USMC M1A1 Trophy Technology
    Demonstrator (TD) is part of the US Army Expedited APS program. The TD
    has provided a platform for the installation and test of the Trophy
    Active Protection System on an USMC M1A1. Over the past year the TD has
    been useful in the development of requirements, setting the conditions
    for a future program of record, and has allowed the Marine Corps to
    characterize an Israeli active protection system in a U.S. Government
    controlled test environment. As of August TD performance testing is
    complete. The next phase in developing this capability, for which the
    Marine Corps is fully funded, transitions to U.S. Army led
    developmental and operational testing. Current USMC planning supports
    system procurement in beginning fiscal year 2021, however, options to
    accelerate the program to achieve early system fielding in fiscal year
    2019 and maintain program alignment with U.S. Army timelines are being
    developed.

      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR
             FISCAL YEAR 2018 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017

                                   U.S. Senate,
                              Subcommittee on Seapower,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                                                        Washington, DC.

                    NAVY AND MARINE CORPS AVIATION PROGRAMS

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in
    Room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Roger
    Wicker (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Committee members present: Senators Wicker, Rounds, Tillis,
    Sullivan, Hirono, Kaine, and King.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROGER WICKER

        Senator Wicker. The hearing will come to order.
        We've been advised by minority staff that Senator Hirono is
    on her way from the vote and that in the interest of time it
    might be best if I went ahead, so we'll do that. I certainly
    would not have done that without permission of Senator Hirono's
    staff.
        The Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower convenes
    this afternoon to examine Navy and Marine Corps aviation
    programs.
        Our subcommittee welcomes three distinguished witnesses:
    Vice Admiral Paul A. Grosklags, Commander, Naval Air System
    Command; Lieutenant General Jon M. Davis, Deputy Commandant for
    Marine Corps Aviation; and Rear Admiral Chip Miller, Director
    of Air Warfare for the Department of the Navy.
        Our subcommittee is grateful to these witnesses for being
    here, for their decades of dedicated service. I'd like to offer
    special thanks to General Davis, who for some reason is
    retiring next month after nearly 37 years of service. Best
    wishes to General Davis and his family.
        The United States faces a complex and increasingly
    dangerous security environment. This subcommittee is well aware
    of the challenges posed by China and Russia's military
    modernization and assertive behavior, North Korea's
    belligerence, and Iran's malign activities. The Islamic State
    also remains a potent threat.
        To confront these challenges, our country relies heavily on
    Navy and Marine Corps aviation. However, 15 years of
    continuous, high-tempo operations and years of inadequate
    budgets have strained our aviation forces. Congress has not
    delivered sufficient and predictable funding to our naval
    aviation forces. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses
    about the long-term funding requirements necessary to regain
    full-spectrum readiness.
        Today, our subcommittee will examine five key areas related
    to the Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs. First,
    physiological episodes. First and foremost, the safety of our
    Navy and Marine Corps aviators remains paramount. The
    subcommittee remains concerned about the persistence of these
    PE episodes experienced in Navy aircraft, particularly the F/A
    0918 [Fighter/Aircraft] Hornets and Super Hornets, EA-18G and
    T-45s. This situation is naval aviation's number-one safety
    priority.
        As subcommittee chairman, it remains a matter of great
    personal interest. In early April, I made a fact-finding trip
    to Naval Air Station Meridian following a widely observed
    instructor pilot boycott of training flights at Meridian,
    Kingsville, and Pensacola. I spoke with instructors and
    students, and also senior leadership, including the commander
    of naval forces, Vice Admiral Shoemaker, and the chief of naval
    air training, Rear Admiral Bull. I've also received updates
    from each of our witnesses, which I appreciate.
        After my visit to NAS [Naval Air Station] Meridian, the
    Vice CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] directed the Commander of
    Pacific Fleet, Admiral Scott Swift, to conduct a review of the
    facts, circumstances, and processes surrounding the PE
    [Physiological Episodes] issue. We hope to get an update on
    this today.
        Overall, the Navy needs a plan to get T-45 students back
    flying safely and to fix the problem for the long term. Looking
    toward the future, the subcommittee would like to hear
    assurances from the witnesses that the Navy and Marine Corps
    are taking action to prevent the F-35 from suffering the same
    problems. It's worth noting that Luke Air Force Base
    temporarily canceled flying operations last week after five Air
    Force pilots experienced physiological episodes.
        Next, aircraft readiness, our second area of interest. The
    Navy and Marine Corps lack sufficient numbers of ready, basic
    aircraft for aviators to remain qualified, proficient, and
    motivated. The witnesses should discuss the Navy's budget
    request for depot maintenance, flying hours, and spare parts.
        Third, our subcommittee would like to learn more about gaps
    in the Navy fighter fleet. The Navy's Strike Fighter shortfall
    will continue to expand unless enough aircraft are procured to
    replace the 24 to 36 aircraft which are retired annually. The
    CNO and Commandant both included Strike Fighters on their
    unfunded priority lists. In fact, the Navy's number one and
    number three unfunded priorities are Super Hornets and F-35C
    Joint Strike Fighters, respectively. Our witnesses should
    provide more details on unfunded requirements for multi-role
    fighter aircraft.
        The fourth area of interest is development of operations of
    the F-35B and F-35C Joint Strike Fighter. While F-35 is
    approaching the end of its development phase, the Marines are
    already flying the aircraft operationally. Earlier this year
    the Green Knights permanently changed their home station to
    Iwakuni, Japan, and will make the first F-35 shipboard
    deployment in 2018. The subcommittee looks forward to hearing
    an update on F-35 operations and the lessons learned from the
    first units to fly the aircraft.
        Finally, our subcommittee would like an update on
    inventories for air-launched munitions. Inventories for many of
    our weapons remain critically low. At the same time,
    technological advances of our potential adversaries require us
    to modernize our munitions to remain relevant. The subcommittee
    needs to understand where the Department is taking risk, what
    is being done to mitigate that risk, and also comment on the
    industrial base's ability to produce the required munitions.
        So I welcome our witnesses, and if we will pause for a
    moment, we will check on the whereabouts of our distinguished--
    --
        Senator Hirono. Here she is.
        Senator Wicker. My goodness, I couldn't have timed it
    better.
        Senator Hirono. I heard my name and----
        Senator Wicker. Now, Maize, you know I went ahead only with
    permission.
        Senator Hirono. Oh, of course. You always have.
        Senator Wicker. Well, we're delighted to see you, and we
    know you are very, very busy this afternoon and will have to
    leave to attend another very important matter.
        Senator Hirono. Yes, thank you.
        Senator Wicker. You are recognized.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAZIE HIRONO

        Senator Hirono. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would also, of course, like to welcome our witnesses for
    this afternoon's hearing. We are grateful for your service and
    for the professional service of the men and women who are under
    your command.
        Today we have an opportunity to discuss how the Department
    of the Navy's fiscal year 2018 budget request for Navy and
    Marine Corps aviation programs would help increase readiness, a
    huge issue for all of our services, address shortfalls in
    munitions, pilots, and maintenance personnel, and modernize our
    strategic deterrence capability.
        Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs play a critical
    role in supporting and advancing our country's strategic
    interests in the Indo-Asia Pacific region, including, of
    course, from bases in Hawaii.
        Last summer I attended the dedication of the first of two
    new MV-22 hangars at Marine Corps base Kaneohe. In April, four
    Ospreys operating from those hangars departed Kaneohe Bay for
    the Royal Australian Air Force Base Starwin after flying nearly
    6,000 miles. This flight demonstrated how the operating range
    of our MV-22s and the strategic location of Hawaii permit us to
    reach across the Pacific Ocean to respond to the ever-growing
    threats in the region.
        These threats require us to consider how best to get the
    Navy and Marine Corps the resources that you need, but we must
    also make sure that any increases in resources do not come at
    the expense of important domestic programs that families,
    including our military families, rely on every day.
        In this request, the administration is asking for a $54
    billion top-line increase above the total budget for fiscal
    year 2018, prescribed in the Budget Control Act (BCA). Of that
    total, the Department of the Navy budget would receive an
    increase of roughly $12 billion. Unless Congress can achieve a
    broad and bipartisan agreement to repeal or modify the BCA, any
    approval of the $12 billion increase for the Navy and Marine
    Corps will trigger sequestration of a similar amount in
    domestic programs.
        This increase would come at the expense of huge cuts to
    health care, environmental protection, and State Department
    programs critical to our national security, and I'd like to
    mention in that regard Hawaii's East-West Center. This is a
    non-starter. As Secretary Mattis said this morning, no enemy
    has done more damage to the U.S. forces than what we've done to
    ourselves with the BCA.
        Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and other
    members to eliminate sequestration in a way that balances the
    needs of our military with critical domestic programs. We
    cannot continue down this path.
        As we consider the fiscal year 2018 budget, we must also
    consider the significant challenges we face in naval aviation.
    While the Marine Corps has been operating the F-35B variant, we
    need to hear more about how testing on the F-35C is proceeding.
    We also need to understand better how other parts of the
    program are supporting the Navy's initial Operating Capability
    Declaration plan for 2018, or OCD.
        In the budget, the Defense Department is also asking for
    authority to execute economic order quantity, EOQ, contracts
    with the F-35 program in advance of successful completion of
    operational testing. Normally, Congress has not approved EOQ
    authority unless and until the weapon system in question has
    completed a successful operational test, and we will have to
    consider this matter carefully.
        Second, the Navy is facing a major shortfall in its Strike
    Fighter inventory. The Navy responded to forecasts of a
    shortage of almost 200 aircraft several years ago by better
    managing the remaining life on the existing aircraft. They've
    done this by redistributing aircraft within the force,
    designing a series of maintenance and rehabilitation measures,
    including a service life extension program (SLEP), for older
    aircraft, and by new F-18 aircraft. The Navy has predicted that
    SLEP would lead to significant improvements in its ability to
    support operating forces such as aircraft carrier squadrons and
    Marine Corps squadrons for several years.
        This year, however, the Navy is still having difficulty
    moving F-18 aircraft through the SLEP lines, which means that
    fleet squadrons are having to make due with fewer aircraft.
    This puts a strain on the whole system. We need to hear about
    actions the Navy is taking to improve this situation.
        Navy and Marine Corps pilots have been experiencing
    problems with the environmental control systems in certain
    aircraft, mainly F-18s and T-45s, that have resulted in what is
    referred to as ``physiological episodes.'' We need to hear from
    the services what progress is being made to address those
    problems.
        I'd also like to hear about the investments the Navy and
    Marine Corps are making in training and maintenance operations.
        General Davis, yesterday at our meeting, I was encouraged
    to hear that Marine Corps aviation has chosen to focus
    significantly on training and development for pilots and
    maintenance workers, both officers and enlisted personnel.
    Sending Marine aviators and maintainers to the advanced
    aviation management training course is a demonstration of your
    commitment to improving readiness and getting the aviation
    fleet back to where it needs to be.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I certainly look forward to
    hearing from our witnesses. Mahalo.
        Senator Wicker. Very good. Our distinguished ranking member
    has to testify at a hearing and may be able to come back and be
    with us.
        Admiral Grosklags?

     STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL PAUL A. GROSKLAGS, USN, COMMANDER,
       NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; ACCOMPANIED BY
     LIEUTENANT GENERAL JON M. DAVIS, USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR
    AVIATION, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS; AND REAR ADMIRAL DEWOLFE
        H. MILLER, III, USN, DIRECTOR, AIR WARFARE (OPNAV N98),
                         DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Sir, I'll be giving an opening
    statement for all three of us.
        Senator Wicker. Oh, okay. Good.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Hirono--I hope she comes back--and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, it's our pleasure to be here with you today to
    talk about naval aviation and our programs.
        Our 2018 President's budget submission is governed by the
    Secretary's priorities to improve war-fighting readiness by
    addressing pressing programmatic shortfalls that have accrued
    from 15 years of wartime operational tempo and chronic under-
    funding of many of our readiness accounts. This budget request
    is designed to maintain the operational effectiveness of our
    current force, also building a bridge to growing the future
    force starting in 2019.
        Current readiness of our naval aviation forces is clearly,
    as you stated, less than it needs to be. The fiscal year 2017
    enacted budget provided much needed increases in funding for
    many of our naval aviation readiness accounts. Our fiscal year
    2018 request builds on 2017 with a request for funding of these
    readiness accounts that both in real terms and as a percentage
    of the requirement is to a level not seen in eight to ten
    years. Support for these readiness accounts is the most
    important leverage that we have in returning our aircraft to
    the required state of readiness.
        Close behind is the need to continue, and in some cases to
    accelerate, the procurement of new aircraft. This includes F-
    35s for both the Marine Corps and the Navy, as well as
    additional F-18 Super Hornets for the Navy. As we continue to
    struggle with extending the service life and maintaining the
    readiness of our legacy F-18s, both services are working to
    accelerate the transition to other aircraft.
        In addition to the F-35B and C models, critical priorities
    for the Marine Corps include initiation and the ramp-up of CH-
    53K production, completing the procurement of the KC-130J,
    execution of the V-22 common configuration readiness and
    modernization initiative, also known as CCRAM, and initiation
    of the MAGTF Expeditionary Unmanned Air System, also known as
    MUX, M-U-X.
        Each of these priorities is a key contributor today and in
    the future to the Marine Corps' capability and capacity to meet
    plans and combatant commander requirements.
        On the Navy side of the house, in addition to the F-18s and
    the F-35s required to minimize our Strike Fighter inventory
    challenges, priorities include initiating service life
    extension of our F-18 Super Hornets, pushing forward with MQ-4
    Triton procurement, awarding a development contract for the MQ-
    25 carrier-based unmanned tanking aircraft, continued
    development of the next-generation jammer for our Growlers, and
    fielding of the long-range anti-ship missile on initially the
    B-1 and then the F-18.
        We will continue to leverage every tool and opportunity
    available to drive down the cost of each of our programs, and
    this subcommittee has been very supportive of our efforts in
    the past, and we are again asking for your support for a couple
    of initiatives.
        One is the V-22 multi-year program which will support the
    final seven years of planned Marine, Navy, and Air Force
    procurements; and the second one, already mentioned by the
    ranking member, is the F-35 EOQ associated with a block buy,
    and I'd be happy to talk about the importance of that in more
    detail if we have the opportunity.
        Separate from the procurement focus, this subcommittee is
    well aware, as you stated, of the continued challenges that we
    face in resolving the high rate of physiological episodes that
    we have seen in our T-45s and F-18s. It bears repeating that
    this is naval aviation's number-one safety issue, and we
    continue to approach our mitigation steps and our search for
    root cause in an unconstrained funding perspective.
        As we continue to assess potential root causes, we in
    parallel are focused on implementation of air crew alerting and
    protection devices and systems so that we can resume student
    training in the T-45 just as soon as possible, but keeping in
    mind that safety is the number-one priority.
        Now, our aviation priorities are directly tied to the
    increasing worldwide security challenges. Our ability to
    achieve the improved readiness, increased capacity, and
    enhanced capabilities required to deal with these challenges
    remains constrained by the overall resourcing constraints
    imposed by the Budget Control Act and the often inefficient use
    of resources driven by the seemingly chronic extended execution
    under continuing resolutions. You have our commitment to making
    the best possible use of the resources we are given, and we ask
    this subcommittee's continued support in working to eliminate
    these barriers.
        I want to thank you again for your support of our sailors
    and Marines, and we look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Admiral Grosklags, Lieutenant
    General Jon Davis, and Rear Admiral DeWolfe H. Miller III
    follows:]

    Prepared Combined Statements by Vice Admiral Paul Grosklags, Lieutenant
           General Jon Davis, and Rear Admiral DeWolfe H. Miller III
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Hirono, and distinguished members of the
    Subcommittee, we thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today to discuss the Department of the Navy's (DON) Aviation programs.
    Our testimony will provide background and rationale for the
    Department's fiscal year 2018 aviation programs budget request aligned
    to our strategic priorities and budgetary goals.
        The United States is a maritime nation with global
    responsibilities. Our Navy and Marine Corps' persistent presence and
    multi-mission capability represent U.S. influence across the global
    commons. We are an agile maritime strike, amphibious and expeditionary
    power projection force in readiness, and such agility requires that the
    aviation arm of our naval strike and expeditionary forces remain
    strong. Our budget submission ensures Naval Aviation possesses the
    capability, capacity and readiness to deliver five essential functions
    outlined in our maritime strategy--All Domain Access, Deterrence, Sea
    Control, Power Projection and Maritime Security. These key, essential
    functions are missions that depend upon Naval Aviation to enable their
    success.
        Global connections continue to multiply, fueled by rapid advances
    and proliferation of technology, particularly cyber and other
    information technologies. Our competitors are pursuing advanced weapon
    systems at a development pace we have not seen since the mid-1980s, and
    because of these focused pursuits; both near-peer nations and non-state
    actors pose credible threats to our security. As such, it is imperative
    that we fund a force with the capability and capacity to fight and win
    against any of our five major challengers (China, Iran, North Korea,
    Russia, and Violent Extremism) by investing in advanced systems that
    increase lethality for both the current and future force.
        Our ability to respond to this dynamic strategic environment, high
    operational tempo and evolving combatant commander (CCDR) requirements
    continues to be constrained by current fiscal realities. The Department
    is still recovering from appropriations that were significantly lower
    than the budget requests for fiscal years 2013-2016. We strive to
    improve efficiency in our own internal business practices to make every
    dollar count, but our efforts are undermined by the absence of stable,
    timely budgets and resources aligned to stay ahead of the threats. We
    encourage Congress to re-evaluate the Budget Control Act caps, as
    outlined by our President's Budget request. Timely passage of a full
    year appropriation as at requested level will provide for the most
    efficient execution of the resources provided by Congress, while
    bringing stability to our workforce and the industrial base.
        This fiscal context drives difficult choices to best balance
    between capability, capacity, readiness and the industrial base. Our
    fiscal year 2018 budget supports the five essential functions outlined
    in our maritime strategy, the operational context we as a Nation find
    ourselves in, and the current fiscal environment.
        Our investments are focused, balanced and prioritized to deliver
    and support a global sea-based and expeditionary force. Our budget is
    based on the transition of major components of the Carrier Air Wing
    (CVW), Expeditionary Strike Group and land-based Expeditionary Wings,
    and includes: manned and unmanned aviation system teaming; integration
    of warfighting capabilities to ensure multiple systems operate together
    across platforms, weapons, networks and sensors; advanced computing;
    and incorporation of commercially driven technology and additive
    manufacturing to provide a technological advantage over adversaries.
        The Department continues to pursue acquisition and business process
    reform measures to deliver capability faster at reduced cost. New
    measures include implementation of accelerated acquisition policies for
    Rapid Prototyping, Experimentation and Demonstration; establishment of
    Maritime Accelerated Capability Office programs; and the use of Rapid
    Deployment Capability processes. We are actively promoting innovation
    and the transition of key manufacturing technologies and processes with
    investments focused on affordability and those most beneficial to the
    warfighter. There is also a continuing transition from a hardware-
    centric world to a software-centric world by leveraging common
    development standards and requirements for modular weapon system
    components.
        The Navy/Marine Corps ``Vision for Naval Aviation 2025'' provides
    the framework for determining investment priorities across the triad of
    warfighting capability, capacity, and Naval Aviation wholeness. There
    are several central themes to our 2018 Naval Aviation budget plan: next
    generation fighter/attack capability; unmanned systems; netted
    persistent multi-role intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR)
    and targeting; advanced strike and networked enabled weapons programs;
    supporting capabilities such as electronic attack and electromagnetic
    spectrum superiority, maritime patrol, and vertical lift; readiness;
    and targeted modernization of the force for relevance and
    sustainability.
        The best way for pilots to train for combat is by flying their
    aircraft in live, scenario-based training missions against live
    opposition. However, many elements of combat cannot be replicated in
    the training environment. The Department is committed to augment
    aircraft flight hours by providing high-end virtual training. To do
    that, we are making investments in Live, Virtual, and Constructive
    Training that enable our aircrews to link across the country and train
    in high fidelity simulators. As we develop these technologies, the
    Department plans to connect aircrews in live flying aircraft against
    synthetic adversaries. We are also dedicated to leveraging the Science
    of Learning into all levels of aviation training. To do this, we are
    exploring innovative ways to leverage big data/analytics and flexible
    training systems that will maintain the nation's competitive advantage.
        At its foundation, as core unpinning principals, Naval Aviation is
    actively pursuing and seizing innovation and advantage wherever it can.
    We are implementing our vision toward greater tactical and technical
    innovation to provide the right capability in the hands of the
    warfighter, on schedule, and in the most affordable manner possible.
                               tactical aviation
    F/A-18 Overview
        There are four Navy and eleven Marine Corps F/A-18A-D active strike
    fighter Hornet squadrons with a total inventory of 546 aircraft. There
    are 30 Navy Super-Hornet (F/A-18E/F) strike fighter squadrons with a
    total inventory of 544 aircraft. Combined, F/A-18A-D Hornets and F/A-
    18E/F Super-Hornets have conducted more than 219,454 combat missions
    since September 11, 2001.
    F/A-18 A/B/C/D Hornet
        Based on inventory modeling, a portion of the existing inventory of
    546 Navy and Marine Corps F/A-18 A-D aircraft will be flown through the
    mid-2030 timeframe. The DON will continue to meet Navy active F/A-18A-D
    squadron operational commitments until 2027, Marine Corps active and
    Reserve squadrons until 2030, and Navy Reserve squadrons through 2034.
        To support this Fleet plan, the Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget
    requests $294 million in APN to implement aircraft commonality
    programs, enhance relevant capability, improve reliability, and ensure
    structural safety of the inventory of 546 F/A-18 A-D Hornets; $31.4
    million is for a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). The funding
    priorities for F/A-18 A-D Hornet will be safety, reliability, and
    capability.
        Service life management efforts have extended the F-A-18 A-D beyond
    its original service life of 6,000 flight hours to 8,000 flight hours
    with select aircraft that may be extended up to 10,000 flight hours.
    Discovery of unanticipated corrosion on these legacy jets complicates
    depot throughput, and service life extensions for aircraft with more
    than 8,000 flight hours require High Flight Hour inspections, which
    furthers increases maintenance-man hours. These inspections assess the
    material condition of each aircraft and apply a unique combination of
    inspections and airframe modifications to maintain airworthiness
    certification. As of April 2017, 92 percent of the F/A-18 A-D fleet has
    over 6,000 flight hours and 24 percent have flown more than 8,000
    flight hours; the highest flight hour airframe has attained over 9,799
    hours. The Department endeavors to return the required number of
    aircraft to the flight line with the necessary capability upgrades, but
    remains concerned that low reliability rates will affect our ability to
    train and fight.
        In addition to the flight hour extension strategy, these aircraft
    require capability upgrades in order to maintain warfighting relevancy.
    The Department will continue to procure and install advanced systems
    such as mission computers, aircraft survivability equipment, radios,
    radars and targeting pods on select F/A-18 A-D aircraft to counter
    evolving threats. However, while the DON continues investing in
    warfighting upgrades in order to maintain tactically relevant aircraft,
    the Services are challenged to improve the reliability of this aged
    airframe.
    F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
        The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will be the numerically predominant
    aircraft in the Navy's CVW Strike Fighter force through 2035. The F/A-
    18E/F began Full Rate Production (FRP) in 2000. Continued investment in
    capability upgrades significantly improves the lethality of the CVW.
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $1.25 billion in
    APN for 14 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft and $251.2 million of RDT&E
    for F/A-18 Block III, IRST Block II, F/A-18E/F Service Life Assessment
    Program (SLAP), radar upgrades and improvements. With the support of
    Congress, we will also procure a minimum of 80 additional Super Hornets
    across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and continue
    modernization plans to address continuing warfighter demand for
    advanced tactical aircraft. These additional procurements begin to
    mitigate the decline in DON's strike fighter inventory and enable older
    aircraft to be pulled from service for mid-life upgrades and rework to
    extend their service life.
        The Super Hornet modernization plan features an incremental
    approach to add conformal fuel tanks to extend range and replace
    outdated electronics. Other modernization efforts will incorporate new
    technologies and capabilities, to include, Digital Communication System
    Radios, Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared (with shared real-
    time video), Accurate Navigation Distributed Targeting System, Infrared
    Search and Track, and continued advancement of the APG-79 Active
    Electronically Scanned Array Radar.
        Due to high utilization rates, the F/A-18E/F fleet has flown
    approximately 47 percent of the total flight hours available within the
    6,000 hour limit design life. The remaining fleet flight hour capacity
    will be inadequate to meet operational commitments starting in the
    early 2020s. As a result, the Department initiated a phased F/A-18E/F
    SLAP to determine requirements to extend the airframe service life
    beyond 6,000 flight hours. The F/A-18E/F SLAP incorporates lessons
    learned from the F/A-18A-D SLAP and SLEP analysis and was initiated
    earlier in the F/A-18E/F life-cycle. Super Hornet SLAP commenced in
    2008 with completion expected in 2018. The SLAP goal is to analyze
    actual Fleet usage versus structural test data to support the design of
    Service Life Modifications (SLM) that will ultimately extend F/A-18E/F
    service life from 6,000 to 9,000 flight hours. The initial phases of
    the F/A-18E/F SLM began in 2014 with the development and fielding of
    Engineering Change Proposal kits to upgrade life-limited areas of the
    F/A-18E/F that were revealed by SLAP analysis.
    EA-18G Growler
        The EA-18G Growler is a critical enabler for the Joint force. EA-
    18G brings fully netted warfare capabilities to the fight, providing
    unmatched agility in the Electromagnetic Maneuver Warfare environment.
    The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $173.5 million of
    RDT&E for modernization.
        To date, 136 EA-18G aircraft have been delivered, representing 85
    percent of the funded inventory objective. Initial Operational
    Capability (IOC) occurred in September 2009 and the Fleet Response Plan
    was approved in November 2009. Since their initial deployment, Growlers
    have flown more than 2,300 combat missions and have expended
    approximately 16 percent of the 7,500 flight hour life per aircraft.
    Electronic attack capabilities, both carrier-based and expeditionary,
    continue to mature with development of the Next Generation Jammer
    (NGJ). NGJ Increment 1 is scheduled to begin replacing the legacy ALQ-
    99 Tactical Jamming System in fiscal year 2021. Additionally, we
    continue to invest in the EA-18G passive detection and identification
    capabilities while improving network connectivity to provide overall
    battlespace awareness and targeting for the carrier strike group.
        The recent authorization of seven additional EA-18Gs will extend
    aircraft deliveries into fiscal year 2018. With the seven additional
    aircraft, the total procurement quantity of 160 EA-18Gs fulfills Navy
    requirements for carrier-based Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) and
    expeditionary EA-18G squadrons.
        Additional EA-18Gs, above the funded procurement objective of 160,
    may be explored by the Department of Defense as it considers options to
    support an AEA force structure that meets the Joint Warfighter
    requirement.
    AV-8B Harrier
        Since the beginning of the war on terror, the AV-8B Harrier has
    been a critical part of the strike fighter inventory for the Joint
    force. This aircraft has flown more than 60,000 hours in combat since
    2003, an average of over 475 hours per aircraft, with zero losses from
    the enemy in the air, but six losses on the ground when the enemy broke
    through our perimeter at Bastion Air Base in 2012.
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $48.8 million in
    RDT&E funds to continue Design, Development, Integration and Test of
    various platform improvements. These improvements include an Engine
    Life Management Program, Escape Systems, Joint Mission Planning System
    updates, Link 16 Digital Interoperability (DI) integration, Operational
    Flight Program (OFP) block upgrades to mission and communication
    systems, navigation equipment, weapons carriage, countermeasures, and
    the Obsolescence Replacement/Readiness Management Plan. Additionally,
    the Department is requesting $43.6 million in APN funds to continue the
    incorporation of Obsolescence Replacement/Readiness Management Plan
    systems, electrical and structural enhancements, inventory sustainment
    and upgrade efforts to offset obsolescence and attrition, LITENING Pod
    upgrades, F402-RR-408 engine safety and operational changes, and DI
    upgrades that include Link 16.
        The AV-8B continues to deploy in support of operational
    contingencies and each Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) deploys with
    embarked AV-8Bs. The AV-8B equipped with LITENING targeting pods and a
    video downlink to ROVER ground stations, precision strike weapons,
    Intrepid Tiger II Electronic Warfare (EW) pods and beyond visual range
    air-to-air radar guided missiles, continues to be a proven, invaluable
    asset for the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) and Joint commander
    across the spectrum of operations. AV-8B squadrons, both land- and sea-
    based, have flown more than 10,000 hours of strike sorties against
    Islamic State in Iraq and Syria with an average combat radius of 900
    miles. Digital Improved Triple Ejector Racks have allowed us to load up
    to six precision guided munitions per aircraft, with fuel tanks, guns,
    and LITENING Pods, exponentially increasing the combat viability of
    this platform. Airborne Variable Message Format terminals are currently
    being installed in AV-8B to replace the current digital-aided Close Air
    Support (CAS) technology. The program will continue development of the
    H6.2 OFP which includes initial integration of Link 16 message sets.
    Additionally, this OFP will integrate Federal Aviation Administration
    compliant Navigation Performance/Area Navigation capability, an update
    to the LITENING Common OFP to implement improvements to moving target
    tracking, and correction of software deficiencies identified through
    combat operations. The program will also work on the H7.0 OFP which
    will integrate full Link 16 functionality. As an out-of-production
    aircraft, the AV-8B program continues to focus on sustainment efforts
    to mitigate significant inventory shortfalls, maintain airframe
    integrity, achieve full Fatigue Life Expended, and address reliability
    and obsolescence issues of avionics and subsystems.
        Operations Odyssey Dawn, Odyssey Lightning, Enduring Freedom,
    Freedom Sentinel, and today's Operation Inherent Resolve confirm the
    expeditionary advantages of Short Take-Off and Vertical landing (STOVL)
    capabilities. Placing the Harrier as the closest multi-role fixed-wing
    asset to the battlefield greatly reduces transit times to the fight and
    enables persistent CAS without strategic tanking assets. Airframe
    sustainment initiatives, capability upgrades, and obsolescence
    mitigation is essential and must be funded to ensure the AV-8B remains
    lethal and relevant.
    F-35 Lightning II
        The F-35 Lightning II will form the backbone of U.S. air combat
    superiority for decades to come. The F-35 brings unprecedented low
    observable technology, modern weaponry, and electronic warfare
    capability to the Navy and Marine Corps. Delivering this
    transformational capability to front-line forces as soon as possible
    remains a top priority. The F-35 will replace legacy tactical fighter
    fleets of the Navy and Marine Corps with a dominant, multirole, fifth-
    generation aircraft, capable of projecting U.S. power and deterring
    potential adversaries. The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests
    $550 million in RDT&E to support system design and development close-
    out and ramp-up Follow-on Modernization and $3.9 billion in APN for 20
    F-35B aircraft, 4 F-35C aircraft, modifications and spares.
        The F-35 has flown over 70,000 flight hours, including
    approximately 27,000 for the F-35B and 7,000 hours for the F-35C.
    Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121, the first IOC squadron, is
    now forward deployed in Japan defending the Nation's interests abroad.
    In 2018, the Navy and Marine Corps team will deploy two MEUs with a
    detachment of F-35Bs aboard ship marking the first extended at sea
    deployments for F-35. The fielding of the Marine Corps' F-35B STOVL
    variant continues to make excellent progress due to the combined
    efforts of the Department, industry, and Congress. Critical Military
    Construction (MILCON) at our bases and air stations is underway both at
    home and overseas to support this fifth generation capability. Due to
    the level of effort, funding, and timely MILCON, the Marine Corps'
    transition plan remains on-track. VMFA-211 stood up in July 2016 on
    Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, AZ and the Marine Corps' will
    transition its third operational squadron, VMFA-122, to the F-35B in
    2018.
        The F-35B achieved a number of operational and training milestones.
    Operationally, the Marine Corps has permanently stationed an F-35B
    squadron in Japan, conducted trans-oceanic flights across both the
    Atlantic and Pacific, and exercised the expeditionary capability of the
    aircraft both aboard ship and in austere environments. In training,
    Marine Corps has seen return on training investments. The first two F-
    35B pilots graduated flight school and have conducted sustained
    training operations across the range of military operations, including
    participation in large-scale joint exercises like ``Red Flag''. Pilots
    and instructors continue to praise the F-35 situational awareness and
    lethality as it achieves mission success previously unrealized in
    legacy platforms.
        The Navy's first F-35C squadron begins transition in 2018. Navy IOC
    is event-driven and expected in the late 2018 to early 2019 timeframe.
    The first F-35C aircraft carrier deployment is planned for 2021. The
    Marines begin their first F-35C squadron transition, VMFA-314, in 2018,
    will be ready for expeditionary operations by 2020 and deploy aboard a
    carrier in 2022. Together, the Navy and Marine Corps will be
    operational in 2020 and replace our aging aircraft inventory with the
    greatest practical speed. The F-35B/F-35C aircraft will help
    recapitalize some of our oldest aircraft--our legacy F/A-18s--which are
    rapidly approaching the end of their service lives.
        F-35 employs a block upgrade program to usher in new and advanced
    war-fighting capabilities. Whether the mission requires the execution
    of strike, CAS, counter air, escort, or EW, this aircraft is the key to
    our future. It empowers our maritime forces to fight from sea bases and
    expeditionary bases ashore anywhere in the world. However, to take full
    advantage of the aircraft's advanced capabilities and to keep the
    transition from legacy platforms on-track, this effort requires the
    continuation of the support received from Congress thus far.
        The F-35 continues to mature and progress with programs in
    development and design, flight test, production, fielding, base stand-
    up, sustainment of fielded aircraft and stand-up of a global
    sustainment enterprise. The final system development and demonstration
    configuration, Block 3F, is finishing its final developmental test
    flights and our overall assessment is that steady progress continues to
    be made on all aspects of the program, although not without risk in
    software development and integration. This risk will continue to
    decline as the Department learns and makes adjustments. The discipline
    instilled several years ago in the method by which software is
    developed, lab tested, flight tested, measured and controlled has
    resulted in improved and more predictable outcomes.
        The program has delivered over 230 aircraft to test, operational,
    and training sites, with the production line delivering F-35s on
    schedule. It remains a clear and prominent priority for the Department
    to complete the development phase on cost and schedule. DON is
    committed to drive aircraft production cost and life-cycle costs down.
    As examples of cost reduction efforts, combined government and industry
    teaming has reduced aircraft production costs through ``blueprint for
    affordability'' initiatives and reduced F135 engine costs through
    ongoing engine ``war on cost'' strategies.
        These affordability efforts include up-front contractor investments
    in cost reduction initiatives that are mutually agreed upon by the
    government and contractor team. This arrangement motivates contractors
    to accrue savings as quickly as possible in order to recoup their
    investment, and benefits the government by realizing cost savings at
    the time of contract award. The Department's goal is to reduce the
    flyaway cost of the USAF F-35A to between $80 and $85 million dollars
    by 2019, which is anticipated to also decrease the cost to the Marine
    Corps F-35B and Navy F-35C variants. The Department set a goal of
    decreasing overall operating and support life-cycle cost by 30 percent.
    Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Family of Systems
        The Department initiated a Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)
    Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) in January 2016 to address the
    anticipated retirement of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft beginning
    in late 2020 early 2030 timeframe.
        The Joint Chiefs of Staff approved the Initial Capabilities
    Document that frames NGAD study requirements to support the full range
    of military operations from carrier-based platforms. The AoA will
    consider the widest possible range of materiel concepts while balancing
    capability, cost/affordability, schedule, and supportability. It will
    assess manned, unmanned, and optionally manned approaches to fulfill
    predicted 2030+ mission requirements. Analyses will consider baseline
    programs of record (current platforms), evolutionary or incremental
    upgrades to baseline programs (including derivative platforms), and new
    development systems or aircraft to meet identified gaps in required
    capability.
                      strike fighter inventory management
        Through 2009, the Department's Strike Fighter force was relatively
    healthy. Several events transpired since 2009, however, which drove our
    current Strike Fighter inventory shortfall. The Budget Control Act of
    2011 started multiple years of reduced military funding and F-35B/C
    fielding plans were delayed. As a result, the DON decided to extend the
    life of legacy F/A-18A-Ds using our aviation depots. Sequestration led
    to furlough and a hiring freeze of a skilled government civilian
    artisan workforce at aviation depots, significantly impacting depot
    throughput and fleet readiness along with other factors such as high
    utilization rates, lack of aircraft procurement and lack of spare
    parts. Throughout this period, the operational demand for Naval
    Aviation forces remained high and accelerated the consumption of
    existing fleet aircraft. In essence, consumption of aircraft exceeded
    the new and rework production capacity of aircraft and caused an
    increasing shortfall.
        The Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) aggressively tackled Strike
    Fighter Inventory Management (SFIM) to ensure that deployed forces are
    properly manned, trained and equipped. Each budget year, the NAE
    attempts to harmonize available funding between flying hours and
    readiness enabler accounts in order to achieve the greatest return on
    investment towards improved readiness.
        Under the current budget and with Secretary Mattis' focus on
    readiness, aviation spares and readiness enabler accounts are receiving
    improved funding levels. It is important to note, however, that years
    of underfunding cannot be corrected in one budget year and will require
    stable, predictable funding over multiple years to achieve positive
    results. This shortfall will take time and likely require several years
    to correct.
        The DON has accepted significant risk in SFIM. The Department
    remains challenged with planning for F/A-18A-D and AV-8B aircraft that
    reach the end of their service life before replacement aircraft (F-35B/
    C or follow on F/A series) can be delivered into service. Fiscal year
    2018 investments begin to address the gap between the Strike Fighter
    inventory forecasts and Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP)
    demands by fully funding depot capacity. Near-to-mid-term risk remains
    due to uncertainty in readiness accounts and procurement levels that
    fail to match Strike Fighter service life consumption. Mid-to-long-term
    risk is driven by a shortfall in tactically relevant aircraft to
    replace F/A-18E/Fs that are soon to be inducted into commercial depots
    for SLM. Long-term risk is driven by Strike Fighter procurement that
    fails to match Strike Fighter service life consumption and attrition.
        SFIM should be viewed in two separate and distinct phases. The
    near-term challenge is managing a DON Tactical Aviation (TACAIR) force
    that has been reduced in capacity through a combination of historically
    high TACAIR utilization rates, constrained resourcing of sustainment
    and enabler accounts resulting in inadequate availability of spare
    parts, F/A-18 depot production falling short of the required output,
    and reduced Strike Fighter aircraft procurement. TACAIR aviation depots
    are expected to continue to improve productivity through 2019. In 2019,
    the focus will shift toward F-35 repair and begin to support F/A-18E/F
    SLM. In a similar effort to increase Harrier aircraft availability, the
    Marine Corps conducted a Harrier Independent Readiness Review which
    identified a need for changes in the Harrier sustainment plan to
    achieve required flight line and inventory readiness. This year, with
    sufficient resources, the Department is implementing these changes to
    return Harrier readiness to the required T 2.0 levels.
        In the far-term, Strike Fighter inventory is predominantly affected
    by new procurement of F-35B/Cs and F/A-18E/Fs, as well as the F/A-18E/F
    SLM of our current fleet. CCDR driven operational demand, Fleet
    Response Training Plans and readiness requirements are expected to
    continue to drive increased Strike Fighter utilization rates that
    outpace procurements.
        The DON program of record is 680 F-35 aircraft. The Navy F-35C
    requirement is 340 aircraft, which includes 67 Marine Corps F-35C
    aircraft. Due to evolving circumstances, the total Marine Corps F-35
    requirement is 420 aircraft; 353 F-35Bs and the 67 F-35Cs. The Navy and
    Marine Corps will continue to modify transition plans to take advantage
    of any possible F-35 accelerated procurement. Due to delays in the F-35
    program and a changing threat environment, sustainment and
    modernization funding will be required to maintain the relevant
    operational capability of the F/A-18A-F and the AV-8B.
    Strike-Fighter Force Structure
        The 1,174 aircraft Strike Fighter force provides the projected DON
    inventory needed to support the anticipated operational demand of nine
    CVWs through the 2025 timeframe. The Navy inventory requirement of 779
    aircraft supports 36 Active Duty DON Strike Fighter squadrons (with a
    mix of 10-12 aircraft per squadron). This requirement includes four
    Marine Corps Strike Fighter squadrons and is composed of 396 aircraft
    and two Reserve squadrons with 22 total aircraft assigned. In order to
    maintain the operational aircraft, support aircraft are required for
    aviator training, flight-test, attrition Reserve and the depot
    pipeline. This inventory entitlement is estimated based on historical
    averages and supports the validated requirement of four Strike Fighter
    squadrons per CVW. Through detailed analysis, inspections and
    structural repairs, the DON has been successful in extending F/A-18 A-D
    aircraft to 8,000 flight hours to 2,000 flight hours beyond the
    original designed service life. Future inventory projections are based
    on a service life extension for F/A-18E/F aircraft to 9,000 flight
    hours from the current design life of 6,000 flight hours.
        The Department's F-35C Strike Fighter program requires 14 Active
    Navy squadrons, four Active Marine Corps squadrons, and two training
    squadrons. The F/A-18E/F capabilities complement the F-35C and enhance
    the overall carrier-based warfighting capabilities. This force
    structure supports the operational demand per the GFMAP and projected
    aircraft carrier deployments. The Marine Corps' F-35B Strike Fighter
    program requires 14 Active, 2 Reserve and 2 training squadrons.
    Integral to DON's current force structure reductions, tactical aviation
    squadrons were restructured to optimize the support they provide to the
    MAGTF and the Joint force.
                             physiological episodes
        The status of DON efforts to address Physiological Episodes can be
    found at Addendum A.
                        airborne electonic attack (aea)
    Next Generation Jammer (NGJ)
        The Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) is the follow-on to the Vietnam-
    era AN/ALQ-99 initially fielded in 1971. The ALQ-99 has reached its
    capability limit both technologically and materially and is challenged
    against modern state-of-the-art computerized surface-to-air missiles
    systems. NGJ is designed to provide improved capability in support of
    Joint and coalition air, land and sea tactical strike missions and is
    critical to Navy's vision for the future of strike warfare. It will be
    DODs only comprehensive tactical airborne electronic attack platform
    and is required to meet current and emerging threats. NGJ will use
    Active Electronically Scanned Array technology to provide full-spectrum
    dominance, the ability to jam multiple frequencies at the same time,
    higher radiated power, increased precision, and the application of
    digital techniques to counter increasingly advanced and sophisticated
    adversary radars and communications systems. NGJ will be implemented in
    three increments: Mid-Band (Increment 1), Low-Band (Increment 2), and
    High-Band (Increment 3).
        Our fiscal year 2018 budget request of $632.9 million RDT&E,N is
    vital to maintain Increment 1 schedule, continue procurement and
    assembly of the Engineering and Development Models, and commence
    developmental flight testing. In addition, $66.7 million RDT&E,N is
    requested to complete Increment 2 technology feasibility studies and
    initiate technology demonstration efforts.
    MAGTF Electronic Warfare/EA-6B Prowler
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget request includes $29.6
    million in RDT&E,N and $10.1 million in APN for MAGTF EW.
        The MAGTF EW approach to Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations (EMSO)
    is a distributed, platform-agnostic strategy where every platform
    contributes and functions as a sensor, shooter and sharer to include
    EW. Marine Aviation is integrating EW systems and Intrepid Tiger II (IT
    II) payloads across all aviation platforms to provide commanders with
    an organic and persistent airborne EW capability--for every MAGTF--
    large and small. Included in this plan are the IT II EW payload, the F-
    35s organic EW capabilities, and the EW Services Architecture network
    to facilitate collaborative EW Battle Management.
        IT II is a precision EW system providing EW Support and Electronic
    Attack capabilities. IT II has been integrated on the AV-8B, F/A-18A-D,
    and UH-1Y. Since 2012 IT II has completed over 20 deployments, and is
    currently deployed with the 11th, 24th, and 31st MEUs. Future aviation
    platforms for IT II integration are the MV-22B, KC-130J, AH-1Z, CH-53K,
    and RQ-21. Development of an IT II counter-radar capability began in
    fiscal year 2016 and will be fielded on the AV-8B, F/A-18A-D, and MV-
    22B from fiscal years 2020-2022. The F-35 brings a powerful combination
    of EW, weapons, sensors, and reduced signature to the MAGTF.
        Currently, there are 18 EA-6Bs distributed to two Marine Corps
    operational squadrons, one deactivating Marine Corps squadron, and one
    Navy flight test squadron. Final retirement of the EA-6B from the DON
    inventory will be in fiscal year 2019.
        Future aviation EW capabilities will also be provided by the MAGTF
    Expeditionary Unmanned Aviation System (MUX). In addition to providing
    persistent reconnaissance, surveillance and communications, MUX will
    also provide a long range, persistent, penetrating and responsive
    airborne EMSO capability.
                       other electronic warfare inquiries
        Responses to Congressional requests for updates on electronic
    warfare can be found at Addendum B.
                        airborne early warning aircraft
    E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (AHE)
        The E-2D AHE is the Navy's carrier-based Airborne Early Warning and
    Battle Management Command and Control system. The E-2D AHE provides
    Theater Air and Missile Defense and is capable of synthesizing
    information from multiple onboard and off-board sensors, making complex
    tactical decisions and then disseminating actionable information to
    Joint Forces in a distributed, open-architecture environment. E-2D is
    also a cornerstone of the Naval Integrated Fire Control--Counter Air
    system of systems capability.
        Utilizing the newly developed AN/APY-9 Mechanical/Electronic Scan
    Array radar and the Cooperative Engagement Capability system, the E-2D
    AHE works in concert with tactical aircraft and surface-combatants
    equipped with the Aegis combat system to detect, track and defeat air
    and cruise missile threats at extended ranges.
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $292.5 million in
    RDT&E,N for continuation of added capabilities, to include Aerial
    Refueling, Secret Internet Protocol Router chat, Advanced Mid-Term
    Interoperability Improvement Program, Multifunctional Information
    Distribution System /Joint Tactical Radio System Tactical Targeting
    Network Technology, Counter Electronic Attack, Sensor Netting, and Data
    Fusion, Navigation Warfare, Fighter to Fighter Backlink, ALQ217
    Electronic Support Measures, and Crypto Modernization/Frequency
    Remapping. In the fifth year of a 26 aircraft Multi-Year Procurement
    (MYP) contract covering fiscal years 2014-2018, the budget also
    requests $835.9 million in APN for five FRP Lot 6 aircraft and Advance
    Procurement for Fiscal Year 2019 FRP Lot 7 aircraft.
                            assault support aircraft
    MV-22/CMV-22
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $171.4 million in
    RDT&E,N for continued product improvements, including continued
    development of a Navy variant, the CMV-22B; and $706.7 million in APN
    for procurement of 6 Lot 22 CMV-22s.
        The DON begins procurement of the Navy CMV-22B variant in support
    of the Carrier On-Board Delivery mission in fiscal year 2018 which
    represents the first year of the next V-22 MYP contract (MYP III). The
    proposed follow-on MYP III contract will span seven years (fiscal years
    2018-2024) and buy out the remaining domestic aircraft program of
    record. Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests will fully fund
    Lot 22 and procure long-lead items for fiscal year 2019 Lot 23 CMV-22
    aircraft. The request also includes $228.3 million to support
    Operations and Safety Improvement Programs (OSIPs), including
    Correction of Deficiencies, Readiness improvements, Common
    Configuration, and Aerial Refueling.
        MV-22 Osprey vertical flight capabilities, coupled with the speed,
    range, and endurance of fixed-wing transports, continue to enable
    effective execution of current missions that were previously
    unachievable. The MV-22 fleet continues executing at a high operational
    tempo consisting of multiple MEU deployments and two Special Purpose
    MAGTF--Crisis Response (SPMAGTF-CR) deployments in support of AFRICOM
    and CENTCOM. During 2016, the 15th of 18 planned Active component
    squadrons met Full Operational Capability (FOC), with the 16th
    scheduled for FOC in June 2017. This marks the beginning of MV-22
    capacity catching up to operational demand requirements. To date, 293
    of 360 MV-22s have been delivered and 52 of 53 AFSOC CV-22s have been
    delivered. The V-22 program focus establishes a third MYP for
    production aircraft, sustains Fleet aircraft, improves aircraft
    readiness, reduces operating costs, and expands the domestic and
    international business base. Both the MV-22 and CV-22 continue to meet
    all cost, schedule and performance requirements.
        MYP III continues affordable procurement, provides stability to
    industry and maintains a production line and contractual foundation to
    attract future V-22 international sales/customers. Continuing
    procurement under a MYP is particularly beneficial to the supplier
    base. It provides long-term stability and generates lower costs that
    may provide incentive for international V-22 customers. The program's
    first Foreign Military Sales program, 17 aircraft with the Government
    of Japan, was established under MYP II. The final four (of 17 aircraft)
    are planned to be included in the fiscal year 2018 procurement
    contract.
        Due to extremely high CCDR MV-22 demand and operational tempo, the
    mission capability (MC) aircraft readiness rates have not improved as
    desired. The primary contributor to lower than planned MC rates is our
    ability to train and retain enlisted maintainers with the requisite
    qualifications needed to sustain the high demand. An equally important
    secondary contributor is related directly to multiple MV-22
    configurations. In an attempt to increase overall readiness, the Marine
    Corps reduced each of the SPMAGTF-CR to a 0.5 VMM squadron footprint.
    The Marine Corps plans to allow the ``remain behind'' element necessary
    time to develop and train personnel for future deployments and improve
    the overall MV-22 readiness and MC rates.
        Marine Aviation commissioned an Osprey Independent Readiness Review
    which identified a number of factors driving down MV-22 readiness. The
    major factor identified was the excessive number of aircraft
    configurations that resulted from years of concurrently incorporating
    engineering changes and reliability improvements during aircraft
    production. The Department's ``Common Configuration, Readiness and
    Modernization'' plan will streamline the total number of MV-22
    configurations from 77 to three, simplify the supply system, reduce the
    number of technical manuals and improve troubleshooting and maintenance
    procedures. This will decrease maintenance man-hours, increase aircraft
    availability and reduce total operating costs by approximately $1.5
    billion. The Fiscal Year 2018 OSIP provides a necessary and stable
    source of crucial modification funding as the program continues to
    implement these readiness and cost reduction initiatives.
        Along with the readiness and support initiatives, the Department is
    adding new capabilities to the MV-22 that will make it more valuable to
    the CCDRs such as the development of MV-22 Aerial Refueling System
    which will enable the MV-22 to deliver fuel to other airborne
    platforms. This is a critical enabler for both shore and sea-based
    operations and will extend the operational reach of deployed MAGTFs.
    Initial capability is planned to deliver by the summer of 2019.
        Another transformative capability for the entire aviation force is
    the continued development and integration of Digital Interoperability
    (DI). A limited DI objective experiment was conducted utilizing a
    deployed MEU. The results showed promise and informed continued
    development of this capability. Initial DI fielded capability will
    consist of a suite of electronics to allow the embarked troop commander
    and aircrew to possess unprecedented situational awareness via real-
    time transmission of full motion video and other data generated by
    multiple air and ground platforms throughout the battlespace. This DI
    suite will also be able to collect, in real time, threat data gathered
    by existing aircraft survivability equipment and accompanying attack
    platforms, thereby shortening the kill-chain against ground and air
    based threats.
        The MV-22 is the assault support platform of choice for all CCDRs.
    From MEUs to SPMAGTF-CR, the speed, range, and aerial refueling
    capability allow the Osprey to remain postured in strategic locations
    throughout the world, ready and poised to quickly support Marines Corps
    operations wherever they are required.
    CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement Program
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $341.0 million in
    RDT&E,N to continue the Engineering Manufacturing Development (EMD)
    phase of the CH-53K program and $756.4 million in APN for Low Rate
    Initial Production (LRIP) Aircraft (Lot 2), including Advance
    Procurement and initial spares.
        The CH-53K achieved Milestone C, receiving an Acquisition Decision
    Memorandum April 3, 2017, authorizing LRIP. To date, four Engineering
    Development Model aircraft have accumulated over 450 test flight hours,
    completed the first `Operational Test Assessment' ahead of schedule and
    set a U.S. Heavy Lift record with an 89.5K Maximum Gross Weight lift.
        During fiscal year 2018, the program will continue to execute
    developmental test flights, complete the relocation of test assets to
    NAS Patuxent River, and take delivery of System Demonstration Test
    Article (SDTA) aircraft (production representative aircraft utilized
    for Operational Test). Three of the four SDTAs will deliver to NAS
    Patuxent River to supplement the remainder of developmental test.
    Marine Test and Evaluation Squadron One will take delivery of the
    balance of aircraft at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) New River to
    execute publication and maintenance demonstrations prior to Operational
    Test & Evaluation.
        The CH-53K will provide land and sea based heavy-lift capabilities
    not resident in any of today's platforms and contribute directly to the
    increased agility, lethality, and presence of joint task forces and
    MAGTFs. The CH-53K can transport 27,000 pounds of external cargo out to
    a range of 110 nautical miles under the most extreme operational
    conditions, nearly tripling the CH-53E's lift capability under similar
    environmental conditions, while fitting into the same shipboard
    footprint. The CH-53K will provide an unparalleled lift capability
    under high-altitude and hot weather conditions and greatly expand the
    CCDRs operational reach and flexibility.
        Compared to the CH-53E, maintenance and reliability enhancements of
    the CH-53K will improve aircraft availability and ensure cost effective
    operations. Additionally, survivability and force protection
    enhancements will dramatically increase protection for both aircrew and
    passengers. Expeditionary heavy-lift capabilities will continue to be
    critical to successful land and sea-based operations in future anti-
    access, area-denial environments, enabling sea-basing and the joint
    operating concepts of force application and focused logistics.
    CH/MH-53E
        As the CH-53E approaches 30 years of service, the community has
    accumulated over 95,000 combat flight hours in support of various
    combat operations. The unprecedented operational demand of this
    aircraft (peaking at three times the published utilization rate) has
    degraded the material condition of our heavy lift assault support
    aircraft sooner than expected. This makes them more challenging to
    maintain and underscores the importance of its replacement, the CH-53K
    King Stallion. We have instituted a fleet wide ``reset'' of the CH-53E
    inventory to ensure we extract maximum utility and readiness until the
    transition to the CH-53K occurs.
        The MH-53E continues to perform its primary mission of airborne
    Mine Countermeasures (MCM) as well as transport of cargo and personnel.
    Over the past 12 years the MH-53E community has accumulated 84,131
    flight hours. It too is approaching 30 years of service life and
    continues to be a challenging asset to maintain. MCM operations put
    added stress on these airframes. These aircraft are planned to remain
    in service until they are replaced by the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
    with its MCM mission package systems.
        To keep the CH-53E and MH-53E viable through their remaining
    services lives, the 2018 President's Budget requests $37.0 million in
    APN and $5.1 million in RDT&E,N. The requested funding provides for
    critical capabilities, including Condition Based Maintenance software
    upgrades, finishing Kapton wiring replacement installations, improved
    engine nacelles, non-recurring engineering cockpit upgrades, Embedded
    Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System, T-64 engine
    reliability improvements, critical survivability upgrades, satellite
    communications kits and Phase I of CH-53E's Degraded Visual Environment
    capability. These critical safety and avionics upgrades will address
    obsolescence issues within the cockpit and increase overall situational
    awareness and mission effectiveness.
                          attack and utility aircraft
    UH-1Y / AH-1Z
        Marine Corps Venom and Viper utility and attack aircraft have been
    critical to the success of the Marines in harm's way and have flown
    over 162,000 hours over the past decade. The Fiscal Year 2018
    President's Budget requests $61.3 million in RDT&E,N for continued
    product improvements and $822.4 million in APN for 22 AH-1Z aircraft
    and system improvements. This budget reflects a deliberate decision to
    fund readiness through a five aircraft procurement reduction.
        As of April 2017, 210 aircraft are operational within the Marine
    Force (146 UH-1Ys and 64 AH-1Zs). An additional 72 aircraft are on
    contract and in production, to include the first three of 12 Pakistan
    Foreign Military Sales aircraft. Lot 1-7 (fiscal years 2004-2010)
    aircraft deliveries are complete for both the UH-1Y and AH-1Z. Lot 8,
    9, and 10 (fiscal years 2011-2013) deliveries are complete for the UH-
    1Y. Lot 11 UH-1Y deliveries are in progress and ahead of schedule.
    Additionally, the Czech Republic signed a Letter of Request for Letter
    of Acceptance in April 2017 for 12 UH-1Ys, which will be placed on
    contract in fiscal year 2018.
        The H-1 Upgrades program is integrating both the UH-1Y and AH-1Z
    into the DI environment established throughout the MAGTF. With the
    integration of IT II EW pod, the Marine Corps' Light Attack Helicopter
    Squadron community will be able to provide MAGTF commanders with all
    six functions of Marine Aviation, further increasing capability and
    flexibility. Additionally, these aircraft will incorporate Software
    Reprogrammable Payloads (SRP), which enables utilization of diverse
    networks and waveforms, thereby enabling maneuverability within the EW
    spectrum. SRP will employ systems such as Link-16, Tactical Targeting
    Network Technology, Adaptive Networking Wideband Waveform, and the
    Soldier Radio Waveform.
    MH-60 (Overview)
        MH-60 Seahawks have consistently met readiness and operational
    commitments. There will be 38 Navy Seahawk squadrons, with 275 MH-60S
    and 280 MH-60R aircraft, when transitions from the SH-60B, SH-60F, and
    HH-60H are complete. The last MH-60S delivered in January of 2016 and
    MH-60R deliveries are projected to continue into fiscal year 2018. The
    production program continues to deliver on cost and on schedule. Over
    the last twelve years of combat operations, deployed ashore and aboard
    our aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, and surface combatants at sea,
    Navy H-60 helicopters have provided vital over-watch and direct support
    to troops in combat across multiple theaters of operation and a variety
    of mission areas; including support for Surface Warfare (SUW), Anti-
    submarine Warfare (ASW), special operations forces, mine warfare,
    logistics support and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief.
        The MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopter provides Carrier Strike Group
    protection and adds significant capability in its primary mission areas
    of ASW, EW and SUW. The MH-60R is the sole organic air ASW asset in the
    Carrier Strike Group and serves as a key contributor to theater level
    ASW. The MH-60R also employs advanced sensors and communications to
    provide real-time battlespace management with a significant, active or
    passive, over-the-horizon targeting capability, as well as Fast Attack
    Craft/Fast In-shore Attack Craft threat response capabilities.
    Secondary mission areas include Search and Rescue, Vertical
    Replenishment, Naval Surface Fire Support, Logistics Support, Personnel
    Transport and Medical Evacuation.
        The MH-60S supports Carrier and Expeditionary Strike Groups, Combat
    Logistics Ships, and LCS Surface Warfare and Mine Countermeasures
    variants in the mission areas of SUW, Strike Warfare, Combat Search and
    Rescue, Vertical Replenishment.
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $11.3 million in
    RDT&E,N across the FYDP for an MH-60S SLAP. SLAP will inform the
    Department on what will be required to extend the MH-60S airframe
    service life beyond 2030. The program will initially focus on the air
    vehicle and include a Fatigue Life Assessment, Dynamic Component, and
    Subsystem Analysis to inform SLEP requirements.
        The Budget request includes $5.4 million in RDT&E,N to support the
    MH-60 test program and other improvements. The MH-60 test program
    consists of numerous system upgrades and Pre-Planned Product
    Improvements, and include the Multifunctional Information Distribution
    System--Low Volume Terminal Block Upgrade 2, the VHF Omnidirectional
    Ranging/Instrument Landing System, System Configuration 18
    enhancements, MH-60S fixed forward-firing weapon/rocket corrections of
    deficiencies, and commencement of initial studies for a MH-60 Mid-Life
    Upgrade. These investments improve MH-60S lethality and provide
    forward-deployed capabilities to defeat area-denial strategies and
    allow joint forces to project and sustain power.
                           executive support aircraft
    VH-3D/VH-60N Executive Helicopter Series
        The VH-3D and VH-60N are safely performing the Executive Lift
    mission worldwide. As these aircraft continue to provide seamless
    vertical lift for the President of the United States, the DON works
    closely with HMX-1 and industry to sustain these aircraft until a
    Presidential Helicopter Replacement platform (VH-92A) is fielded.
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests an investment of
    $38.8 million of APN to continue programs that will ensure the in-
    service Presidential fleet remains safe and reliable. Ongoing efforts
    include a Communications Suite Upgrade (Wide Band Line of Sight) that
    provides persistent access to the strategic communications network, the
    continuing Structural Enhancement Program necessary to extend the
    service life, and Obsolescence Management needed to sustain and improve
    system readiness for both VH-60N and VH-3D platforms. The Cabin
    Interior and Environmental Control System upgrade is a critical
    obsolescence management effort for the VH-3D, reducing aircraft
    operational weight and improving maintainability. Where appropriate,
    technology updates for legacy platforms will be directly leveraged for
    the benefit of the VH-92A program.
    VH-92A Presidential Helicopter Replacement Aircraft
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $451.9 million in
    RDT&E,N to continue Engineering Development Model (EDM) activities, to
    include, contractor test for airworthiness certification and
    modifications of EDM and System Demonstration Test Article aircraft.
    The Sikorsky S-92A aircraft will be used to execute the acquisition
    strategy of integrating mature subsystems into an air vehicle that is
    currently in production. Significant progress has been made in the past
    year: completion of the System Critical Design Review in July 2016;
    continued progress of the test aircraft build with first flight and
    Contractor Test beginning July 2017; and the projected induction of the
    first of four S-92A aircraft into the modification process in May to
    become the SDTA aircraft that will support IOC. Government ground and
    flight testing is planned to commence in 2018. The first four of the
    planned operational inventory of 21 aircraft are planned to achieve IOC
    in 2020.
                              fixed-wing aircraft
    KC-130J
        The DON continues to procure two KC-130Js per year, and will
    continue product improvements. Targeted improvements include aircraft
    survivability through advanced electronic countermeasure modernization
    and obsolescence upgrades to the Harvest HAWK ISR/Weapon Mission Kit.
        Fielded throughout our Active force, the KC-130J brings increased
    capability, performance and survivability with lower operating and
    sustainment costs for the MAGTF. Forward deployed in support of ongoing
    operations since 2005, the KC-130J continues to deliver Marines, fuel
    and cargo whenever and wherever needed. Today, the KC-130J remains in
    high demand, providing tactical air-to-air refueling, assault support,
    CAS and Multi-sensor Imagery Reconnaissance (MIR) capabilities in
    support of SPMAGTFs and deployed MEUs.
        First deployed in 2010, the roll-on/roll-off Harvest HAWK Mission
    Kit for the KC-130J continues to provide extended MIR and CAS
    capabilities. With almost 7,000 hours flown, 210 Hellfire missiles, and
    91 Griffin missile combat engagements, this expeditionary mission kit
    has proven its worth and made the KC-130J even more indispensable for
    Marines on the ground. All six mission kits have been fielded, and the
    requested funding in the fiscal year 2018 budget request will be used
    to maintain operational relevance of this mission system through
    compatibility with additional Hellfire variants and an improved full
    motion video data-link.
        The Marine Corps has funded 66 of the 79 KC-130J aircraft through
    the current FYDP. The 3 aircraft included in the fiscal year 2013
    budget would have completed the Active Component (AC) requirement of 51
    aircraft. However, in 2014 the Marine Corps began using the AC backup
    aircraft to accelerate the Reserve Component (RC) transition from the
    legacy KC-130T aircraft to the more capable and efficient KC-130J. The
    aircraft requested in the Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget will
    continue to increase KC-130J inventory as we strive to achieve FOC in
    the RC. Delays in procurement would force the Marine Corps to sustain
    the KC-130T aircraft longer than planned at an increased cost and incur
    additional manpower issues.
        It is also important to note that the USAF C-130J procurement is
    anticipated to end in 2023. If the Marine Corps procure KC-130Js at a
    rate of two per year, we will have approximately ten aircraft remaining
    to procure after fiscal year 2023 in order to reach the POR of 79
    aircraft. The loss of USAF aircraft quantities and the uncertainty of
    additional Foreign Military Sales may result in a significant unit cost
    increase for these final aircraft.
                           maritime support aircraft
    P-8A Poseidon
        The P-8A Poseidon recapitalizes the ASW, Anti-Surface Warfare
    (ASuW) and armed ISR capabilities from the aging P-3C Orion. The P-8A
    combines the proven reliability of the commercial 737 airframe with
    avionics that enable integration of modern sensors and robust military
    communications. The first P-8A operational deployment was completed in
    June 2014, with continuous deployments to both 7th Fleet and 6th Fleet
    underway. As of April 2017, seven of twelve fleet squadrons have
    completed transition and an eighth is underway. All squadrons are
    scheduled to complete transition by fiscal year 2020. The P-8A program
    is meeting all cost, schedule and performance parameters in accordance
    with the approved Acquisition Program Baseline. It has achieved and
    surpassed reliability standards for operational availability and
    delivered forward commanders unprecedented capability.
        Each of the 54 fleet aircraft delivered early or on time. Lot 6 and
    Lot 7 are under contract, including eight aircraft for the Royal
    Australian Air Force, our cooperative partner. Lots 8-10 will include
    nine aircraft for the United Kingdom and five for the Royal Norwegian
    Air Force. In fiscal year 2018, our request is for $1.386 billion in
    APN for seven aircraft and $181.7 million in RDT&E,N for aircraft
    updates to include the addition of Networked Enabled Weapons
    capabilities.
        The first planned upgrade for the P-8A, Increment 2, added a broad-
    area, multi-static acoustic (MAC) ASW capability to the aircraft. This
    capability significantly increased the P-8A ASW search rates in harsh,
    littoral environments. The capability is scheduled to receive regular
    incremental upgrades over the next five years in order to pace the
    threat and improve the aircraft's search capability. MAC completed
    Follow-On Operational Test & Evaluation in April 2015 and has been
    delivered to the Fleet. Separately, Increment 2 integrates a High
    Altitude ASW Weapons Capability under a contract awarded in December
    2014, in support of a planned 2020 fleet introduction.
    P-3C Orion
        The aging P-3C fleet will continue to provide critical ASW, ASuW
    and ISR support for operations worldwide until the fleet completes
    transition to P-8A. The fiscal year 2018 budget request provides $0.7
    million to manage P-3C aircraft mission systems obsolescence and $1.4
    million to fund the P-3 Fatigue Life Management Program in order to
    maintain sufficient capacity to complete the transition to P-8A.
    EP-3 Aries
        The EP-3E Aries is the Navy's only Maritime ISR and Signals
    Intelligence (SIGINT) platform. The Joint Airborne SIGINT Common
    Configuration includes Multi-INT sensors, robust communication, and
    data links employed by the venerable P-3 air vehicle to ensure
    effective fleet support across the full spectrum of military
    operations. The Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act
    directed the Navy to sustain EP-3E airframe and associated mission
    systems to minimize SIGINT capability gaps until the systems are fully
    recapitalized with a system or family of systems that in aggregate
    provide equal or better capability and capacity. The Navy's family of
    systems approach to ISR shifts the focus from platforms to payloads to
    deliver increased capacity and persistence by the end of this decade.
    The EP-3 fiscal year 2018 budget request of $14.5 million (Baseline and
    OCO) reduces risk compared to previous fiscal years while the Navy
    continues to collaborate with the Joint Staff and DOD to optimize the
    future of ISR.
                        unmanned aircraft systems (uas)
        The DON has placed a priority on the development of unmanned
    systems leading to a fully integrated manned and unmanned fleet.
    Unmanned technology will not replace our sailors and marines; instead
    it will unlock their full potential as we integrate this technology
    within our total force.
    MQ-4C Triton UAS
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $84.1 million in
    RDT&E,N to continue Triton baseline development activities; $229.4
    million in RDT&E,N for Triton modernization; and $676.3 million of APN
    for procurement of the third lot of LRIP aircraft and spares, retrofit
    of the LRIP Lot 1 aircraft to the Multi-INT configuration, and for
    procurement of long lead materials for the fourth lot of LRIP aircraft.
        The MQ-4C Triton is a key component of the Navy Maritime Patrol
    Reconnaissance Force. Its persistent sensor dwell, combined with
    networked sensors, will enable it to effectively meet ISR requirements
    in support of the Navy Maritime Strategy. Triton will start
    establishing five globally-distributed, persistent Maritime ISR orbits
    beginning in fiscal year 2018, as part of the Navy's Maritime ISR&T
    Transition Plan. MQ-4C Triton test vehicles have completed over 110
    test flights as of April, 2017, and will complete sensor and
    performance flight testing this fall in support of establishing an
    early operational capability in the Pacific next year. Milestone C was
    successfully completed in September 2017, and the program has entered
    the production and deployment phase.
        The Navy currently maintains an inventory of four RQ-4A Global Hawk
    Block 10 UAS, as part of the BAMS Demonstrator, or BAMS-D program.
    These aircraft have been deployed to CENTCOM's AOR for over eight
    years. BAMS-D recently achieved over 23,000 flight hours in support of
    CENTCOM ISR tasking.
    MQ-25 Stingray
        MQ-25 will deliver the Navy's first carrier-based unmanned aircraft
    to function primarily as a mission tanker to extend the range and reach
    of the CVW with secondary recovery tanking and ISR capabilities. MQ-25
    will reduce current use of F/A-18E/Fs as CVW tankers and extend F/A-
    18E/F service life. As a secondary mission, MQ-25 will provide the
    Carrier Strike Group Commander an organic, persistent ISR capability
    for maritime domain awareness. The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget
    requests $222.2 million in RDT&E,N for MQ-25 developmental activities
    and the Air System Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract
    award.
    MQ-8 Fire Scout
        The MQ-8 Fire Scout is a rotary-wing system that includes two
    airframe types, the MQ-8B and MQ-8C. The MQ-8C is a larger, more
    capable and more cost-effective airframe that uses the same mission
    control system, avionics and payloads as the MQ-8B. The system is
    designed to operate from any suitably-equipped air-capable ship, carry
    modular mission payloads, and operate using the Tactical Control System
    and Line-Of-Sight Tactical Common Data Link. The Fiscal Year 2018
    President's Budget requests $62.7 million of RDT&E,N to continue
    hardware and software modifications, payload integration, cyber
    vulnerability closure and safety capability improvements such as a
    backup landing system and collision avoidance system. The request for
    $85.4 million in APN procures four MQ-8 mission control systems, MQ-8C
    AESA Radar kits, ancillary shipboard equipment, trainers and aircraft
    support equipment, technical support, modifications based on
    engineering changes, and logistics products to outfit suitably-equipped
    air-capable ships and train the associated Aviation Detachments.
        The MQ-8B has completed 11 operational deployments and flown more
    than 16,000 operational hours, including deployments to Afghanistan,
    deployments on Navy Frigates, and deployments aboard LCS supporting
    Special Operations Forces and Navy operations. The MQ-8B is currently
    deployed on USS CORONADO (LCS-4) with HSC-23 in a composite aviation
    detachment with an MH-60S. This detachment represents the first
    deployment of an MQ-8B with a maritime search radar capability. HSC-21,
    located in San Diego, California, is currently working up for a fiscal
    year 2018 employment onboard USS Independence (LCS-2) marking the first
    deployment of the Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis MCM
    payload. HSC-22, located in Norfolk, Virginia, has been identified as
    the MQ-8 introductory squadron for the east coast and will deploy
    onboard the USS DETROIT (LCS-7) in early 2018.
        The MQ-8C Fire Scout has flown more than 800 flight hours
    conducting developmental and land-based operational testing including
    dynamic interface testing on LCS-8 in April 2017. The program begins
    Initial Operational Test & Evaluation in the first quarter of fiscal
    year 2018. The Navy is continuing efforts to integrate an AESA radar
    capability into the MQ-8C and is planning to integrate the APKWS II
    weapon system and future MCM payloads. The Fire Scout program will
    continue to support integration and testing for LCS-based Surface
    Warfare and MCM mission modules.
    Tactical Control System (TCS)
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $7.8 million in
    RDT&E,N for the MQ-8 System's Tactical Control System (TCS). TCS
    provides a standards-compliant open architecture with scalable command
    and control capabilities for the MQ-8 Fire Scout system. In fiscal year
    2018, TCS will continue transition of the Linux operating system to a
    technology refreshed mission control system, and enhance the MQ-8
    System's Automatic Identification System and sensor track generation
    integration with ship systems. The Linux operating system conversion
    overcomes hardware obsolescence issues with the Solaris based control
    stations and provides lower cost software updates using DOD common
    application software. In addition, the TCS Linux upgrade will enhance
    collaboration with the Navy's future UAS Common Control System.
    RQ-21A Blackjack
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $13.7 million in
    RDT&E ($4.8 million USN, $8.9 million USMC); $4.8 million in APN for
    support of Naval Special Warfare; and $86.2 million in PMC for four
    expeditionary RQ-21A systems (which includes 20 air vehicles) to
    address Marine Corps ISR capability requirements. This Group 3 UAS
    provides persistent ship and land based ISR support for expeditionary
    tactical-level maneuver decisions and unit level force defense and
    force protection missions. Blackjack entered LRIP in 2013, completed
    Initial Operational Test & Evaluation in the second quarter of fiscal
    year 2015, and reached IOC in January 2016. FRP was approved in the
    fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016.
        The RQ-21 completed its first combat deployments in 2016 with
    support to the 24th and 22nd MEU and Marine Corps Special Operations
    Command operations in Operation Inherent Resolve. The Blackjack has
    flown over 700 sorties and 3940 hours in support of the MAGTF.
        The RQ-21's current configuration includes full motion video,
    communications relay package and automatic identification systems. The
    air vehicle's bay allows for rapid deployment of signals intelligence
    payloads. The Marine Corps is actively pursuing technological
    developments for the RQ-21A system in an effort to provide the MAGTF
    and Marine Corps Special Operations Command with significantly improved
    capabilities. Initiatives include over-the-horizon communication and
    data relay ability to integrate the system into future networked
    digital environments; electronic warfare and cyber payloads to increase
    non-kinetic capabilities; and change detection radar and moving target
    indicators to assist warfighters in battlespace awareness and force
    application.
    MAGTF Expeditionary UAS (MUX)
        As the Marine Corps recapitalizes toward a more diverse, lethal,
    amphibious and middleweight expeditionary force, the Marine Corps will
    require a UAS that is network-enabled, digitally interoperable, and
    built to execute responsive, persistent, lethal, and adaptive full-
    spectrum operations. A MUX is planned to be the system that will
    provide the MEF/MEB-sized MAGTF with an advanced multi-mission
    platform.
        The fiscal year 2018 budget requests $5.0 million in RDT&E for the
    MUX program to conduct an AoA and begin development of an acquisition
    strategy; $3.0 million in RDT&E for KMAX operations in support of MUX
    technology demonstrations and Concept of Operation development
    (included under the MUX line).
        The MUX Initial Capabilities Document was approved by the Joint
    Requirements Oversight Council on October 4, 2016. The AoA study plan
    and guidance are being developed with OSD(CAPE). The AoA is projected
    to be completed by the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2018.
        MUX supports the Marine Corps Operating Concept by significantly
    mitigating or eliminating the following MAGTF gaps: EW, ISR, Command,
    Control and Communications (C3) DI, Aerial Escort, all weather,
    persistent CAS and Deep Air Support, Airborne Early Warning, and
    Tactical Cargo Distribution. MUX will be a long range (690+ NM),
    persistent (24+ hours) UAS capable of complimenting MV-22 operations
    and operating from both sea and expeditionary bases.
    Common Control System (CCS)
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $39.7 million in
    RDT&E,N for the Common Control System (CCS). The primary mission of CCS
    is to provide common control across the Navy's unmanned systems (UxS)
    portfolio to add scalable and adaptable warfighting capability,
    implement robust cybersecurity attributes, leverage existing government
    owned products, eliminate redundant software development efforts,
    consolidate product support, encourage innovation, improve cost
    control, and enable rapid integration of UxS capabilities across all
    domains: Air, Surface, Sub-Surface, and Ground. CCS leverages existing
    Government owned software to provide UxS Vehicle Management (VM),
    Mission Management (MM) and Mission Planning (MP) capabilities. CCS
    uses an open and modular business model and is being developed
    initially as Government Furnished Information/Equipment for the MQ-25
    and for follow-on use with Triton and Fire Scout. In fiscal year 2018,
    CCS Increment I will continue to perform software design, development,
    integration and test for VM. Concurrently, CCS Increment II will
    conduct MM/MP requirements development and software design.
                                     safety
        Responses to Congressional requests for updates on Naval Aviation
    safety can be found at Addendum C.
                            strike weapons programs
    Cruise Missile Strategy
        The DON has aligned its Cruise Missile Strategy along warfighter
    domains to pursue maximized lethality while minimizing overall costs to
    the taxpayer and Department.
        The first tenet of our plan is to sustain the Tomahawk cruise
    missile inventory through its anticipated service-life via a mid-life
    recertification program (first quarter of fiscal year 2019 start). This
    recertification program will increase missile service-life by an
    additional 15-years (total of 30-years) and enable the Department to
    support Tomahawk in our active inventory through the mid-late 2040s. In
    concert with our recertification program we will integrate
    modernization and technological upgrades and address existing
    obsolescence issues. In addition, we are developing a Maritime Strike
    Tomahawk capability to deliver a long-range anti-surface warfare
    capability.
        Second, we will field the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) as
    the air-launched Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)/Increment 1
    material solution to meet near to mid-term anti-surface warfare
    threats. LRASM is pioneering accelerated acquisition processes in
    accordance with DOD-5000.02 (Model 4). Currently, we anticipate LRASM
    to meet all Joint Chiefs of Staff approved warfighting requirements,
    deliver on-time, and cost within approximately one-percent of its
    original program cost estimate.
        We also plan to develop follow-on next generation strike
    capabilities. We intend to develop an air-launched OASuW/Increment 2
    weapon to address long-term ASuW threats and a surface and submarine
    launched Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW). NGLAW will have
    both a long-range land strike and maritime ASuW capability that
    initially complements, and then replaces, the highly successful
    Tomahawk Weapon System.
        To the maximum extent possible, the DON plans to utilize common
    components and component technologies (e.g. navigation, communications,
    seeker, guidance and control) to reduce cost, shorten development
    timelines, and promote interoperability. Based on performance
    requirements and launch parameters, next generation strike capability
    missile airframes and propulsion systems will differ between the air-
    launched and sea-launched weapons.
    Tactical Tomahawk (TACTOM) BLK IV Cruise Missile
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $234.5 million in
    WPN for procurement of an additional 100 TACTOM weapons and associated
    support to include replacement of weapons launched in combat (Syria),
    $31.7 million in OPN for the Tomahawk support equipment, and $114.8
    million in RDT&E,N for capability updates of the weapon system. WPN
    resources will be for the continued procurement of this versatile,
    combat-proven, deep-strike weapon system in order to meet ship load-
    outs and combat requirements. OPN resources will address the resolution
    of Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System obsolescence, Tomahawk
    Theater Mission Planning Center (TMPC) complexity and usability issues,
    interoperability, and information assurance mandates. RDT&E,N resources
    will be used to develop navigation system improvements and
    communications upgrades to improve TACTOMs performance in Anti-Access/
    Area Denial environments, as well as development of a seeker to enable
    TACTOM to engage maritime targets, and the development and integration
    of a multiple effects warhead.
        Tomahawk provides an attack capability against fixed and mobile
    targets, and can be launched from both Ships and Submarines. The
    current variant, TACTOM, preserves Tomahawk's long-range precision-
    strike capability while significantly increasing responsiveness and
    flexibility. TACTOM's improvements include in-flight retargeting, the
    ability to loiter over the battlefield, in-flight missile health and
    status monitoring, and. Other Tomahawk improvements include rapid
    mission planning and execution via Global Positioning System (GPS)
    onboard the launch platform and improved anti-jam GPS.
    Tomahawk Theater Mission Planning Center (TMPC)
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget for TMPC requests $18.8
    million in RDT&E,N and $41.5 million in OPN. TMPC is the mission
    planning and strike execution segment of the Tomahawk Weapon System.
    TMPC develops and distributes strike missions for the Tomahawk Missile;
    provides for precision targeting, weaponeering, mission and strike
    planning, execution, coordination, control and reporting. TMPC provides
    CCDRs and Maritime Component Commanders the capability to plan and/or
    modify conventional Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile missions. TMPC is a
    Mission Assurance Category 1 system, vital to operational readiness and
    mission effectiveness of deployed and contingency forces. RDT&E,N
    efforts will address National imagery format changes, update Tomahawk
    navigation and accuracy algorithms--to include operations in the
    maritime and/or Anti-Access Area Denial environments, upgrade obsolete
    Tomahawk Cruise Missile Communications and initiate a Tomahawk seeker
    integration into the TMPC mission planning environment. OPN resources
    will enable the Navy to continue software engineering efforts
    associated with Tomahawk Missile Modernization, upgrade unsupportable
    and obsolete TMPC software to ensure compliance with DOD cybersecurity
    mandates, and implement the TMPC Enterprise Network to allow for rapid
    delivery of security policies, cybersecurity software patches and anti-
    virus definitions. All of these upgrades are critical for the support
    of over 180 TMPC operational sites worldwide, afloat and ashore, to
    include: Cruise Missile Support Activities (inclusive of STRATCOM),
    Tomahawk Strike and Mission Planning Cells (5th, 6th, 7th Fleet),
    Carrier Strike Groups, Surface and Subsurface Firing Units and Labs/
    Training Classrooms.
    Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 1 (Long Range Anti-
            Ship Missile (LRASM))
        OASuW/Increment 1 (LRASM) will provide CCDRs the ability to conduct
    ASuW operations against high-value surface combatants protected by
    Integrated Air Defense Systems with long-range Surface-to-Air-Missiles
    and deny adversaries the sanctuary of maneuver against 2018-2020
    threats. The program is scheduled to achieve Early Operational
    Capability on the Air Force B-1 by the end of fiscal year 2018 and Navy
    F/A-18E/F by the end of fiscal year 2019.
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget request contains $160.7
    million in RDT&E,N for LRASM development and testing and $74.7 million
    in WPN to purchase 25 LRASM All-Up-Round weapons. OASuW Increment 1
    (LRASM) leverages the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency weapon
    demonstration effort.
    Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 2
        OASuW/Increment 2 is required to deliver the long-term air-launched
    ASuW capability to counter 2024 (and beyond) threats. The Department
    continues to plan for OASuW/Increment 2 to be determined via full and
    open competition. Full OASuW/Inc. 2 capability is delayed until at
    least fiscal year 2026 (est.).
    Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW)
        The Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW) will provide the
    next generation of long-range, kinetic strike to destroy high-priority
    fixed, stationary and moving targets--as well as those targets
    hardened, defended or positioned at ranges such that engagement by
    aviation assets would incur unacceptable risk. NGLAW will be capable of
    kinetic land and maritime attack from surface and sub-surface platforms
    and initially complement, and then eventually replace, the Tomahawk
    Weapon System. IOC is planned for the 2028-2030 timeframe (est.).
        On November 28, 2016, the Under Secretary of Defense approved
    Navy's entry into the MS-A phase and authorized initiation of an AoA.
    Fiscal year 2018 resources totaling $9.9 million begins the transition
    from the analysis phase to planning for a formal program of record.
    Sidewinder Air-Intercept Missile (AIM-9X)
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $ 42.9 million in
    RDT&E,N and $79.7 million in WPN for this joint DON and USAF program.
    RDT&E,N will be applied toward the Engineering Manufacturing
    Development phase of critical hardware obsolescence redesign and
    Developmental Testing of Version 9.4 missile software, both part of the
    AIM-9X/Block II System Improvement Program (SIP) III. Navy also
    continues the design and development of Insensitive Munitions
    improvements in accordance with direction from the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff. WPN funding is requested to procure a combined 185 All-Up-Rounds
    and Captive Air Training Missiles and associated missile-related
    hardware. The AIM-9X Block II/ II+ Sidewinder is the newest in the
    Sidewinder family and is the only short-range infrared air-to-air
    missile integrated on Navy, Marine Corps, and USAF strike-fighter
    aircraft. This fifth-generation weapon incorporates high off-boresight
    acquisition capability and increased seeker sensitivity through an
    imaging infrared focal plane array seeker with advanced guidance
    processing for improved target acquisition; data link capability; and
    advanced thrust vectoring technology to achieve superior
    maneuverability and increase the probability of intercept of adversary
    aircraft.
    Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM/AIM-120D)
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $25.4 million in
    RDT&E,N for continued software capability enhancements and $197.1
    million in WPN for 120 All-Up-Rounds and associated missile-related
    hardware. AMRAAM is a joint USAF and DON weapon that counters existing
    aircraft and cruise-missile threats. It uses advanced counter-
    electronic attack capabilities at both high and low altitudes, and can
    engage targets from both beyond visual range and within visual range.
    AMRAAM provides an air-to-air first look, first shot, first kill
    capability, while working within a networked environment in support of
    the Navy's Theater Air and Missile Defense Mission Area. RDT&E,N will
    be applied toward critical hardware obsolescence through the Form, Fit,
    Function, Refresh (F3R) redesign effort as well as software upgrades to
    counter emerging Electronic Attack threats for AIM-120C/D missiles.
    Production challenges linked to the F3R program forced the Navy to
    reduce its planned procurement of AMRAAM in fiscal year 2018.
    Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II)
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $112.8 million in
    RDT&E,N for continued development of the USAF-led Joint Service SDB II
    weapon and Joint Miniature Munitions Bomb Rack Unit (JMM BRU) programs
    and $21.0 million in WPN to procure 90 All-Up-Round weapons. Using
    multi-mode seeker and two-way data-link capabilities, SDB II provides
    an adverse weather, day or night standoff capability against mobile,
    moving, and fixed targets, and enables target prosecution while
    minimizing collateral damage. SDB II will be integrated into the
    internal carriage of both DON variants of the Joint Strike Fighter (F-
    35B/F-35C) and externally on the Navy's F/A-18E/F via the JMM BRU (BRU-
    77A). JMM BRU completed Milestone B and entered Engineering
    Manufacturing Development in August 2015. Both SDB II and JMMU BRU will
    use an Universal Armament Interface architecture to enable more
    efficient and less costly future weapon/platform integration.
    Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) & AARGM Extended Range
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $6.4 million of
    RDT&E,N for High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) and AARGM Foreign
    Material Assessment; $15.2 million for AARGM to implement M Code,
    transition receiver upgrade from ONR efforts and Block 1 follow-on
    development; $66.3 million of RDT&E,N for AARGM Extended Range (AARGM-
    ER) development; and $183.4 million of WPN for production of AARGM
    modification kits for 251 All-Up-Rounds and Captive Training Missiles.
    The AARGM cooperative program with the Italian Air Force transforms the
    HARM into an affordable, lethal, and flexible time-sensitive strike
    weapon system for conducting Destruction of Enemy Air Defense missions.
    AARGM adds multi-spectral targeting capability and targeting
    geospecificity to its supersonic fly-out to destroy sophisticated enemy
    air defenses and expands upon the HARM target set. The program achieved
    IOC on the F/A-18C/D aircraft in July 2012, with forward deployment to
    PACOM; integration is complete for AARGM with release of H-8 System
    Configuration Set for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. The AARGM Block 1
    software only update will achieve IOC the third quarter of fiscal year
    2017. The AARGM-ER modification program, involving hardware and
    software improvements, began in fiscal year 2016. This effort will
    increase the weapon system's survivability against complex and emerging
    threat systems and affords greater stand-off range for the launch
    platform. AARGM-ER will be designed to fit internally in both the F-35A
    and F-35C, thereby increasing the capability and lethality of the
    Lightening II weapon system.
    Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $15.5 million in
    RDT&E,N to continue a five year integration effort of JAGM Increment 1
    onto the Marine Corps AH-1Z and $3.8 million in WPN to support the
    fiscal year 2017 procurement of 96 All-Up-Rounds in order to meet the
    IOC in fiscal year 2020. The fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018
    funding will be used to procure the JAGM LRIP All Up Rounds, Other
    Production Support, training missiles, production related engineering
    and logistics to support the procurement in order to meet the IOC.
        JAGM is an Army-led, Joint ACAT-1D Major Defense Acquisition
    Program. JAGM is a direct attack/CAS missile program that will utilize
    advanced seeker technology to provide fire-and-forget, simultaneous
    target engagement against land and maritime targets. JAGM will replace
    the HELLFIRE and TOW II missile systems for the DON. In November 2012,
    the Joint Chiefs of Staff authorized the JAGM incremental requirements
    and revalidated the DON's AH-1Z Cobra aircraft as a threshold platform.
    JAGM Increment 1 achieved Milestone B approval in fiscal year 2015, a
    Milestone C (LRIP) is planned for the fiscal year 2018 and AH-1Z Cobra/
    JAGM IOC is planned for fiscal year 2020.
    Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II)
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $39.5 million in
    PANMC for procurement of 1,210 APKWS II Precision Guidance Kits. APKWS
    II provides an unprecedented precision guidance capability to DON
    unguided rocket inventories, improving accuracy and minimizing
    collateral damage. Program production continues on schedule, meeting
    the needs of our warfighters in today's theaters of operations. Marine
    Corps AH-1W and UH-1Y achieved IOC in March 2012 and the Marine Corps
    AH-1Z platform was certified to fire APKWS II in June 2015. To date,
    these platforms have expended more than 190 APKWS II weapons during
    combat missions. The Navy successfully integrated APKWS II on the MH-
    60S for an Early Operational Capability in March 2014 and fielded a
    similar effort on the MH-60R in March 2015. A variant of APKWS II has
    been integrated onto the AV-8B, A-10 and F-16 aircraft, and is
    currently being employed in support of Operation Inherent Resolve.
    Direct Attack Weapons and General Purpose Bombs
        The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget requests $108.9 million in
    PANMC for Direct Attack Weapons and General Purpose bombs and an
    additional $164.3 million specifically to procure 7,209 Joint Direct
    Attack Munition (JDAM) kits to enhance readiness. In thirty months of
    Operation Inherent Resolve, DON aircraft have expended more than three
    times the number of 500lb JDAM kits than we have procured during the
    same period. This significant warfighter demand has forced the Navy to
    reduce the number of 500-pound JDAM available for training in order to
    preserve warfighting inventory. The OCO request for fiscal year 2018
    replaces the ordnance expended in the first six months of 2016. While
    OCO replenishment is helpful, it does not overcome the remainder of the
    year's expenditures which will continue to exacerbate the current
    inventory shortfall. Fully funding the General Purpose Bomb line item
    is critical to sustaining the DON's inventory for ongoing combat
    operations and replenishing it for future contingencies.
                                   conclusion
        The Department of the Navy continues to instill affordability,
    strive for stability, and maintain capacity to advance capabilities and
    meet mission requirements. We remain an agile strike and amphibious
    power projection force in readiness, and such agility requires that the
    aviation arm of our naval strike and expeditionary forces remain
    strong. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished committee members, we request
    your continued support for the Department's fiscal year 2018 budget
    request for our Naval Aviation programs.

                                   Addendum A

                             physiological episodes
        Physiological Episodes (PEs) occur when aircrew experience a
    decrement in performance, related to disturbances in tissue
    oxygenation, depressurization or other factors present in the flight
    environment. PEs are categorized into two general groups, those related
    to Onboard Oxygen Generation Systems (OBOGS) or pilot breathing gas,
    and those caused by problems in the Environmental Control System s
    (ECS), i.e.--unscheduled pressure changes in the flight station. These
    phenomena jeopardize safe flight.
        As a result of physiological episodes, the F/A-18 Program Office
    (PMA-265) established a Physiological Episode Team (PET) in 2010. In
    March of 2017, the PET was reorganized to form the PMA-265
    Physiological Episode (PE) Integrated Product Team (IPT) to perform a
    formal Root Cause and Corrective Action analysis of F/A-18A-F and EA-
    18G events. The F/A-18 PE IPT is a formal partnership between PMA-265
    and Boeing, and includes participation from Northrop Grumman, the
    NAVAIR Engineering Fleet Support Team (FST), NAVAIR 4.3's Environmental
    Control System (ECS) Team, NAVAIR 4.6's Human Systems Team, and the
    NAE's Aeromedical Crisis Action Team. The F/A-18 PE IPT works closely
    with other program offices, cross-service affiliates and industry
    partners in evaluating each episode for root cause and appropriate
    corrective action.
        The PMA-265 PE IPT is currently addressing hypoxia and
    decompression events as the two most likely causes of recent
    physiological episodes in aviators. As symptoms related to
    depressurization, tissue hypoxia and contaminant intoxication overlap,
    discerning a root cause is a complex process. Episodes of decompression
    sickness typically accompany a noticeable loss or rapid fluctuation of
    cabin pressure, while the cause of hypoxic related events is often not
    readily apparent during flight or post flight. Reconstruction of the
    flight event is difficult with potential causal factors not always
    readily apparent during post-flight debrief and examination of aircraft
    and aircrew.
        Historical data of F/A-18 physiological events prior to May 2010 is
    based on safety reports. The rate per 100,000 flight hours during
    fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2010:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Date Range                      F/A-18A-D                 F/A-18E-F                  EA-18G
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FY06..............................                     3.66                      2.18                      0.00
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FY07..............................                     1.63                      3.73                      0.00
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FY08..............................                     3.72                      4.28                      0.00
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FY09..............................                     6.19                      8.33                      0.00
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FY10..............................                     4.95                     11.96                      0.00
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In May 2010, the Commander, Naval Air Forces directed specific
    reporting procedures to collect more data on the occurrence of PEs.
    Following implementation of the new reporting protocol, the rate per
    100,000 flight hours beginning in May 2010:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Date Range                      F/A-18A-D                 F/A-18E-F                  EA-18G
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    05/1/2010 - 10/31/2010............                    12.20                      8.98                      0.00
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    11/1/2010 - 10/31/2011............                    10.90                      8.65                      5.52
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    11/1/2011 - 10/31/2012............                    16.39                     23.35                      5.42
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    11/1/2012 - 10/31/2013............                    21.01                     26.23                      9.80
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    11/1/2013 - 10/31/2014............                    29.54                     26.39                     15.05
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    11/1/2014 - 10/31/2015............                    30.20                     28.02                     42.89
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    11/1/2015 - 10/31/2016............                    57.24                     31.05                     90.83
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The process for investigating a physiological episode begins with
    the submission of data describing the event. Engineers from the ECS FST
    and the Aircrew Oxygen Systems In-Service Support Center work with the
    squadron maintenance department to identify which components of the
    aircraft should be removed and submitted for engineering investigation.
    The squadron flight surgeon also submits data on the medical condition
    of the pilot and in-flight symptoms that were experienced.
        After completion of the component investigations, the incident is
    examined holistically by members of the engineering teams and
    Aeromedical specialists to identify the most likely cause of the
    incident. Of 382 cases adjudicated by the PET so far, 130 have involved
    some form of possible contamination, 114 involved an ECS component
    failure, 91 involved human factors, 50 involved an OBOGS component
    failure, 13 involved a breathing gas delivery component failure, and 76
    were inconclusive or involved another aircraft system failure. Of note,
    some of the events resulted in assignment to more than one category.
    T-45 Physiological Episodes
        Data recorded since introduction of the T-45 Physiological Event
    Reporting Protocol form in November 2011 is presented below by calendar
    year. Prior years' data for T-45 aircraft is incomplete and is not
    included.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Calendar year rate per 100K flight    Cumulative rate per 100K flight
                 Calendar Year                             hours                                hours
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2012..................................                               11.86                                11.86
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2013..................................                               16.22                                13.94
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2014..................................                               18.43                                15.36
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2015..................................                               44.99                                22.70
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2016..................................                               46.97                                28.01
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The process for investigating a physiological episode mimics that
    being used by the F/A-18 and is also managed by PET. After completion
    of the component investigations, the incident is examined holistically
    by members of the PET's engineering teams and aviation medical
    specialists to identify the most likely cause of the incident. More
    than one causal factor can be attributed to a single physiological
    episode event. Of the 79 physiological episode reports adjudicated to
    date, 24 were assessed to be possible contamination, 12 involved human
    factors (these may also include incidents of airsickness and vertigo),
    12 involved OBOGS component failure, 11 involved a breathing gas
    delivery failure, three involved cabin integrity, and the remaining 23
    were inconclusive or involved another system failure.
    Efforts to Mitigate Physiological Episodes on F/A-18 and EA-18G
        A variety of actions have been undertaken to address the occurrence
    of physiological episodes in the F/A-18 / E/A-18G:
         1.  New maintenance rules for handling the occurrence of specific
    ECS built-in test faults have been implemented throughout the fleet
    requiring that the cause of the fault be identified and corrected prior
    to next flight.
         2.  Transportable Recompression Systems have been put on forward
    deployed aircraft carriers to immediately treat aircrew in the event
    they experience decompression sickness symptoms.
         3.  Mandatory cabin pressurization testing is now performed on all
    F/A-18A-F and EA-18G aircraft every 400 flight hours and ECS pressure
    port testing is performed on all F/A-18A-D aircraft every 400 flight
    hours. Overhaul procedures for ECS components and aircraft servicing
    procedures have been improved.
         4.  Emergency procedures have been revised, all pilots now receive
    annual hypoxia awareness training, and biennial dynamic training using
    a Reduced Oxygen Breathing Device to experience and recognize hypoxia
    symptoms while operating an aircraft simulation.
         5.  Aircrews are provided portable hypobaric recording watches to
    alert them when cabin altitude reaches a preset threshold.
         6.  Internal components of the F/A-18 OBOGS have been redesigned
    to incorporate a catalyst to prevent carbon monoxide from reaching the
    pilot and provide an improved capability sieve material (filter). These
    new OBOGS components have been installed in 84 percent of the in
    service F/A-18 fleet so far.
         7.  Improvements to existing maintenance troubleshooting
    procedures and acceptance and test procedures for reworked components
    have been incorporated and additional improvements are under
    evaluation.
         8.  Hardware and software changes are in work for Super Hornets
    and Growlers to mitigate cabin pressurization issues due to moisture
    freezing in the ECS lines.
         9.  Component redesign, improved performance testing, and newly
    established life limits will improve component reliability across all
    F/A-18 configurations.
        10.  An increased capacity for the emergency oxygen bottles is
    under contract.
        11.  Trial sampling efforts for contamination have been conducted
    at EA-18G squadrons located at NAS Whidbey Island to improve real-time
    data collection for OBOGS related systems. ``Sorbent tubes'' which help
    collect and identify unknown contaminants have been attached to aircrew
    regulators to collect samples of breathing gas for post-flight analysis
    of potentially harmful compounds.
        12.  An ECS laboratory is under construction to improve root cause
    and correct actions of ECS engineering investigations of fleet events.
    The projected operational date of the ECS lab is September of 2017.
        13.  Aircraft are flown with ``slam sticks'' to track and collect
    cabin pressure changes over time for rigorous data analysis and to
    compare data to what the aircrew experienced.
        14.  Future projects include systematic evaluations of technologies
    to monitor and detect physiological symptoms.
    Efforts to Mitigate Physiological Episodes on T-45
        A variety of actions have been undertaken to address the occurrence
    of physiological episodes in the T-45:
         1.  Instituted recurring immersion training at all Chief of Naval
    Air Training sites using Reduced-Oxygen Breathing Devices.
         2.  Flight manual procedures were updated to optimize crew posture
    for PE recognition, response, and avoidance.
         3.  Revised maintenance publications at both the operational and
    intermediate maintenance levels to increase the minimum oxygen
    generating performance of the concentrator.
         4.  Conducted engine wash water intrusion tests to determine if
    water was entering the OBOGS bleed air. Tests indicated that no water
    was ingested in the OBOGS bleed air lines.
         5.  Installed sorbent tubes and hydrocarbon detectors on aircrew
    to monitor breathing gasses coming off OBOGS. The sorbent tube and HCD
    are attached to the aircrew vest and ported off the oxygen mask hose.
         6.  Installed new sieve beds in the Gas Generating Unit (GGU)-7
    Oxygen Concentrator. The new sieve beds addressed the possibility of
    built up contaminants in the sieve bed material by installing all new
    material, and incorporated a carbon monoxide catalyst to protect
    against carbon monoxide.
         7.  Began fielding of new design CRU-123 oxygen monitoring units.
    A fielded demo unit has over 100 flight hours; up to 15 additional new
    monitors are expected by the end of May. Thirty additional units will
    be installed every month thereafter. The new oxygen monitor provides
    new aircrew alerting if delivery pressure falls, and it records system
    performance and faults.
         8.  Initiated requirements analysis for a new OBOGS oxygen
    concentrator unit.
         9.  Formed a combined team with Government, Boeing (T-45 OEM), and
    Cobham (Oxygen Concentrator OEM) members to cooperate on multiple lines
    of effort to address Physiological Episodes.
        10.  Conducted multiple rounds of high intensity stress testing of
    the GGU-7 Oxygen Concentrator at both NAVAIR and Cobham Laboratories to
    determine concentrator performance outside of the normal operating
    limits (high temperature and high humidity).
        11.  NAVAIR released an end to end cleaning procedure for the OBOGS
    bleed system. Updated regular maintenance procedures to sustain system
    hygiene. Additional thorough cleaning procedures are being developed.
        12.  Evaluated the thermal performance of the OBOGS bleed air
    system by conducting tests on in-service heat exchangers and
    temperature switches that provide alerts when over-temperature
    conditions occur.
        13.  Conducted laboratory testing and on-aircraft fit checks of a
    new water separator that would be installed in the OBOGS bleed line
    prior to the OBOGS concentrator to help guard against water intrusion
    in the concentrator. This program is currently in the early stages of
    detailed engineering design.
        14.  Enhanced data management and collection through initiation of
    a new data management plan; contracted data analysis support to
        15.  Developed new test procedures and conducted OBOGS and ECS
    bleed air contaminant testing on fleet aircraft to establish
    measurement thresholds and foment a predictive system performance
    methodology; developed new test sets to assess oxygen system degraded
    performance.
        16.  Updated flight and maintenance publications to help prevent
    inadvertent system damage, ensure leak free system integrity, add
    periodic inspections, and ensure system cleanliness.
        The Department of the Navy remains focused on solving this issue.
    Fleet awareness is high, protocols are in place and we are focused on
    mitigating risk, correcting known deficiencies and attacking this
    issue. Moving forward we will continue to fly while applying every
    resource to solve this challenging problem.

                               End of Addendum A

                                   Addendum B

                        electronic warfare supplemental
        AN/ALQ-214--Navy completed testing the upgraded version of the ALQ-
    214 v4 Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasure (IDECM) last year
    and continues developing software improvements under the Software
    Improvement Program (SWIP). IOC of SWIP is expected in the second
    quarter of fiscal year 2018. IDECM hardware is currently being
    installed into deploying F/A-18 E/F aircraft on the planned procurement
    ramp.
        Next Generation Jammer (NGJ)--The first increment of NGJ, which
    covers a mid-band frequency range, completed its critical design review
    in May and is on timeline for a fiscal year 2021 IOC. OSD established
    this program as a Skunk Works charter in fiscal year 2015 which has
    allowed a small team of experts to streamline the acquisition process.
    The Next Generation Jammer Low Band (increment 2) is the next material
    solution to replace the 40 year old ALQ-99 low band transmitter
    systems. The acquisition strategy for Low Band (Inc. 2) will be a full
    and open competition supporting program entry at Milestone (MS) B.
    Prior to the EMD competition, there will be up to three Demonstration
    of Existing Technology (DET) contracts awarded as an extension of the
    Low Band (Inc. 2) program's market research effort. In the execution of
    the DET contracts, contractors will demonstrate their existing, mature
    technologies in a relevant environment (i.e. not a technology
    maturation effort, but rather substantiation of the assertion the
    technologies of appropriate level of maturity currently exist to
    support program entry at MS B). Not being awarded a DET contract will
    not preclude any contractor from submitting a proposal and competing
    for award of the Low Band (Inc. 2) EMD contract, as, again, it will be
    a full and open competition. IOC for NGJ Low band is being planned for
    fiscal year 2025.
        ALQ-99--While sustainment and reliability of the 40 year old ALQ-99
    systems continues to challenge the DON (USMC and Navy), we have
    prioritized NGJ implementation to replace the most stressing frequency
    coverage first. Navy is developing an interim upgrade solution for the
    low frequency range transmitter in the Low Band Consolidation (LBC)
    transmitter set. The LBC is on track to field in the first quarter of
    fiscal year 2020. The LBC does not meet the full requirements of the
    NGJ Low Band system, however will increase the reliability of the low
    frequency system.

                               End of Addendum B

                                   Addendum C

           summary of class a, b and c aviation-related safety issues
        A summary of all Naval Aviation Class A, B and C aviation-related
    safety issues, including recent mishaps, trends, and analysis from
    October 2015 through May 24, 2017 follows. The rates presented in the
    table are based on total mishaps per 100,000 flight hours and include
    Flight, Flight-Related and Ground mishaps.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Flight                  Class A                 Class B                 Class C
                Year                 Hours      Class A      Rate       Class B      Rate       Class C      Rate
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FY16                          1,098,519          18        1.64          27        2.46         224       20.39
    FY17                            689,850          15        2.17          19        2.75         163       23.63
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The most recent fiscal year 2017 DON flight Class A mishaps
    include: 26 Apr 2017: (Off the Coast of Guam) MH-60R collided with
    water on initial takeoff from ship. No injuries.
          21 Apr 2017: (Philippine Sea) F-18E lost on approach to
    landing on carrier. Pilot ejected without injury prior to water impact.
          05 Apr 2017: (Yuma, AZ) CH-53E landed hard and rolled on
    day training flight. Crew of 5 uninjured.
          17 Jan 2017: (NAS Meridian, MS) T-45 crashed following a
    BASH incident on takeoff. Both crewmembers ejected. No fatalities.
          13 Dec 2016: (Off the Coast of Okinawa, Japan) MV-22B
    attempted a precautionary emergency landing (PEL) to dry land but crash
    landed in shallow water. Crew of 5 evacuated with injuries.
          07 Dec 2016: (Off the Coast of Iwakuni MCAS, Japan) F/A-
    18C crashed into the water while conducting a night mission. 1
    fatality.
          21 Nov 2016: (Upper Mojave Desert Region) F/A-18F struck
    a tree while instructor pilot was conducting a currency flight event.
    Returned to base safely. No injuries.
          09 Nov 2016: (Off the Coast of San Diego) Two F/A-18As
    were conducting basic flight maneuvers and had a mid-air collision. 1
    aircraft crashed in the water. Pilot ejected successfully. 1 aircraft
    landed with significant damage
          27 Oct 2016: (MCAS Beaufort, SC) F/A-35B had an inflight
    weapons bay fire followed by an uneventful landing. No injuries.
          25 Oct 2016: (Twentynine Palms, CA) F/A-18C crashed on
    final approach. Pilot ejected successfully. No injuries.
          20 Oct 2016: (Yuma, AZ) CH-53E main rotor contacted
    building causing damage to the aircraft.
          13 Oct 2016: (Tinker AFB, OK) E-6B #2 engine sustained
    compressor blade damage due to bird ingestion. Aircraft landed safely.
    No injuries.
        There are three recent fiscal year 2017 DON Class A aviation ground
    operations mishaps (AGM):
          19 January 2017: (NAS Norfolk, VA) Three E-2C aircraft
    damaged in an engine oil related event. (AGM)
          18 December 0216: (Kadena Air Force Base, Japan) Tow bar
    separation resulted in aircraft/tow collision with damage to nose gear
    and lower fuselage of P-8A. (AGM)
          16 December 2016: (NAS Whidbey Island, WA) Canopy on EA-
    18G exploded/jettisoned resulting in severe injuries to two personnel.
    (AGM)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               End of Addendum C

        Senator Wicker. Well, thank you very much.
        I said this this morning at the full committee, and I'll
    say it again today at the subcommittee level, about the chronic
    underfunding. We really do need to join hands and address this
    once and for all. I would remind members and guests and
    everyone listening or watching that the reason we adopted
    sequestration in the first place was as an incentive to make us
    come to grips with entitlement programs, entitlement programs
    like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and, of course,
    interest on the debt, which is only partially within our
    control.
        The good news about these very valuable safety-net programs
    is that we don't have to cut them. They need to grow and will
    continue to grow, but we simply need to grow them at a slower
    rate. It is the inability of the House and Senate and the
    collective administrations to deal with this issue that got us
    to sequestration.
        So, I am not the least bit proud of our record with regard
    to this chronic underfunding. We certainly don't need to use
    sequestration as a way to short-change the war fighter, and we
    certainly don't need to short-change national security, the
    security of Americans. But it is worth saying that it is a
    failure because we have been unwilling, for whatever reason,
    unable, for whatever reason, in both parties and at both ends
    of Pennsylvania Avenue, to come to grips with simply slowing
    the growth rate of these excellent programs that we all depend
    on.
        Admiral Grosklags, I appreciate the information your team
    has given to all of us about the PE issue, and you mention it
    in your testimony. But if you're sick, if a person is sick, the
    most important step is a good diagnosis. Once we get the
    diagnosis, physicians know how to come in and give the right
    medicine or the right treatments.
        We're having a diagnosis problem with the physiological
    episodes, so tell us where we are. I appreciate Admiral Miller
    and General Davis coming in and speaking to me yesterday about
    this. But how are we doing on the diagnosis? Are you able to
    give us any hope on a timeline to solving this problem?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Sir, we're not doing well on the
    diagnosis. We have two parallel paths under execution right
    now. As you said, it would be far easier if we could find out
    what the root cause was and then go after correcting that root
    cause. To date, we have been unable to find any smoking guns. I
    will refer back to an exception to that here in just a second.
        But for T-45s specifically, where most of our issues to
    date, almost all of them, have been associated with what we'll
    call breathing gas issues, as opposed to the pressurization
    issues in the cockpit that we've seen with some of our F-18
    incidents, we do not----
        Senator Wicker. Toxic oxygen, actually.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Well, to date, we have not been
    able to discover a toxin or a contaminant in the breathing gas
    despite our testing. Just to give you a snapshot without going
    into great detail, we have taken several of the aircraft from
    CNATRA [Chief of Naval Air Training] from the training
    squadrons, brought them up to Patuxent River, and we have torn
    some of them apart to the extent that we took every component,
    every single component in that gas path, that breathing gas
    path if you will, out of the aircraft, starting with the engine
    and going through the entire system, inspecting all the piping
    in-between, all the way up to the mask and the vests that the
    air crew wear. We've subjected each one of those individual
    components to extremes of testing, extremes of environmental
    conditions in excess of what we would ever expect to see in the
    aircraft, and we still have not been able to find what we would
    consider a proximate cause of contamination or something being
    released into that gas path.
        We are also doing testing at the system level. We're flying
    the entire aircraft--again, these are aircraft that had issues
    down at CNATRA. We're flying the entire aircraft with
    additional instrumentation on the aircraft, trying to detect
    stuff in-flight, real time. To date, we have not been able to
    find that root cause or been able to diagnose the problem.
        In parallel, for T-45, because obviously one of our
    concerns is getting back into the training environment as
    quickly as possible, but we focused on 10 to 12 different
    alerting or protective measures for the air crew, and it is our
    plan that once we are comfortable that we've got those
    individual items all in place for every single aircraft and air
    crew down at CNATRA, that is at the point where we will
    consider resuming the training syllabus.
        We believe that will probably be a matter of weeks instead
    of months, but there is still some testing of new equipment
    that we intend to----
        Senator Wicker. The full training syllabus.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Yes, sir. So that's kind of our
    path, the two parallel paths on T-45s.
        On F-18s----
        Senator Wicker. Well, sir, on the training syllabus now,
    what are you able to do and what are you not able to do?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. To date, since the beginning of
    April/end of March, we have not flown any training events with
    the students. The students have not flown at all. Our
    instructor pilots are flying some currency flights. They are
    not using the oxygen generation system, so they're basically
    breathing ambient cockpit air, and because of that we've
    restricted their flight envelope to 5,000 feet and below and
    less than 2 G's. So a relatively benign environment but
    sufficient for them to remain proficient in flying the
    aircraft.
        Senator Wicker. We're going to lose a crop of undergraduate
    pilots?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. We won't lose them permanently, but
    we lose about--we delay about 25 a month if we don't start
    flying students again. So if you say the end of June, we will
    have racked up about 75 students that have been delayed going
    to the next squadron, which would be the fleet replacement
    squadron.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Kaine?
        Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks to the witnesses for your testimony and service.
        A couple of disparate items. The force structure assessment
    recently has led the Navy to readjust their thought about the
    size, the number of ships, from 308 to 355. But I was
    interested that the force structure assessment didn't talk
    about what that would dictate in terms of aviation. Since a lot
    of the ships have an aviation component, I would suspect that
    that's kind of the next ask, there would be kind of an aviation
    follow-on component that would change if we were able to grow
    the Navy that size of ships. I'm sure there isn't an answer to
    that question today, but I would just love you to address that
    issue, what are we likely to see as the Navy contemplates the
    shift in the number of ships and what that would mean in terms
    of additional need for aviation assets.
        Rear Admiral Miller. Yes, sir. I'll go ahead and take that.
    As you know, in the budget in 2017, the whole focus was on
    readiness, and on 2018 now it's to continue that readiness and
    look at the wholeness. So the question that you ask is really
    what we're working in the building right now as we're putting
    together the 2019 budget. Part of that is, okay, we envision
    eventually getting back to 12 aircraft carriers, which is going
    to require an extra air wing. So with the timing of that, how
    you would then flow in the aircraft to be able to support an
    extra air wing to be able to deploy on that 12th carrier is
    something that would have to be mapped out and, of course, have
    the available resources to be able to do that.
        On the surface side, the largest contributor to aviation
    support to our surface Navy has to do with our helicopters.
    Currently, the H-60 inventory that we have meets the
    requirements that we have currently in our surface fleet.
    Again, once those plans are determined on when and if we're
    able to grow the Navy per what we assess the needs are, then we
    would obviously lay in a procurement program that would be able
    to support that on the aviation side.
        Senator Kaine. Okay. I just wanted to have some sense, as
    you point out, for the future. I'm on the Budget Committee too,
    and I'm curious about this.
        We've had some posture hearings in the main committee with
    Air Force, and one of the issues we've talked about is the
    issue of maintainers. So we're talking about aviation programs.
    Platforms is one thing; pilots are critically important. I was
    a little struck in the Air Force discussions we've had that
    some of the workforce gaps are more significant on the
    maintainer side than even on the pilot side, and both are
    significant.
        Talk a little bit on the Navy and Marine side about what
    you're doing to deal with the maintainer workforce.
        Lieutenant General Davis. Thanks for that question,
    Senator. We've done five independent range reviews in the
    Marine Corps and looked at all the things we need to do to make
    sure our legacy fleet generates the range requirements we use
    in the Marine Corps. One of the things that came out of that
    was not the numbers of maintainers we have but the overall
    qualifications of the maintainers we have, especially with a
    little bit different readiness model for the United States
    Marine Corps and the United States Navy.
        So we actually needed to hire density of maintainers in
    each unit and tailored for each unit's mission out there to
    make the range requirements. We looked at those qualifications
    and how hard it is. It takes two years to make a collateral
    duty inspector. It takes four years to make what they call a
    CDQAR [Collateral Duty Quality Assurance Representative], which
    is the next level up. Your master mechanic takes seven years on
    average to make those, and it's kind of consistent between the
    Navy and the Marine Corps.
        What we have done is we've mapped out for each and every
    unit, and now providing incentives, starting this July, to keep
    both Marines who earn those qualifications, and those are the
    very best Marines and sailors inside those units that do that,
    and keep them in the densities we need to make our range
    requirements out there.
        The second thing is we've looked at--I ran our fighter
    weapons school in Yuma, Arizona for two years, great job as the
    CO [Commanding Officer] of that schoolhouse, and almost 40
    years ago we created Match 1 to make sure we were at the top of
    our game in standards and best tactics, techniques, and
    procedures to go fight the looming threat on our nation's bow.
    We didn't do that for our aviation maintainers. We are doing
    that now.
        So a kind of companion schoolhouse, a top wrench, if you
    want to call it that, for our young officers and our
    maintenance Marines to make sure that they are sharing best
    practices and getting the very biggest bang for the buck we can
    out of our Marines.
        Senator Kaine. Excellent, excellent. I'll ask you one other
    question, if I could. This is one for me and for Senator
    Tillis. So if he comes in, tell him I had his back.
        We have training ranges that we use heavily, Navy and
    Marines, in Virginia and North Carolina. With the advent of
    fifth-generation aircraft, are we making the investments that
    we need in maintaining the usefulness of those ranges, or do
    the ranges maintain continuing viability? Because some of the
    platforms have some additional bells and whistles to them.
        Rear Admiral Miller. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question,
    because when we talk about wholeness, everyone likes to look
    at, hey, I'm providing this object, whether it's a new F-35,
    but with that comes the whole training apparatus that goes with
    it. So not only from the maintainers that are maintaining the
    aircraft but for the aviators that have to fly it, the
    decision-makers as we put together, and as you well know, COM 2
    exercises are pretty large events that we do off of the coast
    of Virginia.
        So we are making investments in live virtual constructive.
    We have to, with the threat that's continuing to evolve, with
    the tactics that continue to keep pace with the threat, and
    with a lot of the new equipment, we have to transition the way
    we train.
        So it's a combination of using simulation, combining that
    with live assets, and also being able to throw constructive
    threats out there. For example, to be able to have a scenario
    that has representative threat aircraft, we probably don't have
    the adversary support to be able to do that.
        So we need to evolve the way we train. So that live virtual
    constructive aspect absolutely needs to start down at the basic
    level where I'm learning how to fly an airplane and, hey, I
    need to connect an E-2 to an F-18 in a simulator. Then as we
    use the building block approach, as we prepare our carrier
    strike groups and our amphibious groups to deploy, to be able
    to take it up to the fleet-wide level of training as well.
        So there are definite investments in live virtual
    constructive, and it's all part of the wholeness aspect of our
    approach to new weapon systems and new platforms.
        Senator Kaine. No other questions. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I
    think maybe General Davis wanted to weigh in briefly, if that
    would be acceptable?
        Senator Wicker. That would certainly be acceptable.
        Lieutenant General Davis. Thank you, sir. That's a great
    question, sir. What we're finding with operating our fifth-
    generation airplanes, we actually expanded Townsend Range to
    accommodate the mission profiles the F-35s can bring to flight,
    and we're seeing it every day in Yuma. For Senator Tillis,
    we're already looking at what we need to do off the coast of
    North Carolina to make sure that the Cherry Point facility is
    ready to take those airplanes.
        The fifth-gen airplanes are changing the way we train and
    changing the way we fight and changing the way we think about
    fighting in a very dynamic way, in a very good way. It's really
    good news for the nation. But these airplanes, we're finding,
    require--the standard formations aren't the close formations
    like I grew up flying. They are separated by tens of miles. The
    bottom line is the airplane is perfectly comfortable flying
    like that. It will also fly and fight in bad weather as well,
    and allow our training.
        It's not just how we train in the air component; it's how
    we train with our surface forces and our land forces out there
    as well. The other day, doing close air support through the
    cloud with F-35s with guys on the ground, that was something we
    probably wouldn't do with a high degree of fidelity, but now
    they actually not only do that but see the targets through the
    cloud.
        I think it's going to change the way we do business, both
    live virtual constructive and also, too, the mandate for us to
    protect our training ranges and the air space over those
    training ranges. It's going to require some different thinking,
    and it will be a national asset for all of us with these new
    airplanes.
        Senator Kaine. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Rounds?
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, thank you for your service.
        When it comes to the readiness and the capabilities or the
    availability of your aircraft right now, could you share with
    me what the readiness percentages are? I think the last couple
    of months it seems like the unavailability was somewhere in
    excess of 60 percent for FA-18s and so forth. Could you share
    with me what your readiness capabilities are? It seems to me
    that the F-35B variant, being new, was actually having a pretty
    good capability rating, even this early in its current
    development, if you want to call being seven years late
    current. But it seems like its capabilities were maintaining in
    excess of 80 percent. So could you share with me?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. I can give you some generic
    numbers. We can drill down on each platform if you want, but
    you're about on the money. We're currently at a mission capable
    percentage as of the 24th of last month, at 56 percent. So it's
    mission capable across the fleet.
        For the F-35 in particular, for the F-35B, we're actually
    above 80 percent, as you stated. So it's doing very well.
        Lieutenant General Davis. Sir, if I could, looking at the
    VMF/A-121, the VMF/A-211, getting ready to be VMF/A-122, and
    then the 501, which is our training squadron at Buford, South
    Carolina, focusing on 121, very active squadron. Ten of the 16
    are over there now. The next six show up this summer. I track
    them every day between 70, 75 and 80, 85 percent, so very high
    rates. The Marine F-18s in particular right now running a
    little bit less than 50 percent, although we're trending up,
    and Harriers are better than that.
        But bottom line, the newer metal gets us to higher rates
    across the force. Those F-18s are old, trusty airplanes, but
    we're finding that with the readiness rate--and we're doing
    better in F-18 now. Our flight time per pilot has gone up
    significantly from the last time we talked. We're still shy of
    our objective, but we have a break. We start off in the
    morning, we have a 55 percent break rate with the older
    airplanes. So we start off in the morning, we've got them on
    the line, you worked all night to get them up. We used to do a
    six turn, six turn four, to get your training objectives, and
    that's how we fight as well.
        A lot of those airplanes, half those airplanes are breaking
    after the first go, so we're not getting the numbers and the
    production we need out of those old platforms.
        Senator Rounds. I have to share. I had the opportunity to
    fly with the Blue Angels last fall in a demonstration, and I
    think these guys do their best to break them sometimes. I know
    I was going left when he was going right on several different
    occasions, and I wasn't that far away from him.
        Senator Wicker. You're scaring me, Senator.
        Senator Rounds. I'm just telling you, these guys are good,
    but they put those aircraft through their paces, and you can
    see why they have some challenges once in a while. But that's
    the way that they need to train, the way that they need to
    fight, and those aircraft have got to be as top-notch as we can
    keep them.
        I'm just curious, Admiral, you indicated 56 percent. Is
    that across the entire fleet, or is that across the fighter
    fleet?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. That's across the entire fleet,
    sir.
        Senator Rounds. How about if we just change that to the
    fighter fleet right now? Where are we at then?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Probably--well, certainly a little
    bit less than that. If we're talking about F-18s of all makes
    and models, it's probably right around 50 percent.
        Senator Rounds. Okay. Thank you.
        You indicated that the anti-ship missile that's being
    developed--and if I heard you correctly, originally or to begin
    with you were going to be placing it on the B-1.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Yes, sir.
        Senator Rounds. Then eventually transitioning over to the
    FA-18. I presume that would be on the Super Hornet?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. That's correct.
        Senator Rounds. Okay. Can you share how that would be
    utilized if it's on a B-1? I mean, it seems to me that that's a
    new capability that we're talking about for the B-1 or a new
    use for the B-1.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. I've got to be a little bit careful
    here.
        Senator Rounds. Okay.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. It's a derivative of the JASSM
    [Joint Air to Surface Stand Off Missile] missile that's already
    carried on board the B-1. It has a different target set, and it
    will be used differently, but the mission is very compatible
    with that aircraft, as well as with the Super Hornet.
        Senator Rounds. Having the Ellsworth Air Force Base as one
    of the homes of the B-1, we're always happy to hear of new
    mission sets for the B-1 as well.
        When it comes to the F-35--and I recognize this is the
    aircraft of the future for the Navy and the Air Force and the
    Marines. Over its lifetime, the F-35 sustainment is projected
    to cost over $1 trillion. Most alarming is that the cost may be
    underestimated. Based on data from the Air Force and the Marine
    Corps concerning F-35 variance at testing and operational
    sites, parts are being replaced on average 15 to 16 times
    higher than the assumptions used across the life cycle of the
    Joint Program or JPO [Joint Program Office] estimate. A GAO
    [Government Accountability Office] report highlights a multi-
    billion-dollar increase in each of the service's flying hour
    programs.
        My question, based on the procurement of 20 additional F-
    35Bs and four additional F-35Cs in 2018, what impact will this
    have on the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps in terms of
    your O&M challenges?
        Lieutenant General Davis. I can answer that one if you
    want?
        Senator Rounds. Yes.
        Lieutenant General Davis. First off, we've got to be
    driving costs out of all of our programs. So we're actually
    running actually shy of the estimates for what it's going to be
    to run the F-35 for the Marine Corps. So we're kind of out
    there in front. The Air Force is building up steam right now.
        But what we're spending to fly the airplane is actually
    less than we estimated. We also just hired an outside firm to
    go look at it, because even though it's less, I'd like it to be
    even less. We believe we can take significant amounts of money
    out of what we're spending just by doing it differently,
    working that in conjunction with the Joint Program Office,
    Lockheed Martin and the engine manufacturers to drive cost out
    of this program.
        So what we do know is we have a winner on our hands. As we
    have more airplanes in the fleet, you actually will be able to
    drive cost out. Right now it's costing a heck of a lot of money
    to fly the legacy airplanes and get readiness out of that, and
    that's a very expensive proposition when you have airplanes you
    can't fly but you're still trying to maintain them because
    they're broken.
        The F-35 has a high readiness rate for us right now, also
    working and driving cost per flight hour down and the O&S cost
    out. So we're attacking it very aggressively. The Marine Corps
    did that as a beta test, but we're sharing our information with
    both the Navy and the Air Force, and we'll do that at the CEO
    conference coming up this week. But we believe we can drive
    cost down significantly, sir.
        Senator Wicker. What about that replacement rate that
    Senator Rounds mentioned? Is that accurate?
        Lieutenant General Davis. I'd have to get back to you on
    break rates for parts.
        Senator Wicker. Admiral Grosklags, is that going to
    continue?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. I think we'd have to get to the
    specific components. I would not be, quite honestly, surprised
    if we saw that for some number of components on the airplane. I
    would also be willing to bet that there is some number that are
    having lives in excess of what we predicted, and that's pretty
    typical with every new aircraft we introduce to the fleet. We
    and the industry make assumptions and calculations on what the
    reliability of every single component is going to be, and then
    we are continually surprised. We have to either buy more
    spares, which is not a good answer, or we figure out how to
    deal with the specific reliability issue associated with those
    components you're talking about.
        Senator Wicker. General Davis, since this is a winner,
    Admiral Grosklags, should we be proud of this aircraft?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. I'll answer it quickly and turn it
    over to Admiral Miller.
        I think so, sir. I think we are in a fairly good place as
    I've been watching the completion of developmental tests.
    General Davis can certainly talk more about how it's performing
    for them operationally, but I think in terms of the development
    process, we're on very solid ground at this point, and I look
    at a couple of key metrics, one of them being software
    stability. As we want to get to the final 3F software
    configuration before we introduce the aircraft in the Navy,
    we're very closely watching the stability, and we have seen
    over the last year to 18 months the in-flight stability go from
    where they were having a system reset or having to do something
    with the system in-flight from about every five hours to the
    most recent software releases are about every 40 hours, which
    is more than acceptable for us right now.
        Senator Wicker. Good to hear it.
        Admiral Miller?
        Rear Admiral Miller. What's that, sir?
        Senator Wicker. That's good to hear, isn't it?
        Rear Admiral Miller. Oh, it's great to hear. We're quite
    excited. General Davis says it's a winner. We absolutely agree.
        I get the question a lot, hey, tell me about the F-35
    versus F-18, and I say it's not a versus. The complementary
    nature of both of these aircraft into the future for our
    aircraft carrier Navy is very exciting. We've taken F-35 out to
    the ship already. About 150 traps, this is with fleet pilots,
    100 percent boarding rate, no 1 wires--it was a dream to bring
    aboard.
        So as we integrate it, the fact that we're getting
    supersonic stealth, data fusion, the sensor netting that this
    airplane is going to be able to provide, it adds capability,
    lethality and survivability not just to the air wing but to the
    entire carrier strike group. The way we integrate it with our
    Aegis ships and our baseline 9 configuration, the way we fight
    it alongside of our--the capability that it brings with the
    capacity that the Super Hornet brings under the control of an
    E2D and with the capability of a Growler is just exciting for
    us guys who are carrier aviators.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you.
        Lieutenant General Davis. Sir?
        Senator Wicker. Yes, General Davis.
        Lieutenant General Davis. On the Marine Corps side, we also
    track the Air Force numbers as well. It's hard to put a
    qualitative number on what an airplane brings to the fight, but
    the Air Force--and we are seeing similar operation in our major
    exercise. We just got back from a big exercise in Alaska, sir,
    20 to zero, 21 to zero. I mean, the exchange rates for these
    airplanes going into highly contested environments, operating
    in weather that we wouldn't be able to operate in before,
    electronic warfare mission, strike mission, air-to-air mission,
    in the hands of what were pretty inexperienced, younger guys
    flying airplanes, it's exceptional.
        The other thing, if you combine that with the Marine Corps
    being all F-35 and F-35Cs. But the ability to go land in an
    expeditionary base--75 percent of our error in the big fight is
    ashore with the capability to go back aboard the ship and 25
    percent aboard the ship.
        For the Marines, where we go, we're probably going to be in
    a kinetic fight. You cannot rule that out. So the ability to
    go, take the airplane from an amphibious ship, go to a strike
    mission, land at a forward operating base ashore, get rearmed
    with the motor down, which we practice with the F-35 right now
    in our weapon school, and get airborne again to go basically
    take whatever number of airplanes that you have look like more
    and be more is a truly incredible capability, and you can do
    that any climate, any place, and any threat.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you.
        Senator Sullivan?
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to discuss an issue that doesn't come up too much
    on the readiness with regard to naval aviation. There was an
    article--and, Mr. Chairman, I'll ask that this be submitted in
    the record. It was from the Marine Corps Times last year titled
    ``Marine Corps Aviation Fleet is in Peril.''
        Senator Wicker. Without objective.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
        One of the things that this article highlighted was it's
    not just readiness but actually the safety of our aviators when
    they're not being able to fly. So this whole article talked
    about how Marine aviation-related deaths hit a five-year high
    in September. This was last year, when fatalities reached 18
    during the first nine months of 2015, and there's a quote from
    a retired Navy commander who is a pilot saying there's a direct
    line between flight hours and mishaps. The less they're flying,
    the less they're training, the less maintenance personnel are
    getting involved, the higher the mishap rate.
        So can you talk about that? We always talk about, hey,
    we're not ready to fight, but maybe even more troubling is our
    lack of readiness is potentially risking the lives of our
    aviators who are already in a very dangerous profession.
        Lieutenant General Davis. Here's how I'd couch that,
    Senator, watch it very closely. Every one of those losses
    affected me personally, deeply. What I would say is we're
    flying safe airplanes. We're not flying them enough.
        I would say probably the bigger threat out there is when
    you don't have enough hours, you can fly according to the book
    safely, but what you're not getting is the looks at the ball,
    not being as proficient as you should be. To me, the primary
    player at risk is the Marine infantryman. They deliver close
    support fire, air-to-air fire, assaults aboard for them, that
    the pilots and the crews aren't as practiced as they should be,
    and doing that under every threat condition that's out there.
        We've not been able to draw a line with the mishaps we've
    had to a lack of proficiency with those crews out there.
        Senator Sullivan. I think it's good, General, that you guys
    are focusing on that because, obviously, readiness is one
    thing, we want that, but if we're losing lives because we're
    not training enough, I think that's--shame on all of us.
        Lieutenant General Davis. As the nation's force, on
    readiness, we have to be ready to go, especially a small force,
    small in size. We're supposed to be in a high state of
    readiness. That readiness has taken a hit over 16 years of
    fighting, flying airplanes that were built in the 1980s at a
    depth to dwell of 1 to 2 that General Miller talked about this
    morning, sir.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Lieutenant General Davis. All that puts wear and tear, and
    it's just not enough time and not enough power tools to train
    the aviators to the degree they need to be truly on their A
    game for that force of readiness. So the risk for us is there.
    We need to get out of this zone of low readiness, low
    inventory, as quickly as we can to provide the fires that we
    need for the Marine Corps to be that force we need.
        Senator Sullivan. I wanted to follow on to Senator Kaine's
    point and what you mentioned, General. I did get to see just
    briefly the F-35 Bravos that were in Alaska. As the Navy and
    the Marine Corps are fielding the F-35s, the discussion about
    having a much bigger range complex for the standoff to be able
    to train better with these fifth-generation aircraft is
    critical.
        So I would welcome all of you to come on up and see the
    Joint Pacific Alaska Range complex (JPARC), which some of you
    might be familiar with. The Air Force, obviously, is very
    familiar. But that has an air size bigger than Florida, and
    we're actually expanding it. You can do CAS. It's got the SAM
    simulations.
        The Air Force is up there a lot. I had General Neller up in
    Alaska two summers ago, and there was a squadron of Hornets
    that had just done the Red Flag exercise and stayed after, and
    they happened to bump into the commandant of the Marine Corps
    on a Sunday morning, which was a little bit, I think, stunning
    for them. But the squadron commander said to the general, to
    General Neller, that that was the best air-to-air training he
    had ever done in his entire career.
        So we would welcome whether it's Northern Edge or Red Flag,
    getting up and seeing that, because there's a dedicated F-16
    Aggressor squadron up there. It's probably the best air-to-air
    training on the planet, and it's only going to get better when
    the F-35s are fully fielded because the space is so huge.
        Any comments on that, about the great training at JPARC?
        Lieutenant General Davis. Sir, I wish I was still flying
    gray airplanes like that so I could be up there in Alaska
    flying with those. I'll tell you, though, and I'll speak for
    the brothers as well, but we like to deploy, we like to go
    train, we like to train hard. It's a great place to train hard,
    up there in Alaska. It's new. It's great adversary support.
        Again, we need to be able to train, as General Miller said
    and the CNO said, to the high-end fight. That's a great place
    to train to the high-end fight. You can do everything you need
    to do in the theory books and all that stuff, and training
    transactionally in garrison. When you get out, you get on the
    road, you go someplace else, you take your unit out there, you
    focus on the task at hand, it's great training in Alaska.
        Senator Sullivan. Also, a lot of CAS opportunity.
        Lieutenant General Davis. Absolutely.
        Senator Sullivan. Admiral, have you ever trained at JPARC?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. I have not. I'm a helicopter pilot,
    so we try to stay out of those cold weather areas if we can.
        [Laughter.]
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. I will comment that one of the
    critical things, whether in Alaska or other places, that we
    need to continue to invest in is the threat simulations or the
    actual threats on the range. That is one of the places where,
    I'll say, we've fallen a little behind. I think there's some
    investment in our budget request exactly for that.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Tillis?
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, thank you for your service, and thank you for
    being here.
        Admiral Grosklags, I wanted to ask you--I think last year I
    asked the question. I assume it's the same answer, that the
    LAFAM facility down at Cherry Point is still a priority, and it
    looks like we're probably two or three years away from
    beginning to see a flow of Joint Strike Fighters--I woke up
    thinking about it this morning--going down to that area. So, do
    you feel like--we were talking about the limits at the Rolls
    Royce factory and the need to stand this thing up. I mean, is
    the run rate in reaching maximum capacity at the Rolls Royce
    facility roughly the same? So the need, the priority is still
    there?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Yes, sir, the priority is still
    there. As we were talking just a minute ago about combatting
    the cost of sustaining these aircraft, one of the things that
    we need to do sooner and one of the things that has been a
    large topic of discussion over the last six months or so with
    the F-35 program office and all the services is standing up
    that depot capability across the board, organic depot
    capability much more quickly.
        So we're trying to pull all of that stuff to the left so
    that we can not only support the aircraft more cost effectively
    but in cases like this just support the aircraft, because the
    vendors, the OEMs [Original Equipment Manufacturers] are
    quickly, I believe, going to be in a spot where they're trying
    to support a significant increase in production at the same
    time they're seeing increase in demand for their repair
    capability, and that's truly our challenge.
        Senator Tillis. Yes. Just to finish this thought and move
    to a related topic, I worked with the state legislature, and
    they're negotiating a budget right now that is a specific
    appropriation for things that the states can do to anticipate
    some of the broader needs that will occur with getting the
    LAFAM facility there and maybe an increase in depot operations
    down there.
        Another topic that came up that I told the legislature to
    look at is the potential hangar capacity to really be able to
    expand and leverage that site down there. Is that something
    that you all agree has potential and a part of that solution?
        Lieutenant General Davis. Sir, we are already starting to
    lay in the money in our five-year plan to start to build out
    Cherry Point. Part of that is hangars. It's ramp improvements
    to handle F-35s. So not only the lift facility at the FRC but
    also, too, the hangars and the construction we need in the
    simulator buildings to bring in F-35s. So we're starting to get
    to a healthier ramp-up. We can certainly use more and faster to
    replace those older airplanes that we're using up. But that
    money is starting to go into the budget now to go build those
    hangars.
        Senator Tillis. Well, there are a number. If you all think
    more broadly when you do that and you increase the operations,
    the number of either civilian or uniformed personnel that are
    going to be down there, to the extent that that suggests some
    need for underlying infrastructure that may be appropriate for
    state investment, I would very much appreciate. We've certainly
    gotten the attention.
        I, for one, wouldn't want you to put the LAFAM facility or
    the hangar in any place that's not what you all consider to be
    the best and highest use. So if you've arrived at the
    conclusion that Cherry Point is one of those places, what I
    would also like to do is make sure that we're ahead of the
    curve on things that we may be able to work with the state
    legislature and the governor, who are very open and supportive,
    because it has an economic impact for the state, and we want to
    make sure that we're doing everything at the state and local
    level to knock down any other challenges that come when you
    expand the capacity down there.
        Lieutenant General Davis. A lot of the infrastructure at
    Cherry Point, sir, is World War II infrastructure. It has not
    been improved since then. So this is sorely needed out there,
    and it's in the plan right now, so we'll look forward to
    teaming with the State of North Carolina to build hangars and
    build facilities as quickly as we can so we get a place to bed
    these airplanes down.
        Senator Tillis. We'll probably submit some questions for
    the record.
        Mr. Chair, I apologize for coming late. I've got to go off
    to another commitment, but I wanted to thank you all. I
    appreciate you getting it on the priorities list and appreciate
    your feedback on anything we can do to facilitate the process.
    Thank you for your service.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Tillis.
        Senator Hirono?
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Davis and Admiral Miller, when Congress agrees to
    support an administration request for multi-year procurement
    authority, it is a serious matter, and this year the Department
    is seeking authority to enter into contracts for economic order
    quantity items with the F-35 contract. EOQ [Economic Order
    Quantity] contracting authority is typically limited to the
    programs that have been approved for multi-year contracting
    authority.
        So why is the Department asking for a multi-year-like
    contracting authority when the F-35 program has not completed
    operational testing? How can you assure us that this is a low-
    risk kind of authorization?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Senator, I'll take that one, if I
    may. What we're specifically asking for is taking approximately
    4 percent of the fiscal year 2019 and 4 percent of the fiscal
    year 2020 EOQ [Economic Order Quality] and pulling it forward
    and executing it with the fiscal year 2018 EOQ. So it's a total
    across all the services--Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force--of
    about $616 million that we would pull forward. That enables
    Lockheed and the other vendors, the makers of the airplanes,
    the engines, et cetera, to go out and buy those long-lead
    materials and get the economic order quantity cost savings.
        What outside agencies have told us, as well as our own
    calculations, the savings associated with pulling that money
    forward would be about $800 million across the three services
    for the aircraft, reduction in aircraft unit cost, because
    we're able to pull that relatively small amount of money
    forward.
        So it's not additional money. It's money that would already
    be spent in fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2020 for those lots
    of airplanes. It's only 4 percent of the EOQ in each one of
    those years, and it does not commit the services nor the
    Congress to actually buying a set number of aircraft in those
    years. So it is not a multi-year procurement from that extent.
    We are committing to absolutely nothing, other than a cost
    savings.
        Senator Hirono. Well, that's good, because I was going to
    say if we're committing to absolutely nothing, why do you even
    need authorization? But, be that as it may, we'll be talking
    with you further about that.
        I have a question regarding--is for General Davis. The
    commandant's unfunded priority list includes a request for two
    C-40A aircraft this year, similar to the request the commandant
    made last year. Last year, the Congress provided two C-40
    aircraft for the Navy in accordance with the CNO's unfunded
    priority list but failed to address the commandant's request.
        I understand that the current aging C-9 aircraft that the
    C-40s would be replacing are now, in the words of Reserve
    Commander Lieutenant General McMillan, hard down and not safe
    to fly. General Davis, do you agree with General McMillan's
    assessment? If you agree that they are hard down and not safe
    to fly, why doesn't the budget request fix this problem?
        Lieutenant General Davis. Senator Hirono, thanks for the
    question. I would say the C-9s are not only hard down but we've
    transitioned them out of the Marine Corps inventory. They're
    gone. We're the only people in the United States military
    flying those airplanes, those old C-9s. It's very difficult to
    get them parts, to get them worked on, and it was, frankly, we
    thought it was too much of a high-risk proposition to be flying
    our Marines around on those airplanes, so we transitioned them
    out. So they're out of the inventory now. We don't own them
    anymore.
        We have a lot of requirements. The C-40s are on the
    unfunded priority list, but if you looked at our other
    inventory challenges with the nation's force and readiness,
    what we have to be ready to do, we do need those C-40s, but we
    also need F-35s, we need 53 kilos, we need C-130Js even more.
    So we are asking for the C-40s, but as far as rank order
    priority, at the end of the day the nation needs the Marine
    Corps to be able to go forward, and I have no options for the
    jets, I have no options for the helicopters, I have no options
    for the C-130Js. So I had to put the priority there. It's not a
    perfect world, but we laid out what we thought we were going to
    be called on to do as a nation.
        But right now, to fulfill that mission, we count on the
    Navy to fly us around when they can. We use C-130s to go with
    the cargo seats, or commercial carriers to do the C-40 mission
    right now.
        Senator Hirono. So with the C-9 aircraft out of your
    inventory, has that impeded the operational support aircraft
    mission flown by the Marine Corps Reserve?
        Lieutenant General Davis. It has. The Marine Corps Reserve
    is flying the UC-35 and the UC-12 for the bigger missions, and
    we transitioned the VMR-1 down to the Reserve unit down there
    in Texas. We're waiting for airplanes to arrive. They're co-
    located with some of the Navy C-40s that are there and looking
    for some help from this body to get those airplanes. It's just
    there's not enough money in our budget to cover everything, so
    they are on the unfunded priority list, ma'am.
        Senator Hirono. Then would you consider the need for the C-
    40 replacements critical at this point for cargo and passenger
    movement?
        Lieutenant General Davis. They are critical for cargo and
    passenger movement, but also too we have war-fighting
    requirements that have to be met as well, ma'am, and that's why
    they're not right at the top of the list.
        Senator Hirono. You and I talked about the problem of
    corrosion, Admiral Miller, and this is something that Admiral
    Grosklags--am I pronouncing the name correctly? Close enough?
    Sorry.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Grosklags.
        Senator Hirono. Grosklags. About two years ago Rear Admiral
    Manazir, speaking before a conference here in D.C., said that
    the corrosion damage on the F-18 fleet was more than expected.
    Many Navy and Marine Corps airplanes and helicopters are
    grounded due to corrosion issues. As corrosion costs the
    Department about $20 billion annually, it seems to make sense
    to provide for preventing corrosion where possible, including
    robust R&D work in this area.
        So can you tell me how the fiscal year 2018 budget request
    impacts the Department's corrosion program and what the
    Department of the Navy is doing in terms of meeting the
    challenges caused by corrosion, and are steps being taken in
    new acquisition programs to ensure that, to the extent
    possible, corrosion can be controlled or prevented?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Ma'am, I can tell you that there is
    not a specific RDT&E line or other line for corrosion
    prevention in our budget. There are funding corrosion efforts
    that are embedded in a number of lines. I'll give you at least
    one example from aviation, and we can go beyond that if you
    want.
        We fund today about 60, 65 individuals that are called our
    corrosion maintenance readiness team, and those individuals are
    at every one of our fleet sites, and their sole purpose in life
    is to help the squadron maintenance professionals understand
    what they need to do in terms of corrosion prevention work on
    the aircraft in those squadrons.
        We've been doing that--we started that back in about 2011.
    We started with F-18s because of the very issue that you
    mentioned earlier, and we had gotten away from it. We had
    gotten away from doing that basic level of corrosion control at
    some of our squadrons. This has reinvigorated that, and we're
    starting to see the benefits. So as we've been tracking this,
    what we have been measuring is the change in the number of
    corrosion hours that our depot artisans have to do on aircraft
    in areas that should have been done at the squadron level. For
    those aircraft that we started this on several years ago, we
    are seeing a significant decrease in the labor hours at the
    depot, so we know we're having an impact and it's worth the
    investment in this particular area.
        On the research and development side, I can also tell you
    we have about nine ongoing projects with universities around
    the nation where we're involved in basic research on materials
    and coatings and that type of thing. We also have as of today
    about 60 funded projects that are being run. This was OSD
    [Office of the Secretary of Defense] money that was given to
    the services. We have about 60 projects that we are running
    with various organizations and companies around the nation,
    again looking at materials, coatings, how to combine the two
    and how to stay away from--I dropped the sink on the word I'm
    looking for, but how to prevent this similar metal corrosion
    even in cases where, from a technical aircraft structure
    aspect, it may make sense, and I'll give you an example.
        Our F-18Es and Fs, considerably greater use of composites,
    a titanium center barrel. These are as opposed to our F-18A
    through D, where we're seeing the problems that you mentioned
    earlier and that Admiral Manazir talked about.
        So on F-18E and F, we're seeing significantly less of that
    deeply embedded corrosion in the aircraft because we changed
    materials, we changed the build process, and we added corrosion
    protection into those aircraft as we built them.
        Senator Hirono. I think it's really important that you are
    paying attention to the corrosion issue because the lifetime
    use of our aircraft can be extended by that kind of attention
    to that matter.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
        General Davis, let's talk about the CH-53K and the costs
    having a marked rise. Can you explain the causes of the cost
    inflation?
        Lieutenant General Davis. I can, sir. A couple of things.
    The costs are staying in band with the estimates that we have.
    There's no threat of a Nunn-McCurdy breach or anything like
    that. So we're staying inside the band for the cost. Sometimes
    people get confused about the cost, are acquisition costs
    really staying very close to what we originally projected. A
    lot of times people dump in the cost out there that includes
    the military construction, includes all spare parts, all the
    engineering and the cost of the airplane. But when you compare
    apples to apples, we're staying very close to our original
    cost.
        We did have a quill problem that we worked our way through
    last year. We are going to build the airplane up in Connecticut
    in case some of the labor rates that we dealt with, with
    Sikorsky and Lockheed Corporation to build the airplane. But at
    the end of the day, this airplane is going to--right now what
    we're seeing in tests is incredible capability. We have to work
    every day----
        Senator Wicker. Another winner.
        Lieutenant General Davis. It is, actually, and there's
    nothing like it in the world that does what the 53K will do.
    It's designed with kind of a clean sheet design to take a
    Marine battalion's worth of gear and lift that in one area of
    darkness from a sea base ashore at a 100-mile distance. That's
    a 36,000-pound lift capability. No airplane in the world can do
    that. The 53K can. So it's an incredible capability.
        I would tell you that as a guy who spent a lot of time in
    college working for minimum wage, you want to keep all the
    costs of these things down. I think we need to hawk that, and
    Admiral Grosklags, Admiral Miller and myself, the commandant
    worked very hard to keep the cost under control and make sure
    that the company is doing right by us, right by the taxpayer in
    keeping costs down.
        What we are finding is an airplane that is very easy to
    maintain. So if you look at the amount of hours, not just what
    it cost to buy it but how many man hours it takes to maintain
    the airplane, a much easier airplane to maintain and sustain
    than the 53E.
        I think, as--you and I have talked, Senator Hirono, about
    the lessons learned about the 53E and what we have to do to
    extract maximum value from that airplane. We did an independent
    range review and, frankly, we stole a playbook from the United
    States Army, who were doing a better job resetting their
    helicopters than we were. We are adopting that very same
    strategy that the United States Army did. So bringing all of
    our 53E's out, resetting them completely, and those airplanes
    on the back side of that reset are much lower cost per flight
    hour. They're running about half what it costs to run an
    airplane that's not been through reset. A properly reset,
    sustained airplane is half the cost per flight hour, which is a
    lot of money.
        So if we maintain it, if we sustain it, we train those
    enlisted Marines the right way, we'll be in much better shape,
    and we'll keep the cost, the total ownership cost of the 53K
    down and have a winning capability for our nation.
        Senator Wicker. So the cost is no surprise.
        Lieutenant General Davis. Right now it's an expensive
    airplane, but it's staying within its cost band, and we have
    every intention of keeping it within its cost band, sir.
        Senator Wicker. At the top of it.
        Lieutenant General Davis. We don't want it to go to the top
    because if we go to the top, we go into a Nunn-McCurdy breach.
    We're not interested in that. We're interested in keeping that
    very close to what the original estimates were for that
    airplane.
        Senator Wicker. Do you think Admiral Grosklags could fly
    it?
        Lieutenant General Davis. I do, and I think he would
    actually want to fly that one in cold weather too, because the
    Marines do fly our helicopters in cold weather, and I've seen
    pictures of Navy helicopters in my first deployment up north of
    the Arctic Circle, in some very cold weather.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Not intentionally.
        Senator Wicker. Admiral Grosklags----
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. I guess this is the first hearing you've
    ever had in which your name has been mispronounced.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Absolutely.
        Senator Wicker. I'm so sorry for that.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Wicker. Let's talk about the Osprey. There's a
    request for multi-year procurement for seven years. Can you
    describe the need for such a long multi-year?
        General Davis, I understand the Marine Corps is studying
    the potential need to increase the V-22 program, a record, from
    360 to 380. Can you update us on that?
        Admiral Grosklags?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. I'll start with the multi-year and
    then pass it over to the General.
        Seven years. Typically we ask for five years for a multi-
    year. Seven years would enable us to buy the remaining total of
    67 Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force aircraft that are
    currently in the three services' plans, notwithstanding your
    question about potentially increasing the Marine Corps
    requirement. Otherwise, if we just got a five-year multi-year,
    we would have the two years and about 20-plus airplanes hanging
    out.
        We've got the cheap single-year cost estimate, which is the
    foundational piece of understanding what our savings will be by
    going to a multi-year. Last week we received the not-to-exceed
    letters from the OEMs, Bell and Boeing in this case, that
    really justify that, and you should see that package coming
    over here to the Hill shortly.
        But the savings in those NTE [not to exceed] letters get us
    10 percent per aircraft. So without getting into the street
    costs right now, we're looking at about $650 million-plus of
    savings across that seven-year multi-year. So it is a bit
    unusual to ask for seven versus five, but we think it's
    justifiable given the savings and the fact that if we leave two
    years hanging out on the end, those aircraft will certainly
    cost us more than if we were able to include them in the multi-
    year.
        Senator Wicker. General Davis?
        Lieutenant General Davis. Sir, we have a study that looks
    at would we want to increase the total program of V-22, and as
    you know, the Marine Corps, we pride ourselves on our ability
    to stay on our mark-up there as far as staying with the program
    of record.
        On the V-22, though, the priority for us is this thing that
    Admiral Grosklags talked about earlier, this common
    configuration reliability and maintainability initiative, which
    is basically going to take all of our earliest V-22s through--
    basically, it's more than a reset. It would bring us up to a
    common configuration. We introduced the V-22 in 2007 and sent
    it directly into combat, and every single year we had it in
    combat we would have these urgent changes to make sure we were
    adapting the airplane for threat conditions, reliability
    conditions for the battlefield.
        On the back side of that, one of our range reviews showed
    us that we had about 77 different variations of V-22s in the
    Marine Corps. If you were a young enlisted Marine, that makes
    it very difficult to maintain, to get high manage rates out of
    that airplane. So job 1 for us is to make them all one
    configuration, V-22, one parts list for the V-22, high
    reliability components on there, and drive costs out of owning
    that airplane. That's job 1 for us right now, and we'll look at
    increasing the--buying the additional 20 airplanes.
        But right now we want to continue our fielding and deliver
    a very high readiness aircraft to the fleet, and that requires
    [inaudible], which is where 52 percent of the readiness
    challenges in the V-22 reside, and then making it so we have
    one parts list, one repair manual, and one configuration of the
    V-22.
        Rear Admiral Miller. Senator, if I may, normally when we're
    having a V-22 conversation, I'd be silent, but this year is
    different in that this budget, the 2018 budget, is the first
    year of the CMV-22 for the Navy. Our request is for six
    aircraft, and the CMV-22 takes the Marine Corps MV-22, adds
    some extra fuel, puts an intercom for passengers in the back,
    and also adds a SATCOM radio for long-distance operations
    overseas, and this is going to replace the carrier on-board
    delivery, the C-2, for our carrier strike groups embedded on
    our aircraft carriers.
        The reason for this change and the reason that we're making
    the move to the CMV-22 is twofold. One, our cods are old and
    need to be recapitalized. Secondly and most importantly, you'll
    see that the CMV-22s are going to be tied to our F-35C
    deployments on the carriers. It's the only thing that can
    actually carry the engine on board, and that's clearly going to
    be critical as we sustain that airplane into the future. So
    CMV-22 will now be a part of the air wing of the future.
        Senator Wicker. Last question, Admiral Miller. What do you
    think about General Davis' upcoming retirement?
        Rear Admiral Miller. I think it's a great day to celebrate
    a fantastic Marine who has dedicated his entire life to the
    defense of this country, sir.
        Senator Wicker. So do I. Is this the sort of career you'd
    recommend to the next generation?
        Rear Admiral Miller. In a heartbeat. As a matter of fact,
    I'd do a re-do if I could, and I'm sure he would as well.
        Senator Wicker. General Davis, you have the last word.
        Lieutenant General Davis. I walked into a recruiting office
    40 years ago as a college freshman needing discipline. I found
    that in the United States Marine Corps, and I didn't even know
    they had airplanes. So the fact that I'm running Marine Corps
    aviation--the three of us, we support and defend the greatest
    country the world has ever seen. It's been an absolute honor
    every single day on Active Duty. I'll miss it, but like
    Cincinnatus, I'll be ready to go help out any way I can in the
    years to come. I love this country, love the Corps, love the
    naval services. Semper fidelis.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much.
        Let's get our questions for the record in by Friday
    afternoon.
        Senator Hirono. General Davis, we want to wish you the best
    in your retirement. Didn't you tell me that your wife wanted to
    move to Hawaii?
        Lieutenant General Davis. She does. She was very angry that
    I never got orders to Hawaii in 37 years.
        Senator Wicker. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at
    3:49 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

        [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

                   Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
                                   dod budget
        1. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Davis, Vice Admiral
    Grosklags, and Rear Admiral Miller, is the President's budget
    sufficient to meet the needs of Navy and Marine Corps aviation in terms
    of readiness and modernization? What are the implications for Naval
    Aviation of returning to Budget Control Act levels of funding?
        Lieutenant General Davis. A return to BCA funding levels will
    jeopardize Marine Aviation's readiness recovery and force us to re-
    prioritize our sustainment funding on units preparing to deploy--at the
    expense of remain-behind units. Efforts to modernize our aviation fleet
    will also be at risk as most of our aircraft procurement programs are
    currently at or near the minimum sustainable production rate and
    reducing procurement of any (e.g. F-35B/C, CH-53K) increases the
    individual unit cost. In addition, Marine aviation will incur
    additional risk by operating rapidly aging legacy aircraft well beyond
    the platform's intended service life. The President's Budget provides
    Marine Aviation the resources to continue to modernize our fleet of
    aging legacy aircraft by procuring F-35 and CH-53K, among others. By
    funding the readiness enabler accounts to their maximum executable
    levels, this budget provides the resources required to continue our
    readiness recovery plan and train a ``ready bench'' by fiscal year
    2022. Stable, predictable funding for sustainment and aviation spares
    accounts is critical to our ability to increase our number of flyable
    aircraft so that we can fulfill our responsibility as the Nation's
    Force in Readiness.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget
    (PB18) builds on the fiscal year 2017 (FY17) readiness investments to
    address programmatic shortfalls and achieve greater wholeness, both now
    and into the future. Although PB18 is a critical step in readiness
    recovery, PB18 alone is insufficient to fully address aviation
    readiness and modernization. The Department's significant readiness
    debt was accrued over years of high optempo, budget reductions and
    fiscal uncertainty, and it will take time, sufficient funding and
    stability to fully recover.
        Returning to BCA funding levels would reverse the readiness
    recovery progress made in fiscal year 2017 and exacerbate shortfalls.
    Naval Aviation would be unable to provide the trained and ready forces
    the nation needs in both the near and long term. The Navy overall would
    be too small and lack advanced and asymmetric capabilities needed to
    conduct our primary missions.
        Rear Admiral Miller. The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget (PB18)
    builds on the fiscal year 2017 (FY17) readiness investments to address
    programmatic shortfalls and achieve greater wholeness, both now and
    into the future. Although PB18 is a critical step in readiness
    recovery, PB18 alone is insufficient to fully address aviation
    readiness and modernization. The Department's significant readiness
    debt was accrued over years of high optempo, budget reductions and
    fiscal uncertainty, and it will take time, sufficient funding and
    stability to fully recover.
        Returning to BCA funding levels would reverse the readiness
    recovery progress made in fiscal year 2017 and exacerbate shortfalls.
    Naval Aviation would be unable to provide the trained and ready forces
    the nation needs in both the near and long term. The Navy overall would
    be too small and lack advanced and asymmetric capabilities needed to
    conduct our primary missions.
                             physiological episodes
        2. Senator McCain. Vice Admiral Grosklags, how much funding does
    the budget request include for addressing physiological episodes in
    Navy aircraft? The Navy has repeatedly referred to its ``resource
    unconstrained'' efforts to mitigate and solve the PE problem. In other
    words, money, time, and personnel are no object. Is there any program
    or project which needs more funding?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The President's Budget currently funds
    $4.211 million of RDTEN for physiological monitors and an Enhanced
    Emergency Oxygen System in efforts to solve the PE problem. There are
    currently no PE-related programs or projects that require additional
    fiscal year 2018 funding. As continuing investigations identify root
    causes and solutions, additional funding may be required.

        3. Senator McCain. Vice Admiral Grosklags, please describe the
    Navy's most recent efforts to mitigate physiological episodes.
        Is a limited number of vendors hindering equipment modification
    efforts? Can industry produce enough specialized components?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The Navy's most recent efforts to mitigate
    physiological episodes center on alerting, protecting, preventing, and
    monitoring. Specific actions include performance of maintenance
    activities to ensure the hygiene and integrity of the breathing gas
    system and to functionally check and recertify critical systems sensors
    and components that affect its designed functionality; air quality will
    be measured for all aircraft. System modifications include addition of
    a water separator and a new oxygen monitoring system. All flights
    include sorbent tube assemblies and hydrocarbon detector devices issued
    to all aviators to measure the quality of the breathing gas reaching
    their masks.
        The breathing gas system is highly specialized and there are a
    limited number of vendors in this industry sector. That said, current
    industrial and sustainment capacity for onboard oxygen generating
    system (OBOGS) components had been planned and resourced at a level
    consistent with current demand for specialized components, yet some
    capacity shortfall does exist. Given this condition, all known
    industrial partners capable of aiding in root cause resolution and
    manufacturing capacity have increased their participation and
    production capacity to support expeditious resolution of PE issues.

        4. Senator McCain. Vice Admiral Grosklags, what is the latest
    projection for when T-45s will be back training student pilots at their
    full envelope?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Student syllabus events began the first
    week of August.

        5. Senator McCain. Vice Admiral Grosklags and Lieutenant General
    Davis, students have not flown since April 14. What are the
    implications for pilot production? Has this reached a critical stage?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. As of 21 July CNATRA has lost 30 percent of
    its yearly production and missed delivery of 154 FRS seats. We do not
    expect any new T-45 students from CNATRA in the 3rd QTR of fiscal year
    18. CNATRA is working with FRS and PERS-43 to understand the impacts of
    lost throughput to the fleet, impacts to the careers of instructors and
    students, and mitigation measures for each. CNATRA has identified its
    flight training priorities for the return to training and is working
    with NAVAIR to identify options to restore lost throughput such as
    expanded support capability and incentives for Contractor Logistics
    Support maintenance. CNATRA is also working with PERS 43 and our
    Reserve component to identify additional instructor support. Dispersed
    across the 58 VFA, VAQ, VAW, and VRC squadrons, such a shortfall can be
    managed in the near-term through routine personnel distribution
    measures (tour extensions and re-tours of some fleet squadron junior
    officers), coupled with minor manning adjustments to non-deployed units
    while keeping our deployed units fully manned.
        Lieutenant General Davis. As of 21 July CNATRA has lost 30 percent
    of its yearly production and missed delivery of 154 FRS seats. We do
    not expect any new T-45 students from CNATRA in the 3rd QTR of fiscal
    year 2018. CNATRA is working with FRS and PERS-43 to understand the
    impacts of lost throughput to the fleet, impacts to the careers of
    instructors and students, and mitigation measures for each. CNATRA has
    identified its flight training priorities for the return to training
    and is working with NAVAIR to identify options to restore lost
    throughput such as expanded support capability and incentives for CLS
    maintenance. CNATRA is also working with PERS 43 and our Reserve
    component to identify additional instructor support. Dispersed across
    the 58 VFA, VAQ, VAW, and VRC squadrons such a shortfall can be managed
    in the near-term through routine personnel distribution measures such
    as tour extensions and re-tours of some fleet squadron junior officers,
    coupled with minor manning adjustments to non-deployed units while
    keeping our deployed units fully manned. Based on CNATRA N3's
    assessment that training flights will resume at the end of August or
    early September 2017, HQMC Aviation expects minimal short-term impacts
    to pilot production. To date, USMC FRSs have not missed any starts
    based on students awaiting training. If training commences in
    September, the pool of students awaiting training will deplete and we
    project only five missed FRS starts. However, if training delays
    continue past September the number of missed starts will increase each
    month. By December, the cumulative missed FRS starts would be 26. Long-
    term impacts are insignificant if T-45 commences in September as
    forecasted. If delays continue past September and into the first half
    of fiscal year 2018, impacts can be offset by adjusting pilot
    assignments of existing TACAIR pilots.

        6. Senator McCain. Vice Admiral Grosklags and Lieutenant General
    Davis, since these aircraft do not have automatic PE sensors,
    maximizing data collection is critically important. Collecting and
    analyzing more flight data will help us find the root cause. As
    students begin flying again, can you assume this committee that all
    aircraft--both operational and training--will include data collection
    tools such as hydrocarbon detectors and sorbent tube assemblies? Given
    the Navy's ``resource unconstrained'' commitment to fixing this
    problem, I would be concerned if the Navy was not making every effort
    to collect data.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Hydrocarbon detectors and sorbent tubes are
    data collection tools being provided for all T-45 aircrew. Instructors
    and student aviators are required to have these devices incorporated
    into their flight gear. Additional physiological episode (PE) sensors,
    data collection and analytics are being investigated and aggressively
    pursued to include automated sensing monitoring and reporting
    technology that measure aircraft performance and/or human performance
    related to PEs. Aircraft also have a new O2 monitoring system and
    incorporate a water separator to improve system operation.
        Our current plan is to also outfit all F-18 aircrew with sorbent
    tube assemblies and hydrocarbon detectors. This is being accomplished
    as the components become available.
        Lieutenant General Davis. Hydrocarbon detectors and sorbent tubes
    are data collection tools that will be issued for all T-45 aircrew.
    Instructors and student aviators will have these devices incorporated
    into their flight gear prior to return to flight with the onboard
    oxygen generating system (OBOGS). Additional physiological episode (PE)
    sensors and filters to include an O2 monitor and vest pocket aircrew
    filter are being investigated and aggressively pursued. Data collection
    and analytics to include automated sensing monitoring and reporting
    technology that measure aircraft performance and/or human performance
    related to PEs remain a priority and will be fielded expeditiously.
    (NAVAIR, CNAP N40, DASN, N98 CHOP)
                                industrial base
        7. Senator McCain. Vice Admiral Grosklags, how would you describe
    the state of the industrial base that supports Navy and Marine Corps
    aviation programs? What must this subcommittee be particularly mindful
    of related to the industrial base?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The state of the Navy/Marine Corps aviation
    defense industrial base is directly related to timely and stable
    budgets which drive steady weapon system design, manufacturing, and
    operations & sustainment programs. With resource and program stability,
    the defense industrial base can maintain a highly trained work-force,
    support long-term continuity of operations, and make prudent
    investments in manufacturing and depot tooling/robotics that can
    sustain, and if necessary, surge to meet current and projected future
    warfighter readiness demands.
        The subcommittee should be particularly mindful in understanding
    that a design engineering and sustaining engineering/logistics core of
    highly trained personnel are required for each weapons system and that
    many industrial sectors and sub-contractors that support our national
    security requirements are also supported by highly competitive
    commercial markets that are larger than the Department of Defense
    (DOD). If business operations do not support timely and consistent
    contract awards that support long-term profitability, vendors can and
    do walk away from the defense sector. In particular, the industrial
    sector is routinely impacted by shifts in DOD demand as a result of
    budget fluctuations and constraints and the demands placed on them by
    statutes and derived regulations.
                 multiyear procurement or block buy authorities
        8. Senator McCain. Vice Admiral Grosklags, are there programs that
    would benefit from cost reduction initiatives, such as Multiyear
    Procurement or block buys, that do not currently have these
    authorities?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The V-22 program is currently benefiting
    from the Congressional approved fiscal years 2013- 2017 Multi-Year
    Procurement (MYP) II contract. Given the lower costs, stabilization of
    contractor work force and continuity of production facilitated by MYP
    contracts, V-22 has requested a fiscal year 2018 Congressional
    authorization of a MYP III strategy through the established
    certification process. The Department of Defense expects the proposed
    follow-on MYP to yield significant savings and industrial base
    benefits, while instilling confidence in the international community
    and generating additional V-22 sales that will increase overall MYP
    savings.
                            future carrier air wing
        9. Senator McCain. Vice Admiral Miller, what is your vision for the
    future carrier air wing?
        Rear Admiral Miller. The future of Naval aviation continues to
    face, and must pace, a rapidly evolving threat. Substantial force
    modernization is required to pace the threat in the near term and
    through the 2024-2030 timeframe. The Air Wing of the future will be
    lethal, survivable, relevant, networked, sustainable, flexible and
    increasingly unmanned and autonomous. This Air Wing will decisively
    defeat increasingly advanced near peer threats using a balanced mix of
    4th and 5th generation aircraft; netted sensors, systems and weapons;
    and include manned and unmanned capabilities.
          Lethal. A 4th and 5th generation strike fighter mix
    provides the necessary complementary capacity and capability required
    through the 2030s. The Navy's planned strategy for sustaining and
    recapitalizing strike fighters is reliant on fully funded readiness
    sustainment accounts, strike fighter utilization management, and F/A-
    18E/F and F-35C procurement. Future Air Wings will include two F-35C
    squadrons and two F/A-18E/F squadrons with a minimum of 44 Strike
    Fighters. This makeup provides the best balance between capability,
    capacity and affordability.
          Survivable. The EA-18G Growler is the Department of
    Defense's single aviation platform with the capability to detect and
    identify emitters as well as provide passive precision targeting and
    connectivity. Future integration of the Next Generation Jammer will
    improve electronic attack capabilities and contribute to outpacing
    future threats. To defeat more technologically advanced threats, the
    Navy expects an increase from five to seven aircraft per Air Wing.
          Relevant. The Navy is conducting strike fighter
    assessments for sufficiency (capacity) and proficiency (capability)
    gaps in the 2025 and beyond timeframe when F/A-18E/F and EA-18G
    aircraft begin reaching the end of service-life. This analysis,
    referred to as Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD), will inform future
    balances for Air Wing capability, capacity, affordability and risk
    across the family of Air Wing systems. NGAD will support the full range
    of military operations, be foundational to future air-sea battle
    engagements and a critical element for Joint operations.
          Networked. Countering advanced threats requires
    battlespace awareness dominance. The Air Wing of the future will
    utilize five E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes (multiple simultaneously airborne)
    to process tremendous amounts of battlespace information producing
    actionable decision space. The Navy is conducting a study to identify
    the correct number of E-2Ds per squadron required to fully implement
    future capabilities of the Air Wing. The Air Wing of the future will
    rapidly share multi-spectrum sensor and target information across the
    battlespace while countering threat sensors and weapon capabilities
    using robust, secure and survivable tactical data link networks. These
    systems will fuse information from multiple input sources into a clear
    and accurate common operational picture.
          Sustainable. The oldest aircraft currently operating from
    the flight deck is the C-2 Greyhound. In fiscal year 2018, the Navy
    begins procurement of a new Air Wing logistics aircraft--the CMV-22
    Osprey. The Osprey will provide increased flexibility and range to our
    fleet logistics capability and is the only aircraft capable of
    transporting the F-35 engine to the Carrier Strike Group.
          Flexible. The multi-mission MH-60R combat helicopter will
    continue to support Air Wing of the future requirements for Anti-
    Submarine Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare, Naval Surface Fire Support,
    Search and Rescue and Logistics Support with an 11 aircraft squadron.
    Five helicopters will embark the aircraft carrier and six will embark
    the Carrier Strike Group's cruisers and destroyers. Similarly, the
    multi-mission MH-60S combat helicopter provides Anti-Surface Warfare,
    Personnel Recovery, Naval Special Warfare Support, Search and Rescue
    and Logistics Support with an 8 aircraft HSC squadron. Six helicopters
    will embark the aircraft carrier and two will embark a supporting
    auxiliary ship. By 2025, as MH-60R/S approaches service life limits and
    requires a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) and Mid-Life Upgrade
    (MLU) program. These programs will modernize, sustain and extend
    service life.
          Increasingly Unmanned and Autonomous. MQ-25 Stingray will
    be the Navy's first unmanned Air Wing platform and will increase the
    lethality and reach of the Air Wing as a tanker with a secondary
    Intelligence, Surveillance and Targeting (ISR&T) roll. The Navy will
    leverage unmanned and autonomous systems as they become more available
    and affordable. These systems could fill diverse rolls in a future Air
    Wing in missions such as refueling, communications relay, logistics,
    airborne electronic attack, strike and ISR&T. Unmanned and autonomous
    teaming will reduce risk to the force, increase access to denied areas,
    increase force capability and capacity at lower costs.

        10. Senator McCain. Rear Admiral Miller, the Air Force Research
    Laboratory's Loyal Wingman program seeks to pair unmanned aircraft with
    a fifth generation fighter. How do you envision such manned-unmanned
    teaming manifesting in naval aviation and with strike-fighters in
    particular?
        Rear Admiral Miller. The Department of the Navy is committed to the
    use of unmanned capabilities providing communications relay nodes;
    Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, Targeting (ISR&T);
    refueling; logistics; Airborne Electronic Attack; and strike.
    Integration of these systems with manned systems will reduce risk to
    the force, provide access to areas previously denied to manned
    platforms, increase force capability and capacity at lower costs, and
    provide distributed intelligent battlespace awareness.
        Continued research is required to determine how to most efficiently
    use inexpensive, unmanned systems. This enables our 5th generation
    manned aircraft to maintain the tactical advantage. How the Navy
    envisions employing these systems would need to be addressed at a
    higher classification.
                           f/a-18 super hornet block
        11. Senator McCain. Rear Admiral Miller, can you please describe
    the Navy's plan and timeline for upgrading its Super Hornet fleet?
        Rear Admiral Miller. The F/A-18E/F will be the Navy's predominant
    strike fighter platform into mid-2030s. President's Budget 2018
    requests procurement of 14 F/A-18E/F aircraft in fiscal year 2018
    (FY18) and an additional 66 aircraft across the Future Years Defense
    Plan, with upgrades to Block III configuration starting in fiscal year
    2019. Block III is designed to be complementary to the capability
    delivered in F-35 and E-2D. The Navy's fiscal year 2018 Unfunded
    Priorities List itemizes an additional 10 aircraft procurement.

        12. Senator McCain. Vice Admiral Grosklags and Rear Admiral Miller,
    please describe how the Navy is preparing for the Service Life
    Extension Program (SLEP) for the Super Hornet using the lessons learned
    from our experience with the Legacy Hornets.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Lessons learned from legacy Hornet have
    resulted in a significantly different approach for Super Hornet service
    life extension. Material supply challenges and non-standardized repair
    requirements driven by material condition challenges have hampered
    legacy Hornet life extension efforts. For the first several years, the
    Super Hornet Service Life Modification (SLM) program will be
    accomplished at a Boeing commercial depot rather than using organic
    depot facilities. This approach will leverage the supply chain and
    technology of the currently active F/A-18E/F Super Hornet production
    line while incorporating the latest industry best practices to
    standardize production flow and speed delivery of extended life
    aircraft. New facilities will enable Boeing to perform engineering
    dispositions and resource/supply material requirements for this effort
    under the SLM Contract. In addition, protocols have been established to
    ensure knowledge gained from material condition findings during SLM are
    incorporated into fleet preventative maintenance practices resulting in
    better aircraft material condition at induction. Taken in the
    aggregate, these efforts are expected to minimize material issues,
    enhance service life extension predictability and reduce SLM cycle
    time, thus returning aircraft to fleet customers in less time than
    under previous efforts.
        Rear Admiral Miller. Navy's planned Super Hornet service life
    extension program (referred to as the Service Life Modification (SLM)
    program) was developed around lessons learned from the Legacy Hornet.
        Legacy Hornets were inducted into organic depots late in their
    service life cycles for life extensions. These aircraft were
    significantly degraded with unplanned material condition issues. This
    drove unplanned material supply requirements and resulted in non-
    standardized repair efforts. Additionally, Legacy Hornet service life
    extensions used an ``inspect and then repair'' model. This model forced
    additional time for aircraft extensions and further strained throughput
    at the depot. The Navy plans to reduce the time required (relative to
    Legacy SLEP) by conducting concurrent overhaul and aircraft
    modification (SLM earlier in the aircraft's life cycle).
        Learning from Legact Hornets, the Navy funded a Super Hornet
    Service Life Assessment Program (SLAP) to identify maintenance and
    material required to extend Super Hornet service life and minimize
    aircraft maintenance backlog. ``Early-learning'' Super Hornets were
    recently inspected to inform this analysis. ``Early-learning'' Super
    Hornets were recently inspected to inform this analysis. Preliminary
    data indicates material degradation is as originally expected by
    analysis. These two ``early-learning'' aircraft are about to undergo
    destructive teardown. The results of the early inspection will aid in
    the SLM specification development, inspection techniques, and build of
    materials that will be required to extend the life of these aircraft.
        To mitigate Navy depot throughput constraints during Legacy SLEP,
    Super Hornet SLM will be accomplished at a Boeing commercial facility
    (with more capability) for the first several years. This approach will
    leverage the supply chain and technology of the currently active F/A-
    18E/F Super Hornet production line while incorporating the latest
    industry best practices to standardize production flow and ensure
    efficient timlines for SLM completions.
        The Navy also established protocols to ensure knowledge gained from
    material condition findings of ``early-learning'' aircraft and those
    undergoing SLM are incorporated into fleet preventative maintenance
    practices. This effort will be used to address material condition
    issues early and minimize major (unexpected) aircraft material
    condition issues.
        The Navy is making every effort to minimize material issues,
    enhance service life extension predictability and reduce SLM cycle time
    based on lessons learned from the legacy Hornet extensions. These
    efforts will ensure SLM aircraft minimize unexpected costs and are
    returned to the warfighter as fast as possible.
                            strike-fighter shortfall
        13. Senator McCain. Rear Admiral Miller, please update us on the
    Navy's strike-fighter shortfall, efforts to alleviate it, and the
    biggest challenges to overcome.
        Rear Admiral Miller. The Navy's biggest challenges for Strike
    Fighter Inventory Management (SFIM):
        (1)  Unexpected Demand and Consumption Rate: F/A-18E/Fs were
    designed and delivered with a 6,000 flight hour service life. Heavy
    warfighting demand around the world over the past decade consumed these
    flight hours much sooner than expected. Recapitalization has not kept
    up with the level of aircraft the Navy ``consumes'' each year. The
    Navy's current deficit is projected to grow higher by 2024 as
    additional fleet aircraft reach the 6,000 hour service life limit.
        (2)  F/A-18E/F Service Life Modification Program (SLM): F/A-18E/Fs
    begin to reach designed limits (6,000 hours) next year. The Navy needs
    to extend the life of these aircraft to 9,000 hours to meet SFIM
    targets through 2035. As F/A-18E/F SLM begins, the Navy needs to plan
    for 15 percent of aircraft inventory (``pipe'') to be in extended depot
    maintenance at any given time. Extension of aircraft life will
    ultimately reduce procurement requirements, but some recapitalization
    investment is required to avoid significant gaps on the flight line
    beginning in the early 2020's.
        (3)  F-35C Delays: Due to the F-35C Initial Operational Capability
    delay from 2012 to 2019, the lack of F-35C procurement has increased
    the impact of not replacing F/A-18s. These aircraft would have provided
    the needed replacement ``flight hours'' for F/A-18A-F.
        (4)  Readiness: An expeditious and effective lever for the
    Department to increase readiness is for the Navy to accelerate
    divestment from Legacy F/A-18A-D. Accelerating transition to Super
    Hornets will allow cost savings and reduce depot maintenance workload.
    As the Navy approaches the end of the extended service life for
    Hornets, the cost per flight hour continues to rise. Additionally,
    there are shortages in the Department of the Navy's (DON) spare parts
    and supply system that have contributed to flight line readiness
    challenges, as well as our ability to extend the service life of these
    airframes. Accelerated divestiture of operational Hornets will avoid
    further costly repairs and depot inductions. Working together, the Navy
    and Marine Corps are developing a DON solution to efficiently and
    effectively sundown legacy F/A-18A-Ds.
        The Navy is taking the following actions to help mitigate the
    shortfall:
        (1)  Prioritizing funding for aviation readiness, flying hour and
    enabler accounts.
        (2)  Managing and conserving hours on our aging fleet.
        (3)  Extending aircraft service life from their originally planned
    6,000 hours to 9,000 hours using our aviation depots and commercial
    assistance. We expect to induct 60-70 aircraft per year.
        (4)  Procuring new aircraft (both F/A-18E/F and F-35C).
        The Department will continue to meet operational demand with
    continued support of strike fighter procurement that paces retirements,
    modifications that increase capability, and service life extensions.
        To overcome years of underfunding aviation readiness accounts
    coupled with continuous high operational tempo and delays to the F-35C
    program, we require a disciplined commitment toward increased funding
    of enabler accounts and increased procurement of both FA-18E/Fs and F-
    35Cs. Efficiencies and desired ROI will be maximized only through
    stable and consistent funding throughout the Future Years Defense
    Program.
                         f/a-18 service life extension
        14. Senator McCain. Vice Admiral Grosklags, please describe what
    the Navy is doing to improve depot throughput for Legacy Hornets and to
    apply lessons learned to the looming service life extension program for
    the Super Hornet.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The Navy has several initiatives underway
    that are designed to improve depot throughput. First, Critical Chain
    Project Management (CCPM) is a rigorous, theory-of-constraints based
    approach designed to maximize depot throughput by performing an
    exhaustive analysis to identify and alleviate constraints affecting the
    production, material, and engineering pillars associated with depot
    maintenance. Second, the Navy is implementing a consolidated end-of-
    life management strategy for the F/A-18 A-D that better aligns major
    depot maintenance events. Finally, by continuing to execute the SLEP,
    through by complete development and fielding of all required structural
    modifications, depot maintenance will become more predictable and less
    variable from one induction to the next as inspections continue to be
    replaced by modifications and standard work.
                   unfunded priority list--f/a-18e/f request
        15. Senator McCain. Rear Admiral Miller, the CNO's Unfunded
    Priority List has 10 additional Super Hornets as the Navy's #1
    priority. Given the strike-fighter shortfall and concerns about
    aviation readiness, why were these aircraft not included in the
    President's budget request?
        Rear Admiral Miller. The Navy's Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget
    (PB-18) includes procurement of 14 Super Hornets to mitigate the strike
    fighter shortfall. In addition, PB-18 increases investments in aviation
    readiness accounts and enablers, such as flying hours, air depot
    maintenance, logistics and spares. Both the procurement and readiness
    investments will increase the number of ready available strike fighter
    aircraft. Additional aircraft procurement was not included in PB-18 in
    order to prioritize other readiness recovery and improve program
    balance across the entire Navy portfolio, consistent with the Secretary
    of Defense's three-phase campaign. Years of high optempo, funding
    reductions and budget uncertainty have resulted in a significant
    readiness debt that cannot be fixed in one year--it will take years of
    sustained commitment to readiness in order to fully recover. PB-18
    delivers the best balance of resources to improve all aspects of
    readiness within fiscal controls.
                           ea-18g growler requirement
        16. Senator McCain. Rear Admiral Miller, the Navy has completed it
    planned procurement of 160 EA-18G Growlers. Navy leadership has
    testified to Congress that 160 fulfills the Navy requirement for
    Growlers, but the number needed to fulfill the joint requirement is
    still being evaluated. Do you believe the Navy requires more Growlers
    to fulfill the needs of the joint force?
        Rear Admiral Miller. The Navy has a sufficient number of EA-18G
    Growlers to support current Joint force requirements. The Joint Staff
    plans to reassess the joint force requirement following review of the
    National Defense Strategy.
                   electronic warfare--next generation jammer
        17. Senator McCain. Rear Admiral Miller, the Navy is currently
    developing an advanced electronic warfare system, the Next Generation
    Jammer, currently planned to only be carried by the EA-18G Growler. How
    does the Navy envision operating these Jammers? Is the currently
    planned number of Growlers sufficient to effectively employ the NGJ?
        Rear Admiral Miller. Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) is a powerful
    electronic warfare jamming technology designed to allow strike aircraft
    to destroy enemy targets without being detected by modern surface-to-
    air missile systems. NGJ will be employed to protect fighter and
    stealth aircraft, allow penetration closer to intended targets and
    increase probability of mission success.
        The Navy has a sufficient number of EA-18G Growlers to support
    current Joint force requirements. The Joint Staff plans to reassess the
    joint force requirement following review of the National Defense
    Strategy.

        18. Senator McCain. Vice Admiral Grosklags, the Next Generation
    Jammer (NGJ) has been designated the first program in a ``SkunkWorks''
    pilot that aims to streamline the acquisition process. Can you describe
    how the NGJ has benefited from this approach and any programs currently
    using this approach or that are planned to use it in the future?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. USD(AT&L) and ASN(RDA) selected the Next
    Generation Jammer Mid-Band (NGJ-MB) program (formerly known as
    Increment 1) as the first Skunk Works program in April 2015 following
    the program's Development Request for Proposal Release Decision Point.
    The program was formally chartered on September 17, 2015, and the Skunk
    Works management construct has been implemented. The benefits of the
    Skunk Works charter to NGJ have been directly realized as reduced
    administrative and oversight burden as a result of tailored
    documentation and milestone processes. Documentation tailoring includes
    the optimization of regulatory requirements and delegation of document
    approvals. Milestone process tailoring includes elimination of the
    traditional OSD Defense Acquisition Board process and the Navy Gate
    Review process, including associated preparatory reviews such as
    Overarching Integrated Product Teams. These are replaced with a program
    execution review process overseen by an Executive Management Board
    (EMB). The EMB brings together key leadership from the Navy and OSD to
    review program execution at relevant, and more frequent, program
    knowledge points, rather than just the traditional milestones. The EMB
    is supported by a 'core team' of empowered subject matter experts from
    the EMB offices. The core team actively participates in the program in
    order to transform traditional external oversight and influence into
    hands-on insight. EMB reviews are conducted directly and concurrently
    with both ASN(RDA) and USD(AT&L), eliminating multiple pre-briefs at
    both the Navy and OSD levels, therefore allowing the program to focus
    on program execution. To date, three EMB reviews have been successfully
    executed: a post Preliminary Design Review; a Technical Deep Dive/
    Milestone B held at the contractor site; and a post Critical Design
    Review summary and recent wind tunnel test overview held at the
    Pentagon.
        The NGJ-MB Skunk Works charter has been expanded to include the
    Next Generation Jammer Low Band program (NGJ-LB) (formerly Increment 2)
    and is pending final approval by USD(AT&L).
           marine air ground task force electronic warfare (magtf ew)
        19. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Davis, when the last EA-6B
    Prowler squadron sundowns in 2019, the Marine Corps will no longer have
    a dedicated airborne electronic attack aircraft. How will the Marine
    Corps through the MAGTF [MAG-TAFF] EW systems of systems replace the
    electronic surveillance and electronic attack capabilities of the
    Prowler? Will the lack of a dedicated airborne electronic attack
    aircraft community create a capability gap for the Marines?
        Lieutenant General Davis. The Marine Corps' approach to electronic
    warfare (EW) after the EA-6B sundowns will ensure that the MAGTF
    commander has access to EW assets that are adaptable, scalable, and
    collaborative. There are several initiatives that will be used to meet
    and modernize the Corps' capacity and capabilities for electronic
    warfare support (ES) and electronic attack (EA). These initiatives will
    be complementary to our sister Services' programs, providing the joint
    force with diverse and flexible options for EW. The Intrepid Tiger II
    (IT II) pod is currently carried on the AV-8B, F/A-18, UH-1Y. The IT II
    pod provides EA against communications targets--an organic capability
    that the MAGTF commander has previously lacked. Future platforms for IT
    II integration include the MV-22B, KC-130J, AH-1Z, RQ-21A, and CH-53K.
    IT II Block X was funded for technology development starting in fiscal
    year 2016 and is funded through the FYDP. This variant will provide
    counter-radar EA--again, a capability that the MAGTF commander has
    historically lacked. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter possesses inherent
    EW capabilities and the Marine Corps is exploring options to further
    expand this ability. The Marine Corps intends to retain its existing
    airborne EA-6B EW expertise to the maximum extent possible. We are
    offering in-service transitions to EA-6B aircrew so they may continue
    to contribute to the operating forces and supporting establishments.
    The personnel structure (106 billets) currently allotted to the EA-6B
    community has been re-allocated to a mixture of operational and support
    billets, predominantly concentrated in the UAS community. To equip the
    UAS community with the material solutions to conduct EW, the Marine
    Corps has fully funded in POM-18 through the FYDP an IT II payload for
    the RQ 21A. Future Marine Corps Group 4/5 UAS platforms will also be
    key airborne EW nodes for the MAGTF. To date, (53) EA-6B aircrew have
    been selected for MOS transition (EA-6B Pilot: F-35B, F/A 18, MV-22B,
    KC-130J, C-9), (EA-6B Electronic Counter Measures Officer: F/A-18
    Weapon Systems Officer, Student Naval Aviator, UAS). EA-6B aircrew MOS
    transitions will continue to be offered for the foreseeable future. Any
    structure lost as the EA-6B sundowns is consistent with the overall
    drawdown of Marine Corps total strength.
                        joint strike fighter operations
        20. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Davis, could you provide an
    update on F-35B operations since VMFA-121 moved to Japan?
        Lieutenant General Davis. Since moving to Japan in January of this
    year, VMFA-121 has executed over 1,033 flight hours and 470 sorties (as
    of 19 Jul 17). They are the first USMC unit to field CAT I Pilots
    (first-tour aviators) into the Operational Fleet. As the first F-35
    unit, they have participated in exercises Northern Edge and Distant
    Frontier in Alaska. They have flown Close Air Support (CAS) training
    missions over the Korean Peninsula in support of the Korean Marine
    Exchange Program exercise with our partnered nation (ROK Marines). They
    have also conducted CAS training missions in Okinawa in support of III
    MEF ground units to include inert ordnance employment. VMFA-121's
    recent flight operations also validated adaptive basing concepts in
    support of future strategic and operational plans by conducting
    distributed aviation operations, expeditionary refueling, joint Forward
    Arming Refueling Point, and ``hot'' reloading evolutions (rearming the
    aircraft while the engines are still running). Lastly, they have begun
    in-depth planning for the first shipboard deployment with 31st Marine
    Expeditionary Unit scheduled in spring 2018.

        21. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Davis, the F-35B brings new
    capabilities and operational possibilities to the Marine Expeditionary
    Unit and you have discussed the vision of linking Marine Expeditionary
    Units (MEUs) more closely into the joint force. However, those new
    capabilities and operating concepts require investment in shipboard
    infrastructure to include upgraded data links. Please discuss your
    vision for L-class ship connectivity and current plans to achieve that
    vision.
        Lieutenant General Davis. The Marine Corps Operating Concept
    imposes an operational requirement to command and control (C2) the
    Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) from the sea base during
    operational maneuver from the sea and distributed enhanced MAGTF
    operations. To meet this requirement for enhanced C2 while embarked,
    and exploit the improved capability of the F-35B, we must improve the
    capability of the LHD/LHA to send, receive, and distribute C2 data.
    This includes shipboard integration of weapons coordination as well as
    control and status reporting with remote land, air, surface, and sub-
    surface units. The F-35B provides great potential for increased
    capability within the MAGTF, Naval and Joint Force--but only if it is
    appropriately integrated. In forums, councils, wargames and concept of
    operations development over the past decade, we have carefully
    identified current and future requirements that will ensure integration
    between the F-35B, the MAGTF Tactical Data Systems, and L-class ships.
    These requirements outline the human and system interfaces for
    commanders and decision makers to access the operational environment
    and information network and enable effective C2 of all fires and
    aviation assets in support of the MAGTF afloat and ashore. Five areas
    of improvement are identified to achieve system level digital
    interoperability: Improved Link-16 capabilities to support C2 in a
    digital environment, track data exchanges, electronic warfare, mission
    assignment, target engagement order/status, imagery, and free text
    messages. Improved Variable Message Format (VMF) to support digital C2
    track data, mission assignment data (e.g. Close Air Support, Airspace
    Control, and Fire Support Control Measures, Call for Fires), imagery,
    and free text messages. Ability to send/receive Intelligence,
    Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) Full-Motion Video/Still Imagery
    Photograph (FMV/SIP) receipt via Common Data Link (CDL). Integrated
    Combat Systems and local area networks cross-domain solutions to
    support exchanges of track, targeting, electronic warfare, cyber, ISR
    and C2 data to supporting systems and functional agencies. Sufficient
    network and communications capacity to provide increased throughput and
    reach back to facilitate F-35B pre-flight data upload, in-flight
    information exchange, and post flight mission data downloads and ISR/
    FMV/SIP on-board and off-board distribution. At a minimum, the end-
    state is to elevate the capability of the Amphibious Ready Groups and
    Marine Expeditionary Units to match the information exchange
    capabilities of today's Carrier Strike Groups. Ideally, these
    capabilities would be elevated to match the F-35B's 5th Generation
    sensing and fusion capability in order to effectively command and
    control the amphibious force in the future operating environment.
    Beginning in 2018, the F-35B will represent the nation's most-advanced
    (5th generation), forward deployed, counter Anti-Access/Area Denial
    (A2/AD) capability for a period of several years. The requirement to
    implement the identified solutions is valid, compelling, and urgent.
    Additionally it is critical to synchronize and track ship upgrades and
    deployment schedules to avoid a gap in capability.

        22. Senator McCain. Rear Admiral Miller, what do you view as the
    biggest challenges to successful integration of the F-35 into the
    carrier air wing?
        Rear Admiral Miller. The largest challenge to F-35C Carrier Strike
    Group (CSG) integration is aligning F-35C capability procurement with
    investments in other current and future CSG platforms. Full F-35C
    integration and interoperability (across all CSG platforms) ensures
    critical battlespace awareness and dominance across all spectrums of
    Naval operations. The Navy needs these capabilities to fight and win.

        23. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Davis and Rear Admiral
    Miller, Navy leaders have testified regarding their concerns about the
    sustainment model and costs for F-35. What recommendations do you have
    to increase the affordability and transparency of F-35 sustainment?
        Lieutenant General Davis. The Marine Corps' concerns are being
    addressed; we remain engaged throughout the Global Support Solution
    (GSS) development process and the program's ``blueprint for
    affordability.'' Over the course of the past year, the Joint Program
    Office (JPO) made significant strides in developing, refining and
    implementing the F-35 GSS. The USMC remains committed to this
    architecture as outlined in the ``Hybrid Product Support Integrator''
    (HPSI) initiative and continues to monitor the implementation of the
    GSS. Simultaneously, select subject matter experts from various Marine
    Corps competencies have been participating in its development, which is
    categorized as a ``best of breed'' construct. This new GSS concept
    contains elements from both the JPO and USAF proposed models. The best
    recommendation from my view is to continue to adjust the program based
    on the lessons learned from our experienced folks as the processes
    mature, and not become married to our current construct. We are
    confident that our concerns are being addressed and that the program is
    headed in the right direction for sustainment.
        Rear Admiral Miller. Increasing the affordability and transparency
    of F-35 sustainment remains a top priority for the Department of
    Defense. The Joint Program Office (JPO), the Services and Industry
    partners have committed to reduce overall F-35 operating and
    sustainment life-cycle cost by 30 percent.
        The Navy is evaluating acceleration of organic depot capabilities
    to provide cost-effective aircraft support while augmenting the
    Original Equipment Manufacturing (OEM) existing capacity. While OEM
    production requirements remain high, acceleration of depot capabilities
    will ensure efficient production and maintenance of aircraft.
        Recent efforts, including the combined Joint Strike Fighter Program
    Office, Hybrid Product Support Integrator (HPSI) and the Marine Corps
    Pathfinders Campaign, evaluate operational/sustainment costs and
    aggressively pursues cost reduction initiatives. Additionally, with a
    shared vision, mission and objectives, the Services, industry and
    international partners plan to deliver Global Sustainment Support
    framework, coupled with maturing HPSI in order to increase F-35
    sustainment affordability and transparency.
                          f-35 follow-on modernization
        24. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Davis and Rear Admiral
    Miller, the follow-on modernization for the F-35 is scheduled to bring
    key warfighting capabilities to the fleet, but the schedule and budget
    remain in flux. Are you concerned about the affordability and
    executability of the Department's plan for Block 4 Follow-on
    Modernization?
        Lieutenant General Davis. Follow-on-Modernization (FoM) is critical
    for the F-35 program to remain the most advanced, capable and lethal
    platform against current and emerging threats in the air-to-air and
    air-to-ground arenas. FoM efforts focus specifically on developing
    capabilities that pace the threat and complete the required kill
    chains. The schedule and budget are certainly a concern and we work
    diligently with the JPO and our partners. While the structure of the
    Block 4 program may deviate from its current state, I have no doubt
    that the capabilities contained within the program will deliver the
    best schedule technologies and budgets will allow. We monitor FoM
    closely and remain actively engaged.
        Rear Admiral Miller. The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) is
    continuously evaluating processes and methods to bring capabilities to
    the fleet. These efforts include an ongoing 90 day study to evaluate
    capability delivery timelines and associated costs. The Department of
    the Navy (DON) will review this study to inform decisions concerning
    DON Joint Strike Fighters and Follow-on Modernization.
        Significant threat capabilities have reached Operational Capability
    in the late 2010s and will continue to improve into the early 2020s.
    Multiple marks against the F-35 Modernization Program Element have
    delayed necessary pre-engineering contract work which, if not funded in
    fiscal year 2018, could delay capability delivery to the warfighter.
    This adversely impacts our ability to adequately pace the threat
    resulting in increased warfighting risk.
                            f-35 program management
        25. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Davis and Rear Admiral
    Miller, does the Joint Program Office management structure properly
    align responsibility and accountability? What are your views on
    alternative management structures for the F-35 program, such as
    establishing separate service or variant program offices rather than
    maintaining a joint program office?
        Lieutenant General Davis. Ultimately, the Department of the Navy
    seeks to develop, procure, and deliver the most combat capable weapon
    system to the warfighter in order to meet operational requirements.
    While the Joint Program Office handles overall program management well,
    it is incumbent upon each service and partner nation to recognize the
    challenges of fleet integration and requirements definition and adapt
    to overcome these concerns. Much like other Marine Aviation programs,
    Headquarters Marine Corps has a team dedicated managing Marine Corps F-
    35 requirements. Today, it is critical to our success to have an
    external program management structure that coordinates and focuses
    service and partner requirements and manages vendors in order to
    maximize efficiency and effectiveness of the program. While there are
    certain pieces of the JPO structure and operation that may need to
    change and evolve as we move forward, I do not believe that having each
    service stand-up its own program office is the answer. If each service
    produced its own program management office, the layers in the program
    would only increase and synchronization would decrease.
        Rear Admiral Miller. In response to Section 146 of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328),
    the Department has initiated a comprehensive study of potential
    alternative management structures for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
    program. This study will also address the alignment of responsibility
    and accountability across the Department of Defense's F-35 enterprise.
    The study is presently on-going, led by the Office of the Under
    Secretary of Defense Acquisition, Technology & Logistics with
    representation from each of the services and a report will be submitted
    to your committee by December 30, 2017.
                            airborne data link plan
        26. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Davis and Rear Admiral
    Miller, you both have talked about the importance of networks to your
    visions of Naval and Marine aviation. The committee is concerned that
    the Department of Defense's ideas for airborne data links have lacked
    vision and been disjointed. Please discuss your efforts in this area
    and how you are ensuring that the Navy and Marine Corps are
    interoperable not only with each other, but with the Air Force and Army
    as well.
        Lieutenant General Davis. The United States Marine Corps is
    leveraging the capability of a software reprogrammable payload, which
    will host waveforms from the Joint Tactical Networking Center DOD
    Waveform Information Repository. This enables an infrastructure of air
    data links that leverages the standardized DOD waveforms, including
    TTNT and Link-16 in the short term, and provides the flexibility to
    adjust to new waveform capabilities via the inherent reprogrammable
    framework. Additionally, the Marine Corps is maturing a gateway
    technology that enables the Service to exchange data between compatible
    and non-interoperable networks. Marine Aviation is working closely with
    NSA to overcome the challenges of handling the multi-level security
    challenges inherent in this approach. The Marine Corps' efforts align
    with the Marine Operating Concept.
        Rear Admiral Miller. The Navy achieves secure tactical
    communications using different tactical data link waveforms for diverse
    missions and platforms. This complexity requires different types of
    tactical datalinks to meet differing requirements.
        The Link-16 network is planned to remain the foundation for Navy
    Tactical Data Links (TDL) for the foreseeable future. Worldwide, there
    are more than 10,000 Link 16 terminals integrated in the Navy, the
    Marine Corps, the Army, the Air Force, and the 43 partner nation's
    combat systems. Currently, all Navy and Air Force tactical aircraft
    either have Link 16, or are in the process of being upgraded to this
    capability. Seamless network integration in a combat environment (with
    so many diverse systems) remains one of the highest priorities of the
    Department. Link-16 working groups, across all Military Services,
    review interoperability regularly. The US Coast Guard and international
    partners are also included where appropriate.
        The Navy uses a number of other tactical data links that fulfill
    requirements that are different or mutually exclusive of the Link 16
    attributes and capabilities. Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum mission
    requirements that differ from Link 16 specification is one reason other
    TDLs are required. Some alternative TDLs that the Navy uses for
    tactical communications are Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC),
    Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) and Tactical Targeting Network
    Technology (TTNT).
        CEC uses a common architecture and uses the exact same hardware,
    software, messages and algorithms amongst the participants to achieve
    interoperability.
        MADL exists only on the Joint Strike Fighter and similarly achieves
    network interoperability by using a common architecture including
    hardware, software, messages and algorithms amongst the participants to
    achieve interoperability. MADL is common among all variants of F-35 to
    include the F-35 sold to partner nations.
        TTNT is currently on DON platforms only, but could be integrated on
    other services' platforms. TTNT is a transport mechanism that provides
    an internet protocol (IPv4) enabled waveform and uses commonly defined
    message formats such as JPEG, HTML and XML. Common applications and
    common messages among TTNT platforms ensure interoperability.
        Interoperability from Joint Publication 1-02 is the condition
    achieved among communications-electronics systems or items of
    communications-electronics equipment when information or services can
    be exchanged directly and satisfactorily between them and/or their
    users. The discussion above is summarized in that context in the table
    below.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            usmc aviation readiness
        27. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Davis, Marine Corps aviation
    readiness appears to still be in a crisis. How did we get here, what
    are you doing to improve readiness, and what are the biggest challenges
    to overcome?
        Lieutenant General Davis. Marine aviation support to OEF and OIF
    utilized aircraft at wartime surge rates for over a decade, including
    in 2013 at the onset of sequestration. A shrinking force and continuous
    deployments, combined with fiscally constrained budgets and the loss of
    skilled artisans, set the current conditions. The reduction of contract
    services and funding shortfalls resulted in a degraded aviation force
    that was in need of a reset. Since 2014, with the end of OIF and a
    major force reduction in Afghanistan, the Marine Corps continues to
    respond to the Nation's requirements with Marine Expeditionary Units.
    However, lack of available amphibious ships forced the Marine Corps to
    adapt and create a forward-deployed, land-based crisis response force
    to protect the Nation's interests abroad and respond at a moment's
    notice. In an effort to recover readiness, Marine Corps leaders have
    prioritized and balanced funding between readiness accounts and
    procurement of new aircraft to enable recovery. 2016 was a transitional
    year, and while some efforts for recovery of funding were identified,
    the majority of long-term recovery efforts began in 2017. There are
    many reasons for these reduced readiness numbers. Budget constraints
    lowered readiness funding; High Operational Tempo; Aging aircraft have
    not been replaced or reset. Less-than-optimal procurement rates to
    replace over-age and aging aircraft, which is critical to maintaining
    our capability over near peer competitors; Spares--Aircraft Not Mission
    Capable Supply rates are 25+%; RBA recovery has stalled. There is a
    two-year lag between funding readiness accounts and realized gains;
    Continued support of readiness and Flight Hours Program is critical;
    RBA aircraft is 441. Marine aviation requires 589 to maintain T-2.0 and
    690 to achieve a ready bench. The flight hour metric, while not the
    only measure of capability, is an indicator of the depth of the
    material bench and of the ability to surge. Marine aviators and aircrew
    operate in high-tempo environments, flying increasingly complex mission
    profiles. The time between operational deployments is decreasing, the
    inventory of aircraft to train with is decreasing and today's aviators
    are not getting enough ``looks at the ball'' to ensure they are as
    proficient as they should be. Marine aviation initiated six Independent
    Readiness Reviews (IRRs) beginning in December 2014. To date, AV-8Bs,
    CH-53Es, H-1s, MV-22s, as well as an aviation ground MISHAP review are
    complete. These reviews, led by independent leaders outside the Naval
    Aviation Enterprise, provide different perspectives, assessments and
    courses of action to achieve positive gains and meet readiness
    requirements. Since implementation, there are more Ready Basic Aircraft
    (RBA) on the flight line than previous years, and the recovery effort
    focuses on four primary lines of effort: 1) Depot throughput; 2) In-
    service repairs; 3) Non-mission capable supply; 4) Non-mission capable
    maintenance. The common thread in each IRR focused on non-mission
    capable supply aircraft and identified funding shortfalls in readiness
    accounts as a critical factor. PB-18's focus is to fund these accounts
    to to the maximum executable level, ensuring stable and predictable
    funding to support Marine Aviation's recovery to training levels by
    fiscal year 2020 and a ready bench by fiscal year 2022. Four main
    factors surfaced within each IRR (with different combinations in each
    Type/Model/Series): People, Parts, Process, and Funding. The Marine
    Corps is tackling these components head-on. Continuing resolutions and
    delays in budgets have stalled recovery in the short-term. The real key
    to reducing risk in capacity and recovering future readiness is through
    recapitalization of the fleet--transitioning to new aircraft. The
    Marine Corps is 41 percent through its aviation fleet transition of
    every type/model/series. Twenty-eight squadrons are complete with 40
    awaiting transition. This recovery plan balances current readiness and
    modernization to maintain and increase our operational advantage as we
    procure a new aircraft and transition to a modern force.
                                  v-22 osprey
        28. Senator McCain. Vice Admiral Grosklags, the President's budget
    request includes a request for authority for multiyear procurement for
    7 years. Can you describe the need for such a long multiyear?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The proposed follow-on multi-year
    procurement contract (MYP III) spanning seven years (fiscal years 2018-
    2024) would buy out the remaining domestic aircraft program of record.
    Buying out the remaining requirement (44 CMV-22 for the US Navy and 21
    MV-22 for the US Marine Corps) under a single MYP is the most cost
    effective means to complete the production phase of the program.
    Competing resource requirements and the constraints imposed by the
    Budget Control Act preclude the Department from completing the program
    of record under a five year MYP contract. If MYP III were only to cover
    five years, the requirement remaining after the MYP would likely be
    unaffordable. Including these final two years under a seven year MYP is
    expected to net an additional $223 million in savings.
        A seven year MYP III continues affordable procurement, provides
    stability to industry and maintains a production line and contractual
    foundation to attract future V-22 international sales/customers. Long-
    term stability and lower costs provide incentives for prospective
    international V-22 customers which benefits both the Department and the
    industrial base.

        29. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Davis, I understand the
    Marine Corps is studying the potential need to increase the V-22
    Program of Record from 360 to 380. Can you provide an update on that
    study and what an increase in the PoR would mean for the proposed
    multiyear?
        Lieutenant General Davis. Marine Corps Concept Development &
    Integration's Operational Analysis Division recently completed a study
    concerning future capability and warfighting capacity within the MV-22B
    community. The study suggests an increase of 20 MV-22B aircraft to the
    Program of Record (PoR) may be required to meet future Major Combat
    Operation demands and account for projected attrition losses. The
    Marine Corps is not currently increasing its MV-22B PoR but will
    continue assessing potential requirements.
                  navy and marine corps air-launched munitions
        30. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Davis and Rear Admiral
    Miller, in your judgment, are your air-launched munitions inventories
    sufficient to support current operations and the Defense Strategic
    Guidance writ large? Are there individual air-launched munitions whose
    inventories, either present or projected, are insufficient to meet
    requirements? If so, what are they and what is being done to address
    the shortfalls?
        Lieutenant General Davis. The Department of the Navy (DON)
    continues to lag behind the Total Munitions Requirement (TMR) for Air-
    to-Air and Air-to-Ground weapons. In order to fill the current
    munitions shortfalls, the DON will continue to rely on legacy weapon
    variants to bridge the gap in quantity but this does not address
    shortfalls in capability. Due to challenges from the Budget Control Act
    and resultant funding inconsistencies, there are a number of weapons
    that lack capacity and capability. Budgetary constraints have also had
    the same effect on the industrial base and their ability to address
    capacity shortfalls, capability upgrades and parts obsolescence issues.
    The DON conducts detailed analysis on a yearly basis which analyzes our
    current inventory referencing OPLAN requirements and attempts to
    determine risk mitigation strategies in regards to munitions funding
    shortfalls.
        Rear Admiral Miller. The Department of the Navy (DON) is committed
    to maintaining the Total Munitions Requirements for Air-to-Air and Air-
    to-Ground weapons but continues to lag. To fill capacity shortfalls,
    DON relies on legacy weapon variants. Decreased funding across DON's
    air launched weapons portfolio has resulted in lower procurement
    numbers. This shortfall is compounded by a constrained industrial base
    that has struggled to address capability upgrades, parts obsolescence
    issues and would find it very difficult to increase production to
    address capacity shortfalls. DON conducts yearly inventory analysis and
    establishes risk mitigation strategies to support operational
    requirements around the world.
                                advanced weapons
        31. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Davis and Rear Admiral
    Miller, what steps are the Navy and Marine Corps taking to ensure they
    have munitions that are relevant and effective against the increasingly
    difficult defenses our potential adversaries are developing and
    fielding?
        Lieutenant General Davis. It is an imperative that the Department
    of the Navy (DON) has a force with the capability and capacity to fight
    and win against any of our five major challengers (China, Iran, North
    Korea, Russia, and Violent Extremism) by investing in advanced weapon
    systems that increase lethality for both the current and future force.
    We are engaged towards implementing our vision of greater tactical and
    technical innovation to provide the right capability in the hands of
    the warfighter, on schedule, and in the most affordable manner possible
    but are disadvantaged by fiscal constraints and budget instability. Our
    strategy is based in part by the transition/update to major components
    of the Carrier Air Wing (CVW), Expeditionary Strike Group and land-
    based Expeditionary Wings, and includes: manned and unmanned aviation
    system teaming; integration of warfighting capabilities to ensure
    multiple systems operate together across platforms, weapons, networks
    and sensors; advanced computing; and incorporation of commercially
    driven technology to provide a technological advantage over
    adversaries. In the near-term, we have implemented a series of
    modernization programs to legacy weapon systems that includes
    technological upgrades to Tactical Tomahawk, Harpoon/BLK II, and AIM-
    9X/BLK II. In the mid-term we are investing in new development programs
    as the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile and Small Diameter Bomb II. For the
    long-term, we have developed a Cruise Missile Strategy to develop the
    next generation of long-range strike weapons that will enable Carrier
    Strike Groups, Amphibious Strike Groups, Surface Action Groups and
    individual firing units to project power across the global commons,
    against near-peer threat nations and non-state actors. Answered via
    DASN(Air)
        Rear Admiral Miller. The Department of the Navy (DON) is committed
    to maintaining a force with the capability and capacity to fight and
    win. Investments in advanced weapon systems increase lethality for both
    the current and future force. Providing needed warfighter capabilities,
    when needed, and in an affordable manner, is often challenged by fiscal
    limitations and budget instability.
        The Department's strategy focuses on transition and modernization
    of needed capabilities for the Carrier Air Wing, Expeditionary Strike
    Group and land-based aviation squadrons of the future. This effort
    includes advancements in manned and unmanned aviation system teams;
    maximization of sensor, payload and platform capability integration;
    and advanced computing. Commercially driven technology should provide a
    technological advantage over adversaries.
        In the near-term, DON has invested in modernization programs to
    legacy weapon systems that includes technological upgrades to Tactical
    Tomahawk, Harpoon Block II and AIM-9X Sidewinder Block II.
        In the mid-term, DON plans investments in new development programs
    such as the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile and Small Diameter Bomb II.
        In the long-term, DON's Cruise Missile Strategy focuses on the next
    generation of long-range strike weapons that will enable the Carrier
    Strike Groups, Amphibious Strike Groups, Surface Action Groups and
    individual firing units of the future to project power across the
    global commons against near-peer threat nations and non-state actors.

        32. Senator McCain. Vice Admiral Grosklags and Rear Admiral Miller,
    in your statement for the record you state that the Department intends
    to develop and acquire an Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)
    Increment 2, yet the budget zeroes our the funding for the effort. Can
    you explain the Navy's plan and why this effort is being delayed when
    threat advancements are not?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The Department of the Navy (DON) requested
    funding for OASuW Increment 2 (OASuW-2) in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal
    year 2017 to meet a 2024 Initial Operational Capability. These requests
    were not funded due to ``early to need'' justifications. In President's
    Budget 2018 (PB18) request, funding reductions for OASuW-2 were
    necessary to address immediate fleet readiness issues which delayed
    fielding these capabilities. An OASuW-2 material solution remains a key
    component of DON's long-range Cruise Missile Strategy. DON will
    continue to evaluate a cost effective and timely solution to mitigate
    additional delays in fielding OASuW-2.
        Rear Admiral Miller. The Department of the Navy (DON) requested
    funding for OASuW Increment 2 (OASuW-2) in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal
    year 2017 to meet a 2024 Initial Operational Capability. These requests
    were not funded due to ``early to need'' justifications. In President's
    Budget 2018 (PB18) request, funding reductions for OASuW-2 were
    necessary to address immediate fleet readiness issues which delayed
    fielding these capabilities. An OASuW-2 material solution remains a key
    component of DON's long-range Cruise Missile Strategy. DON will
    continue to evaluate a cost effective and timely solution to mitigate
    additional delays in fielding OASuW-2.
                             usmc unmanned roadmap
        33. Senator McCain. General Davis, please discuss the roadmap for
    Marine Corps unmanned systems, and in particular L-class ship-based
    unmanned systems, including MuX.
        Lieutenant General Davis. The USMC unmanned roadmap provides for a
    family of unmanned aircraft systems that will support any sized MAGTF
    for influence of the electromagnetic spectrum, battlespace awareness,
    offensive air support, target acquisition, force protection, and
    digital communication backbone. The Marine Corps' small unit leaders
    are supported by the Small Unit Remote Scouting System (SURSS) Family
    of Small UAS and provide Marines at the lowest tactical level the
    decision-speed and decision-space to out-maneuver and outpace the enemy
    by providing for and having the most current and accurate battlespace
    information at their disposal. In accordance with the Commandant's
    guidance, we are aggressively pursuing man-portable technology
    solutions to be deployed with Marine Corps infantry that support a
    single operator while offering multi-mission and multi-intelligence
    capabilities to ensure significant battlespace awareness with kinetic
    capability. The Marine Corps is currently operating the RQ-21 aboard L-
    class shipping with our Marine Expeditionary Units. Unlike most type/
    model/series, the RQ-21 deployed simultaneously to multiple operational
    deployments across the globe within six months of initial operational
    capability in July of 2016. In addition to flying over 2000 combat
    flight hours in support of Marine Special Operations in Operation
    Inherent Resolve, the RQ-21 has successfully deployed aboard the 22
    MEU, 24 MEU, and will shortly expand out to the PACOM AOR with the 15th
    MEU. Equipped with a day/night electro-optical sensor, Link-16 (system
    dependent), a communications relay package, as well as a collection
    payload, the RQ-21 has performed admirably in both combat and peacetime
    missions to include humanitarian assistance operations. The Marine
    Corps' next L-class capable UAS will be the MAGTF Expeditionary UAS
    (MUX). While seeking opportunities to achieve affordable and cost-
    effective technical solutions, MUX will be built to be shipboard
    capable and expeditionary. It will provide multi-sensor, electronic
    warfare, C4 bridge, anti-air warfare and strike capability at ranges
    complimentary to the MV-22 and F-35, giving MAGTF commanders flexible,
    persistent, and lethal reach. It will provide scalable MAGTF support
    deploying as detachments or squadrons supporting commanders at the
    tactical, operational, and strategic levels. We are currently working
    with Combat, Development, and Integration, Naval Air Systems Command,
    as well as industry, to establish requirements and secure the most
    viable and efficient acquisition pathway for MUX.
                                 mq-25 (cbars)
        34. Senator McCain. Vice Admiral Grosklags, the Navy has designated
    the MQ-25 one of the first Maritime Accelerated Capabilities Office
    (MACO) programs, yet the schedule in the budget docs does not appear to
    show anything close to an accelerated program, with first flight in
    fiscal year 2024 and ICO in fiscal year 2028. Please describe how the
    Navy intends on ensuring this is in fact a rapid program.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The MQ-25 program office (PMA-268) and all
    industry partners remain engaged to identify opportunities to
    accelerate first flight and Initial Operational Capability (IOC) to
    meet a fiscal year 2024 IOC objective. The Department of the Navy (DON)
    has introduced the framework to accelerate acquisitions through the
    following two instructions:
        1) Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Instruction 5000.42, Department
    of the Navy Accelerated Acquisition for the Rapid Development,
    Demonstration and Fielding of Capability, December 22, 2016.
        2) Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) Instruction 5000.53, Navy
    Accelerated Acquisition for the Rapid Development, Demonstration, and
    Fielding of Capabilities, March 15, 2017.
        SECNAV Instruction 5000.42 establishes the Maritime Accelerated
    Capability Office (MACO) which enables rapid development, demonstration
    and fielding of capability to the fleet. MQ-25 was designated a MACO
    program on March 24, 2017, and empowers the staff of the Chief of Naval
    Operations (CNO) and the Program Executive Officer, Unmanned Aviation
    and Strike Weapons, (PEO (U&W)), to identify and address systematic
    issues associated with the acquisition process to accelerate IOC when
    compared to a traditional program. Additionally, these instructions
    establish the Accelerated Acquisition Board of Directors (AA BoD), co-
    chaired by the CNO, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
    Development and Acquisition (ASN(RD&A)), and when required the
    Commandant of the Marine Corps. The AA BoD provides oversight of MACO
    designated programs and facilitates direct access by MACO program
    stakeholders to DON leadership for expeditious decision making that
    will aggressively manage cost, schedule and performance enabling
    accelerated capability to the Fleet.
        MQ-25 is the first program designated by the Deputy Secretary of
    Defense as a Key Performance Parameter (KPP) Reduction Pilot Program
    per Section 854 of Public Law 114-328, the fiscal year 2017 National
    Defense Authorization Act. This designation reduces rigid, non-
    warfighter KPPs and facilitates DON requirements ownership and
    oversight in order to manage cost, schedule and performance throughout
    the acquisition process. Additionally, MQ-25 was the first Navy program
    with parallel Navy and Joint Staff Capability Development Document
    staffing. This resulted in accelerated validation of requirements so
    the Navy can remain focused on draft RFP feedback prior to formal
    source selection and contract award.
        The DON will continue to assess every aspect of the entire
    acquisition process to identify opportunities to accelerate the MQ-25
    program. The MQ-25 program is fully funded in fiscal year 2017 and
    fiscal year 2018 to execute an accelerated source selection and
    contract award process. The CNO is committed to addressing out year
    funding requirements to support an accelerated IOC in future budget
    submissions. Acceleration of MQ-25 will require stable, predictable
    funding support from all quarters to ensure success.
                              ch-53k king stallion
        35. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Davis, the costs for the CH-
    53K have seen a marked rise. Can you explain the causes of the cost
    inflation?
        Lieutenant General Davis. Along with normal inflation, additional
    factors for increased cost include labor rate increases from the OEM,
    schedule delays, a revised estimate for engines, and a shallow
    procurement ramp. Although cost has increased, this program is not in
    danger of a Nun Mc-Curdy breach.

        36. Senator McCain. Lieutenant General Davis, can you describe why
    the USMC needs the exquisite capabilities the King Stallion will bring?
        Lieutenant General Davis. The CH-53E Super Stallion entered service
    in 1981--the average age of the aircraft it 28 years old. It is the
    only heavy-lift helicopter in the DOD rotorcraft inventory. Although a
    very capable platform, the out of production CH-53E is 55 aircraft
    short of the required inventory and maintenance man-hours for the CH-
    53E have doubled due to age and obsolescence. More importantly, the CH-
    53E cannot lift 100 percent of today's vertical MAGTF--the payloads and
    ranges required to support the ship-to-objective maneuver concepts
    outlined in Marine Operating Concept exceed the capability of the CH-
    53E. The CH-53K provides three times the lift capability under the same
    ambient conditions, and is the only fully marinized, heavy-lift
    rotorcraft capable of supporting current and future warfighting
    concepts by lifting 100 percent of the vertical MAGTF for approximately
    the same projected O&S cost as the legacy CH-53E. The CH-53K will be a
    game-changer for the MAGTF by providing unprecedented heavy lift with
    increased range and payload, interoperability, and survivability.
                                   __________
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Luther Strange
                               f-35 capabilities
        37. Senator Strange. Rear Admiral Miller, the F-35 currently does
    not have a powered, internal-carriage, air-to-surface/ground standoff
    weapon. Given that such a weapon would minimize drag while enhancing
    survivability by maintaining the aircraft's low-observable
    characteristics, does the Navy consider that situation to indicate a
    potential capability gap? If so, is it receiving consideration
    regarding future weapons procurements?
        Rear Admiral Miller. There are scenarios where internal carriage,
    air-to-surface/ground standoff weapon would be advantageous in the
    future fight and the Navy will continue to balance all capabilities
    against available funding in order to field the required force to meet
    threats in accordance with Defense Planning Guidance scenarios. The
    Navy fights as an integrated Carrier Strike Group (CSG) and does not
    rely on any one platform to provide needed capabilities. The Navy is
    committed to developing and deploying a broad range of weapons systems
    to address threats in the next decade, including long-range, precision,
    air-to-surface/ground weapons. Through the 2020s, the CSG will include
    both 5th and 4th generation aircraft and will continue to develop
    capabilities that can be employed for both.
                         f-35's operational environment
        38. Senator Strange. Rear Admiral Miller, while recent military
    conflicts have been in permissive environments, it appears that the
    likelihood of conflicts in high-end, non-permissive environments (like
    those that could occur with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea) has
    risen. Given that 5th Generation aircraft like the F-35 were developed
    so they could operate in such environments, is there a reason that no
    5th Generation standoff weapons that leverage the F-35s unique
    capabilities (like internal carriage) are currently being developed? If
    such weapons were developed by partner nations, would they be
    considered to address that apparent shortcoming?
        Rear Admiral Miller. The Navy fights as an integrated Carrier
    Strike Group (CSG) and does not rely on any one platform to provide
    needed capabilities. The Navy is focused on meeting the requirements in
    Defense Planning Guidance and committed to developing and deploying a
    broad range of weapons systems to address threats expected in the next
    decade. This includes long-range, precision, air-to-surface weapons.
    The CSG requires a mix of 4th and 5th generation aircraft. It is
    critical to develop capabilities that can be employed effectively from
    both. There are scenarios where internal carriage, along with other
    survivability features, would be advantageous in the future fight. The
    Navy will continue to balance capabilities against available funding to
    field the capability required to meet the threat.
        If North Atlantic Treaty Organization partner nations develop and
    produce 5th generation weapons, with inherent capabilities to survive
    in rigorous flight and austere maritime environments (where the Navy
    operates), the Navy would be very interested in exploring options to
    expand capability and increase competition within the industrial base.
                      negative impacts on mission packages
        39. Senator Strange. Rear Admiral Miller, does the lack of an
    internally-carried, powered, standoff weapon for the F-35 negatively
    impact the types of mission profiles the F-35 can fly in non-permissive
    environments?
        Rear Admiral Miller. There are scenarios where internal carriage,
    along with other survivability features, would be advantageous in the
    future fight and the Navy will continue to balance all capabilities
    against available funding in order to field the required force to meet
    threats in accordance with Defense Planning Guidance. The Navy fights
    as an integrated Carrier Strike Group and does not rely on any one
    platform to provide needed capabilities. The Navy is committed to
    developing and deploying a broad range of weapons systems to address
    threats in the next decade, including long-range, precision, air-to-
    surface weapons.
                             adversary capabilities
        40. Senator Strange. Rear Admiral Miller, given the ``tyranny of
    distance'' and the long range of potential adversary air defense
    systems currently confronted by the Navy, would an air-to-surface/
    ground weapon for the F-35 that extended the aircraft's engagement
    range while maintaining its low observable radar signature be
    considered to be of significant utility?
        Rear Admiral Miller. The Navy is committed to developing and
    deploying a broad range of weapons systems to address threats in the
    next decade, including long-range, precision, air-to-surface/ground
    weapons. The Navy fights as an integrated Carrier Strike Group (CSG)
    and does not rely on any one platform to provide all required
    capabilities in accordance with Defense Planning Guidance scenarios.
    Through the 2020s, the CSG will include both 5th and 4th generation
    aircraft and will continue to develop capabilities that can be employed
    for both.
                                   __________
               Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
                                     ch-53k
        41. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Davis, the CH-53K ``King
    Stallion''--the replacement for the only true heavy lift helicopter--
    will play an integral role for the U.S. Marine Corps in the coming
    decades, providing significant improvements to the CH-53E ``Super
    Stallion'' predecessor--three times the external lift capacity, greater
    range capability, and better reliability to move heavy equipment for
    longer distances from sea to land. Replacing the legacy CH-53E remains
    crucial as low numbers of flyable aircraft is impacting the current
    state of Marine Corps aviation readiness. The CH-53K program
    successfully reached Milestone C earlier this year. What does heavy
    lift capability bring to the Marine Corps? How will it be improved with
    the CH-53K? Can any other helicopter meet heavy lift requirements?
        Lieutenant General Davis. The CH-53K will provide unprecedented
    heavy lift along with increased range, payload, interoperability, and
    survivability. This aircraft leverages technology to increase
    reliability, maintainability (reduced maintenance man-hours as compared
    to the CH-53E), and reduce overall cost of ownership. This aircraft is
    optimized for vertical heavy lift--delivering heavy equipment, supplies
    and troops--to mass combat power in the objective area that was
    previously not possible. In addition to the lift capability, the CH-
    53K's cabin is wider than the CH-53E and can handle increased payload.
    The wider cabin is also compatible with the large TRANSCOM 463L pallets
    used for intermodal transportation throughout the battlespace. The new
    triple-hook external cargo system enables disbursing three different
    external loads to three different locations during one sortie. Other
    improvements include a modern glass cockpit, fly-by-wire flight
    controls (increases safety and survivability and decreases pilot
    workload--especially in a degraded visual environment), efficient 4th
    generation main rotor blades, and an engine that produces 57 percent
    more horsepower with 63 percent fewer parts than its predecessor. There
    is no other helicopter in the DOD that can meet the Marine Corps' heavy
    lift requirements. As demonstrated by a MAGTF capabilities analysis in
    support of the 2014 Heavy Lift Helicopter Requirements Analysis, it
    would take nearly three times the alternate or medium lift assets to
    accomplish what the CH-53K is capable of doing under one period of
    darkness. The next closest competitor is the CH-47, which is classified
    as a medium lift platform due to its Maximum Gross Weight and is not
    marinized. Modifying a CH-47 it would sacrifice payload, requiring even
    more sorties to equal the CH-53K. The increased capabilities that the
    CH-53K brings to the MAGTF, coupled with its increased reliability and
    ease of maintenance will set a new standard for vertical heavy lift.

        42. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Davis, I am concerned
    about the shallow production ramp this program is facing. Last year it
    was just two, this year the official request is four, and it continues
    to be slow in future years' projections. The Marine Corps top priority
    on its unfunded request list is two additional CH-53Ks--to total 6
    helicopters. Can you explain why these additional two helicopters are
    so important?
        Lieutenant General Davis. The two additional aircraft will
    accelerate transition to the first CH-53K Heavy Helicopter Squadron and
    ensure we qualify and train aircrew who are ready to deploy in support
    of the DOD and MAGTF. With the current procurement ramp, the first
    squadron transition will take longer and will delay delivery of this
    capability to the fleet.

        43. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Davis, last month, you
    visited Sikorsky to assess the CH-53K production line in Connecticut.
    Are you confident in Sikorsky's ability to produce this helicopter?
        Lieutenant General Davis. Yes, I am confident in Sikorsky's ability
    to execute the plan.
                                      f-35
        44. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Davis, Vice Admiral
    Grosklags and Rear Admiral Miller, while we often focus on the
    importance of the F-35 as it pertains to the Air Force, the other
    variants are just as crucial to our national security. The F-35B short
    take off vertical landing variant and the F-35C carrier variant will
    transform Navy and Marine Corps Aviation. In the President's fiscal
    year 2018 budget request, there are 20 F-35Bs, as anticipated last
    year. However, there are only 4 F-35Cs, two less than what was
    anticipated just last year, which is accompanied by lower projected
    buys in the FYDP. Do you agree that the F-35 has leaps in stealth and
    strength that a fourth-generation fighter jet cannot match? What
    capability with the F-35C bring to the fleet that the F-18 cannot? Will
    fourth-generation aircraft be survivable in an advanced threat
    environment in the coming years and decades?
        Lieutenant General Davis. Yes, the F-35 is capable of exceeding
    every mission essential task assigned to current legacy platforms while
    operating in a high threat environment due to its advanced stealth
    technology and sensor fusion technology. This ensures greater
    survivability and mission success in a robust integrated air defense
    system (IADS) environment without external support. Penetrating an
    advanced IADS of a peer or near-peer adversary is operationally
    challenging with extremely high risk for legacy 4th generation aircraft
    in the current threat environment. The F-35, on the other hand, is
    designed to operate in that environment. The aircraft is not only more
    effective there, but the pilots are now better equipped to train to
    those threat levels and are well-postured for the future fight with
    this aircraft. With potential adversaries equipped with advanced anti-
    access / area denial (A2/AD) long-range precision strike capabilities
    that threaten traditional US power projection, it is increasingly
    critical that we field this next generation strike weapons system. The
    F-35 was developed using a complete analysis of legacy aircraft
    shortfalls, emerging threats, and consideration of future operating
    locations. This approach led to an aircraft design that incorporates
    advanced stealth characteristics and a powerful sensor suite that
    provides superior awareness to the pilot and ensures increased
    survivability and lethality in all environments. The aircraft has an
    autonomous capability to strike a broad range of moving or fixed
    targets, either day or night and in adverse weather conditions, which
    is a capability gap within 4th generation aircraft. These targets
    include air and ground threats, as well as enemy surface units at sea
    and anti-ship or land attack cruise missiles. Using fused information
    from its onboard systems and/or other F-35s within the flight allows
    pilots to complete the entire kill chain without reliance on external
    sources. This capability shortens engagement times, reduces exposure to
    threats, and retains the element of surprise. Together these elements
    allow the pilot to affect the tactical environment using proactive
    tactics. The 5th generation capabilities that the F-35 brings to the
    mission increase the synergy, awareness, lethality and survivability of
    the entire force. In the coming years and decades everything will
    advance and we continuously view the requirements of air power through
    a lens of continuous modernization. The F-35 modernization plan is
    mapped in detail over the next decade, both in terms of the
    technologies that we pursue and in terms of managing our fleet so that
    we can modify the earlier lot aircraft and cut new developments into
    the production line. This aircraft will last for decades, both in terms
    of its long, 8000 hour, airframe life and the long term view to
    continuously improve capabilities to pace the threat.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. While the answers to your direct questions
    cannot be fully answered in an unclassified format, the F-35 does bring
    revolutionary advances in stealth, survivability, information
    management, and sensor fusion to the Carrier Strike Group for the first
    time. The F-35, with its stealth and advanced sensors will make the
    entire CSG more lethal and survivable. It is the combination of both
    4th and 5th generation aircraft that will ensure that the Navy has both
    the capacity and capability to meet the threat in the next decade.
        Rear Admiral Miller. While the answers to your direct questions
    cannot be fully answered in an unclassified format, the F-35 does bring
    revolutionary advances in stealth, survivability, information
    management and sensor fusion to the Carrier Strike Group (CSG). The F-
    35, with its stealth and advanced sensors will make the entire CSG more
    lethal and survivable. It is the combination of both 4th and 5th
    generation aircraft that will ensure the Navy has both the capacity and
    capability required in the next decade.

        45. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Davis, Vice Admiral
    Grosklags and Rear Admiral Miller, what is the status of DOD's review
    and comparison of the F-35 and the F-18 as directed by Secretary Mattis
    in January?
        Lieutenant General Davis. The USMC and Navy contributed to the
    requested review by Secretary Mattis, and were active participants
    throughout. The comparison was based primarily in capabilities and
    cost, and was conducted at the classified level. The information was
    compiled and delivered to the Office of the Secretary of Defense as
    requested.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The Office of the Secretary of Defense Cost
    Assessment Program Evaluation (OSD CAPE) completed the F-35/F-18 review
    on March 1, 2017 in cooperation with the Department of the Navy,
    Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, and the F-35 Joint Program Office.
    The Secretary of Defense delivered a copy of the report to the National
    Security Advisor during the week of 13 March.
        Rear Admiral Miller. The Office of the Secretary of Defense Cost
    Assessment Program Evaluation (OSD CAPE) completed the F-35/F-18 review
    on March 1, 2017 in cooperation with the Department of the Navy,
    Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, and the F-35 Joint Program Office.
    The Secretary of Defense delivered a copy of the report to the National
    Security Advisor during the week of 13 March.

        46. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Davis, Vice Admiral
    Grosklags and Rear Admiral Miller, the F-35C projected ramp rate has
    been reduced in this year's budget request. I am concerned that if we
    delay procurement, it will negatively impact cost and affordability.
    Are you concerned about the adjustments made to the planned procurement
    pace for the F-35C?
        Lieutenant General Davis. Delays in procurement of F-35C are a
    major concern for the Marine Corps. Our recapitalization and transition
    plan allows Marine Aviation to support our global commitments--a delay
    in procurement puts our transition at risk. We do not foresee a delay
    in our transition to our first F-35C squadron, but reduced procurement
    will certainly delay transition with our remaining three F-35C
    squadrons. Any delay in the F-35C transition will burden our legacy
    fleet with additional deployments in aircraft that are rapidly
    approaching the end of their service lives.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The Navy continues to focus on cost and
    affordability due to procurement rate changes. However, our primary
    concern remains the F-35C squadron standup and transition plan.
    Maintaining this plan is critical towards reducing warfighter risk in
    the coming decade through modernization of our fleet and delivering
    warfighter capability that 5th generation aircraft bring.
        Rear Admiral Miller. As one of the highest priorities for the
    Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy is committed to
    increasing the affordability of the F-35 program. Current F-35C
    procurement plans focus on cost and affordability.
        The Navy is committed to ensuring the F-35C delivery and transition
    plan remains on schedule. Maintaining this plan as part of the overall
    Strike Fighter Inventory Management strategy is critical towards
    reducing warfighter risk.
        The F-35C plays a critical role in the Air Wing of the future. A
    mix of 4th and 5th generation Strike Fighters will provide the
    complementary capacity and capability from our flight decks that is
    needed to meet the threat through the 2030s. Stable funding and timely
    fleet integration is critical to meet this requirement.

        47. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Davis, Vice Admiral
    Grosklags and Rear Admiral Miller, in the Marine Corps' and Navy's
    unfunded request lists, the services request an additional 10 F-35s--4
    F-35Bs and 6 F-35Cs. Can you explain why it is so critical to ensure
    these additional aircraft are procured?
        Lieutenant General Davis. The F-35B replaces legacy F/A-18, AV-8B,
    and EA-6B aircraft - modernizing the entire USMC TACAIR fleet. Our
    current transition to F-35 is already behind timeline as our legacy
    fleet aircraft rapidly approach the end of their service lives. While
    we continue to operate the battle-proven aircraft in our legacy fleet
    by executing a robust airframe life-extension program, we are unable to
    increase the reliability of these aircraft. The real key to attaining
    future readiness is through recapitalization - transitioning to new
    aircraft as fast as possible to increase our fleet readiness numbers.
    The addition of these F-35 aircraft in fiscal year 2018 maximizes
    capacity on Lockheed Martin's production line, which is capable of
    producing 24 aircraft per year.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The additional six F-35Cs in fiscal year
    2018's (FY18) Unfunded Priority List support training and deployment
    requirements for the second F-35C squadron and contribute to the third
    squadron transition (beginning in fiscal year 2021). Without these six
    aircraft, there is substantial risk to the second squadron's deployment
    and third squadron's transition. Complementing the capability of the F-
    35C with the capacity and capability of the F/A-18 is critical to pace
    the nation's threats over the next decade.
        Rear Admiral Miller. The additional six F-35Cs in fiscal year
    2018's (FY18) Unfunded Priority List support training and deployment
    requirements for the second F-35C squadron and contribute to the third
    squadron transition (beginning in fiscal year 2021). Without these six
    aircraft, there is substantial risk to the second squadron's deployment
    and third squadron's transition. Complementing the capability of the F-
    35C with the capacity and capability of the F/A-18 is critical to pace
    the nation's threats over the next decade.

        48. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Davis, Vice Admiral
    Grosklags and Rear Admiral Miller, the Marine Corps has already
    declared initial operational capability (IOC) in July 2015 and forward
    based its first operational squadron of F-35Bs in Japan earlier this
    year. What does this fifth generation capability bring to our national
    security and the region?
        Lieutenant General Davis. VMFA-121 is forward-deployed with 10 F-
    35Bs in Japan and will have their full complement of 16 aircraft by
    this summer. By the end of this year, they will fill both the 31st
    Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) requirement and the land-based
    requirements within PACOM. At the most basic level, 5th generation
    capabilities bring stealth and sensor fusion to the fight. In an
    operational setting, this means the aircraft has unfettered access to
    high threat environments and can provide real time targeting through
    overcast weather. Our legacy systems cannot target through visible
    obscuration such as an overcast cloud layer. Even a single well-placed
    medium threat surface-to-air capability would create a significant
    hurdle for a legacy system--where a 5th gen aircraft would probably
    categorize a medium threat system as a minor nuisance on a strike or
    close air support mission. Today we use a combination of strategic
    targeting and electronic warfare (EW) assets to overcome the
    aforementioned threats, but an F-35 can operate independently and
    unsupported by dedicated EW assets. In addition to being able to
    operate autonomously in these environments, the F-35 provides a
    significant enhancement to our high-end strategic fight. The jet is not
    only an extremely effective platform for penetrating complex Integrated
    Air Defenses, it has also proven to be a significant contributor to the
    overall situation awareness of the larger combat force by providing
    threat and targeting data to supporting assets over multiple waveforms.
    Additionally, the proliferation of long-range, precision, conventional
    threats such as advanced SAMs, cruise missiles, and armed UAVs,
    contests the use of traditional bases and methods of operations. With
    the Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the
    aircraft, the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) aviation combat
    element has the ability to conduct distributed aviation operations
    (DAO) in support of land and/or naval campaigns. DAO is a task
    organized MAGTF operation, employing aircraft in a distributed force
    posture, independent of specialized fixed infrastructure. The F-35B
    will be a key part of DAO due to its STOVL capabilities because it
    expands basing options by reducing runway requirements. The F-35B can
    launch from a sea base or land base to conduct multiple missions then
    re-arm and re-fuel at mobile forward arming and refueling points (M-
    FARPS), which may be located closer to or within the operating area.
    The Marine Corps' F-35B brings strategic agility, operational
    flexibility and tactical supremacy to the MAGTF and represents the
    centerpiece of Marine aviation transformation. This aircraft is
    incredibly capable in its 5th generation day one IOC configuration. The
    F-35B unites 5th generation stealth, precision weapons and multi-
    spectral sensors with the expeditionary responsiveness of a STOVL
    fighter-attack platform.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. VMFA-121 is forward-deployed with 10 F-35Bs
    in Japan and will have their full complement of 16 aircraft by this
    summer. By the end of this year, they will fill both the 31st Marine
    Expeditionary Unit (MEU) requirement and the land-based requirements
    within PACOM.
        At the most basic level, 5th generation capabilities bring stealth
    and sensor fusion to the fight. In an operational setting this means
    the aircraft has unfettered access to high threat environments and can
    provide real time targeting through overcast weather. Our legacy
    systems cannot target through visible obscuration such as an overcast
    cloud layer. Even a single well-placed medium threat surface-to-air
    capability would create a significant hurdle for a legacy system--where
    a 5th gen aircraft would probably categorize a medium threat system as
    a minor nuisance on a strike or close air support mission. Today we use
    a combination of strategic targeting and electronic warfare (EW) assets
    to overcome the aforementioned threats, but an F-35 can operate
    independently and unsupported by dedicated EW assets.
        In addition to being able to operate autonomously in these
    environments, the F-35 provides a significant enhancement to our high-
    end strategic fight. The jet is not only an extremely effective
    platform for penetrating complex Integrated Air Defenses, it has also
    proven to be a significant contributor to the overall situation
    awareness of the larger combat force by providing threat and targeting
    data to supporting assets over multiple waveforms.
        Additionally, the proliferation of long-range, precision,
    conventional threats such as advanced SAMs, cruise missiles, and armed
    UAVs, contests the use of traditional bases and methods of operations.
    With the Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the
    aircraft, the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) aviation combat
    element has the ability to conduct distributed aviation operations
    (DAO) in support of land and/or naval campaigns. DAO is a task
    organized MAGTF operation, employing aircraft in a distributed force
    posture, independent of specialized fixed infrastructure. The F-35B
    will be a key part of DAO due to its STOVL capabilities because it
    expands basing options by reducing runway requirements. The F-35B can
    launch from a sea base or land base to conduct multiple missions then
    re-arm and re-fuel at mobile forward arming and refueling points (M-
    FARPS), which may be located closer to or within the operating area.
        The Marine Corps' F-35B brings strategic agility, operational
    flexibility and tactical supremacy to the MAGTF and represents the
    centerpiece of Marine aviation transformation. This aircraft is
    incredibly capable in its 5th generation day one IOC configuration. The
    F-35B unites 5th generation stealth, precision weapons and multi-
    spectral sensors with the expeditionary responsiveness of a STOVL
    fighter-attack platform.
        Rear Admiral Miller. VMFA-121 is forward-deployed with 10 F-35Bs in
    Japan and will have their full complement of 16 aircraft by this
    summer. By the end of this year, they will fill both the 31st Marine
    Expeditionary Unit (MEU) requirement and the land-based requirements
    within PACOM. At the most basic level, 5th generation capabilities
    bring stealth and sensor fusion to the fight. In an operational
    setting, this means the aircraft has unfettered access to high threat
    environments and can provide real time targeting through overcast
    weather. Our legacy systems cannot target through visible obscuration
    such as an overcast cloud layer. Even a single well-placed medium
    threat surface-to-air capability would create a significant hurdle for
    a legacy system--where a 5th gen aircraft would probably categorize a
    medium threat system as a minor nuisance on a strike or close air
    support mission. Today we use a combination of strategic targeting and
    electronic warfare (EW) assets to overcome the aforementioned threats,
    but an F-35 can operate independently and unsupported by dedicated EW
    assets.
        In addition to being able to operate autonomously in these
    environments, the F-35 provides a significant enhancement to our high-
    end strategic fight. The jet is not only an extremely effective
    platform for penetrating complex Integrated Air Defenses, it has also
    proven to be a significant contributor to the overall situation
    awareness of the larger combat force by providing threat and targeting
    data to supporting assets over multiple waveforms.
        Additionally, the proliferation of long-range, precision,
    conventional threats such as advanced SAMs, cruise missiles, and armed
    UAVs, contests the use of traditional bases and methods of operations.
    With the Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the
    aircraft, the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) aviation combat
    element has the ability to conduct distributed aviation operations
    (DAO) in support of land and/or naval campaigns. DAO is a task
    organized MAGTF operation, employing aircraft in a distributed force
    posture, independent of specialized fixed infrastructure. The F-35B
    will be a key part of DAO due to its STOVL capabilities because it
    expands basing options by reducing runway requirements. The F-35B can
    launch from a sea base or land base to conduct multiple missions then
    re-arm and re-fuel at mobile forward arming and refueling points (M-
    FARPS), which may be located closer to or within the operating area.
        The Marine Corps' F-35B brings strategic agility, operational
    flexibility and tactical supremacy to the MAGTF and represents the
    centerpiece of Marine aviation transformation. This aircraft is
    incredibly capable in its 5th generation day one IOC configuration. The
    F-35B unites 5th generation stealth, precision weapons and multi-
    spectral sensors with the expeditionary responsiveness of a STOVL
    fighter-attack platform.
                                     mh-60r
        49. Senator Blumenthal. Rear Admiral Miller, the production line
    for the MH-60R helicopter is coming to an end in 2018. As the Navy's
    2016 Force Structure Assessment (FSA) seeks to build a 355-ship Navy,
    is the Navy reexamining its helicopter force structure? Do you see a
    need for additional helicopters beyond the current requirement? If so,
    how many?
        Rear Admiral Miller. The Department is committed to building the
    capability and capacity in our Fleet, and Seahawk helicopters play a
    vital role in accomplishing these goals. The Navy operates nearly 600
    MH-60 helicopters around the world, and intends to modernize and
    sustain MH-60 inventory via planned Service Life Extension Program and/
    or Mid-Life Upgrade initiatives. These programs will ensure the
    capabilities of these aircraft remain relevant well into the future.
        Although the current fleet of Seahawks is fulfilling our needs, we
    need to consider airframe delivery schedules relative to future ship
    delivery timelines before committing to purchasing additional Seahawks.
    The decision to procure or recapitalize the current MH-60 in the face
    of increasing threats will be considered alongside all of our
    warfighting priorities.

      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR
             FISCAL YEAR 2018 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2017

                                   U.S. Senate,
                              Subcommittee on Seapower,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                                                        Washington, DC.

                           NAVY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:03 a.m. in
    Room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Roger F.
    Wicker (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Committee Members Present: Senators Wicker, Cotton, Rounds,
    Tillis, Sullivan, Hirono, Shaheen, Blumenthal, Kaine, and King.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROGER F. WICKER

        Senator Wicker. The Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on
    Seapower convenes this morning to examine Navy shipbuilding
    programs.
        We welcome our three distinguished witnesses: Ms. Allison
    F. Stiller, performing the duties of Assistant Secretary of the
    Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition; Vice Admiral
    William K. Lescher, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for
    Integration of Capabilities and Resources--and that is a
    mouthful--and Lieutenant General Robert S. Walsh, Deputy
    Commandant for Combat Development and Integration.
        Our subcommittee is grateful to all of you for your decades
    of service.
        We are at a critical juncture for shipbuilding. We
    currently have 276 ships in the fleet. In 2016, after
    deliberation and consideration, the Navy increased its
    requirement to 355 ships for the battle fleet, a figure that is
    supported by a number of congressionally mandated future fleet
    architecture studies. Admiral Richardson, the Chief of Naval
    Operations, believes we need to reach the 355-ship objective in
    the 2020s. Given the timelines for new ship construction, such
    as the 5 years it takes to build a new submarine, the Nation
    must commit to building a bigger Navy now.
        While I support the budget request focused on improving
    readiness, I agree with the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO)
    that we must build more ships at the same time. The Navy's
    fiscal year 2018 budget request includes funding for eight new
    construction ships, which is one less than the number procured
    in 2017. Following the budget submission, the administration
    announced a request for a second littoral combat ship, but
    Congress has not received the formal documentation.
        While the budget request is a good start, the shipbuilding
    industrial base can support higher levels of shipbuilding
    today. In fact, the CNO's white paper, ``The Future Navy,''
    states that the industrial base could build 29 additional ships
    over the next 7 years, over and above those that are already
    projected. Given sufficient and stable funding, industry
    leaders told the subcommittee that their shipyards are up to
    the task.
        In addition to new ship construction, some naval analysts
    have proposed increasing the size of the fleet through
    reactivating ships, extending service life, and other
    alternatives. The subcommittee will explore all options.
        The Nation has supported a major fleet expansion before.
    During the Reagan era buildup, the Navy added 91 ships to the
    fleet in 8 years. This subcommittee wants to help the Navy
    build a firm foundation in this year's authorization bill to
    support a substantial buildup in the near future.
        There is no time to waste. Our real and potential
    adversaries are out-competing the United States in this area.
    Our maritime edge is eroding. If we fail, I believe General
    Dunford's assessment will come to pass that within 5 years, we
    will lose our ability to project power, the basis for how we
    defend the Homeland, advance U.S. interests, and meet our
    alliance commitments. These are the words of the Chairman of
    the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
        I would like to hear our witnesses' views on this critical
    juncture and four other key issues.
        First, industrial base vitality. The Navy must comply with
    the law and submit its 30-year shipbuilding plan to Congress.
    The strength of our shipbuilding industrial base will determine
    the viability of the plan. Reaching the Navy's 355-ship
    objective is not possible without the unique skills,
    capabilities, and capacities inherent found in the new
    construction shipyards, repair facilities, and among our
    dedicated suppliers. The witnesses should describe the budget
    request's effects on the shipbuilding industrial base. The
    subcommittee would also like to hear about ways in which
    Congress can help support the industrial base.
        Second, best use of taxpayers' resources. The subcommittee
    will conduct rigorous oversight of shipbuilding programs to
    ensure the Navy is making the best use of taxpayer dollars.
    Congress expects the Navy shipbuilding programs to deliver
    promised capability on time and on budget. Schedule delays and
    cost growth put additional strain on the legacy platforms which
    these new ships will replace. Specifically, I am interested in
    understanding why the cost of the USS Enterprise, CVN-80, is
    more than $1 billion greater than the previous aircraft
    carrier, USS John F. Kennedy.
        I also remain concerned that the key warfighting
    capabilities of the LCS [Littoral Combat Ship], including mine
    countermeasures and antisubmarine warfare, have fallen years
    behind schedule and remain unproven. The witnesses should
    address the Navy's plan to pursue full and open competition in
    selecting a new frigate with greater lethality and
    survivability.
        Third, building he future force. This subcommittee also has
    the duty to shape the future of our Navy. Each of our surface
    combatant ships, cruisers, destroyers, and littoral combat
    ships will begin retiring within the next 20 years. Now is the
    time to determine the requirements for our future surface
    combatants, as well as the munitions they will carry. Our main
    concern is that the Columbia-class submarine program, the
    second largest DOD [Department of Defense] acquisition program,
    may stress our already constrained shipbuilding budget. This is
    an important program, but we do need to look at the strains it
    places on the budget.
        Fourthly, amphibious ships. The Navy and Marine Corps
    continue to serve as the linchpin of American force projection
    around the globe. I am interested in ways we can address the
    demand from our combatant commanders for amphibious ships. The
    combatant commanders need more than 50 amphibious ships on a
    day-to-day operational basis, but the current inventory
    includes only 31 amphibious ships. The witnesses should discuss
    the Navy's ability to accelerate procurement of the next
    amphibious assault ship known as the LX(R).
        So thank you to our witnesses and thank you to interested
    Americans who are attending.
        I now recognize my good friend and ranking member, Senator
    Hirono.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAZIE HIRONO

        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I join the chairman in welcoming our witnesses this
    morning.
        Over the weekend, we all learned about the tragedy on the
    USS Fitzgerald. Our thoughts are with the USS Fitzgerald crew
    and the families of the seven sailors who lost their lives in
    service to our country. These seven young men represented
    diverse backgrounds but were united in their service to our
    country. As we honor their lives, we must also move forward to
    support their fellow sailors and marines.
        Over the past weeks, we have held a number of hearings on
    the future of a number of Navy and Marine Corps programs.
    Today's witnesses will also tell us about the balancing act our
    military faces. On one hand, they need to support ongoing
    operations and sustain readiness. On the other, they need to
    modernize and keep the technological advantage that is critical
    to military success, all of this under the cloud of limits
    imposed by the Budget Control Act.
        While that law necessarily raised the debt ceiling, it also
    imposed draconian caps on defense and non-defense programs and
    included sequestration. Sequestration, or automatic, across-
    the-board cuts, was included as a worst case scenario to
    motivate Congress. The mindless cuts to defense and non-defense
    programs brought by sequestration were meant to be so bad that
    Congress would move forward or would be forced to find an
    alternative way forward. We all learned a lesson in 2013 when
    sequester was allowed to take effect. In fact, some in our
    industrial base are still working through the aftermath of that
    fiasco.
        Yet, here we are 6 years later living under the caps and in
    fear of sequestration and what it would do. Funding for
    critical programs, both defense and non-defense, is not an
    either/or proposition. We cannot enact the priorities and
    programs discussed today until we lift the caps and eliminate
    the fear of sequester.
        I look forward to working with the chairman and other
    committee members to balance the needs of our military with
    critical domestic programs. It has been long enough and the
    time for leadership is certainly now.
        With that in mind, a continuing focus of this subcommittee
    has been to see that we improve our acquisition stewardship and
    thereby ensure that we are getting good value for every
    shipbuilding dollar that we spend.
        The big news this year is the increase in force structure
    that was recommended by the Chief of Naval Operations' most
    recent force structure assessment. The Navy has not submitted a
    plan--and the chairman has mentioned this also--for ramping to
    meet this new 355-ship goal, but we hope to gain some insight
    into what reasonable steps we could take now to help the Navy
    achieve this increase.
        Eventually we will need to increase attack submarines and
    major surface combatants to much higher force levels. The Navy
    was supposed to implement an engineering change proposal for
    the DDG-51 destroyer program to include the air and missile
    defense radar, or Area and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), on one
    of the ships in the fiscal year 2016 shipbuilding program. To
    date, the Navy has not signed a contract for that upgrade. We
    need to assess why this has been delayed and whether the Navy
    and contractors are making sufficient progress on the AMDR
    program to award a new multiyear procurement program in fiscal
    year 2018. I know that the Navy conducted what by all accounts
    was successful testing of the AMDR system at the Pacific
    Missile Range Facility (PMRF), located on the Island of Kauai.
    I hope we can hear from Secretary Stiller on this important
    program as well.
        I look forward to hearing your testimony this morning.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
        Who would like to go first on the testimony? Ms. Stiller?
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir. I am going to give an opening
    statement for the three of us.
        Senator Wicker. Excellent.

       STATEMENT OF ALLISON F. STILLER, PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF
    ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND
     ACQUISITION; ACCOMPANIED BY: VICE ADMIRAL WILLIAM K. LESCHER,
       USN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR INTEGRATION OF
     CAPABILITIES AND RESOURCES, N8; LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT S.
       WALSH, USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR COMBAT DEVELOPMENT AND
         INTEGRATION; COMMANDING GENERAL, MARINE CORPS COMBAT
    DEVELOPMENT COMMAND; AND COMMANDER, UNITED STATES MARINE FORCES
                           STRATEGIC COMMAND

        Ms. Stiller. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Hirono,
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today to address the
    Department of Navy's shipbuilding programs.
        Each day we are mindful of our men and women in uniform
    serving this great Nation, and we especially hold the USS
    Fitzgerald's sailors and their families and friends in our
    thoughts and prayers.
        I am joined this morning by Lieutenant General Bob Walsh,
    Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration, and
    Vice Admiral Bill Lescher, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for
    Integration of Capabilities and Resources. I request that our
    written statement be included in the record.
        Senator Wicker. Without objection.
        Ms. Stiller. Thank you.
        On behalf of our Navy and Marine Corps, we want to thank
    this subcommittee for your strong support in the fiscal year
    2017 defense authorization and appropriations bills. Not only
    has Congress supported our request, but the committee increased
    funding for many of our critical programs. We are committed to
    making good on that investment and to do so in the most
    fiscally responsible manner possible to provide the ships,
    aircraft, vehicles, and weapons that are needed for our men and
    women in uniform to be successful.
        We continue to leverage every tool available to drive down
    costs. We have tightened requirements, maximized competition,
    capitalized on multiyear and block buy procurements, explored
    cross-program efficiencies, and attacked our cost of doing
    business so that more of our resources can be dedicated to the
    warfighting capability.
        Global activities over the last year have made it clear
    that security challenges are intensifying at an increasingly
    rapid pace. To remain competitive, it is imperative that we
    continuously adapt to the emerging security environment and do
    so with a sense of urgency. This requires us to work closely
    with Congress to return budget stability and predictability to
    the Department, which necessitates increasing defense caps
    under the Budget Control Act.
        Our 2018 President's budget submission is governed by
    SecDef's priorities to improve warfighting readiness by
    addressing pressing programmatic shortfalls that have accrued
    from 15 years of wartime operational tempo. The budget
    maintains the operational effectiveness of our current force
    while also building a bridge to growing the future force
    starting in 2019.
        Over the past year, 11 ships were delivered and an
    additional 12 ships were christened. One of the ships delivered
    this year was DDG-1000 USS Zumwalt, a truly transformational
    platform. Just last month, CVN-78, Gerald R. Ford, our newest
    aircraft carrier, was delivered to our Navy. This past Friday,
    we awarded the detail design and construction contract for LHA-
    8 Bougainville.
        Today there are 61 ships under contract and 44 are in
    construction. These include aircraft carriers, submarines,
    large surface combatants, small surface combatants, amphibious
    ships, and auxiliary ships. The shipyards constructing these
    vessels have a vast infrastructure of suppliers supporting
    them, and we are mindful of this industrial base as we build
    our budgets and recapitalize our force.
        I would like to briefly discuss a couple of items posed by
    our budget request.
        First, as mentioned, we have requested multiyear
    procurement authority for the fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year
    2022 DDG-51 Flight III buy. We have a handshake agreement with
    Huntington Ingalls Industries to introduce the Flight III
    capability on their fiscal year 2017 ship, the last of this
    current multiyear. We are also requesting multiyear procurement
    authority for the fiscal year 2019 to fiscal year 2023
    Virginia-class, which will introduce the Virginia payload
    module capability. In both cases, the multiyear criteria laid
    out by Congress is met.
        Second, we have made a couple of adjustments to our 5-year
    shipbuilding plan. We added a Virginia-class submarine in
    fiscal year 2021 and we deferred the start of the frigate
    program from fiscal year 2019 to fiscal year 2020 while we
    revisit the ship's requirements. Our small surface combatant
    requirement remains at 52 ships and we desire to transition to
    the frigate as soon as possible.
        The administration's supports funding a second LCS in
    fiscal year 2018 and an amendment to the President's budget is
    expected to be delivered to the Congress very soon.
        We note that our shipbuilding plan beyond fiscal year 2018
    may be adjusted in our Presidential Budget 2019 submission as a
    result of the defense strategic review that we will complete
    later this summer, consistent with SecDef's fiscal year 2019
    priority to grow a larger and more lethal force.
        In summary, the Navy's 2018 budget is focused on improving
    the wholeness of our current forces. We greatly appreciate this
    subcommittee's strong and consistent support of your sailors
    and marines.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear
    before you today, and we look forward to answering your
    questions.
        [The combined prepared statement of Ms. Stiller, General
    Walsh, and Admiral Lescher follows:]

     Combined Prepared Statement by Allison F. Stiller, Lieutenant General
              Robert S. Walsh, and Vice Admiral William K. Lescher
        Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Hirono, and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today to address the Department of Navy's shipbuilding programs.
        The global activities over the last year have made it clear that
    the security challenges from major power competition are intensifying
    at an increasingly rapid pace. The Navy and Marine Corps continue to
    support the Joint Force in defending the Homeland and responding to the
    security challenges of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and global
    counter-terrorism. In the Indo-Asia-Pacific, our carrier strike groups,
    amphibious ready groups, and destroyers provide presence, strengthen
    partnerships, patrol the South China Sea to maintain interoperability,
    and deter adversaries. In the Middle East, our carrier strike groups
    and strike fighter aircraft continue operations against the Islamic
    State of Iraq and Syria. In Afghanistan, the Marine Corps deployed to
    Helmand Province to train, advise and assist the Afghan National Army
    and Police. This past April, two destroyers operating in the
    Mediterranean Sea enabled the United States to take swift action
    against chemical attacks in Syria with Tomahawk cruise missile strikes.
        Over 2016, the Marine Corps executed over 210 operations, 20
    amphibious operations, 160 Theater Security Cooperation events, and
    participated in 75 exercises, with units deployed to every Geographic
    Combatant Command. In response to a request for the U.S. Agency for
    International Development to assist with U.S. Government disaster
    relief efforts after Hurricane Matthew made landfall in October 2016, a
    Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) self-deployed
    within 48 hours to provide much needed aid to the people of Haiti,
    followed by the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) shortly
    thereafter. Our sailors and marines deployed around the world continue
    to perform missions and operate forward--ready to respond to any
    challenge and being where it matters when it matters.
        To remain competitive, it is imperative that we continuously adapt
    to the emerging security environment--and do so with a sense of
    urgency. This requires working closely with Congress to return budget
    stability and predictability to the Department, and address defense
    spending in a fiscally responsible manner. Together, we can ensure our
    military's capability, capacity and readiness can continue to deliver
    superior naval power for the United States around the world, both today
    and tomorrow.
                the fiscal year 2018 president's budget request
        The Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 President's Budget submission is governed
    by the defense priorities of the Secretary of Defense to improve
    warfighting readiness and program balance by addressing pressing
    programmatic shortfalls that have accrued from 15 years of wartime
    operational tempo, fiscal constraints and budget uncertainty. Improving
    readiness directly impacts the operational capacity of our current
    fleet by ensuring that our ships and aircraft are ready to deploy when
    needed. If a ship is de-certified due to lack of maintenance, it is one
    less asset that the Navy and Marine Corps can deploy. The Department
    thanks the subcommittee for your efforts in supporting the
    Administration's request for additional funding for our critical
    readiness shortfalls and increases in force structure procurement in
    the fiscal year 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
        At the same time, investing in the modernization of our current
    platforms and weapons is necessary to restore the fleet to full health
    and ensure they have the advanced capabilities needed to address the
    dynamic current and future threats. The fiscal year 2018 request
    continues key investments in advanced technologies and modernization of
    our current Seapower and Projection forces.
        The Navy prioritized addressing the significant readiness debt and
    improving the wholeness of our current fleet over our ability to grow
    force structure in this budget. The fiscal year 2018 President's budget
    supports procurement of nine ships in fiscal year 2018: two SSN 774
    Virginia-class attack submarines; two DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class
    destroyers; two Littoral Combat Ships (LCS); one Ford-class aircraft
    carrier (CVN); one John Lewis-class fleet oiler (T-AO); and one Towing,
    Salvage and Rescue ship (T-ATS). The Secretary of Defense has
    prioritized growing capacity and lethality, informed by the National
    Defense Strategy, for the fiscal year 2019 President's Budget. The
    wholeness that the fiscal year 2018 President's Budget delivers will
    accelerate key warfighting capabilities and maintain the operational
    effectiveness of our current force, while also building a bridge to
    growing the future force.
        The Navy's 2016 Force Structure Assessment (FSA) was developed in
    an effort to determine the right balance of forces--ships currently
    under construction and future procurement--needed to address the
    evolving and increasingly complex threats naval forces are expected to
    counter. The FSA detailed a long-term requirement for 355 ships in the
    battle force, assuming the Navy continues to replace the ships we have
    today with ships of similar capability and employs them using similar
    concepts of operations. The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget will be
    informed by the pending National Security Strategy and the National
    Military Strategy and chart a course to building the larger, more
    capable battle force the nation needs.
        In addition, the Department continues to analytically assess the
    Future Fleet Architecture studies directed by the fiscal year 2016
    National Defense Authorization Act in order to incorporate the most
    promising elements in our concept development, research and
    development, and rapid fielding efforts. This assessment will innovate
    ways to deliver the equivalent naval power of a larger force.
                                    summary
        The Department of the Navy's fiscal year 2018 budget request
    strategically delivers the best balance to responsibly improve the
    wholeness of our current forces. In addition, the Department is
    aggressively pursuing efforts to accelerate acquisition processes and
    schedules and further drive affordability into our programs, in order
    to deliver capability to our warfighters faster and be as effective as
    possible within our resources. We greatly appreciate this
    subcommittee's strong and consistent support for your sailors and
    marines.
        Programmatic details regarding Navy and Marine Corps capabilities
    are summarized in the following section.

            U.S. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS SEAPOWER CAPABILITIES

                               aircraft carriers
        The aircraft carrier is the centerpiece of the Navy's Carrier
    Strike Groups and central to Navy core capabilities of sea control,
    maritime security, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
    Nimitz and Ford-class carriers will be the premier forward deployed
    asset of choice for crisis response and early decisive striking power
    in major combat operations for the next half-century. The Department
    has established a steady state Ford-class procurement plan designed to
    deliver each new ship in close alignment with the Nimitz-class ship it
    replaces. The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), the first new design
    aircraft carrier in 40 years delivered this past May, returning force
    structure to 11 aircraft carriers and providing an unprecedented
    capability to our nation for the next half century.
        By capitalizing on lessons learned from the lead ship, CVN 79 and
    80 have achieved significant cost reductions. The USS John F. Kennedy
    (CVN 79) is 28 percent complete with launch planned in 2020 and
    delivery in the fall of 2024. The USS Enterprise (CVN 80) has begun
    construction planning and long lead time material procurement.
    Construction is scheduled to begin in spring of 2018.
        The Nimitz-class Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH) is key to both
    the maintenance and modernization of each carrier in support of the
    second half of its service life. This spring, USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN
    72) will return to the Fleet for another 23 years after completing her
    mid-life recapitalization depot availability to accomplish refueling of
    the ship's reactors, modernization, and repair of ship systems and
    infrastructure. This fall, USS George Washington (CVN 73) will begin
    her mid-life recapitalization.
                                   submarines
        Ballistic Missile Submarines, coupled with the Trident II D-5
    Strategic Weapon System, represent the most survivable leg of the
    Nation's strategic arsenal and provide the Nation's most assured
    nuclear response capability. The current SSBN and SSGNs' life cycles
    cannot be extended, and the Columbia-class Program is on track to start
    construction in fiscal year 2021, deliver to pace retirement of our
    current ballistic missile submarines, and deploy for first patrol in
    fiscal year 2031. The Navy released the Detail Design Request for
    Proposal for Columbia and plans to award the design contract in
    calendar year 2017. The fiscal year 2018 President's Budget supports
    the funding required to achieve a target of 83 percent design
    completion at construction start in fiscal year 2021. This budget
    request also funds Continuous Production of Missile Tubes which will
    improve manufacturing efficiencies and vendor learning, maintain
    critical production skills, and reduce costs by leveraging high-volume
    procurements.
        In addition to the Department of the Navy's budget request, the
    continued support of Congress for Naval Reactors' Department of Energy
    funding is vital to the Navy mission and ensuring the safe, reliable,
    and enduring operations of the nuclear-powered fleet. The President's
    fiscal year 2018 budget fully funds Naval Reactors' request for the
    Columbia-class SSBN. Recapitalizing this capability is critical to the
    Navy's readiness, specifically by ensuring adherence to the tight
    refueling and defueling schedule of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers
    and submarines.
        The Virginia-class submarine program continues to deliver
    submarines that are operationally ready to deploy within budget. The
    Block IV contract for 10 ships continues the co-production of the
    Virginia-class submarines through fiscal year 2018. The Navy intends to
    build on these savings and capitalize on increased efficiency and
    decreased costs with a Virginia-class Block V Multiyear Procurement
    (MYP) contract for 10 boats, planned for fiscal year 2019. The Block V
    contract will bring to bear two new capabilities to the fleet with the
    introduction of the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) and Acoustic
    Superiority. The Navy is investing in VPM to mitigate the 60 percent
    reduction in undersea strike capacity when the SSGN boats retire in
    fiscal year 2026-2028.
        In 2014, the Navy led a comprehensive government-industry
    assessment of shipbuilder construction capabilities and capacities at
    General Dynamics Electric Boat (GDEB) and Huntington Ingalls
    Industries-Newport News Shipbuilding (HII-NNS) to formulate the
    Submarine Unified Build Strategy (SUBS) for concurrent Columbia and
    Virginia-class submarine production. This build strategy's guiding
    principles are: affordability; delivering Columbia on time and within
    budget; maintaining Virginia-class performance with a continuous
    reduction in costs; and maintaining two shipbuilders capable of
    delivering nuclear-powered submarines. In 2016, the Navy established
    the Integrated Enterprise Plan to further the SUBS effort and provide a
    framework for an integrated approach to support Columbia, Virginia, and
    CVN construction. This long term plan will guide the execution of these
    nuclear powered platforms to reduce cost and schedule risk.
                            large surface combatants
        The Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) program remains one of the Navy's
    most successful shipbuilding programs with 64 ships delivered to the
    Fleet. The fiscal year 2018 President's Budget request includes the
    fiscal year 2018-2022 MYP for ten destroyers, maximizing affordability
    and stabilizing the industrial base. All ships in this MYP will
    incorporate Integrated Air and Missile Defense and provide additional
    Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) capacity known as Flight III, which
    incorporates the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR). AMDR meets the
    growing ballistic missile threat by improving radar sensitivity and
    enabling longer range detection of increasingly complex threats. The
    program demonstrated design maturity through its successful completion
    of several stages of developmental testing and its recent achievement
    for entry into the Production and Deployment phase.
        This radar is planned for inclusion in fiscal year 2017 via an
    Engineering Change Proposal to the Flight IIA configuration. This much
    needed capability is essential for future sea-based BMD and is expected
    to deliver to the fleet in the early fiscal year 2020s.
        The DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer is an optimally
    crewed, multi-mission, surface combatant designed to provide long-
    range, precision, naval surface fire support to Marines conducting
    littoral maneuver and subsequent operations ashore. The DDG 1000
    program accomplished several milestones in 2016 including the first
    phase of delivery, commissioning, and sailaway of USS Zumwalt to her
    homeport of San Diego. The ship has completed multiple at sea underway
    periods for follow on testing and has since commenced its Combat
    Systems Activation period in her homeport of San Diego. USS Zumwalt
    will deliver in the spring of 2018. The remaining two ships of the
    class, DDG 1001 and DDG 1002 are under construction and are 92 and 59
    percent complete, respectively.
                            small surface combatants
        The 2016 FSA revalidated the warfighting requirement for a total of
    52 small surface combatants. To date, nine LCS ships have delivered and
    17 are in various stages of construction. Both LCS shipyards have
    upgraded their facilities and have a qualified work force and industry
    team in place for full serial production; delivering ships well below
    the congressionally mandated cost cap. The Department continues to
    refine the requirements and acquisition strategy for the Frigate. To
    allow adequate time to mature the design and thoroughly evaluate design
    alternatives, the fiscal year 2018 President's Budget request defers
    the first year of Frigate procurement to fiscal year 2020 with the LCS
    program continuing in fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 to bridge
    to the Frigate. The Department plans to transition to Frigate in fiscal
    year 2020 and maximize competition in the shipbuilding industrial base.
        The LCS Mission Modules program continues the development of the
    Surface Warfare (SUW), Mine Countermeasures (MCM), and Anti-Submarine
    Warfare (ASW) capabilities and delivering individual mission systems
    incrementally as they become available. The LCS with an embarked SUW
    Mission Package (MP) provides a robust and flexible combat capability
    to rapidly detect, track, and prosecute small-boat swarm threats. The
    Surface-to-Surface Missile Module with Longbow Hellfire is currently in
    testing with Initial Operational Capability (IOC) planned for fiscal
    year 2018. Development and integration of the ASW MP Escort Mission
    Module (EMM) and Torpedo Defense Module are ongoing. The Department
    recently awarded an option to build the ASW EMM and is on track to
    fully integrate with LCS to support IOC with the ASW MP in fiscal year
    2019.
        The MCM MP provides the capability to detect, classify, identify,
    and neutralize mines throughout the water column, from the beach zone
    to the sea floor. Several of the MCM MP systems performed well during
    MCM MP TECHEVAL. IOC for Airborne Laser Mine Detection System and
    Airborne Mine Neutralization System was achieved in November 2016.
    These systems are in production and are being delivered to the fleet
    today. After cancelling the Remote Minehunting System program in fiscal
    year 2016 due to poor reliability during TECHEVAL and following the
    conclusion of the Independent Review Team recommendations, the
    Department designated the MCM Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV) as the new
    tow platform for minehunting operations. The MCM USV is based on the
    USV already used in the Unmanned Influence Sweep System program and
    development began in March of 2017. IOC is planned for fiscal year
    2020.
                                amphibious ships
        Amphibious ships operate forward to support allies, rapidly and
    decisively respond to crises, deter potential adversaries, and provide
    the Nation's best means of projecting sustainable power ashore. They
    also provide an excellent means for providing humanitarian assistance
    and disaster relief. The 2016 FSA validated the warfighting requirement
    for 38 amphibious ships, driven by: maintaining persistent forward
    presence, which enables both engagement and crisis response; and
    delivering the assault echelons of two Marine Expeditionary Brigades
    (MEB) for joint forcible entry operations. The 38 ship requirement is
    comprised of 12 Amphibious Assault Ships (LHD/LHA) and a mixture of 26
    Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD), Dock Landing Ship (LSD), and
    Amphibious Ship Replacement LX(R) Ships. The amphibious force structure
    is projected to grow to a total of 34 ships starting in FY 2021.
        LX(R) is the replacement program for LSD 41 and LSD 49 classes. The
    LX(R) program focus during the remainder of this year will be on
    completing the contract design efforts. The LX(R) contract design is
    being performed by General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding
    Company (GD-NASSCO) and HII, in support of the future Detail Design and
    Construction competitive acquisition. The lead LX(R) is planned to
    begin construction in fiscal year 2022.
        LHA 6 America-class ships are flexible, multi-mission platforms
    with capabilities that span the range of military operations, from
    forward deployed crisis response to forcible entry operations. These
    ships will provide the modern replacements for the LHA 1 Tarawa-class
    ships and the aging LHD 1 Wasp-class ships. USS America (LHA 6) will
    begin her first operational deployment with the 15th MEU in July 2017.
    USS Tripoli (LHA 7) construction is 70 percent complete and on schedule
    to deliver in 2018. LHA 8 will have a well deck to increase operational
    flexibility and a reduced island that increases flight deck space to
    enhance aviation capability. The Detail Design and Construction
    contract for LHA 8 was awarded last Friday and delivery is planned for
    fiscal year 2024.
        The San Antonio-class (LPD 17) provides the ability to embark,
    transport control, insert, sustain, and extract elements of a MAGTF and
    supporting forces by helicopters, tilt rotor aircraft, landing craft,
    and amphibious vehicles. Two ships are under construction, Portland
    (LPD 27) and Fort Lauderdale (LPD 28), and are planned to deliver in
    October 2017 and August 2021 respectively. LPD 28's design and
    construction features will leverage many of the ongoing LX(R) design
    innovations and cost reduction initiatives that are necessary for the
    program to achieve affordability goals while maintaining the high level
    capabilities of the LPD 17-class. Congress added a 13th ship (LPD 29)
    in fiscal year 2017 which will mitigate critical impacts to
    shipbuilding and combat systems industrial bases caused by the gap in
    ship construction between the start of construction for LPD 28 and the
    start of construction for LX(R).
               auxiliary ships, expeditionary, and other vessels
        Support vessels such as the Expeditionary Sea Base (T-ESB),
    Expeditionary Transfer Dock (T-ESD) and the Expeditionary Fast
    Transport (EPF) provide additional flexibility to the combatant
    commanders. The USNS Montford Point (T-ESD 1) and USNS John Glenn (T-
    ESD 2) provide two core capabilities of vehicle and equipment transfer
    at-sea and interface with surface connectors to deliver vehicles and
    equipment ashore to complete arrival and assembly. The USNS Lewis B.
    Puller (T-ESB 3), the first Afloat Forward Staging Base variant of the
    T-ESD, was delivered in June 2015 and becomes operationally available
    this year. T-ESBs are flexible platforms capable of hosting multiple
    mission sets with airborne, surface, and subsurface assets. T-ESBs 4
    and 5 are under construction, with deliveries scheduled for March 2018
    and May 2019, respectively.
        The T-EPF provides a high-speed, shallow-draft alternative to
    moving personnel and materiel within and between the operating areas,
    and to supporting security cooperation and engagement missions. T-EPF 8
    was delivered in April 2017 and production continues on EPFs 9-11.
        The Combat Logistic Force consists of T-AOE fast support ships, T-
    AKE auxiliary dry cargo ships, and T-AO fleet replenishment oilers.
    Combat Logistics Force ships fulfill the vital role of providing
    underway replenishment of fuel, food, repair parts, ammunition and
    equipment to forward deployed ships and embarked aircraft, to enable
    them to operate for extended periods of time at sea. The Kaiser-class
    (T-AO 187) fleet replenishment oilers will be replaced with the John
    Lewis-class fleet replenishment oilers, designated T-AO 205-class. The
    Detail Design and Construction contract was awarded in 2016 to GD-
    NASSCO for production of the first six ships of the class.
        The Department has begun procurement of a combined Towing, Salvage,
    and Rescue (T-ATS) ship to replace the four T-ATF 166-class fleet tugs,
    which reach the end of their expected service lives starting in 2020,
    and the four T-ARS 50-class salvage ships, which reach the end of their
    expected service lives starting in 2025. The lead ship is planned for
    award in 2017 and the total ship quantity is planned to be eight ships.
        Also in 2016, the Navy and Coast Guard established an Integrated
    Program Office to rebuild the Nation's heavy icebreaking capability.
    The Navy is supporting the Coast Guard's efforts to responsibly and
    affordably recapitalize the heavy polar icebreaker fleet. The Coast
    Guard intends to leverage existing designs and mature technologies to
    mitigate schedule and cost risks using a strategy based on robust
    industry collaboration and competition. Based on this effort, the Coast
    Guard expects delivery of the first icebreaker as early as 2023.
                           surface ship modernization
        Modernization is a critical aspect of sustaining the current fleet
    with advanced capability. The Navy and industry are collaborating on
    innovative approaches to conducting Modernization of Cruisers and Dock
    Landing Ships. The fiscal year 2018 President's Budget includes funding
    for the modernization of six destroyers to sustain combat
    effectiveness, ensure mission relevancy and achieve the full expected
    service lives of the AEGIS Fleet. The request also continues to execute
    and fully funds $4 billion over the FYDP for ``2-4-6'' modernization of
    seven cruisers to ensure long-term capability and capacity for purpose-
    built Air Defense Commander platforms. The remaining four CGs, which
    have BMD capability, will receive modernization to their hull,
    mechanical and electrical systems to support their operation through
    their engineered service life.
        In order to maintain 11 deployable LSDs in the Active Force until
    LX(R) delivers, the Department continues modernization of three LSDs to
    ensure 40 years of operational service life for each ship. The first
    LSD, USS Tortuga (LSD 46), was inducted into modernization in fiscal
    year 2016 and is scheduled to begin her modernization availability in
    fiscal year 2018. This plan mitigates presence shortfalls and supports
    2.0 MEB Assault Echelon shipping requirements.
                          autonomous undersea vehicles
        Autonomous Undersea Vehicles (AUV) are a key component of the
    Navy's effort to expand undersea superiority. These unmanned vehicles
    operate independently from or in cooperation with manned vehicles,
    conducting maritime missions such as Intelligence, Surveillance and
    Reconnaissance (ISR), Seabed Warfare, and Deception.
        The Orca Extra Large Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (XLUUV) is one of
    the larger class unmanned undersea vehicles that is being designed to
    launch from a pier or large surface ship and operate for weeks or
    months. It will have extended range and a reconfigurable, modular
    payload bay to support multiple payloads and a variety of missions to
    complement manned systems.
        The Snakehead Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle
    (LDUUV) is an unmanned undersea vehicle to offload ``dull, dirty,
    dangerous'' missions from manned platforms and mitigate the submarine
    gap beginning in 2022. Snakehead LDUUV will be launched from a variety
    of platforms, including both surface ships and submarines. The initial
    craft's mission will be intelligence preparation of the operational
    environment with follow-on missions including ISR, acoustic
    surveillance, ASW, MCM, and offensive operations.
                                 combat systems
        The Department continues to field the most capable and lethal
    surface and submarine combat systems in the world. The AEGIS Combat
    System Baseline 9, fielded on cruisers and destroyers, offers
    unprecedented defense capabilities, including simultaneous air and
    ballistic missile defense on Destroyers and Air Defense Commander
    capability on cruisers. By the end of 2017, the Navy will have
    completed a total of twelve AEGIS Baseline 9 Combat Systems
    installations. Baseline 10 will bring the AMDR radar providing enhanced
    radar performance and expanding the Navy's ability to perform the
    Integrated Air and Missile Defense mission.
        The Ship Self Defense System combat system supports a myriad of
    mission areas on all Carrier and large deck Amphibious Class Ships (six
    ship classes).
        The Department continues to aggressively pursue affordable
    defensive systems that are employable from multiple platforms. Under
    the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP), the
    Department is replacing aging analog electronic warfare defensive
    systems first fielded in the early 1970's with new, digital systems.
    SEWIP Block 1 and 2 systems have been approved for Full Rate Production
    and are currently being fielded across the fleet. The SEWIP Block 3
    program has completed its Critical Design Review in 2017 and is
    currently on track to begin fielding in the 2019-2020 timeframe.
        The Submarine community continues to successfully deliver
    improvements in Anti-Submarine Warfare utilizing a bi-annual spiral
    development model and leveraging commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)
    technologies via the Acoustic Rapid COTS Insertion (A-RCI) program.
    Developmental towed arrays with improved telemetry have been
    successfully fielded on deployed fast attack submarines and new
    contracts for TB-29X and TB-34X, with these new telemetries were
    awarded in FY 2016.
                                    weapons
        The Department continues to make significant strides in extending
    the fleet's layered defense battle-space while also improving the
    capabilities of the individual ship defense layers in order to pace the
    increasing anti-ship missile threat. Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) provides
    theater and high value target area defense for the fleet and with
    integrated fire control, has more than doubled defensive battle-space.
    In April 2017, SM-6 Block I testing successfully completed live fire
    requirements and the program is on schedule to declare Full Operational
    Capability (FOC) by the end of this calendar year. SM-6 Block IA is an
    enhanced version of SM-6 Block I with guidance section hardware and
    software modifications for improved capability against advanced
    threats. Delivery of both the SM-6 Block I and SM-6 Block IA continue
    to meet contractual delivery schedule requirements.
        The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) provides another layer to
    the Navy's defended battle-space. The ESSM Block 2 Milestone C decision
    is scheduled for July 2018 with IOC for AEGIS platforms scheduled for
    2020 and Ship Self Defense System platforms IOC in the 2022-2023
    timeframe.
        The third inner layer of the fleet's layered defense is the Rolling
    Airframe Missile (RAM) Block 2 designed to pace the evolving anti-ship
    cruise missile threat and improve performance against complex stream
    raid engagement scenarios. In fiscal year 2017, the RAM Block 2 Program
    continued to demonstrate outstanding performance through successful
    fleet and ship qualification firing events. The RAM Block 2 will
    proceed to a Full Rate Production Decision Review in fiscal year 2018
    upon completion of the final modeling and simulation runs.
        The fiscal year 2018 President's Budget includes funding to
    continue upgrades to the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) inventory with
    active guidance. This investment provides an affordable, integrated
    fire control capable, area defense missile to counter stressing
    threats.
                                   connectors
        Our expeditionary warfare doctrine requires surface and vertical
    lift capability to transport personnel, supplies and equipment from
    within the seabase and maneuver them to objectives ashore. Surface and
    aviation connectors with enhanced speed and range will provide future
    expeditionary force commanders greater flexibility to operate in
    contested environments. While the aviation component of our connector
    capability has seen significant modernization with the fielding of the
    MV-22 and continuation of the CH-53K program, our primary surface
    connectors, the Landing Craft Air-Cushion (LCAC) and the Landing Craft
    Utility (LCU) are reaching the end of their service lives and require
    modern replacements.
        The fiscal year 2018 President's Budget funds the new LCAC-100-
    class air cushioned vehicles. The Ship-to-Shore Connector program will
    replace the aging LCACs which have undergone service life extension
    programs (SLEP) and a post-SLEP sustainment program. Additionally,
    fiscal year 2018 budget request includes the procurement of the first
    LCU-1700-class craft which will begin the recapitalization of the aging
    LCU 1610-class.
        These platforms are essential in connecting the combat power and
    logistics sustainment the sea base provides, with the forces operating
    in the littorals and executing inland missions. The Department will
    continue to explore future connector options that will increase our
    ability to exploit the sea as maneuver space by increasing range,
    speed, and capacity.
                                   conclusion
        The Department of the Navy continues to instill affordability,
    stability, and capacity into our shipbuilding and supporting programs.
    Continued congressional support of the Department's plans and budgets
    will help sustain a viable industrial base. This request begins to lay
    the ground work for growing warfighting capabilities in the fiscal year
    2019 President's Budget, as the Department also makes initial
    investments in a larger Navy and Marine Corps. We thank you for your
    continued support of the Navy and Marine Corps and request your support
    of the fiscal year 2018 President's Budget.

        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Ms. Stiller, and thank you to
    our other witnesses.
        Well, let me ask about the 355-ship requirement. I jotted
    down some words that you used, which I think should be
    instructive to the Congress and also to the public, Ms.
    Stiller. You talked about the emerging security environment,
    which is much more dangerous than it has been. You said that we
    must proceed with a sense of urgency. As chairman of this
    subcommittee, I can tell you that I want to help you proceed
    with that sense of urgency on a number of these issues,
    including accelerating the 355-ship buildup.
        This has been asked a number of times in this subcommittee,
    and so I want to make sure that we understand. With regard to
    the requirement of 355 ships, that requirement includes a
    requirement that those ships be fully staffed with additional
    personnel. Is that correct?
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. That we have the capability of having the
    aircraft that is required for that size fleet.
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. That you have the munitions that a 355-ship
    fleet with that particular mix--with the appropriate mix would
    need to get the job done.
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. So it is not just building these floating
    fortresses, but it is making them fully operational. The
    requirement is that we be able to have all of that in a package
    that gets us up to 355. Is that correct?
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. What options is the Navy exploring--and
    this is to any of you--to grow the size of the fleet more
    rapidly?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Mr. Chairman, I will take a stab at
    that.
        So the Navy is looking at a very comprehensive approach to
    accelerate the growth of the fleet that the CNO has talked
    extensively about with a sense of urgency to bring a broader
    capability, a more capable, more lethal Navy in the 2020s. One
    element of that is clearly new construction that we have talked
    about and that is featured in the force structure assessment, a
    very analytical look at the way we have operated the force over
    a decade and a half of wartime OPTEMPO [Operation Tempo], at
    the current security environment, and our commitment to
    combatant commanders in terms of presence and surgability.
        Beyond that, the Navy is also looking at service life
    extensions on existing platforms. So Vice Admiral Tom Moore at
    Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), is leading an effort right
    now and it shows some potential to extend service lives both
    hull, mechanical, and electrical, as well as combat systems in
    cruisers, destroyers, amphibs, logistic force ships. Then we
    are also looking at reactivation of ships. This is something
    that is an ongoing analysis right now. We have to look very
    carefully at that because the ships that have been
    decommissioned are older and have older combat systems. We have
    to have a strong look at the return on investment from that
    approach. But between all those elements, a very comprehensive
    approach at accelerating the growth to the 355-ship Navy.
        Senator Wicker. When do you think you might have something
    to us about whether reactivation is pragmatic and doable?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. I will take that for the record and
    talk to Admiral Moore and the team he is leading. I know they
    are looking at that aggressively. I do not have a sense for
    specifically when they will develop that insight. So we will
    get back to you.
        [The information follows:]

        In May 2017, the U.S. Navy began an assessment of the
    technical effort and costs to reactivate and extend the
    expected service life of specific classes of surface ships. The
    Navy's review and assessment is ongoing, with a target
    completion date of fall 2017. Naval Sea Systems Command is
    leading the assessment in coordination with OPNAV, Military
    Sealift Command, and other Navy stakeholders. The assessment is
    focused on the reactivation and/or service life extension of
    the following ship classes: FFG, CG, DDG, LHD, LHA, LSD, LPD
    17, LCS, T-AO, T-AOE, and T-AKE Class Ships.

        Senator Wicker. Okay.
        Now, we are going to have a 30-year shipbuilding plan,
    which is required of the Navy. When is that coming? When do you
    think that is coming, Ms. Stiller?
        Ms. Stiller. Sir, we are staffing that 30-year shipbuilding
    plan now. As you know, that has to be signed out by the
    Secretary of Defense's Office.
        Another nuance, just to make sure you are aware, is that
    part of the language that requires submittal of the plan also
    requires us to certify that the plan that we submit is
    adequately funded. As we are looking at today's FYDP [Future
    Years Defense Program], we do not see growth in the out-years
    at any kind of rate. So the 355-ship plan would be addressed in
    a future 30-year shipbuilding plan because this current budget
    environment does not give us that assurance to be able to
    certify.
        Senator Wicker. I wanted the committee to fully understand
    this. I am probably at first blush going to be a little
    disappointed when I see this shipbuilding plan, but it is not
    because the leadership of the Navy represented at this table
    and on up, to include the top leadership of DOD, does not
    believe in the 355-ship idea. It is because you are constrained
    by the statute to put only a certain level of shipbuilding on
    paper until we get the funding straightened out.
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Yes, sir. I was going to say the law
    stipulates that we certify in the 30-year shipbuilding plan
    that it is funded in the program.
        Senator Wicker. We are going to try to help you on that.
        Unless any of you have any follow-up on that, I will be
    happy now to turn the questioning over to my good friend, Ms.
    Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Admiral Lescher, I just want to get clarification then. The
    ways to get to the 355-ship number--and you cited three ways:
    new construction, extend service life of our ships, and then to
    reactivate ships. Are there numbers attached to these three
    ways that you intend to or you see getting us to 355 ships?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Ma'am, there are definitely numbers
    attached to the new construction element, which is the force
    structure assessment.
        Senator Hirono. Yes.
        Vice Admiral Lescher. The examination of service life
    extensions and how it can accelerate the path to 355 beyond
    just what is available in the industrial base and
    reactivations--that is analysis that is going on right now at
    Naval Sea Systems Command. So I do not have numbers right now
    for you.
        Senator Hirono. You were just talking about reactivation or
    are they extending the life of our----
        Vice Admiral Lescher. For both. That is both ongoing work
    right now.
        Senator Hirono. So there will be an assessment of how many
    ships can actually be brought back and how many can be
    extended.
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Yes.
        Senator Hirono. When is the time frame for that assessment?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. I will take that for the record and
    talk to Admiral Moore and see what the time frame to complete
    that analysis on both those pieces is.
        [The information follows:]

        Huntington Ingalls Industries received a modification to an
    existing contract on June 27, 2017 to build DDG 125 to the Flight III
    baseline standard. Negotiations with General Dynamics Bath Iron Works,
    to incorporate Flight III, is ongoing.
        The fiscal year 2018-fiscal year 2022 MYP Request for Proposal is
    planned to be released by first quarter of fiscal year 2018 with a
    contract award targeted for third quarter of fiscal year 2018. The Navy
    plans to leverage a competitive acquisition strategy, with all ships
    procured in the Flight III configuration. The design for Flight III is
    currently over 88 percent complete and expected to be 100 percent
    complete at the time of the MYP contract award.

        Senator Hirono. I wanted to ask you again--well, not again,
    Admiral Lescher. I and others on the SASC committee, as well as
    on the subcommittee, have been very focused on what we need to
    do in the Asia-Pacific area. I would like to ask you how are
    you incorporating the shift to the Asia-Pacific as you consider
    expanding the fleet to deploy the number of ships you need?
    Where are you intending to base this larger fleet?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. So this broader approach of the
    approach to the Asia-Pacific encompasses a number of elements
    that I think in some respects you are tracking. In terms of the
    actual number of ships that we are deploying--you are familiar
    with the Navy commitment to have 60 percent of the fleet in the
    Asia-Pacific or in the Pacific fleet by 2020. So that is going
    to grow the physical number of ships on the order from 160 in
    fiscal year 2016 I believe to 176 in fiscal year 2020. The
    number of deployments will increase as well.
        Beyond that, the Navy is preferentially deploying our
    newest capability to the Asia-Pacific. So whether it is P-8, E-
    2D, F-35B, F-35C, MQ4 Trident, those newer capabilities are
    going first to the Asia-Pacific region. The same thing applies
    for our ships as well. So whether it is Zumwalt, DDG Flight
    III, the newest, most capable ships will go to the Asia-
    Pacific.
        So it is a combination of numbers. It is a combination of
    capability, and then as you indicated, the infrastructure to
    support that as well.
        General Walsh might talk about some of the particular work
    that is going in Guam as a hub of activity. Of course, we have
    submarines forward deployed there as well. Then the
    infrastructure required for this balance in Hawaii and broader
    areas is part of ongoing investment. So across all those
    elements.
        Senator Hirono. When you are talking about infrastructure,
    you are talking about the movement of a number of our troops
    from Futenma to Guam and recycling through Australia and
    eventually to Hawaii.
        General Walsh, would you like to add something to this
    discussion?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. What I would add on just the
    amphibious piece that Admiral Lescher talked about as part of
    this growth as we increase the number of the size of the fleet
    and we increase the size on the current growth path we are on
    with the amphibious forces, the plan is to put a second
    amphibious ready group in the Pacific. Currently the one that
    we have right now is in Sasebo with the 31st MEU [Marine
    Expeditionary Unit]. So that is part of that.
        But any other further questions on the Guam relocation--we
    are continuing to execute that plan.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you. Yes, we need to keep the Futenma
    issue on track I would say.
        I mentioned in my opening statement that the Navy had been
    testing an engineering and development model of the air and
    missile defense radar (AMDR), at PMRF [Pacific Missile Range
    Facility]. The Navy's testing of AMDR was supposed to allow the
    Navy to award a contract for an engineering change proposal
    last fall to upgrade one of the fiscal year DDG-51 destroyers
    to a Flight III configuration.
        Secretary Stiller, could you give us an update on the
    Navy's progress in signing a contract for the engineering
    change? Why has there been a delay in signing this engineering
    change proposal? Does this delay have any implications for the
    Navy being ready to sign a multiyear procurement contract in
    fiscal year 2018, and how many DDG-51's could the industrial
    base handle in fiscal year 2018? So I hope you can remember all
    the series of questions.
        Ms. Stiller. If I do not, please remind me. But, yes,
    ma'am, let me give you a status on Flight III.
        From a ship design perspective, we are 86 percent complete
    with the design to introduce Flight III to the DDG-51. As I
    mentioned in my opening statement, we have a handshake
    agreement with Ingalls to introduce that engineering change
    proposal on their fiscal year 2017 ship. We recently received a
    proposal from Bath Iron Works for their ECP [Engineering Change
    Proposal], and we are in negotiations with them. We have also
    received a bid from them on their 16 ship as a Flight IIA, and
    we are also asking them to also give us an ECP to look at that
    as a Flight III.
        But talking about the radar, the radar, as you mentioned,
    is doing quite well. It is in testing. We have been before the
    OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] Defense Acquisition
    Board and gotten permission to proceed to buy the radars for
    those ships. We also are testing our Aegis combat system that
    will marry up with that radar, and testing is going well.
        All the way along, we have the radar folks, the
    shipbuilding folks, the government folks, the combat systems
    folks working together. So there is no mystery here.
        But where we will be at start of construction with the 2018
    multiyear, we are 100 percent complete with the design. As I
    said, we are 86 percent complete today. We completed our CDR
    back in November of 2016.
        You asked me about number of ships in the multiyear. Our
    request is 10. Certainly the industrial base can handle more
    than two a year, but our request right now in our budget
    constrained environment is for 10 in the multiyear.
        I think that I got all your questions.
        Senator Hirono. I think so. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you.
        Senator Rounds?
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, let me thank you all for your service to our
    country.
        Admiral Lescher, recently the proposed budget for 2018
    requests the funding, if I am correct in my addition, of eight
    additional ships based on the administration's proposal for a
    350-ship Navy and the current fleet at 275 ships. First of all,
    I am just curious and just a confirmation that the 350-ship
    number is an appropriate number in your opinion. Second of all,
    is the current fiscal year 2018 ship construction plan in line
    with the strategic goals of the United States Navy?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Yes, sir. Three hundred fifty-five
    ships delineated in the force structure's estimate is the
    correct number. It is the objective number. The fiscal year
    2018 budget submission with the addition of the second littoral
    combat ship that the administration has indicated is
    forthcoming in an amendment would bring it to nine ships in
    fiscal year 2018, eight right now as you cited.
        I am sorry.
        Senator Rounds. I am just curious as to the--is it in line
    with the strategic goals of the United States Navy?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. So it is aligned in this manner. The
    Secretary of Defense has talked very extensively about the path
    to get to a larger, more capability, more lethal Navy that we
    all believe is urgently required. The path that he laid out in
    his direction--he calls it a three-phase campaign plan to get
    there.
        Fiscal year 2017, with the request for additional
    appropriations, which we thank the committee and the broader
    Congress for enacting, was all about getting up to the
    readiness debt that all the services have accumulated over the
    course of this decade and a half of wartime OPTEMPO.
        Fiscal year 2018, this budget is to build on that readiness
    recovery and address pressing shortfalls wholeness issues. So
    you see, for example, in the Navy budget a strong focus on ship
    depot maintenance, on aviation depot maintenance, on the flying
    hour program, on the steaming days program, and funding the
    enabling readiness accounts to elevate the readiness of the
    force. That is across spares, logistics, and depot support
    funding. So it sets the condition now. That is the design of
    this budget, to set the condition for the third phase of the
    campaign plan the Secretary was talking about, which is an
    fiscal year 2019 budget, given the relief from the defense caps
    in the Budget Control Act that will support and make actionable
    the growth of capacity and modernization as well.
        So that is really the strategic concept.
        Senator Rounds. I am curious. The relationship between the
    ability of the industry and the depot capabilities--is there a
    relationship or a limitation there between the number of new
    ships or boats that can be delivered and the number of existing
    submarines, as an example, that can be appropriately depoted?
    Is there a limiting relationship between the two? Are there
    suppliers? Are there limiting processes here that we should be
    aware of? I am thinking in particular, just as an example, the
    USS Boise is sitting at dock. It is not usable. It is an asset
    which most certainly I believe the Navy had anticipated would
    be usable.
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Yes, sir.
        Senator Rounds. Is there a relationship between the numbers
    that we are building versus the numbers that we are trying to
    get through depot?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Yes, sir. That is a great question. I
    will ask Ms. Stiller to talk in a moment.
        But to your point, I think your insight is right on, which
    is a submarine we have that is not deployable because we cannot
    execute the depot maintenance on it is every bit as lost an
    opportunity as a submarine we did not build.
        We are very focused on increasing the throughput on our
    public nuclear-capable shipyards to get after the issue, the
    prioritization being on the ballistic missile submarines, the
    nuclear aircraft carriers, and then attack submarines are third
    in priority right now. That is what led to the prioritization
    of Boise not being----
        Senator Rounds. Share with me this. I do not mean to
    interrupt, but I am really curious. Clearly we have some very,
    very smart people within the Navy. This is not a surprise that
    you now have three of these submarines which are sitting
    basically at dock, are not in depot. I do not think that this
    was simply a case of malfeasance. This is not a case of where
    there was not an understanding that it needed to be done. Would
    you share with the committee what causes this type of a backup
    at dock, please?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Yes, sir. Part of it is us learning
    about the dynamics of growing the capacity in our shipyards. As
    we saw, for example, the Los Angeles-class submarines come into
    mid-life as a surge in workload, along with refuelings in the
    aircraft carriers. People certainly were looking at that
    forthcoming bow wave of workload and trying to be thoughtful
    about growing the capacity of our four public shipyards to get
    after that.
        We are on a path, and this budget continues that path, for
    example, to grow labor in the public shipyards from 33,800
    full-time equivalents in this budget to 36,100.
        I think what was a little bit of a learning curve here is
    understanding what happens to the demographics of the labor
    force in a shipyard as you grow it that quickly. We are at a
    place right now where well over 50 percent of the people in our
    public shipyards have less than 5 years of experience. The
    training element of taking a new hire, becoming an artisan is
    something that was learned and understood in terms of how
    productive they are. I think in aggregate what that showed--
    what that led is to insufficient capacity. Even as it was
    growing, it was an insufficient rate of growth of capacity in
    the public yards that led to us not being able to put through
    all these submarines.
        Senator Rounds. Well, if I could. My time has expired. I am
    just going to ask one thing for the record, please. When would
    this backlog of existing assets--when would this backlog of
    existing submarines be taken care of in the current budget
    process? Could you share that with us either----
        Senator Wicker. Go ahead.
        Vice Admiral Lescher. What the Navy is doing to get after
    that backlog is a number of investments in this budget. I
    talked about the growth in the labor elements. There is growth
    in improving the infrastructure itself, capital investment in
    the shipyards at rates well above what is legislated to
    increase the throughput. Again, that is the bottom line goal
    here. We need to buy and increase throughput.
        The other thing you see in this budget--and planning
    continue--and it gets back to the foundation of your question
    of the relationship between the nuclear-capable shipbuilding
    industry and our public depots is we are leveraging across both
    to get after this, both on a--we will bring touch labor out
    of----
        Senator Rounds. Look, I am going to run out of time. I
    would like if you could get back to us with a timeline for the
    elimination of that backlog.
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Fair enough. Yes, sir.
        [The information follows:]

        The Navy is taking several actions to improve public shipyard
    capacity and productivity in order to reduce the current backlog. The
    Navy's goal is to size the Naval Shipyards capacity to match the
    programmed workload requirements for aircraft carrier and submarine
    readiness.
        Specifically, the Navy's Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget (PB18)
    includes investments to increase hiring of shipyard workers; enhance
    workforce training and development; improve and modernize aging
    infrastructure facilities, information technology systems, and
    equipment; and modernize shipyards with an architecture that optimizes
    the layout for ship maintenance and modernization and improves the
    productivity of the workforce. The Navy also uses return data from
    every type of availability at the Naval Shipyards as feedback for
    programming and planning efforts on future hulls to improve the
    planning/estimation process.
        At PB-18 funding levels, the Navy anticipates recovering the public
    shipyard backlog by the end of fiscal year 2023. The timing of full
    recovery is dependent upon several factors outside of the Navy's direct
    control, including stable and consistent funding and global operational
    demands.

        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        Thank you for your patience, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Senator King?
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Stiller, welcome. Delighted to have you here to discuss
    these important issues.
        I have probably been to a dozen hearings, maybe more, about
    procurement and particularly about procurement problems. It
    always seems to come back to trying to build something while
    you are designing it and changes in requirements, changes in
    design, unanticipated changes whether it is the F-35 or any of
    the other big issues that we have been dealing with.
        I am very much in favor of multiyear contracts for all the
    reasons you have stated: taxpayer savings, better for the
    industrial base. I am worried, however, about the Flight III
    being ready for multiyear. You have testified and Mr. Stackley
    testified the other day, 86 percent design complete. But
    generally, one of the criteria--and the GAO [Government
    Accountability Office] talks about this--is not only a complete
    design but having built one or two and having seen how it
    actually works and whether the cost estimates are realistic.
    You mentioned that you have an agreement with Ingalls, a
    handshake, to build one.
        My only request is to consider slowing the multiyear down
    maybe 6 months in order to start construction on the first
    Flight III before we buy 10 ships and ask our industrial base
    to make commitments based upon not an unproven design, but a
    new design and a substantially changed design. This is not
    minor changes. This is much more than the Flight IIA changes.
    It really is a question of not whether there should be a
    multiyear but when and when do we get to the point where we
    have full confidence, enough confidence to buy 10 at a time.
        Could you give me your thoughts?
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir. I look at the multiyears that we
    have sent over both for Virginia and DDG-51 kind of in the same
    boat. We are going to introduce the Virginia payload module
    into the Virginia multiyear as well. Right now, that is a year
    behind because we are asking for--that multiyear starts in
    2019. But to give you some perspective, that design is
    approximately 10 percent complete today. Obviously, we will be
    in the 80 percent complete when we get to that multiyear as
    well and close to 100 by the time we start construction.
        The way we are trying to mitigate the risk on the 51
    program is by trying to introduce that Flight III ECP into this
    last multiyear, the one that ends in 2017, on the last ships of
    those multiyears. As I pointed out, we have a handshake with
    Ingalls. We are in negotiations with that. We feel like that
    the design is mature and that we understand it. We want to
    continue to work with the companies.
        Obviously, it will take us time. We will have a competition
    for the multiyear. I cannot tell you exactly when we will
    award. We usually never award on the first day of the fiscal
    year anyway. We are never that prepared. But I would tell you
    that I have high confidence that we have the design well in
    hand. Both yards have been on schedule on design.
        Senator King. The design--but again, generally in the past
    when there is a multiyear, one or two have been built, not only
    the design, but you have something afloat that you can say did
    it work or were the prices realistic. Did we understand the
    risks? Were there design changes during construction? I am just
    suggesting again not stepping away from the multiyear, but it
    is just a question of timing to be sure that we get it right
    because you are asking our yards to take a big risk on 10
    ships, none of which have--none of that design have ever been
    built before. That is my question.
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir. I understand your concern, but we
    have been successful in doing this in the past. I will point
    out on the Virginia side, this current multiyear that we are
    in, we introduced additional change into that ship design, as
    we did block upgrades. We talk about the blocks on Virginia. We
    have introduced at a lesser extent on DDG-51 over the years
    change. We view that the amount of change in this particular
    Flight III design, it touched about 45 to 50 percent of the
    drawings.
        Senator King. That is not inconsiderable.
        Ms. Stiller. I know that is not but it is along the same
    lines on the Virginia as well. In fact, in the Flight IIA, we
    touched more drawings on Flight IIA than we are on Flight III.
    But that aside, we also were not nearly as complete with design
    when we introduced Flight IIA. We are making ourselves and
    making ourselves to be disciplined about making sure we are at
    a certain percent design complete before we start getting into
    construction. I think we have changed our processes and the way
    that we look at percent design complete to make sure that we
    are not putting undue risk.
        Senator King. I appreciate that. Again, I am a big
    supporter of multiyear. I am a big supporter of Flight III. I
    think it is going to bring a major advantage to the fleet, and
    we want to get it as soon as possible. But I would rather get
    it right than get it fast. Thank you very much.
        Senator Wicker. Ms. Stiller, with regard to IIA, those
    concerns, as Senator King mentioned, in your view turned out to
    be unfounded.
        Ms. Stiller. I would say IIA goes back quite a bit, but
    certainly there were challenges on the lead ships when we went
    to Flight IIA. But I would also tell you that we went into
    Flight IIA with a much less percent complete of the design
    products. That is one thing we have learned, and the Congress
    has stressed and we have taken that to heart. For example,
    Columbia. The lead Columbia we predict will be 83 percent
    complete design before we start construction. That is far
    better than we saw Seawolf. Virginia even was only about in the
    mid-40 percent complete when we started that program.
        We understand the reasons we need to get percent design
    complete way up there before we start construction. We are
    committed to it and we have learned our lessons. Back to your
    comment about having on-time and on-schedule, that resonates
    with us because it is important to us to be able to make sure
    that are affordably procuring these assets.
        Senator Wicker. On the Flight III, how much do you think we
    are going to save by doing it this way?
        Ms. Stiller. Well, the Flight III capability will cost
    more. The radar is a bit more expensive but not very much.
        Senator Wicker. How much are we going to save through using
    multiyear?
        Ms. Stiller. On the DDG-51, we predict we are nearly 10
    percent, and on the Virginia, we are at 14 percent. We
    obviously have to go through the certification process with the
    CAPE [Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation], and so those
    numbers will solidify over time and certainly having industry
    bids will help us to inform. But we always see on multiyears
    that we get at least 10 percent savings.
        Senator Wicker. Well, Senator King, has a concern and so I
    hope you will work with us to see if we can achieve a
    consensus.
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir. We will lay out the schedule for
    Senator King to show you what our timeline is. I do not have
    that off of the top of my head.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Strange?
        Senator Strange. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I thank our witnesses for their appearance here today. I
    appreciate your service as well.
        I appreciated Senator Rounds' question to Admiral Lescher
    about shipyard expertise. That is an issue of particular
    concern to me. I think we see how it affects various aspects of
    the programs we are trying to achieve. As I know you well know,
    Madam Secretary, there are 21,000 men and women at two
    shipyards, 1,200 suppliers in 45 States who support the current
    LCS program. I am very pleased with the administration's
    decision to add an additional ship in the budget and look
    forward to seeing that. It is not sufficient in my view, and I
    will certainly be weighing in on that subject, but it is a step
    in the right direction. I greatly appreciate that.
        Back to the issue of shipyard capability and efficiency,
    should we agree to cut production back in those shipyards, in
    my view it will have a significant affect on efficiency,
    competition, and other factors, particularly price. In my view
    that is, in this current budget environment, a very significant
    concern. In my view, if we truly want to grow our Navy fleet,
    which I strongly support, to the 350 to 355, we have got to
    expand the LCS frigate program rather than cut it back at this
    time.
        I guess my question is pretty basic. If we want to achieve
    that goal, does cutting back on the frigate LCS program help us
    achieve that goal? How does it impact in your view how we get
    to that goal in the most efficient, cost-effective way that
    actually delivers something that our warfighters need in the
    theater? Whoever would like to take a shot at that.
        Ms. Stiller. Well, sir, as I mentioned in my opening
    statement, we have a requirement for 52 small surface
    combatants, and we want to get to the frigate as soon as we
    possibly can. We had taken a pause to go and--with the emerging
    threat environment out there to take a look again at the
    requirements to make sure we have it right. As we transition
    from LCS to the frigate, that is why we put in quantities to
    bridge to getting to frigate and know they are not at the
    optimal build rates for the yards but they are where we feel
    that we are at minimum sustaining rate so that we can
    transition to frigate because we want that 52 total number to
    have a number that are frigates. Twenty is where our head has
    been for a while now.
        We realize that we cannot just turn off LCS and immediately
    get to frigate. That is why you see ships added because we are
    mindful that we have an industrial base out there that we do
    not want to walk away from because they are a critical part of
    our ability to build the ships.
        Admiral, if you wanted to comment on the requirements.
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Absolutely. This is very much an
    intersection of sustaining the industrial base and getting the
    design and the requirements right and preferably working with
    the industry to get them right.
        Senator, I know you are very familiar with the evolution
    requirements and the concept of the littoral combat ships we
    have put on contract. We absolutely need to buy the fleet.
    Admiral Rhode and the surface force commanders said I need them
    now. I need more of them.
        At the same time, as we broaden our operational concept to
    distributed maritime operations, distributed lethality, looking
    for these ships to operate not only in the littorals but
    perhaps more independently, that is what is driving them from
    being a single-mission focus to a multi-mission focus. As we
    mature those requirements and work with industry to understand
    where the knee in the curve is for most capability, for price,
    that also drives very much into this timeline that you talked
    about.
        Senator Strange. Thank you very much, Admiral. I look
    forward to following up on that issue.
        Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Strange.
        Senator Kaine?
        Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for yielding me
    a few seconds. I will not take it.
        But thank you all, witnesses, for your good testimony.
        A couple of things. The high costs associated with
    shipbuilding are often attributed to the time elapsed between
    building. You have had some success in both the Arleigh Burke
    and the Virginia-class sub when you have done multiyear
    procurements. Is there any reason to think that that would not
    potentially yield similar cost saving results if applied to
    other programs like carriers, for example?
        Ms. Stiller. Senator, we have found that once you have a
    stable design--we have just come through the lead carrier. As
    you look forward to and you say, yes, I am not going to be
    introducing great change to the carrier, there are
    opportunities. We have done a 2-year block buy on carriers in
    the--two carrier block buys in the past. It is certainly
    something that if we can make the commitment to the supplier
    base, it is effective, and we can get savings.
        We do try to look, after we get through a lead ship, to get
    into multiyears as soon as we possibly can and be able to
    introduce capability incrementally.
        So, yes, sir, we find that giving the industry that
    predictability--and it is not just at the shipyard level, but
    the supplier level too--is critical.
        Senator Kaine. The second question is there was a Bloomberg
    article in the last day or so that talked about something that
    we might be seeing. You talked about an additional presidential
    budget coming over I think with respect to the second LCS. I am
    a strong LCS fan, but my understanding from the article is part
    of the funding for that. Second is going to be reducing
    aircraft overhaul by $300 million.
        Is that accurate? If that is so, give me some kind of
    context as to why that is a good idea and what it would mean.
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Yes, sir. I will not speculate on
    what will be in the OMB submission to you, but I will tell you
    what you cited is inaccurate. It would not be a source coming
    out of overhaul funds.
        Senator Kaine. Are you familiar with the Bloomberg piece
    that I just referenced? As you know right now, that is not an
    accurate article.
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Correct.
        Senator Kaine. Thank you.
        Thanks, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Sullivan?
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate the service of our witnesses today. Thank you,
    all three, very much.
        I wanted to focus, not surprisingly for some of my
    colleagues on the panel, on our Arctic strategy. We are an
    Arctic nation because my great State, the State of Alaska.
    Secretary Mattis during his confirmation hearing said the
    Arctic is key strategic terrain in part because of the new
    opportunities there, new challenges. The Russians are building
    up their icebreaking fleet, their navy. They are putting new
    brigade combat teams in the Arctic, very aggressively, probing
    countries by their bomber runs. Just in the Alaska air space in
    the last month and a half, we have had to go intercept them
    with our F-22's up in Alaska.
        So this committee mandated that the Secretary of Defense
    put out a new Arctic strategy which the end of the Obama
    administration/beginning of the Trump administration did, which
    was a much better improvement on the old one which was not
    really a strategy but more of a document with a lot of nice
    pictures in it.
        One of the elements of the new Arctic strategy is that we,
    to protect our interests and sovereignty in the region, need to
    be able to conduct FONOPS [Freedom of Navigation Operations] in
    the Arctic. Yet, Admiral Richardson just testified before this
    committee. He said it is absolutely true we do not have the
    capacity or the capability to conduct Arctic FONOPS. Our
    strategy right now has an end state that we cannot meet. It is
    very obvious.
        Admiral, I wanted to talk a little about--you know, as we
    look to pursue a fleet of 355 ships, what are the current plans
    in the Navy to include ice hardening of any ships that we are
    obviously going to need to be able to conduct FONOPS and
    protect our interests in the region? If so, what ships would we
    be looking at to ice harden?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Right. I will take this for the
    record as well to give you a more detailed, fulsome answer.
    Right now, I am unaware of any current plans announced--if you
    chose to correct me, please do so--for ice hardening.
        Senator Sullivan. Why is that? We have been focused on it.
    The Secretary has focused on it. We have a new strategy. It
    says we need to conduct FONOPS [Freedom of Navigation
    Operations]. I am going to get to the icebreakers here in a
    minute.
        Vice Admiral Lescher. The short answer is the Navy has a
    very active presence in the Arctic but it is undersea and in
    the air right now, and it is not on the surface right now.
        Senator Sullivan. Can you conduct a FONOP with a sub? Not
    an obvious one.
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Not the way we envision it. Exactly
    right. It would depend on how you message that.
        Let me get back to you with the detail on the hardening of
    our ships.
        Are you aware of any ongoing work with that?
        Ms. Stiller. I am not aware.
        [The information follows:]

        Vice Admiral Lescher. The Navy is currently not pursuing
    ice hardening of surface combatant ships because there is no
    current validated combatant commander requirement for these
    ships to operate in the Arctic year-round. Preliminary
    examinations of ice-hardening surface combatants and amphibious
    ships revealed re-design would be required at significant cost
    and design risk. In addition to ice-hardening the hull, designs
    for ships operating in the Arctic would also need to factor in
    the many operational risk factors, including sea-ice, wind, ice
    accumulation on equipment, and limited communications and
    satellite coverage. In addition, surface operations in the
    Arctic would require significant new infrastructure in the
    Arctic region and regional authorization for development that
    would likely have cultural and social impacts on the local
    population. This would entail substantial investment of funding
    beyond ice-hardening ships.
        The DOD has several options to conduct Freedom of
    Navigation operations (FONOPS) beyond Navy surface combatants.
    First, Navy submarines can and do conduct FONOPS, either
    undersea or by surfacing. Second, Navy surface combatants could
    conduct Arctic and sub-Arctic FONOPS in open water conditions
    during the summer melt season. Third, the DOD's FON Program
    employs every branch of Military Service, including the U.S.
    Coast Guard (USCG). Thus, USCG cutters could conduct FONOPS in
    the Arctic and the new Heavy Polar Icebreakers are planned to
    have maritime security capability and the capability to provide
    assured year-round access to the Arctic. Fourth, the Arctic
    Strategy continues to prioritize and maintain the long-standing
    partnerships with other Arctic nations who have publicly
    committed to working within a common framework of international
    law and diplomatic engagement. FONOPS support international
    law. If necessary, FONOPS could be conducted by a partner
    nation, as is currently being done in the South China Seas.
        The Navy's undersea and air assets continue to fulfill
    current operational requirements in the Arctic. Advances in the
    Navy's undersea technology and modernization of both undersea
    and aviation platforms (e.g. P-8A aircraft) will continue to
    provide greater capabilities for the Arctic region. DOD and the
    Navy continue to closely monitor the Arctic activity and will
    continuously re-assess requirements with combatant commanders.

        Senator Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, this is actually a really
    important issue. We are looking to build a 355-ship Navy. We
    have an Arctic strategy. The CNO is saying we cannot conduct
    what we are saying we are supposed to do in our strategy, and
    we have no plans to ice harden our ships and we are going to
    increase our ships by 60 ships. I think we need a very detailed
    answer on why that is not even being considered. It seems to me
    a huge oversight. I would appreciate that.
        Let me get to the icebreaker issue. You know, the Coast
    Guard has talked about the need for three heavy icebreakers,
    three medium icebreakers. Again, Admiral Richardson stated in
    his confirmation hearing that it is clearly in the national
    interest for the U.S. to have more than one heavy icebreaker.
    Right now, we have two, but one is broken and that was
    commissioned in 1976. I went and toured it recently. I think
    was shameful. We should have no man or woman who puts the
    uniform of the U.S. military on that should deploy on a ship
    that is that old and broken. You should go see it, Admiral. It
    is really shameful for our Coast Guard men and women who have
    to deploy on that.
        Initially the estimated cost of one single icebreaker was
    10 years it would take and a billion dollars to build. The
    Norwegians just built the first-ever liquid natural gas powered
    medium icebreaker for $150 million. What are we doing wrong
    here? What can we be doing, and is the Navy working with the
    Coast Guard on trying to get at least the original. The target
    is 2023. I think it needs to be sooner. But why are we talking
    10 years and a billion dollars to build a ship? We put a man on
    the moon in a shorter amount of time. Everybody else is doing
    it. What is the problem, and how are we going to fix it? How
    are we going to get Navy-Coast Guard cooperation and working
    together on this issue which seems to have a little bit of a
    hot potato. No service wants to own it. Yet, everybody says it
    is in our national interest to do it. How are we addressing
    this?
        Ms. Stiller. Sir, we are working very closely with the
    Coast Guard. It is a joint program office right now on the
    icebreaker. There are two memorandums of understanding that we
    have signed, one at the Department of Homeland Security level
    and Department of Navy. I signed for the Navy. The other one is
    the Navy with the Coast Guard. There are a little bit different
    nuances in both.
        But both of them reference that the Coast Guard's mission
    is icebreaking, and so Coast Guard will have the lead on this
    and Navy is in a supporting role. We are providing technical
    assistance with them. We are providing program management type
    support, contracting if they need it. We are participating in
    their reviews. I sit with the Vice Commandant of the Coast
    Guard on all of their reviews. I can tell you that they are
    going through every single requirement and questioning them,
    and we are driving the cost of that ship. It is not going to be
    a billion dollar ship.
        I am not sure the 10 years was not tied to when funding
    might become available. Obviously, we are looking at how do you
    bring that in subject to funding.
        But we are very much engaged with the Coast Guard. We have
    a great working relationship with them, and we are working very
    closely together to get this program on solid footing at an
    affordable cost.
        Senator Sullivan. Is the target of 2023 still doable?
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir, subject to funding availability, but
    yes, sir. We are doing design work right now. We have five
    industry teams providing great insight on what our cost drivers
    are so that we can get the specifications right to get this out
    for bid. There is $150 million that the Congress appropriated
    as part of the Navy's budget last year that will go towards the
    detail design and then the construction funding will have to
    follow.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this committee needs to
    keep a very close oversight role here because there is just a
    lot we need to do and the coordination between the Navy and the
    Coast Guard has not been that good. I am glad to hear that it
    is improving.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Sullivan, you have raised a very
    important topic. Let me just ask this. Admiral Lescher, you
    have taken a few questions for the record and perhaps others of
    you, and I appreciate that because we want to get the right
    information to the committee. This does provide a record for us
    to look at in the future. But this should be fairly easy for
    you to get back to us about. Is that correct?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Yes, sir. Again, the answer was none
    of us are aware of a program for hardening of the ships. But I
    will just go back and do a quick check to make sure that is
    factual.
        Senator Wicker. Along with these things, do you think maybe
    you could get back to us in 2 weeks?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Yes.
        Senator Wicker. On all of the things that you have taken
    for the record. Thank you. Ms. Stiller is nodding yes also. I
    do appreciate that.
        Senator Shaheen is next.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all very much for being here and for your service
    to the country.
        I apologize for missing your opening statements, but I
    understand that there was some discussion about how to get to a
    355-ship Navy.
        The question that I have is how did we arrive at 355 as the
    appropriate number and how do we break down the components of
    that 355 number in a way that provides for the national
    security that we think we need.
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Yes, ma'am. The analytical basis for
    the force structure assessment is it takes a look really
    starting with the combatant commander requirement to execute
    the strategy. The current strategy we have is the Quadrennial
    Defense Review Strategy of 2014. It talks about everything from
    ensuring a safe and secure nuclear deterrent, which drives the
    requirement for our ballistic missile submarines, to building
    peace and security globally, which drives our presence
    requirement, our so-called phase zero, phase one, set to
    theater forces, to deter coercion and defeat when necessary,
    which drives capability in a high end.
        As we integrate those strategic requirements, that is the
    charter to the Navy. These are the missions to execute. We did
    an analytic basis. Each of the combatant commanders made an
    assessment of this is what I need in my theater in Central
    Command, in Pacific Command to execute the strategy that I have
    been assigned. That essentially boils down to essentially a
    contract the Navy has with the Nation to provide rotational
    forces forward for presence and then to surge forces for
    crisis.
        That is the analysis that was done that culminated with a
    number of options, and the best military advice of the service
    leadership was 355 is the right recommendation to the Nation.
    It is not a zero-risk force, but it is a moderate risk we can
    execute. That really is the analytic basis that looks at the
    current security environment and the current requirements to
    execute the strategy.
        Of course, the security environment is very dynamic. There
    was a surge in Russia, North Korea, et cetera.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, along those lines, I was surprised
    to hear in testimony before the full committee probably in the
    last couple of months that we expect China to get to a 350-ship
    Navy by 2020. How concerned are we about that and about our
    capacity at that point to be able to offset what we expect
    China to be doing?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Yes, ma'am. That is a great question.
        But we do not mirror image platform versus platform. That
    is not the way we fight, and so you hear the CNO and the
    Secretary talk very extensively beyond the platforms.
    Obviously, numbers absolutely matter, to your point.
        But our view of executing that strategy to include the
    deter, coercion, and defeat, when required, has to do with the
    innovation that will be taking place concurrently with growing
    the ship to the 355 level. That is everything from new
    technology and the investments you see in this budget in
    unmanned, directed energy, digital elements networking,
    electromagnetic maneuver warfare, and the new operational
    concepts, distributed maritime.
        Senator Shaheen. Given that, how important--I guess this is
    for Ms. Stiller. How important is it that we maintain a robust
    industrial base?
        Ms. Stiller. Ma'am, it is vital that we have a robust
    industrial base, and we watch that very carefully. We watch
    critical suppliers. We rely on our shipyards to identify
    critical suppliers that we might not see. It is very important
    that we have that industrial base there to be able to help us
    grow.
        Senator Shaheen. One of the shipyards I am concerned about
    is our public shipyard at Portsmouth, the Portsmouth Naval
    Shipyard. Can you talk about the role that the public shipyards
    play in making sure that we have the naval capability that we
    need?
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, ma'am. They are also vital because we
    have to have our public shipyards in place to address our
    nuclear-capable ships and their maintenance and modernization
    availabilities. It is very important that we invest in our
    naval shipyards. Admiral Lescher talked earlier about we are
    ramping up the number of folks that are going to be in our
    public shipyards. We are also looking at infrastructure
    improvements. What do we need to position ourselves so that
    those public yards can also be more productive and allow the
    proper throughput that we need to support our fleet.
        Senator Shaheen. I appreciate the challenges that the Navy
    has, given Congress' failure to address the budget issues. I
    remember being at the first Navy caucus, and Admiral Richardson
    pointed out that they have instructed agencies within the
    Department not to plan on doing anything in the first quarter
    because of the budget uncertainty because we have had so many
    years of continuing resolutions and lack of budget certainty.
    Maybe you could all speak to what that means as we are trying
    to address the challenges that we face around our national
    security.
        Vice Admiral Lescher. I will start. What we see under a
    continuing resolution--and as you have precisely described, you
    know, every year for the last 8 or 9 years, we are starting
    with a continuing resolution. It is very inefficient. It
    constrains our ability to execute the program. The CNO has
    talked about essentially the Department on three-quarters of a
    year from a planning perspective.
        The technical aspects of a continuing resolution. We cannot
    do new starts. We cannot do production rate increases. From an
    industrial base stability and the industrial base, we are
    talking about a lot of churn in that.
        Our inability to execute the ship depot maintenance in the
    private shipyards on a scheduled plan means we took
    availabilities planned for the first quarter and we are pushing
    them into the second and third quarter. Churn again now in our
    private shipyards as they are trying to have a stable labor
    force.
        It is very inefficient on the government workforce. Instead
    of signing a yearlong contract, for example, to execute a
    service, it is broken down into multiple contract actions at
    the same time as we are driving to a 25 percent reduction in
    management headquarters, at the same time as we are driving
    very strongly to auditability. It drives workload inefficiency
    and it absolutely costs the taxpayer money to do it that way.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. If I could, Senator. To add on to
    what Admiral Lescher said, like you said, I think 9 out of the
    last 10 years, we have been operating under CRs [Continuing
    Resolution]. I think we have had over 30 continuing
    resolutions. It just gives us instability in our readiness and
    our modernization plans. If you kind of look at it as Admiral
    Lescher kind of walked through and said the Secretary of
    Defense has a campaign plan in 2017 to fix readiness, 2018 to
    kind of continue to solve the readiness issues, fill those
    holes, increase some of that modernization capability, and then
    now start to modernize and grow the force, without the
    stability--you could see that looks good from this plan 2017
    on, but if we do not get the stability that we need, then we do
    not solve the readiness, and therefore, you cannot have the
    stability you need to modernize.
        Ms. Stiller. I think they hit all the points.
        Senator Shaheen. I think they did. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Cotton?
        Senator Cotton. Thank you.
        In his opening, Chairman Wicker addressed the cost of the
    USS Enterprise, and I know that Chairman McCain mentioned this
    recently at the Navy posture hearing. I understand the cost was
    projected to increase from $11.4 billion to $13 billion, a
    whopping $1.6 billion, but I have also heard some reports that
    the cost is under review and may be revised downward.
        Ms. Stiller, can you update the committee on your current
    cost estimate for the Enterprise? Is it $13 billion, or is it
    something less?
        Ms. Stiller. Sir, it is something less. It is at $12.6
    billion, and when we send the amended budget over for the
    additional LCS, we intend to send a budget exhibit that
    reflects that. You will not see a reduction in the fiscal year
    2018 column. As you know, that ship is incrementally funded,
    but you will see a net reduction to the cost of the Enterprise.
        Senator Cotton. That is a good news story.
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cotton. $400 billion--I am not great at math, but
    that is what? About a 4 percent, 5 percent decrease?
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cotton. What accounts for that break in savings?
        Ms. Stiller. We looked hard at what we were counting on as
    inflation rates, which we are not experiencing at this
    particular point in time. We also looked at the effect of where
    we have added the second Virginia-class in fiscal year 2021 and
    what that does to rates at the shipyard. Those were the two
    large drivers there. We are also looking at efficiencies we are
    seeing on 79.
        Senator Cotton. When you say inflation rates, inflation
    rates in what? Could you be more specific?
        Ms. Stiller. Inflation rates for material specifically. A
    lot of time shipbuilding inflation rates do not mirror the rest
    of the world or the rest of the country. But we are seeing that
    coming more in line, and so we do not feel like we have to
    address larger inflation.
        Senator Cotton. Do you think we might anticipate the
    possibility of future downward revisions as well?
        Ms. Stiller. We will continue to scrub the numbers as we
    get there. Obviously, as we get to contract on that ship, that
    may also--but, yes, sir. We also look at inefficiencies we are
    seeing today on 79, and we will apply those to CVN-80.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you. That is good news.
        I would like to turn my attention now to the undersea
    domain. In terms of the program cost, the Ohio-class
    replacement, the Columbia-class is going to be, I think, only
    second to the Joint Strike Fighter. Those submarines are going
    to carry about 70 percent of the Nation's deployed ballistic
    missiles, obviously, the most survivable part of our nuclear
    triad. But if the Columbia-class turns into an acquisitions
    debacle the way some of our big programs have in the past, that
    would not just be very bad consequences for the taxpayer, it
    would be grave consequences for the safety of our Nation.
        What steps are we taking to ensure that we get the
    Columbia-class right from lessons learned on past acquisition
    experiences, especially with the 78?
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir. We are robustly, along with
    industry, managing this program. The Congress--you have given
    us authorities that we feel will help us to drive cost and
    efficiency into the program, and we thank you for those. We are
    continuing to look for if there are additional authorities we
    might need. We are carefully watching how the shipyards are
    able to--what they plan to do for facilities to be ready for
    Columbia.
        We are looking at what critical skills do they need to hire
    and how they are going to get ahead of that so that we are not
    in a situation where we do not have the skilled workforce we
    need.
        We are looking at critical vendors to make sure they can
    ramp up as they are building attack submarines and Columbia-
    class.
        We are looking at synergies where we need to support the UK
    [United Kingdom] because they also are building their
    replacement. For example, a common missile compartment. We know
    we have not built missile tubes in over 40 years since we built
    the Ohio, and so we see that there are synergies to go ahead
    and build continuously those missile tubes to make sure we are
    getting risk out of the program.
        I can assure you there were a lot of lessons learned that
    we are applying today. I mentioned earlier our intent is not to
    start construction until we are over 80 percent. We are
    targeting 83 percent complete with design on that program.
    Right now, all the metrics are leaning in the right direction.
    We are on track with design, but it is not something that we
    are going to take our eye off of. It is critical to us, and we
    fully understand your concerns.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you.
        Admiral Lescher, turning our attention to attack
    submarines, Admiral Harris recently testified that only about
    half of his requirements for attack submarines in the Pacific
    theater is being met, and the challenge is only going to grow
    more in the 2020s as we retire these at a faster rate than they
    are planning to be built. China continues to expand its fleet,
    and many other nations in East and Southeast Asia go on
    something of an attack submarine buying spree of their own.
        What steps is the Navy taking to try to mitigate this
    shortfall in attack submarines, especially as it relates to the
    Asia-Pacific theater?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. So a number of steps I would cite.
        The first is, obviously, the path we are on to grow the
    number that are being purchased. Beyond that, we are making
    strong investments to make the submarines we do have more
    capable and execute their missions more broadly as well. Some
    of the investments you see in this budget to get at that are,
    for example, the investments in the family of underwater
    unmanned vehicles. This will allow any submarine across the
    spectrum of that family--so there is small, medium, large, and
    extra large. The ones that are deployable on submarines will
    actually execute subsets of missions for that submarine,
    whether it is ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance and
    Reconnaissance] or other missions--we could talk in a different
    forum--to make the ones we do have forward more capable.
        Similar to that is the investment, obviously, in the
    Virginia payload module. That again makes the submarines we
    have, particularly for Admiral Harris in that theater, able to
    carry broader types of weapons that will make them just more
    effective in what they do.
        It is a combination of growing capacity and then growing
    capability to make the ones we have more effective.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Ms. Stiller, before I turn to Senator
    Blumenthal, let me follow up on an important matter that
    Senator Cotton mentioned, and that is avoiding an acquisition
    budget disaster on these big programs. The Senator mentioned
    the F-35. At what point will we have a comfort level that this
    new replacement, the Columbia-class submarine, is proceeding as
    you expect it to do in terms of the cost?
        Ms. Stiller. We have an integrated master schedule that the
    shipyards collectively have put together on how they are going
    to get through the design products, what they need to do from
    an integrated schedule on having the facilities in place, and I
    mentioned the workforce. It is something that we on a very
    regular drum beat at the program executive officer level is
    reviewing. We cannot just review Columbia in isolation. We have
    to make sure we are looking at Virginia and Virginia payload
    module to make sure that we do not have one program getting out
    of step with the other.
        I can tell you at the senior leadership, Admiral Caldwell,
    Director of Naval Reactors, and I are going to take a trip up
    to Electric Boat this summer to review both programs in detail.
    Mr. Stackley and Admiral Caldwell did this last year. We are
    going to make this manual daylong review. But we have regular
    reviews in the building to go through the program. If we start
    to see things going not in the right direction, we are going to
    put the attention and focus to make sure we get it back on
    track. But I can tell you that we are managing it very, very
    carefully because it is critical.
        Senator Wicker. It is critical, absolutely. Thank you.
        Senator Blumenthal, you are recognized.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I would just like
    to assure Senator Wicker and Senator Cotton that there is a
    very strong program of oversight and scrutiny in place to avoid
    any of the kinds of mishaps that have plagued other programs. I
    have been briefed. I am sure that Electric Boat would be more
    than happy to brief anyone on our committee or any Member of
    the Senate, for that matter. But there is a very strong sense
    that the tradition of producing submarines on time and on or
    under budget, as has happened with the Virginia-class, has to
    be continued into the Columbia program even though it is a much
    more complex--well, I should not say more complex. It is
    certainly a challenging and, as you have observed, Senator
    Cotton, a critically important part of our national defense.
        Senator Cotton. I will just add that I appreciate those
    comments. This is something that is bipartisan. Obviously,
    nobody on this subcommittee or full committee wants to see
    something like what happened with the F-35, whether it is the
    Columbia-class or the B-21. We have experts and professionals
    that handle these matters, but it is incumbent upon us to have
    these kind of regular check-ins.
        Senator Wicker. We want to be teammates in this regard.
    Tell us what you need with regard to authority.
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir. You have given us the authorities
    that we have asked for. We do not have additional authorities
    that we need this year, but we certainly know that we can come
    back and bring you additional authorities as we see them. We
    are continually challenging the team, the government-industry
    team, are there better ways to go procure that we would need
    additional authorities. Do not be constrained by current
    authorities. Right now, we have what we need, but we certainly
    will come back if we need additional ones.
        Senator Wicker. Maybe some day we will look back on this
    little discussion and be able to pat ourselves collectively on
    the back that we did our part. But when we do something new and
    something big, Senator Cotton has raised a very legitimate
    concern. We acknowledge that.
        Start Senator Blumenthal's time over, if you do not mind,
    Mr. Clerk.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Even though I do not have authorization to do it, I would
    like to invite you to visit Electric Boat.
        Senator Wicker. I have been there and I will come back.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Blumenthal. I would just like to tell you that Ms.
    Stiller christened the USS Mississippi, one of the more recent
    Virginia attack submarines, in a dramatic show of force.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Wicker. I am sure it was one of the highlights of
    her life.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, she did very well, and she has
    done important service for our Nation. In all seriousness, we
    thank you and the other witnesses who are here for your service
    to our Nation. I hope that we can continue this conversation
    because it is critically important, and it is bipartisan.
        With respect to authority, I know that in the NDAA fiscal
    year 2017, continuous production was authorized for the
    Columbia-class common missile compartment, which allows the
    industrial base to continue manufacturing that component. Are
    there additional authorities, just to follow up on the
    chairman's question, that you might need for other components
    or other aspects so that you do not have to, in effect, produce
    boat by boat and you can do continuously the production of
    things like missile compartments?
        Ms. Stiller. We are looking very hard in different areas of
    the boat. Right now, we have not identified that we need the
    additional authorities, but we may come back to you and say we
    see merit in other areas. But right now, we are comfortable
    with the authorities that we have.
        Senator Blumenthal. Great.
        Let me turn to the security clearance backlog. I know you
    are familiar with it. Secretary Stackley, recently called the
    decision to assign I think 10 reservists to some of the work
    that otherwise would be done by others, the result of the
    backlog for submarine construction clearances. I wonder whether
    the Navy will continue extending that detail if necessary and
    what can we do to help to end this backlog, which is really
    regrettable?
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir. What Secretary Stackley has assigned
    10 reservists to help clear within the Department of Defense--
    within the DOD [Department of Defense], to help clear getting
    these interim secret clearances so that workers can go and work
    in secret areas of the ship. The yard was having to fence off
    when they could not get people cleared for a long time. What
    that does not solve is getting their permanent clearances
    because that is at the OPM level, and we collectively have got
    to figure out how to correct that.
        We did ask that this be a one-time, but we recognize the
    criticality to our industrial base, and so we will have to look
    at it as time goes on to see if we need to continue to
    supplement in that area.
        Senator Blumenthal. He called this assignment--I am quoting
    him--an extreme measure----
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir.
        Senator Blumenthal.--which we would difficulty repeating.
    Although it sounds mundane, it is critically important to the
    work done at the yard, as you well understand. I hope that you
    will let us know whether there is anything we can do to help.
        I understand that last week, the Navy approved Electric
    Boat's revised security plan, which seeks to allow non-cleared
    workers in certain parts of the shipyard, which is important,
    and a formal letter for approval is forthcoming. Is that
    correct?
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir.
        Senator Blumenthal. I know you have been asked about
    maintenance and particularly about the Boise, which I
    understand is going to be done in a private shipyard because
    the public yards are so fully operational. They are operating
    at capacity. Is that going to be a trend that we see expanded
    in the future, that is, the use of more private yards for
    maintenance?
        I ask this question because not only the USS Boise has to
    be really returned to sea--right now, it is tied up pier side,
    cannot be used by the Navy--but also because of the skill
    challenges, the training, the capacity challenges that we face
    I think are the biggest obstacle in some ways to achieving the
    goals in timeliness and cost for Columbia and for the Virginia-
    class and for maintenance. If the maintenance burden is going
    to add to the private sector, it makes all the more important
    the skill training and building that defense industrial base
    capacity that right now is in jeopardy in my view. Let me
    invite your comments.
        Ms. Stiller. Sir, we want to make sure we are doing the
    right things, we believe, to get the naval shipyards to the
    ability to handle the capacity for the depot work. You are
    right. With Boise, we have hit a stumbling block. We are now
    having to do the planning, and it will go to the private sector
    to do that availability.
        I do not anticipate there will be a tremendous amount of
    work pushed to the private sector, but it is something--you are
    exactly right--that we have to carefully watch because the new
    construction, especially Columbia, is very vital that it stays
    on schedule. It is important that we have the workforce across
    the board. Your points are well taken. Right now, we do not see
    additional ships being pushed to the private sector, but it is
    something, if we see it happening, we need to make sure we are
    working private industry early so that they are aware of what
    is coming.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
        Ms. Stiller, as we grow the fleet, we are going to need
    propellers. Is that correct?
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. I understand the Navy is chatting with
    Rolls Royce in Pascagoula about this issue. Can you update me
    on these discussions?
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir. Back in the 2014 time frame, I
    became aware that the Rolls Royce facility, the foundry, in
    Pascagoula was looking to shutter, and that caused us great
    concern because, as you know, a number of our ship propellers
    are cast and machined in that facility. The only other facility
    we have in this country that does the castings is the
    Philadelphia foundry, the naval foundry, and they work
    primarily on our submarine propulsors.
        I have been talking in conversations with the Rolls Royce
    leadership for some time now, and we have done things to help
    to have them stay open. We advanced the CVN-80 propeller work
    to make sure that they have workload in the facility. We have
    been working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense's
    staff to figure out are there alternatives or things that we
    can do to help them invest in their facility to make it more
    productive.
        They have come to us with a proposal. We have looked at
    title 3, the defense procurement authorities, which require
    presidential approval, and that is a lengthy process. But there
    is a program within the Secretary of Defense's Office called
    the Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment (IBAS), program
    that might offer us an opportunity to work with the company,
    investment from the company, as well as investment from the
    government to help keep that facility more productive and give
    them the tools they need so that they can be there to help us
    grow our future fleet.
        That is one example of a supplier base issue that we are
    tackling one at a time, but we need to make sure that we are
    doing that so that we have our critical suppliers there as we
    grow the force.
        Senator Wicker. Well, keep us posted on that. I would point
    out to you that Pascagoula is, to my knowledge, the only city
    in America that rhymes with hallelujah.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. I give a hallelujah to your answer there.
        Let me ask you then, Ms. Stiller, on the LX(R) scheduled
    for 2020. Given the need for 355 ships and including 38
    amphibs, could this LX(R) be accelerated to 2019 and would
    additional funding be required?
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, sir. You are correct. The LX(R) in our
    budget is a 2020 ship. The critical enabler to getting to an
    accelerated ship would be funding for detail design and
    advanced procurement of long lead time items. If that funding
    were available, the ship would more likely execute like a
    fiscal year 2019 ship than it would a fiscal year 2020 ship.
    But you would need that advanced work done to be prepared to do
    that.
        Senator Wicker. Well, let us know what you need there.
        Senator Hirono?
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        On the LX(R) program, which you say is a 2020 execution,
    the question was whether we can accelerate that because that
    would be good. Did you say that that acceleration is dependent
    on funding?
        Ms. Stiller. Yes, ma'am. It is dependent on being able to
    do the detail design work so that the design is ready so that
    you can get into construction. Right now, all that funding is
    in fiscal year 2020. If part of that money was accelerated, you
    could execute that ship more like a fiscal year 2019 ship.
        Senator Hirono. We need to accelerate the funding to enable
    you to do the detail design work that is needed.
        There was an earlier discussion about our submarines being
    in dry dock, and the number three was mentioned, three subs. I
    thought it was only the Boise that was in dry dock. Admiral?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. When you say in dry dock, meaning----
        Senator Hirono. Well, they are not deployable.
        Vice Admiral Lescher. For example, we have the USS
    Montpelier right now also in a private shipyard as well. That
    was a fiscal year 2017 avail that was rolled in and is being
    done now. I think as Secretary Stiller said, on a case-by-case
    basis where the capacity is not there, they are looking to
    bring them into the private shipyards.
        Senator Hirono. I am not sure I understand. There are three
    submarines right now that should be deployable except that they
    are needing to be repaired. That is not accurate. Is it?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. We will have to find out.
        Senator Hirono. I am not talking about bringing on a
    submarine that had already been----
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Right. Montpelier is in maintenance.
    Then in terms of an example like Boise where it has lost its
    certification to submerge, Boise is the one example of that
    right now.
        Senator Hirono. In terms of the capability of our shipyard
    workers, you mentioned, Admiral, that 50 percent of our
    shipyard workers have less than 5 years experience. I do not
    know how many years of experience will be necessary. I am sure
    that is not exactly something that you can just pinpoint. But
    are we doing certain things to accelerate their capabilities,
    their training, whatever we can do?
        Vice Admiral Lescher. Yes. That is a great question.
        In each of our four public shipyards, you will see a
    tremendous focus on this training of the new hires. As a matter
    of fact, each of the four shipyards is participating in a
    community of excellence to share best practices on how you take
    new-levels and turn them into artisans and qualified to do the
    maintenance. That is investments both in those training
    programs. You will see investments in mock-ups so that the new
    hires can go to specific areas and go through the processes
    that they will have to do on the submarines as well. There is a
    very heavy focus on recognizing that and training our people
    properly, and I think we are really starting to traction on
    that.
        Senator Hirono. That is very good. Please keep that up.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Madam Ranking Member, let us agree that
    members need to get their questions for the record in within
    five business days. Is that all right?
        Senator Hirono. Yes.
        Senator Wicker. Without objection, that will be the rule in
    this case.
        I do hope that things taken for the record--you could get
    back to us in 2 weeks after they are submitted.
        I want to thank the witnesses and members of the
    subcommittee for a very informative and valuable hearing.
        Unless there is further comment, we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 10:34 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]