[Senate Hearing 115-674, Part 3]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-674, Pt. 3
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2019 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 2987
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION,
TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
----------
PART 3
READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
----------
FEBRUARY 14; APRIL 11, 2018
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
Available via http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-588 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
TOM COTTON, Arkansas
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
JONI ERNST, Iowa
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia
TED CRUZ, Texas
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
BEN SASSE, Nebraska
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina JACK REED, Rhode Island
BILL NELSON, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
TIM KAINE, Virginia
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
Christian D. Brose, Staff Director
Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director
__________
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma,
Chairman
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
JONI ERNST, Iowa
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia TIM KAINE, Virginia
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
C O N T E N T S
________
February 14, 2018
Page
Current Readiness of United States Forces........................ 1
McConville, General James C., USA, Vice Chief of Staff, United 4
States Army.
Moran, Admiral William F., USN, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, 7
United States Navy.
Walters, General Glenn M., USMC, Assistant Commandant, United 10
States Marine Corps.
Wilson, General Stephen W., USAF, Vice Chief of Staff, United 14
States Air Force.
Questions for the Record......................................... 36
April 11, 2018
Page
The Health of the Department of Defense Industrial Base and Its 59
Role in Providing Readiness to the Warfighter.
Daly, Lieutenant General Edward M., USA, Deputy Commanding 61
General, United States Army Materiel Command.
Grosklags, Vice Admiral Paul A., USN, Commander, United States 65
Naval Air Systems Command.
Moore, Vice Admiral Thomas J., USN, Commander, United States 70
Naval Sea Systems Command.
Levy. Lieutenant General Lee K., II, USAF, Commander, Air Force 71
Sustainment Center, United States Air Force Materiel Command.
Crenshaw, Major General Craig C., USMC, Commanding General, 78
Marine Corps Logistics Command.
Questions for the Record......................................... 98
APPENDIX A....................................................... 117
APPENDIX B....................................................... 118
APPENDIX C....................................................... 120
(iii)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2019 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Readiness
and Management Support,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
CURRENT READINESS OF UNITED STATES FORCES
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m. in
Room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator James
Inhofe (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Subcommittee members present: Senators Inhofe, Ernst,
Kaine, Shaheen, and Hirono.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES INHOFE
Senator Inhofe. We are going to go ahead and start without
our ranking member. I am sure he is around here somewhere.
The hearing today will come to order. We meet for the first
time this year to receive testimony on readiness. We actually
met once before with the same group that is here. Some people
got a little upset with your honesty, but I appreciated it.
I think it is one of the big ongoing debates we have right
now, and you are aware of this, and that is that we have a
serious problem that is--here he is, so we can start. We are
just waiting.
That is, the American people need to know the problems. And
it was from this committee when we had our vices here before
that it was compared to the late 1970s, the hollow force and
all that. Well, we have problems now, and I like to talk about
them. The reason I do is because the general public, if they
are just lured into this euphoria that there are no big
problems out there, then we cannot justify doing what we should
do in rebuilding our military. So there is a difference of
opinion in doing this.
So anyway, I am going to go ahead and introduce the
witnesses here. We have General James McConville, Vice Chief of
Staff of the Army; Admiral Moran is the Vice Chief of Naval
Operations; General Glenn Walters, Assistant Commandant of the
Marines; General Stephen Wilson, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air
Force. I thank all of you for your service and for being here
today. I would like to remind our witnesses that while this is
an open hearing, I ask that they do not hold any unclassified
information back from this committee.
Last month, Secretary Mattis wrote out the National Defense
Strategy, which laid out a new strategic approach to addressing
military challenges through building a more lethal force,
strengthening alliances and attracting new partners, and
reforming the Department for greater performance and
affordability.
I believe building a more lethal force begins with
rebuilding and maintaining our readiness while we also look
forward to modernizing our force structure. Maintaining the
delicate balance between the sustained readiness gains while
modernizing is more important than ever.
For example, our Air Force continues to shrink. Since
Desert Storm, there are 30 percent fewer airmen, and less than
50 percent of the Air Force fighter squadrons are ready to
fight in high-intensity combat. The Marine Corps has only 32 of
its required 38 amphibious warships, severely impeding their
ability to achieve unit training levels necessary to recover
full-spectrum readiness. Repeated collisions in the Pacific
highlighted the Navy's need for increased and more training of
both enlisted sailors and officers. These are problems that we
have that we will be addressing today.
Ensuring the safety of the American people, that is really
number one what we are supposed to be doing here. So it is up
to you folks to join with this committee in trying to rebuild
those areas that might have been relaxed a little bit in the
last few years.
Senator Kaine?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM KAINE
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to all the witnesses for your service and for the
opportunity to visit a bit before the hearing today.
I want to thank the chairman, who I worked with in the past
and look forward to more collaboration together in the
bipartisan work that is the tradition of both the subcommittee
and full committee.
There is a limit to what we can discuss in open session
today, but I echo my statement from last year's hearing and
again urge all my colleagues to read the classified readiness
reporting that is available to all members, because that will
amplify some of what we will discuss. We may also discuss later
whether we ought to do a closed briefing for any member that is
interested in getting into some of the classified update
material on current readiness status.
An opening point would be I think we all took a step
forward on the readiness issue by the passage of the Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2018. Not a perfect budget, and there has never
been one. We could find flaws. But to my way of thinking, the
best part about it was it is forward-focused. Secretary Mattis
has been warning us, as have all of you, about the problems of
CRs [continuing resolutions] for years. And the ability to find
a budget deal, which we will reduce to an appropriations deal
that is forward-focused for a year and a half, I think it will
be very, very positive in enabling you to plan and predict in a
way that we have not been giving you the ability to do that in
the past.
I want to make sure, as we write the NDAA [National Defense
Authorization Act] 2019, that we take advantage of that deal to
really make sure that this authorizing act helps us restore the
spectrum of readiness.
We have heard all kinds of testimony and information from
the various branches about readiness challenges.
The Air Force has informed Congress that it needs
additional support in the areas of personnel shortages,
operational training. We see that at Langley in Virginia in
support infrastructure. The Army needs assistance in tackling
personnel challenges, improving critical kinetic modernization
capacities, and also enhancing training in full-spectrum
operations. The Navy continues to cycle through maintenance and
modernization while trying to maintain readiness across its
seven pillars. The Marine Corps is on a path to balance global
demand through five pillars of institutional readiness.
In discussions before this hearing with each of you, you
kind of all talked about how you feel like we are on a path and
we are making progress on the path. We have a long way to go,
and giving you certainty on the budget will enable you to
continue on the path.
We have a need, and I want to hear, hopefully, from each
witness today about how the services will track progress toward
readiness through the Readiness Recovery Framework, R2F, to
ensure that we meet readiness guidelines.
I have said at these hearings before, readiness hearings
always remind me of when I was Governor dealing with emergency
preparation. Most things I dealt with as Governor, if I dealt
with unemployment, I could ask what the unemployment rate is.
If I dealt with education, I have to ask what the high school
graduation rate is. When you are dealing with emergency
preparation, it is different. How do you measure how you will
do tomorrow? And readiness measures are kind of like that. How
do you know how you will do tomorrow? And readiness measures,
we need to know kind of how you set them and then how you are
tracking toward them.
I am also interested in, particularly, and I have stressed
this before, an update from the Navy on the shipyard
optimization plan, which is something that we included in the
NDAA last year.
Finally, just one concluding comment that is sort of
Virginia-specific and personal to me, but it is not just
Virginia-specific. In the written testimony that you submit,
none of you address sort of climate- or weather-related
challenges to our infrastructure. And this is a big deal in
Virginia. The center of naval power in the world is in Hampton
Roads, and we are seeing sea-level rise, for whatever cause,
sea-level rise really affecting our installations, making roads
into the naval base subject to flooding, requiring resilience
investments to raise piers and make other adjustments. And I
remember we had a hearing about this once down in Hampton Roads
and had 500 people turn out to talk about it, and we were
feeling like, is this just us? And one of our DOD [Department
of Defense] witnesses said, hey, try running a military base
where there are water shortages, try running a military base
where there are fire risks.
So it is not just us. We are dealing with increasing severe
weather that then puts a cost burden in how you make a
resiliency investment to maintain infrastructure. So I may ask
some questions about that as well.
But I appreciate all your service.
I appreciate the tradition of this subcommittee and our
work together with the chair. And with that, Mr. Chair, I will
hand it back to you.
Senator Inhofe. And I would say to Senator Kaine that I
really appreciated the personal visit from you guys to be able
to get into these things, because we are in a recovery mode
right now, and it is going to take our interest to do it.
Let's start with you, General McConville. Opening
statements would be great.
General McConville. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Your statements will be made a part of the
record, so you do not need to go beyond 5 minutes, unless you
really want to.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES C. McCONVILLE, USA, VICE CHIEF OF
STAFF, UNITED STATES ARMY
General McConville. Good afternoon, Chairman Inhofe,
Ranking Member Kaine, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to testify on the
readiness of our Army.
In the face of an unpredictable, competitive, global
environment, our Army stands ready to compete, to deter, and to
win tonight. While there are challenges facing our Army, we
remain poised to accomplish our essential mission, which is to
fight and win our Nation's wars.
We appreciate Congress' effort to end the drawdown and to
increase Army's end-strength, and we are grateful for the
bipartisan budget agreement, which will fund Army readiness
recoveries through fiscal year 2019.
The demand for Army forces remains high. The Army currently
supports combatant commanders with more than 178,000 soldiers
globally. Simultaneously recognizing we cannot fight tomorrow's
wars with yesterday's weapons and equipment, we have enacted
sweeping modernization reforms. The establishment of cross-
functional teams focusing on the Army's six modernization
priorities and the introduction of the Army's Futures Command
will increase unity of effort, agility, and accountability
while building a more agile and lethal force.
We request your continued assistance to provide timely,
predictable, and sustained funding to ensure the Army maintains
the competitive edge and remains the best trained, best
equipped, and best fighting force in the world.
Thank you for your time this afternoon. Thank you for your
support to our men and women in uniform, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of General McConville follows:]
Prepared Statement by General James C. McConville
introduction
Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Kaine, distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the readiness
of our Army. On behalf of our Secretary, the Honorable Mark Esper, and
our Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley, thank you also for the support
and commitment you continually demonstrate to our soldiers, Army
civilians, families, and veterans.
In the face of an unpredictable, competitive global environment,
our Army stands ready to compete, deter, and win tonight. Our focus on
readiness over the last several years has paid dividends: our soldiers
are resilient, physically and mentally fit leaders of character. They
are well trained, well led, and well equipped professionals who
represent the diversity and strength of America. While there are
challenges facing our Army, we remain poised to accomplish our
essential mission: to fight and win our nation's wars.
The single greatest challenge to maintaining and sustaining our
Army's readiness is the lack of timely, predictable, sustained funding.
For the past nine years, the Army began the fiscal year under a
continuing resolution. The legacy of those consecutive continuing
resolutions has been deferred readiness. Our inability to start new
procurement programs and military construction projects, to enter into
multi-year contracts, to increase production rates, or reprogram funds
resulted in deferring investments in modernization to maintain support
to the ongoing fight.
Beyond current readiness concerns, we are at an inflection point
where we can no longer afford to defer modernizing our capabilities and
developing new ones without eroding competitive advantages of our
technology and weapon systems. While we remain the most capable
fighting force in the world, without immediate action, we may not be
able to make that same statement in five years. With that challenge in
mind, we have undertaken a sweeping reform of the Army acquisition
process, and made modernization a top priority. In order to make these
efforts successful, we need your support. We are grateful to be in a
position where Army end strength is increasing, with the Fiscal Year
2018 National Defense Authorization Act authorizing Total Army end
strength growth above 1,018K. We also appreciate the enactment of the
bipartisan budget agreement which will fully fund Army readiness
through fiscal year 2019. Despite our positive near-term outlook, the
potential future effects of Budget Control Act caps on Defense spending
could undermine our previous readiness gains.
readiness: manning, training, equipping/sustaining, and leader
development
Readiness remains our number one priority. In today's terms,
readiness means the preservation of a lethal conventional force that
can also conduct irregular warfare as a core competency, and ensuring
the Army can project appropriate units at the time and place they are
needed. We build unit readiness by ensuring our formations are fully
manned, highly trained, well equipped and superbly led. In order to
maximize unit readiness across the Army, we focus resources on those
units likely to respond to a potential contingency, increase
integration between the Regular Army and early deploying units of the
Army National Guard and Army Reserve, and decrease our non-deployable
population to ensure optimal manning in critical operational units.
manning
Again, we appreciate Congress' efforts to grow the Army in
accordance with the Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA prescribed end strength. As
we grow, our first focus is on ensuring our formations are filled with
deployable personnel. Initial increases in end strength were used to
increase manning-levels within combat units and address gaps in air-
defense and long-range fires. To further mitigate risk, the Army
adjusted the mix of brigade combat teams to increase armor capacity,
reduce the number of infantry brigade combat teams, and balance Stryker
brigade combat teams within the Regular Army and the Army National
Guard. This increased armor capacity provided us with increased
flexibility to meet threats around the world.
Another way we are mitigating risk is with the introduction of
Security Force Assistance Brigades. The first Security Force Assistance
Brigade was activated in August 2017, and the second in January 2018. A
total of six Security Force Assistance Brigades will be activated, with
five in the Regular Army, and one in the Army National Guard. The
mission of the Security Force Assistance Brigade is to provide well-
trained forces to partner, train, advise, assist, and accompany
developing allied Armed Forces. In addition to their core mission,
these veteran Security Force Assistance Brigades can also form the
nucleus of brigade combat teams, which can be expanded by assigning
entry-level Solders to rapidly produce additional brigade combat teams
if urgently required.
Recognizing that cyber threats will be an enduring part of modern
warfare, the Army is rapidly training and fielding a total of sixty-two
Cyber Mission Force Teams: forty-one in the regular Army, eleven in the
Army National Guard, and ten in the Army Reserve. The Army continues to
employ innovative solutions to increase the Cyber training pipeline and
expand the cyber career path for the entire Army. This capability will
support both Army and Joint operations, as well as protect our
Homeland.
training
The Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act and
increased funding positioned the Army on a positive readiness recovery
glide path. Today we have more units at the highest levels of readiness
than we did at this time last year, and we will continue to build
readiness the longer we stay on this glide path. However, our readiness
recovery gains are perishable, and our readiness recovery plan depends
on timely, predictable, sustained funding.
The Army is implementing objective measures to assess training
readiness and ensure standardization across the force. These standards
include proficiency on Mission Essential Tasks; qualification on
individual, crew, and platform weapons; unit live fire proficiency; and
days required to be fully trained. Combat training center rotations
continue to serve as culminating training events for our brigade combat
teams. By fiscal year 2020, 90 percent of all Regular Army brigade
combat teams will have completed three decisive action combat training
center rotations during this decade. These iterative combat training
center rotations build institutional readiness at echelon, reinforcing
and refining our soldiers' experience. In addition to training on
decisive action, combat training centers routinely challenge units with
increased exposure to electronic warfare, enemy unmanned aerial
systems, cyber-attacks, more lethal indirect fire, and enemy use of
precision guided munitions. Such realistic and relevant training will
ensure our Army maintains a lethal conventional force while retaining
irregular warfare as a core competency.
equipping/sustaining
In addition to training, we recognize that we must provide our
soldiers with the equipment they need to fight and win. The Army
Modernization Strategy will enable us to deliver advanced capabilities
to our warfighters on a substantially decreased timeline. We identified
six modernization priorities, stood up cross-functional teams in
support of those priorities, and realigned science and technology funds
accordingly. Institutional reforms will establish unity of command,
effort and purpose by consolidating the modernization process under one
new command, the Army Futures Command. The cross-functional teams are
key to rapidly developing requirements, and ensuring that these future
capabilities transition quickly from concept to prototyping to
fielding.
leader development
Soldiers remain our most valuable asset, and leader development
remains the foundation of the Army's ability to rapidly respond to the
changing nature of war. The Army is committed to accessing and
retaining quality soldiers and leaders through improved talent
management processes, incentives, and promotion opportunities. We
remain a standards-based organization, and our leaders continue to
enforce those high standards.
The Army is committed to ensuring all soldiers are provided full
career opportunities to reach their highest potential and enhance Army
readiness. In the past year, we continued to execute a methodical
approach to opening all positions and occupations for women. Currently,
every infantry, armor, and field artillery battalion in a Regular Army
brigade combat team has women assigned, and 10 female officers have
graduated from Ranger School--our premier tactical small unit
leadership course.
closing
Our Army remains ready today to fight tonight. However, sustaining
readiness while finally addressing long-deferred modernization requires
timely, predictable, sustained funding. We need your continued
assistance to ensure your Army remains the best-trained, best-equipped
and best-led fighting force in the world. We thank Congress for its
steadfast support of our exceptional soldiers.
Senator Inhofe. Very good. Thank you.
Admiral Moran?
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL WILLIAM F. MORAN, USN, VICE CHIEF OF NAVAL
OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES NAVY
Admiral Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Kaine, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I really
appreciate you inviting us back again this year. And also,
thank you for the bipartisan budget agreement, which goes a
long way toward much needed financial stability and building a
more lethal military force.
Once President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2018 is enacted, we
will aggressively and responsibly accelerate our readiness
recovery plan to earn your trust. As capable as we are today,
we will continue to invest in making us even more capable in
the future.
President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2019 is a strategy-
driven budget. It is tightly aligned with the National Defense
Strategy, which provides clear strategic direction for the
United States Navy. The program we have built is laser-focused
on rebuilding readiness and making our teams more lethal. As
Secretary Mattis has stated, it is a budget that restores our
competitive advantage, and it is what we need to bring us back
to a position of primacy.
Last year, Members of Congress invested $1.7 billion in
Navy readiness. We allocated every single penny of that
critical investment to arrest the erosion we were seeing in
fiscal year 2017 and previous years. And it put us on a path in
fiscal year 2018 to restore our most pressing readiness needs.
In the past few months, I have visited several units around
the fleet, including many being maintained in our public and
private shipyards.
Last year, at this hearing, you may remember us discussing
the USS Albany, an L.A.-class submarine which had been tied up
for over 3 years due to inadequate resources. I am happy to
report to you today that the crew is wrapping up their time
after over 4 years in the yards and is excited about finally
being able to get underway.
On the aviation front, instead of shutting down flight
operations for several fleet squadrons, we are able to continue
operating and training our pilots and our aircrew. We are also
able to begin addressing understocked spare parts, and we are
able to build a more effective work force in our aviation
depots.
That extra money also helped us recover a number of
deferred surface ship maintenance and modernization periods,
and allowed us to restock our munitions.
All of this started with your help. So when President's
Budget for Fiscal Year 2018 is finally signed and President's
Budget for Fiscal Year 2019 is enacted on time, we will be able
to sustain the recovery you helped us jumpstart last year and
grow and improve our lethality as a Navy. Together, these
changes will expand the margin of victory in any future fight,
and it will move us closer to the Navy the Nation needs.
Finally, we should talk about our people today. This year,
we are growing the Navy to close personnel gaps at sea,
adopting innovative policy solutions to retain the very best
talent we have, and we are committed to changing the way we
train to be even more effective.
As you well know, people are the foundation of our military
advantage. And the growing economy will heighten the
competition for all of that talent, which makes stable,
predictable funding, as reflected in your budget agreement, all
the more important to all of us sitting at this table. This
will help keep us competitive and allow us to bring in even
more young men and women from all across the country.
It is on their behalf, and their families, that I thank you
for your continued support, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Moran follows:]
Prepared Statement by Admiral William F. Moran
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Kaine, and distinguished members of
the Sub-Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the state
of Navy readiness, the progress we have made over the past year, and
the opportunities we have to continue this progress. While a ready
Fleet is a lethal Fleet, capable of winning when called upon, it must
also be a safe Fleet. It is our mission to maintain the readiness of
our Navy in order to prevent it from degrading to the point where the
very safety and well-being of our sailors is in question.
Foremost I want to thank Congress for the additional $1.7 billion
investment in readiness as part of the Fiscal Year 2017 Request for
Additional Appropriations, which helped prevent additional backlog in
surface maintenance requirements and aviation depots, and kept our
airwings flying. This was an important injection of much needed
funding.
At the height of the Cold War, approximately one in six ships were
deployed on any given day, today almost one in three are deployed on
any given day. This ``math problem'' clearly demonstrates that national
demands for your Navy far exceed its capacity, driving operational
tempo to unsustainable levels. Compound those facts with Budget Control
Act (BCA) funding caps over the past five years which challenged the
ability of the Navy to adequately address the full range of needed
investments while meeting near-term commitments. And, the world
continues to grow more complex and competitive.
During this time we prioritized funding for deployed naval forces
first, and began accumulating risk to our surge forces, training
forces, and our shore infrastructure. As a result, too many of our
planes weren't ready to fly, too many ships were not training at sea,
our ship and aircraft maintenance production was severely delayed, and
our shore infrastructure had degraded to unacceptable levels.
With the funds we requested and you appropriated, we reversed the
most critical readiness problems by executing 13 more ship maintenance
availabilities, restoring 35 additional air frames to flight, and
providing 18,000 flying hours to train 900 pilots. In addition, we
gained back two ship deployments and a combined one year of carrier
operations and surge capability, and we began the process of buying
back critical munitions. Ship and aircraft spare parts were funded
along with 16 much needed shore infrastructure projects. These funds
helped arrest our readiness decline, and put your Navy in a better
readiness state to fight tonight if called upon.
However, under the conditions imposed by another series of
Continuing Resolutions, these improvements will not be sustainable
without an appropriated budget in fiscal year 2018 and continued
funding at levels that support the Navy's role in the National Defense
Strategy. At the time of last year's testimony, the DOD had operated
without an enacted appropriations bill for eight consecutive years. As
this committee knows well, Continuing Resolutions force us to operate
under previously enacted funding levels, damaging our ability to
sustain our force into the future. These Continuing Resolutions have
averaged 106 days per fiscal year, a total of almost three cumulative
years, operating under previously enacted budget levels. This year
makes nine. While the Navy fulfilled its commitment to execute the
fiscal year 2017 RAA funds against the most critical readiness
shortfalls, and submitted its budget for fiscal year 2018 to continue
to fund readiness at historically high levels, the Congress has not
fulfilled its commitment to provide the stable funding to achieve
lasting results. Simply put, our gains from 2017 are at risk.
Unpredictable budgets not only hamstring the Navy's ability to
prepare and plan, they are a major disincentive to industrial base
investments in ship repair and modernization capacity we need to grow
readiness. No business organization, public or private, can withstand
the fits and starts of our budget environment. The sporadic nature of
how we are funded leads to significant workflow problems; even if fully
funded, we cannot complete a net six months of work in thirty days.
Continuing Resolutions, and the implication of Sequestration as a
result of the Budget Control Act, severely hamper us from developing a
lethal and ready Navy the nation needs.
The readiness of Naval Forces is a function of three components;
people, material and time. Buying all the people, ships and aircraft
will not produce a ready Navy without the time to maintain hardware and
time for our people to train and operate. Too much time operating and
not maintaining degrades our material and equipment readiness.
Conversely, too much time for maintenance has a negative impact on
meeting planned training and operational schedules, and the
corresponding negative impact on the readiness of our sailors to fight.
This is a vicious cycle that Continuing Resolutions and insufficient
funding create by disrupting the balance we need to maintain readiness,
and our ability to grow capability and capacity.
On recent visits to the USS Leyte Gulf, USS Seawolf and USS Maine,
crews described the impacts of unreliable or insufficient funding while
in maintenance periods. On each ship, shipyard workforce hiring,
training and retention are directly impacted by unpredictable funding,
causing delays as a result of workflow problems. On each ship, fits and
starts in production schedules overwhelm crews to get work done when
funding is finally made available. On each ship, maintenance runs late
and as a result time to train is irreversibly lost.
Similarly, these sailors and officers will tell you, naval
readiness and lethality are cultivated at sea, operating forward.
Sailors that can't get out of maintenance periods to operate at sea
find it hard to qualify in their jobs, and are forced to transfer to
their next assignment without requisite operational experience levels
and in some cases without the qualifications their peers have earned.
This will have long term career and retention implications. The USS
Albany, a submarine which I spoke to you about last year, is almost
ready to dive again. However, Albany no longer has anyone onboard who
has taken that particular ship to sea--another victim of years-long
delays due to unpredictable funding from Continuing Resolutions. I also
testified about the USS Boise last year, tied to the pier with no clear
path ahead for maintenance and unable to dive. With funding from
Congress this year we were able to ensure that the Boise would get into
the yards, and when I visited the crew a few weeks ago they wanted
assurances that they would not become another Albany now that she's
pier side.
I am confident that our officers and sailors will continue to find
innovative ways to compensate for these shortcomings--on Albany one
sailor who has spent the past four years and eight months on board
pier-side looked me in the eye and said, ``I'm sticking around because
I want to deploy. We are getting after any problem we might have
because we are building a strong crew.'' I am proud that we have the
talent that can innovate to get the job done, but it is our
responsibility to ensure ship and aircraft crews have what they need in
order to deliver the lethality that the Navy is called upon to deliver.
For the Navy, operating forward contributes directly to readiness.
Operations forward, including missions and exercises with allies, build
the muscle memory and institutional knowledge of the area in which we
expect to fight. Operating forward allows us to identify, develop and
test new technologies, and design improvements for existing
technologies. Operating forward ensures that we stay one step ahead of
the adversary, aligned hand in hand with our allies, sharp and ready to
fight. The best way to know the environment is to be in the
environment--the adage all politics is local applies to the maritime
environment, as well. When ships and sailors are stuck in the yards, we
cannot operate forward.
We are acutely aware of the stresses placed on our Navy. The most
efficient way for us to relieve those stresses is to provide a reliable
and consistent funding flow. The Navy is grateful for the injection of
money we received last year at the last minute, however, a Hail Mary
cannot be our only play. A steady balanced running game of consistent
funding for maintenance and operations, along with support for our
fiscal year 2019 budget request to grow capabilities and capacity to
outpace our adversaries, will put us in position to win. We win by
keeping the offense on the field; ships, aircraft and sailors at sea,
trained and ready.
A full appropriations, as requested in fiscal year 2018, increases
end-strength by approximately 4000 more sailors and maintains
reasonable notification time to reduce stress on our families when
changing duty stations. Our fiscal year 2018 request fully funds the
Navy to operate, and continues procurement of capacity and capability
needed in the future, including munitions, Columbia-class SSBN, nine
new-construction ships, first year of full funding of CVN-80 and the
balance of funding of LHA-8, and requests multi-year procurement
authority for 10 DDG 51-class ships.
In contrast, a Continuing Resolution brings a $600 million
shortfall over six months and a $1.2 billion shortfall from our fiscal
year 2018 request. In a six month Continuing Resolution, we will delay
up to six ship maintenance periods, suffer delays in aircraft
maintenance and repair parts, delay our munitions contracts, and we
will not award three ship contracts.
Beyond six months the Navy will have regressed to conditions
familiar in early 2017. A full year CR will require us to cancel two
ship deployments, cause one full carrier air wing to stop flying, choke
off training flights, cancel 19 ship maintenance periods, cancel 19
Blue Angels shows, cancel the Rim of the Pacific exercise, prevent
awarding two DDG multi-year procurements, prevent funding for Columbia,
and halt Virginia-class submarine procurement to name a few examples.
And while the results of a Continuing Resolution hurt readiness
recovery, a sequestration stops readiness gains in their tracks.
summary
It is essential that we do not reverse the gains made last year
with fiscal year 2017 funds. The fiscal year 2018 budget submission
assures that we can build upon the readiness gains we have made over
the past year. A predictable budget, one that we proposed for fiscal
year 2018, will ensure our sailors and shipyard employees have the time
required to complete maintenance availabilities in accordance with
carefully planned timelines. It also ensures that our ships, aircraft,
sailors and aviators get out to sea where they can build upon material
readiness, at-sea training and operational experience. This is how to
build the safest Navy for our sailors, the most lethal for our
adversaries and the most reliable partner for our allies. We ask that
Congress end the Continuing Resolution and provide the funds requested
in our fiscal year 2018 submission.
Senator Inhofe. Very good. Thank you.
General Walters?
STATEMENT OF GENERAL GLENN M. WALTERS, USMC, ASSISTANT
COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
General Walters. Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Kaine, and
distinguished members of this subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today and report on the readiness of your
Marine Corps.
The Congress and the people of our great Nation expect the
Marine Corps to be forward-deployed and forward-postured, ready
and capable of rapid action to win our Nation's battles. Our
readiness is essential to fulfilling this responsibility.
Previous strategies focused our investments on readiness to
defeat violent extremist organizations and meet steady-state
combatant commander requirements. After years of prioritizing
readiness to meet these requirements, our defense strategy now
defines readiness as our ability to compete, deter, and win
against the rising peer threats we face.
We must modernize to achieve this definition of readiness.
Your support in passing the fiscal year 2017 request for
additional appropriations provide a welcome step toward
correcting our readiness challenges.
We thank the Congress for efforts in reaching the recent
bipartisan budget agreement. Predictable, on-time, and
sustained budgets remain the essential requirement for the
Marine Corps to meet our obligations as the Nation's force in
readiness. With your commitment and continued support, we will
move forward with our responsibility to ensure your Marine
Corps is organized, manned, trained, and equipped, and postured
to protect our fellow Americans, assure our allies, and deter
and defeat any adversary.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Walters follows:]
Prepared Statement by General Glenn Walters
introduction
Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Kaine, and distinguished members of
the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on the current state of Marine Corps readiness.
As set forth by the 82nd Congress and reaffirmed by the 114th Congress,
the United States Marine Corps is our Nation's maritime combined arms
air-ground ``force in readiness.'' As outlined in the National Defense
Strategy (NDS), our forward deployed marines, as part of the Navy-
Marine Corps team, operate within the contact and blunt layer to deter
our adversaries and prevent conflict from escalating into wars that
require larger Joint Force intervention. As part of the blunt layer,
our forward stationed Marine forces must stand ready to delay, degrade
or deny enemy aggression. Our marines training and preparing for war
from their home installations must be ready to rapidly aggregate with
forward postured marines to blunt adversary aggression or, if required,
surge as part of a war-winning Joint Force.
Your marines continue to support a high operational tempo. In the
past year, they provided accurate and sustained artillery fire support
to coalition-enabled Syrian Democratic Forces as they fought to clear
the Islamic State from Raqqa, Syria. Marines aboard amphibious shipping
projected power ashore with offensive strikes and air support. Our
marines continue to build partner capacity across the globe, to include
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Land and sea-based marines provided immediate
disaster response in the aftermath of four hurricanes. They deterred
provocations with forward postured 5th generation aircraft in the
Pacific, and your marines enabled full-spectrum cyberspace operations
supporting Joint and Coalition Forces.
These sustained operations and requirements continue to consume
much of the useful life of many of our legacy systems. The NDS directs
us to modernize our capabilities to achieve increased lethality and
resilience. The Marine Corps must adapt its organization, training,
equipping and posture to meet the challenges of today's environment of
strategic inter-state competition. We must prioritize our readiness for
war and gain the competitive advantage required to deter and defeat the
pacing threats that face our Nation.
The support of Congress in passing the Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17)
Request for Additional Appropriations (RAA) provided a welcomed step
toward correcting our readiness challenges. Your Marine Corps requires
continued support from Congress with predictable budgets over a
sustained period to fully mitigate the readiness challenges we face.
Fiscal instability, resulting from persistent continuing resolutions
(CRs) and looming and actual government shutdowns, produce the most
significant risk to our readiness. We are concerned that the
instability that CRs cause are shrinking our industrial base,
negatively affecting the lines that produce our spare parts and the new
modern capabilities we require. We require continued near-term actions
to improve warfighting readiness and achieve program balance as well as
longer term efforts in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) to
modernize the force through increased lethality and resilience. With
the support of the 115th Congress, we can continue to improve our
readiness to meet the requirements outlined in the NDS and deter and
defeat the growing threats we face.
modernization and readiness
Readiness is essential to our ethos. The Congress expects the
Marine Corps to be forward deployed and forward postured, ready and
capable of rapid action to win our Nation's battles. Those surge layer
units not forward postured need to be prepared to rapidly aggregate and
project power from home stations and bases to the point of crisis. We
should be resourced accordingly to honor this commitment. We cannot
afford to build readiness after a crisis occurs. We must be ready to
respond immediately.
Previous strategies focused our investment on readiness to defeat
violent extremist organizations and meet steady-state geographic
combatant commander (GCC) requirements. After years of prioritizing
readiness to meet steady-state requirements, our strategy now defines
readiness as our ability to compete, deter and win against the rising
peer threats we face. We define readiness by whether we possess the
required capabilities and capacity we need to face the threats outlined
in the NDS.
Modernization is a vital component of our readiness--our ability to
deter and counter growing threats. Investing in relevant modernization
and innovation directly correlates to improved readiness. Previous
decrements to our modernization efforts deferred our critical future
capabilities and infrastructure, forcing us to continue investing in
aging legacy systems that lack the capabilities required for the 21st
Century. Over time, legacy systems continue to cost more to repair and
sustain. Simultaneously, delayed modernization incurs the opportunity
costs associated with the delayed fielding of replacement systems and
the increased capabilities they will provide. Prioritizing
modernization can reduce average unit procurement costs, achieve
efficiencies and save taxpayer money. As the operating environment
changes, our investment approach will align with the NDS, increasing
modernization investments and innovation in capability areas required
to counter modern threats, such as: information warfare (IW), long
range precision fires, air defense, command and control in a degraded
environment, and protected mobility/enhanced maneuver.
Information Domain
The current and Next Generation Marine Corps must dominate within
the information domain. We must enable and protect our ability to
command and control (C2) units distributed across an area of
operations. This requires transforming Marine Air-Ground Task Force
(MAGTF) C2 capabilities through a unified network environment that is
ready, responsive and resilient. Our Common Aviation Command & Control
System (CAC2S) will provide the MAGTF with the capabilities required to
effectively command, control and coordinate air operations integrated
with the Naval and Joint Force. The Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/
ATOR) will replace five legacy systems with one expeditionary radar,
providing the MAGTF the ability to monitor the battlespace and threats
like never before. These modern capabilities will facilitate improved
battlefield awareness to and from small, dispersed tactical units. As
warfare evolves into a battle of signatures and detection, improvements
such as these are vital to maximize our marines' protection and
effectiveness.
Amphibious, Maritime, Expeditionary Capability and Capacity
We require increased attention to and investment in our amphibious
shipping capability and capacity. Resilient and lethal amphibious
platforms provide the strategic mobility, logistical support,
operational reach, and forcible entry capability required to deter and
defeat our Nation's adversaries. Our amphibious capability is a
centerpiece to the operational success of the Navy-Marine Corps team
and remains the preferred and most effective method to deploy and
employ Marine forces. The availability of amphibious shipping and
modern ship-to-shore connectors remains paramount to our readiness,
responsiveness and the execution of the NDS. In coordination with the
Navy, we are looking at alternative maritime basing platforms as
additional seabasing options. These ships may add depth and flexibility
in support of lower threat contingencies. Ultimately, supporting the
Navy's 30 year shipbuilding plan and accelerating the lethality and
resiliency of our L-class ships can provide our Nation with the
credible and decisive amphibious capabilities it requires.
Aviation Modernization and Readiness
Your support in the fiscal year 2017 enacted budget funded critical
aviation shortfalls. Your Navy-Marine Corps team received $144 million
for aviation depot operations, which funded 35 additional airframe
inductions for the Navy and Marine Corps. We received $61 million for
aviation logistics funding that supported over 3,000 flight hours for
the F-35 and MV-22. The appropriations enabled us to invest in spare
parts required to support future F-35B deployments. Perhaps most
notably, the average flight hours per crew per month increased by 1.9
hours compared to fiscal year 2016--an increase of 14 percent. Your
investment produced direct, quantifiable readiness gains. While we are
increasing flight hours for our aviators, they still need additional
flight hours to reach the proficiency we require.
We ask for your continued support to sustain and build upon these
improvements. CRs impact aviation readiness by inhibiting our ability
to execute a year-long funding strategy, specifically investments in
spares and repair parts. Without regular appropriations, costs are
driven higher as we are unable to put contracts in place with primary
suppliers, or are forced to purchase parts below the optimal
quantities. Through predictable budgets and on-time appropriations, we
can achieve our comprehensive aviation recovery plan.
Unpredictable funding and CRs have delayed the Marine Corps'
aviation modernization plan and readiness recovery by preventing
execution of a long-term investment strategy. Shallow acquisition ramps
for the F-35B/C and CH-53K require us to continue sustaining and
operating legacy aircraft that are rapidly approaching the end of their
service lives. Every dollar spent on aviation modernization has a
direct positive effect on current and future aviation readiness. The
most effective means to meet our NDS responsibilities, improve aviation
readiness and gain the competitive advantage required for combat
against pacing threats, is through your support to complete procurement
of our modern aviation platforms. Last year, our first operational F-35
squadron relocated to Iwakuni, Japan. This move enhanced the
capabilities of the Navy-Marine Corps team, reassured our allies of our
commitments in the Western Pacific, and improved overall Tactical
Aircraft (TACAIR) readiness. This year we look forward to the first F-
35B deployment as part of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) in the
Western Pacific. The CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement remains critical to
maintain and improve the battlefield mobility our amphibious force
requires. The CH-53K will nearly triple the lift capacity of the CH-53E
it will replace. The fiscal year 2017 enacted appropriation funded a
counter-unmanned aircraft systems (CUAS) capability, and some of these
systems are currently supporting our forward deployed forces. We must
continue to refine and develop these capabilities to win on the
battlefields of today and tomorrow. The Marine Corps requires your
continued support to acquire modern capabilities that can widen our
competitive advantage.
Ground Modernization and Readiness
Our ground equipment readiness continues to improve. Our depot
production plants at Albany and Barstow remain an essential component
to our ground equipment readiness strategy. The enacted fiscal year
2017 appropriations provided additional funding that yielded near-term
readiness gains. The increased funding addressed intermediate and
organizational maintenance challenges, increased availability of
secondary repairable parts, and focused on critical combat capabilities
within specific units: engineer, communications, ordnance and motor
transportation. It also funded additional munitions that mitigated risk
in support of an emerging crisis. Our execution of these funds produced
quantifiable ground readiness improvements; however, predictable, long-
term budgets remain necessary to capitalize on and sustain these
readiness recovery efforts.
While this is welcome news, our most important legacy capabilities
continue to age as modernization efforts fail to keep pace with our
requirements. CRs risk delaying contract award for the Amphibious
Combat Vehicle (ACV) 1.1, scheduled for June 2018, directly impacting
our ability to invest in the critical lethality and protected mobility
upgrades inherent in the ACV. To modernize our ground combat element
and ensure success against increasingly capable 21st Century threats,
we need to accelerate investments in our ground systems.
Logistics Modernization
The Next Generation Logistics Combat Element will optimize tactical
distribution with unmanned platforms, flatten the supply chain through
additive manufacturing (AM), and enhance preventive and predictive
supply and maintenance with sense and respond logistics. Further,
state-of-the-art logistics command and control information technology,
enabled by artificial intelligence, will extend the operational reach
of the MAGTF. Our Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL) and Next
Generation Logistics (NexLog) organizations continue to stay at the
cutting edge of military innovation.
Installation Infrastructure
Our installations serve as national defense assets that enable our
forces to hone their combat readiness before they deploy and operate
within the contact layer force our Nation requires to deter potential
adversaries. Our bases and stations are strategic power projection
platforms from which our blunt and surge layer forces fight and win.
They are where we house and care for our Marines and their families. In
past years, we took risk in our installation portfolio to support near-
term operational readiness. Continued underfunding of our long-term
infrastructure needs will create increasingly disproportionate long-
term costs, inconsistent with disciplined fiscal principles and
business reforms prioritized by the Secretary of Defense. As outlined
in the NDS, our installations must prove resilient in the face of the
threats we face. We must modernize our installations to protect our
blunt and surge layer forces and reassure our partners and allies. Our
operational capabilities are adapting to meet these changes, and we
need to invest in a next generation installation infrastructure to
match the growing MAGTF capability. Your support is crucial as we begin
to develop installation infrastructure to support our Next Generation
MAGTF.
High Quality People
Ultimately, our readiness and the success of our Marine Corps
relies upon the high quality, character, and capabilities of our
individual Marines and civilians; they are the foundation of our
readiness. We successfully recruit and retain high caliber women and
men; over 99 percent of our newest Marines and recruits are high school
graduates. This speaks to the quality of the Marines that make up our
force. We closely track our ability to recruit and retain our most
talented and highly qualified and skilled Marines. As the Talent
Management Officer of the Marine Corps, I am personally focused on
these efforts. Now more than ever, we need Marines with the mental
acuity and cognitive skills necessary to be effective in chaotic
environments and complex terrain. We design our training and education
continuum to produce men and women who are resilient, adaptive,
innovative, and imbued with the creativity and moral values required to
make sound tactical and ethical decisions. Our Marines remain the
bedrock of our operational effectiveness.
conclusion
On behalf of all of our marines, sailors--many deployed and in
harm's way today--and their families and the civilian Marines that
support their service, we thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
readiness challenges we face. Along with your authorizations as
outlined in the 2018 NDAA, we require your support through the required
appropriations to adapt your Marine Corps to compete, deter and win
against the threats we face together. CRs and the looming threat of
sequestration continue to disrupt our planning and directly threaten
our readiness. Predictable and sustained budgets remain the essential
requirement for the Marine Corps to meet our obligation as the Nation's
``force in readiness.'' Our readiness relies upon modernization to
provide increased lethality and resilience and to allow us to off ramp
the continued funding for sustaining increasingly expensive legacy
systems. Modernization will provide the competitive advantage required
to deter and defeat the pacing threats we face today and into the
future; this is the cornerstone of our National Defense Strategy. With
the support of the 115th Congress, we will move forward with our
responsibility to ensure your Marine Corps is organized, manned,
trained, equipped and postured to protect our fellow Americans, assure
our allies, and deter and, when necessary, defeat our adversaries.
Senator Inhofe. Very good.
General Wilson?
STATEMENT OF GENERAL STEPHEN W. WILSON, USAF, VICE CHIEF OF
STAFF, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
General Wilson. Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Kaine,
members of this committee, thank you for allowing me to testify
before you today. On behalf of the Secretary, the chief, and
the 670,000 airmen, many in harm's way as I speak, it is a
privilege to be here with my distinguished vice chiefs.
As an Air Force, we defend the Homeland. We own the high
ground of air and space. We project decisive combat power
forward with our joint team to defend America's interests and
our allies worldwide.
Since the hearing last year on readiness, we have continued
the longest period of combat in our Nation's history, 27 years.
We have exacerbated this period of combat with a decade of
fiscal disorder while our forces shrank, our equipment aged and
our equipment atrophied, leading to erosion of full-spectrum
readiness.
In parallel, as the new National Defense Strategy makes
clear, great power competition has reemerged. Today, our
strategic competitors, China and Russia, are moving at a speed
and scale unseen in recent history. We must counter that with
sustained, urgent action.
With your help, we can accelerate the building of a more
lethal force ready to compete, to deter, and to win any fight
anywhere.
Aided by your funding in 2017, we have arrested the
readiness decline. We began to do so with a keen focus on our
number one resource, our people. Thanks to your help, we will
be adding 3,300 airmen a year over the next 5 years.
We are also funding more flying hours and munitions, more
equipment and parts, depots, training, and our training
infrastructure. But we must get away from the CR this year in
time to turn the corner, so that our resources can be used
against space superiority, deterrence, training, air
superiority, and cyber, amongst others. We will then leverage
2019 to accelerate a multiyear climb toward full-spectrum
readiness.
To move at the speed of relevance, we need your continued
help in the following areas: first and foremost, budget
stability and return to physical order; second, competitive
personnel policies that allow us to attract and retain
America's best talent; we also need continued support for risk-
taking innovation to outpace the competition; and, finally,
national research efforts in science and technology to expand
America's competitive space. Collectively, these efforts will
help build a more lethal and ready force.
Let me close with an example of the alternative and what
can happen if we don't act with urgency. And I will go back to
the 1950s when a retired Army senior officer, a West Point
graduate of 1924, a Bataan Death March survivor who spent 3 and
a half years in captivity in prison camps like Cabanatuan, said
the following in a speech at a conference. ``Appearing before
you is an expert in failure, an authority on disaster. I am one
of the few Americans who has lost a war, who has seen an
American Army overrun and defeated by a combination of
starvation, sickness, unpreparedness, with superior enemy
forces and the nearest reinforcements 7,000 miles of enemy-
controlled ocean away. I have seen veteran officers change
overnight into tired, beaten, unshaven old men just trying to
walk to the next waterhole.
``We used to say if what is happening could happen to
everyone in United State of America for just 1 week, I believe
the security of the country would never be again endangered by
complacency, by red tape, or by fear of expenditure for its
insurance.''
He went on to say, ``As a Nation, we must be prepared. We
must be ready, because time is now reckoned in minutes and
hours instead of months and years. And in a future war, that
time will not be available.''
Those comments were made by my grandfather, Colonel Ovid
Wilson, and I would say his profound insights about the loss of
readiness offer wisdom that cannot be ignored today.
So make no mistake, we are again in a great power
competition, and margins of victory and defeat are
extraordinarily narrow. Time to ready is scarce. Speed wins in
preparation as in battle. We must throw off the yoke of the red
tape and risk-aversion to empower airmen for sustained, urgent
action.
Thank you for helping arrest the readiness decline. We have
turned the corner. Now we must accelerate, gain speed, and
climb to ensure America's airmen are more ready, more lethal to
fight any adversary anywhere on the planet.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Wilson follows:]
Prepared Statement by General Stephen W. Wilson
introduction
Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Kaine, members of this committee,
thank you for allowing me to testify before you today. Moreover, thank
you for your leadership to begin the return to regular fiscal order.
It is our top priority to restore readiness to win any fight at any
time. Nearly three decades of non-peer, non-traditional conflict has
consumed our readiness attention. Today's world requires an Air Force
ready for great power competition.
As conveyed by the National Defense Strategy (NDS), our nation's
competitors are moving at a speed and scale unseen in recent periods.
Air Force advantages are at risk. We must act with urgency. Speed will
win in preparation, just as in battle.
We will remain relentless in our pursuit of readiness, and by
extension lethality. The selfless efforts of America's sons and
daughters will benefit from your continued help with added speed ``left
of the fight'' in five key areas:
Budget stability to halt the primary cause of readiness
erosion.
The continued delegation of program authorities to enable
modernization speed.
Competitive personnel policies to attract and retain
America's best talent.
Continued support for risk-taking innovation to outpace
the competition.
National research efforts in science and technology to
sharpen America's edge.
For our part, as we arrest the decline, we are working to turn the
corner, and accelerate the climb to full-spectrum readiness.
arrest the decline
Thank you for your decision to pass the Fiscal Year 2017 Request
for Additional Appropriations (RAA). With the additional funds we began
to arrest our readiness decline. This was done with targeted efforts to
address shortfalls across people, equipment, and training. Notably,
your appropriation of the $5.6 Billion RAA led to the following
improvements:
People--The fiscal year 2017 RAA funded 4,000 additional
Active Duty airmen. While it will take another 5-7 years to develop
these airmen into seasoned professionals, this began the turn back to
full-spectrum readiness. We also executed our multi-year Remotely
Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Get-Well Plan to achieve sustainable, agile
capability in this critical mission area.
Equipment--We secured new, integrated digital targeting
systems for our Battle Field Airmen, reducing the risk of fratricide,
increasing lethality, and lowering the weight our airmen carry in the
fight against violent extremists by 30 percent. Additional funding went
to new vehicles to support weapons loading, maintenance, emergency
services, cargo movement, and aircraft fueling. Furthermore, we
replenished a mix of BLU-117 MK-84 (``mark 84'') bombs, due to
significant increase in expenditures for current operations.
Training--We made investments in pilot production and F-
16 Formal Training Unit bed down to address pilot shortfalls.
Additional training and weapon systems sustainment funding will
increase readiness by establishing a strong foundation for improved
aircraft availability and higher flying hour execution rates. Further,
the space enterprise began executing the Space Mission Force construct,
expanding space operator training and lethality toward an increased
focus on contested space domain operations.
Despite diverting critical resources to arrest the decline, your
Air Force still maintained enough readiness to project power across the
globe. Airmen conducted more than 172,000 sorties and 98,000 precision
air strikes to support Iraqi and partner forces in Syria and Iraq in
2017. These teams were ready and lethal. They would not have been
successful without your additional support. However, these same airmen
are not as lethal nor as ready as they could be for pacing threats--the
scenarios with the least margins for error and greatest risks to lives
and our nation's security.
turn the corner
Readiness and lethality are derived from stable funding and we are
heartened by the recent progress in budgetary matters. Unfortunately,
fiscal year 2017 gains are eroding under the continuing resolution
(CR). This self-imposed penalty grants competitors a cumulative head
start, year after year. We must get back to, and maintain, regular
fiscal order.
Notably, a year-long CR would bring lasting consequences. We may be
forced to scale back the engineering and development phase of the B-21
bomber. In addition to out-year delivery impacts, this would slow
contractor staffing, engineering design, and supply chain development
in ways that are only recoverable in years. Scenarios like this are
prevalent throughout our force. Airmen are required to redirect scarce
time and energy from readiness to navigate the pitfalls of each
budgetary delay. This takes our attention away from the competition,
while they remain laser focused on us.
Should we receive a Defense Appropriation for fiscal year 2018 in
time to execute within this fiscal year, we will pursue the following
readiness improvements to turn the corner:
People--We will add 2,300 Active Duty airmen in fiscal
year 2018 to get to a total of 325,100. In addition, we will add 1,000
reservists and 900 guardsmen. We are focused on quality of life
improvements for our airmen and their families; as soon as the fiscal
year 2018 budget is signed it will include a 2.4 percent increase in
military pay, a 2.2 percent increase in basic allowance for housing,
and a 3.4 percent increase in subsistence. Growing our end strength to
fill existing manpower requirements is the most important step to turn
the corner and accelerate the climb.
Nuclear Deterrence--We are steadfast in providing the
nation a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent including the
air and ground-legs of the triad along with 75 percent of the command,
control, and communications capability. We prioritize sustainment of
the ICBM force and Air Launched Cruise Missile, as well as integrated
design and development of their replacements--the Ground Based
Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) and Long-Range Stand-Off cruise missile
(LRSO). To the maximum extent possible under the CR, we've continued
bomber modernization efforts to include additional investment for the
B-52 Radar Modernization Program and B-2 Defensive System Modernization
programs.
Space Superiority--The fiscal year 2018 budget represents
a 27 percent increase in research, development, testing and evaluation
(RDT&E) for space systems and a 12 percent increase in space
procurement. The budget concludes incremental funding of the Space
Based Infrared Systems (SBIRS) 5 and 6 satellites block buy. We are
proceeding with the purchase of terminals, control systems, and
communications security for satellites. We will also procure additional
launch services as part of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)
program.
Air Superiority--Training to confront pacing threats has
suffered in exchange for flying hours in current operations. We are at
the beginning of this climb. Through the fiscal year 2018 budget we
will leverage $6.2 billion to fully fund executable peacetime flying
hours. That will pair with $12 billion for key enabling weapons system
sustainment (parts, maintenance and logistics) near maximum executable
levels.
Cyber--We will fund all of our offensive and defensive
cyber teams to full operational levels. This includes training and
equipping 1,700 additional cyber operators. In parallel, we will
increase our reliance on contractors for basic information technology
and cloud services. This will enable our military members to focus on
their readiness for advanced threats as part of the joint force.
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)--We
continue to modernize the medium-altitude ISR Remotely Piloted Aircraft
(RPA) fleet and rebalance the ISR portfolio to meet the challenges we
will face in future contested environments. Specifically, we will
remain committed to our RPA Get Well Plan with increased training,
leadership opportunities, and basing options including a new RPA wing
and two operational squadrons across the five year plan.
Infrastructure--We have roughly $2 billion set aside this
year for military construction. Priorities include the bed down of new
missions, combatant command requirements, and strengthening the nuclear
security enterprise. We will also improve ranges at the Utah Test and
Training Range and Red Flag in Nevada so combat airpower can train with
full F-35A capabilities. Additionally, we continue to pursue virtual
Operational Training Infrastructure (OTI), to test and train against
advanced threats at reduced cost.
Munitions--Our use of munitions continues to out-pace
assembly. Working with industry, we are maximizing production of
critical types, including the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System,
Joint Direct Attack Munition, Hellfire missile, and Small Diameter
Bomb. This effort to regain munitions readiness is no small feat and
represents a whole-of America example to reclaim the competitive edge.
accelerate the climb
The Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget, informed by, and
synchronized with, the new National Defense Strategy, will accelerate
our multi-year climb to full-spectrum readiness. That climb begins with
people.
The requirements for national defense are out of balance with the
number of airmen we have to meet them. In fiscal year 2019 we will
address imbalances in critical fields like aviation, maintenance, ISR,
cyber, and RPA while also expanding training capacity. Further, we will
support Air Force families with a military pay raise, increased housing
and subsistence allowances, and bolstered family support programs.
It is also critical that we increase aviator production and
seasoning through expanded flying hour and weapons system sustainment
programs. By extension, operational training infrastructure is needed
to provide relevant and realistic training for multi-domain, full-
spectrum readiness. Those trained airmen will need munitions on hand.
To support current operations and prepare for future requirements, we
must fund armament delivery at industry capacity.
Further, recapitalization of our aging nuclear capability is vital
to deterrence. Development of the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent and
Long Range Stand-Off Missile, while modernizing bomber fleets, are key
steps. We also aim to invest in nuclear command, control, and
communications (NC3) systems. This will ensure resilient and survivable
connectivity between the President, national command leadership, and
nuclear forces.
Additionally, our fiscal year 2019 budget continues funding
priority modernization initiatives with the purchase of jam-resistant
satellites, F-35As, KC-46As, and the development of the B-21. We also
begin transformative initiatives to expand lethality. Examples include
our light attack aircraft experiment and emphasis on multi-domain
command and control.
Programs for innovation and talent management will find footing.
Executing in the spirit of General Hap Arnold and Dr. Von Karman 70
years ago, our year-long science and technology review seeks
partnerships across academia and defense. Findings will inform decades
of Air Force investments, and where helpful, national investments.
Likewise, new mechanisms to incubate innovation--such as AFWERX--
will enable teamwork with America's strong entrepreneurial base. This
will pair well with our new methods of rapid capability development to
drive modernization at the speed of relevance. Finally, we will seek
pliable talent policies to grant today's airmen more career control
while harnessing their patriotic commitment to service.
Today's modernization is tomorrow's readiness. These iterative
efforts in fiscal year 2019 and beyond will accelerate the climb to
full-spectrum readiness and provide a force that is ready, lethal, and
efficient in this era of great power competition. Each year--truly each
month--of progress builds on the previous. Conversely, delays compound
exponentially in their lasting impacts.
conclusion
Readiness is not static. It is inherently in decline or on the
rise. Our military advantages and readiness shrunk due to the longest
continuous stretch of combat in our nation's history, coupled with
years of inconsistent and insufficient funding. At the same time, our
strategic competitors, notably China and Russia, have closed gaps in
capability and capacity. The result is an overstretched and under
resourced United States Air Force.
As the Secretary of Defense has made clear, America can afford
survival. Prolonged budgetary stability is the most reliable way to
ensure yesterday's winning force does not become irrelevant tomorrow.
To that end, we are deeply appreciative of recent efforts to begin the
return of fiscal order and look forward to classified dialogue to fully
enable your stewardship while frustrating the surveilling efforts of
our competitors.
On behalf of 670,000 American Active, Guard, Reserve, and civilian
airmen and their selfless families, thank you for your continued
leadership and partnership in defense of this great nation.
Senator Inhofe. General Wilson, you just said you needed
3,300 airmen. Are you talking about new airmen coming in? In
the next what period of time?
General Wilson. Mr. Chairman, that is 3,300 per year over
the next 5 years.
Senator Inhofe. Per year over the next 5 years. Of them,
how many are actually pilots?
General Wilson. I can give you a breakdown.
Senator Inhofe. We know the topline figures of those, but
are you making any headway from the last time you and I talked?
We had this committee hearing, which you attended, and that was
one of the serious problems that the Air Force has.
General Wilson. Our pilot production is certainly a serious
challenge going forward. We are still about 2,000 pilots short.
We have an aircrew crisis task force underway led by a general
officer who shows up to work every day with nothing on his mind
but how we fix this problem.
Senator Inhofe. Okay. We have all talked about this. We did
dodge a bullet, in terms of CRs. I think with what we have
done, we are going to be in pretty good shape in terms of
fiscal year 2018 and 2019, but then we go back to fiscal year
2020, which we really need to be trying to figure out a way to
do these things more in advance.
I want to ask one question of all of you, the same
question. We know what has happened to us with our 17 years of
sustained fighting. We know the problems that we have. That
seems to be all we talk about. But I would like to have you,
from your perspective, give us the cost of not addressing these
readiness issues. This is a readiness committee. Readiness is
what is important. That relates to risk in lives.
Starting with you.
General McConville. As far as the risks, readiness, I
equate it to pushing a boulder up a hill, and when you stop
pushing, the boulder rolls down.
For a while there, we weren't getting the appropriate
funding to properly maintain our units at the proper level. We
are getting that funding right now, but it needs to sustain,
because we need to kind of fill in the holes in readiness that
we let develop over the last couple of years when we were not
getting the timely, predictable, and sustained funding that we
needed.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Admiral Moran, what would you say to that?
Admiral Moran. Yes, sir. There are so many components to
readiness. You could pick at any one of them and find areas we
need to work harder on and where the lack of resources,
especially the last several years, has really been a difficult
challenge for all of us.
But I think about it as a capital-intensive service, and
the amount of maintenance and upgrades and modernization to
pace the threat or get out in front of the threat is an
enormous cost, and that is part of our readiness component.
If you can't get the ships underway, the submarines
underway, or the airplanes flying, then you are going to have
readiness problems across-the-board. I think that is obvious.
What always pays for those big capital investments in our
business are people and munitions. And we have taken risk in
those areas over the last 10 years because the resources
haven't been there. Now we are starting to buy that back.
But when I think about the people, it is also the readiness
component, which talks to experience and building intuition on
a battlefield, at sea, in the air. And those things, you cannot
buy back. Once you pass by a year or 2 of that kind of
proficiency and that kind of training, it is very difficult to
buy it back, unless you get it in situ, at the time when the
person going through that training needs it the most.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Thank you.
General Walters, we hear more, at least I hear more, about
the readiness and what it is taking in both the Marines and the
Army than I do in some of the other services. How do you come
out on this?
General Walters. Sir, readiness, if you view it as a
commodity, you build it, and it has a shelf-life, because it is
all about the people.
So combine unstable funding and a drawdown, then you lose
people, and you really lose opportunity.
So the opportunity cost of not training over time to build
back up, it might be that sergeant that you let out who has had
8 years of experience, now I have to start over with a private
and make him a sergeant. So that is the condition we find
ourselves in right now with squad leaders, and that is where
our tension is.
But truly, lost opportunity and lost time are something
that is not a one-for-one recovery. So I will echo my mates
here that stable funding over time at the right amount, with
paying attention to our people, will get us out of the hole.
And we have the plan for that, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Okay. I appreciate that.
General Wilson, you already answered that question in your
opening statement.
Let me get back to the budget thing and the problem that we
are looking at as we move forward. With the recent budget deal
and the pending passage of the appropriations act for fiscal
year 2018, we are already 5 months into the fiscal year, and I
am concerned that the services will be unable to execute 12
months of money in 6 months remaining, and yet the need is
there.
Why don't each one of you address that timing problem that
is there that you are going to have to be facing?
General McConville. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sir, we appreciate the authorizations for the money that we
need for readiness. Now we need to get it into the hands of our
units, so they can spend it. The sooner we can do that, the
better off we are going to be. If we are spending 55 percent of
funds in the last 4 months, some of the things we would like to
do as far as predictable funding and long-term lead items and
contracting, we do not get the same rigor that we would like to
get if we had it sooner.
Senator Inhofe. Admiral?
Admiral Moran. I guess the good news, Mr. Chairman, is that
we have had 10 years at this, to learn how to operate on less
than a full year's authorization or appropriation. So we are
ready----
Senator Inhofe. Not that you are enjoying it.
Admiral Moran. No, no, sir, we are not enjoying it at all.
But not to make light of it, it is an important question that
we are spending a lot of time developing plans.
But I think we are going to need some help with the
appropriators on how we spend that money. It is not going to go
across evenly. The add is so significant that we are going to
have to look at having the ability to transfer some of that
money from account to account.
Senator Inhofe. Do you foresee a problem in that respect?
Admiral Moran. Well, I am saying as we go, as we start to
make those plans come to fruition, we may find that we can
execute more in one area than another faster. And we would like
to have some authorities to be able to move the money around as
we go and be able to inform Congress as we are doing it.
Senator Inhofe. General Walters?
General Walters. Yes, sir. As you noted, we have a year's
worth of money adds in 2018 and 5 months to spend it. It might
help if the appropriators can give us some flexibility, so we
can spend 2018 money in 2019 and feather in the plan and give
us some authorities to, as Admiral Moran said, move money
around when we are executing.
So there are lots of things we can do with a little more
authority to match the responsibilities that the Service Chiefs
have.
Senator Inhofe. They are aware of that, and they have the
authority to make those changes.
General Walters. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Any comments, General Wilson?
General Wilson. Chairman, I have nothing to add. We are
going to do our best to spend it in that time frame.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And it is interesting,
preparing for this hearing today after having gotten the budget
deal, it made me think about questions in a little bit
different way. I am always asking readiness questions about
budgetary uncertainty and the effect on readiness, and we have
been doing this for years. But assuming that our budget deal is
a solid one and holds through the appropriations process, let
me ask how each of your branches approach a different readiness
issue, which is, the more the combatant commander requirements,
the higher the op tempo, the harder it is to find time to build
readiness. So that is a balancing issue, too.
So assuming that the budgetary issues are now in a little
bit better place and you can work on your recovery path, how
does each service branch approach this issue of balancing out
combatant commander requirements with the need to have time to
build back to readiness?
General McConville. Senator, for the United States Army,
over the last 16, 17 years, our forces have been in high
demand. We have a goal of 1 year deployed and 2 years back, and
we still have not been able to meet that. We are running a
little over 1 year deployed, maybe 1 year and 2 or 3 months
back.
But even during that time frame, we create the readiness.
As we do the analysis on what the soldiers are doing while they
are back, they are really getting ready for the next
deployment. So they are getting the training and the readiness
they need to have, so when they go into a combat situation,
they are ready to do their job.
We appreciate increasing the size of the force, which is
going to help. We are also talking to the Joint Staff on some
of the missions that we may not have to do in the future to
reduce that demand.
Senator Kaine. Admiral Moran?
Admiral Moran. Yes, Senator. Thank you for the question.
As you know, we are desperately trying to drive down the
backlog in our maintenance account or our maintenance backlog
for our surface ships, submarines, aviation, and so the budget
agreement certainly helps get after that.
But to your point, the operational demand for our forces
remains high, like every other service here. But I think that
the global force management process through the Joint Staff,
which is done routinely, the RFF, request for forces process,
everybody, combatant commanders included, are certainly paying
attention to the stresses on the force, to allow us to be able
to have time to train and to do the maintenance. We are
definitely feeling that appreciation from the COCOMs [combatant
commands] this time around, even though the demands still
remain very high.
Senator Kaine. Thanks, Admiral.
General Walters?
General Walters. Yes, sir, the NDS [National Defense
Strategy] addresses this to some degree, sir. The chairman is
going to set the globe now and allocate the forces that way,
with a dynamic force employment methodology.
We are looking forward to seeing the results of that. We
are seeing a little bit of it so far where we have garnered
some relief for a portion of our forces, and that will help us
build the ROMO [range of military operations] readiness back in
the United States, sir.
Senator Kaine. General Wilson?
General Wilson. I would agree with everything that has been
said. We talk about being strategically predictable and
operationally unpredictable, and how we do that on a responsive
force.
I was just at Shaw Air Force Base and talked to the F-16
unit there. They are the suppression of enemy air defenses
unit. They are the only stateside unit that does that. So they
are the ones that support Korea. At the same time, they have
units that go out to the Middle East and support operations
there.
Because they are the only stateside unit, they are also
doing training at things like Red Flag or the Weapons School
support, as well doing Noble Eagle. So they are as stretched as
they can be, and we need to be able to balance those demands.
To the point earlier, the first thing that is going to help
our readiness is getting more people--the operators, the
maintainers, the intel folks, the space operators, the cyber
folks--to help build up that capacity going forward.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
Let me ask a question to Admiral Moran. I think there are
reports that there is a congressionally mandated study about
the naval shipyard optimization plan, and that may be
forthcoming later in the month. We hear that it may include
over $10 billion of investments over a lengthy period of time,
20 years or more. Then there is a companion plan regarding
private shipyards that is also in the works.
What can you share about the shipyard optimization plans
and how the Navy can better assist both our public and private
shipyards in completing maintenance in a more timely fashion?
Admiral Moran. Yes, sir. That plan, I believe, has been
recently signed out as of yesterday, the optimization plan.
Senator Kaine. I cannot believe my staff hasn't had me read
it already.
Admiral Moran. I am shocked. It is pretty thick.
It is very comprehensive. We looked at a lot of aspects of
the shipyards and how we can optimize both the level load
across our yards, both public and private, and being able to
invest in them in a way we know we are going to have to do. The
youngest yard we have is Pearl Harbor, which was built in 1908,
I believe, so it is a long haul.
A lot of those yards need to be upgraded. They need to be
modernized to be more efficient, to put the work on the pier
and reduce the idle time or the busy time that people have,
just going from one shop to the next.
So that is all laid out pretty comprehensively. It is a
significant investment in the out-years, over a 20-year period.
To get after a Navy that the Nation needs that is in that
350, 355 level, we are going to need to be a lot smarter about
how we optimize our shipyards.
Senator Kaine. I asked for that reason. Last year, the NDAA
provision going to 355, it is one thing to say there is a
number of ships, but it is repair, it is the manpower for the
ships, it is, do you have air assets on the ships? I mean,
there are so many downstream consequences from setting a goal
like that, and I have a feeling we will be talking about a
number of those this year as we work on the NDAA.
Let me ask General McConville a question, and it is a
question that was based on an Army study, but I think it is
actually relevant to everybody. Maybe you can address it first.
There were some troubling statistics presented last year
about the qualified military available population of the 17- to
24-year-olds. There was an Army study that showed that nearly
two out of three in that age range are disqualified because of
any number of factors. It could be medical, physical, mental
health, aptitude, or substance abuse challenge.
Talk about this challenge, if you would start, and if
others would want to weigh in. I am not asking about the
retention side. I am about the attracting of the young side.
With this much of our population sort of in a position where
they can't currently qualify, what do we need to do to build
that availability in a more robust way?
General McConville. Yes, Senator. The Army is people, so it
is very, very important to us as we grow the Army.
Right now, we see about 27 percent of American youth in
that age group are not qualified to come to the Army. And what
we are looking for is young men and women that are resilient;
they are physically and mentally fit; and they have the
appropriate character, so they can serve in the Army.
We have put some things in place. We did not used to do any
type of physical assessment before we brought the young men and
women into the Army. We do that right now at the recruiting
stations. Before they can ship off for initial military
training, they have to meet a certain standard on an
Occupational Physical Assessment Test. In order to do that,
they have to actually get in shape before they can do that.
Right now, we have recruiters working with the young men
and women. We have only been doing it for a little less than a
year, but we are starting to see some effects where we are
having less musculoskeletal-type injuries.
The other thing we are doing, as we bring them through the
Army, when they go to initial military training, we are
screening them when they get there, and if they are not
physically ready to go through, we are getting them in shape.
When they go, actually, to the units, we are treating them
almost as professional athletes.
We are putting physical trainers, we are putting
dieticians, we are putting strength coaches inside the units.
We are doing that in the 82nd Airborne Division right now, and
we are getting much less on the musculoskeletal-type injuries.
The return on investment is much greater than having a
young man or woman hurt and then them having to leave early or
paying them disability for a long period of time.
Senator Kaine. I am over time, and I may submit that
question to the record for others, but I will yield back, Mr.
Chair.
Senator Inhofe. Okay, good.
Senator Hirono?
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for your service and being here.
Admiral Moran, I am encouraged to see from the President's
budget request that ship depot maintenance and, as you
mentioned, as one of you mentioned, that Pearl Harbor is a
pretty mature shipyard, to say the least. So depot maintenance
is a top priority for the Navy to recover readiness and
building the shipyard work force capacity is a component of
that readiness plan.
At our meeting last week, you described the effort it has
taken to begin to climb out of the readiness shortfall faced by
the Navy, and I look forward to additional details and
priorities for shipyard modernization and increases in work
force capacity. So I am glad that that is going ahead.
So after ship maintenance and aviation readiness, what are
the next priorities for Navy readiness recovery, Admiral?
Admiral Moran. On the personnel front, we are bringing in
4,000 new sailors this year, and we are going to continue to
bring in new sailors throughout the FYDP [Future Years Defense
Plan] to address shortfalls in the fleet, gaps at sea, in
particular, that we know we have. And we have been under quite
a bit of pressure the last 2 or 3 years to fill those billets.
So we are adding people to it, and we are doing a lot to try to
change the way we train our young men and women as they come,
as we call it, street-to-fleet through the boot camp and into
the fleet.
That training has often been long, too long with too much
information and a lot of waiting around, waiting for the next
school to start, because we do not have a steady throughput for
a variety of reasons that have occurred over the years, and
also to deliver that training at the right time at the right
place for the sailors as they are progressing through their
careers, even in the fleet. We are bringing in more simulation,
more capabilities to the waterfront and our flight lines, so we
do not have to rotate sailors back to schoolhouses as often we
have in the past.
Those efforts alone on the people front will do a great
deal to help us on the readiness side.
Senator Hirono. So do you have similar concerns that only
about 30 percent of high schoolers can even qualify to join the
military, any of the services? Do you have particular issues
with regard to the Navy?
Admiral Moran. Yes, Senator. I think we are all facing that
same challenge. I think one of the key components of that is
the fact that the vast majority, at least on the Navy side, the
vast majority of volunteers that come in are predisposed by the
fact that they have a family member with some background that
know what we do for a living, so we have to reach out to more
of the rest of America and have them participate in national
defense.
Senator Hirono. Does it help to have ROTC [Reserve Officer
Training Corps] programs in our colleges as a place where
people become very interested in joining?
Admiral Moran. Fully one-third of our new officers every
year come from the ROTC program, and we couldn't do it without
them.
Senator Hirono. We do not have a Navy ROTC in Hawaii.
Admiral Moran. I know. I was waiting for that.
Senator Hirono. I know. You have read my mind.
Admiral Moran. You stay on me, yes, ma'am.
Senator Hirono. We have to work on that, you know? After
all, if part of the goal is diversity, what could be a more
diverse pool than people from the State of Hawaii?
Now that the Navy is on its way to recovering from a
readiness decline, how will you ensure that the Navy is able to
maintain readiness at acceptable levels? And what changes in
business practices and what level of investment will be needed
to smooth out the peaks and valleys of previous readiness
efforts in a more steady and predictable level?
Admiral Moran. Great question.
The last 2 years in our program builds, in our POM [Program
Objectives Memorandum] cycles. We started at the front-end
talking about readiness as a starting point, as opposed to the
very end, we try to balance with it. And I think that sets a
mindset. It changes the culture of how you invest in readiness
when you try to lock in what is needed by the fleet to produce
the readiness they need to do at the waterfront before we put
all the other programs in place and then try to figure out how
to pay the rest off.
Senator Hirono. I hope that we can provide whatever
assistance we can to make sure that we do not fall back in
readiness for any of the services. I think that a 2-year budget
deal will help. And I hope that is the way that we will proceed
from now on, without these continual CRs.
I have a question about China and the challenges we face.
This is for the whole panel.
China has invested heavily over the past several years to
upgrade their military technology and systems. Whether it is a
fifth-generation fighter, long-range missiles, or anti-
satellite weapons, the Chinese have used a whole-of-nation
approach to quickly advance many of their capabilities.
I would like to ask you, while we all agree that readiness
is very important, how do you balance the need to modernize our
weapons systems with readiness requirements and other needs to
be able to effectively counter Chinese influence in the Asia
Pacific arena?
Let's start with you.
General McConville. Yes, Senator. One of the reasons that
we have stood up our cross-functional teams and our Futures
Command is we are at an inflection point for the Army. We have
been pretty much fighting a counterinsurgency, counterterrorism
fight for the last 16 years. And now as we follow the National
Defense Strategy, which goes into a great power competition
between adversaries like China and Russia, we are going after
those systems that are going to deter any of those types of
things they want to do.
I was just looking at history. It was April 15, 1953, the
last time an American soldier was killed by enemy air on a
battlefield, 1953, the great Air Forces that are here. So we
have gotten rid of most of our air defense elements that
protect our units.
As we go into the future and we are into this more
contested domain warfare that we see in the future, we need to
develop those types of systems. And we are developing a whole
bunch of systems that are going to make us very capable against
future adversaries like that.
Senator Hirono. Admiral?
Admiral Moran. I wanted to give my friends here a little
bit of time.
Senator Hirono. Okay.
Would you like to respond, General Walters?
General Walters. Yes, ma'am.
So the new National Defense Strategy focuses on
adversaries, potential adversaries like China. For the Marine
Corps, it is enhanced command and control. It is IW
[information warfare]. It is cyber. It is long-range fire. It
is ground-based air defense. It is ground-based counter-UAS
[unmanned aerial system], because they have UASes. All those
things are now in our plan and our budget.
I think you are asking a question about giving up readiness
to get capabilities and how you balance that.
Senator Hirono. How do you balance?
General Walters. How do you balance that? I would say it
this way. Buying those systems, that is future readiness,
because you do not want to fight a conflict with the old
equipment, because you are, by definition, not ready.
Senator Hirono. That is a good answer.
General Walters. Thank you.
Senator Hirono. Would you like to add something, General?
General Wilson. I will just add the same tagline. I would
say today's modernization is tomorrow's readiness, and we have
to look at how we do that faster, because we see what China is
doing.
So as we develop capabilities, the whole how we do that,
everything from our requirements, to acquisition, to
contracting, to testing, we have to be able to do that faster.
All of us are doing that. We have efforts underway to be able
to speed capabilities to the field faster.
For example, we are building this light attack airplane. By
the authorities that you all gave us, the Congress, you told us
how to do this differently. How do you experiment and prototype
rapidly? So we are doing that.
This is a coalition of the core airplane. It is economical.
It will help our readiness. It will help build capacity.
It will be not just an airplane, though. It is an airplane.
It is a sensor. It is weapons. It is a network that we will
share with coalition partners so that we can do this smarter
going forward.
From go to now, it has been 11 months. We have done the
first experiment. We will do the next experiment this summer.
We will start buying airplanes before 2019-2020, so in a 2-year
time frame. Again, thanks to your help to be able to do that,
to give us the authorities to do this differently, because that
is what we are going to need to be able to do to compete.
But it is not just there. If I could go to another area,
that same thing happens in space. We have to think how we do
this differently in space, because today, that is the one thing
that every one of our joint team members use is space, and
space is going to be a contested domain in the future. It is
today.
So how do we build situational awareness? How do we build
the resilient communication, the resilient missile warning? How
do you build antijam capabilities for GPS [global positioning
system] to be able to defend in space, if the war fight goes
there? And we have a lot of efforts underway in our space arena
to do that.
Senator Hirono. So I think as we think about how to contend
with adversaries like China and Russia, it is long-term
planning that this requires.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Senator Hirono, I am glad you have brought up the China
thing. I remember so well, actually, back during the Clinton
administration, we had this euphoric attitude out there that
somehow the Cold War is over, we do not need the military that
strong. I remember all the bonuses they talked about at that
time.
All the time that we were cutting down, about 40 percent at
that time, but not China and not Russia. At the same time we
were cutting back, they were increasing.
I remember talking about this on the floor. What if we are
wrong on this? And sure enough, we were wrong.
So I would like just to address from each of the services
the force structure question. As we know, the Army, Marine
Corps, and the Air Force have all undergone strength reductions
over the last 5 years.
Now these force structure reductions occurred at the same
time of increasing requirements, which we did not anticipate
would be the case with the Russian aggression and the rise of
the Islamic State and other problems. So in the DOD, they
intended to allow the time for forces to reconstitute and reset
after lengthy campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. But as it
turned out, we weren't able to do that. So we have corrected
the trajectory and are increasing the end-strength numbers in
fiscal years 2018 and 2019.
But I would ask each one of you, do you believe that the
force structure of your service is appropriate and adequate
with the changes that we have made to meet the requirements of
the defense strategy that we are looking at now?
General McConville. Senator, I believe so. As you and I
discussed, we were in a very rapid drawdown and that drawdown
has stopped in the Army. We are growing the Army. I think we
are on the right pace to do that.
The way you deter great powers is with tanks, artillery,
and attack helicopters, and that is where our modernization
effort is, and that is included in the budget as we go forward.
And we think these are the right steps forward with timely,
predictable, and sustainable funding.
Senator Inhofe. Where are you--and each service, I could
ask the same thing--on the 1-to-2 time that you are in combat
to when you are back? I think you have already said that it is
not a rest period for 2 years. You are back in training and all
that.
Where are you on that?
General McConville. That is correct, Senator. Our units are
less than the 1-to-2 kind of dwell time that we expect, and
they are probably at 1-to-1.5, which is really not where we
want them to be.
Senator Inhofe. That combined with the fact that they are
working during that 1.5, during that time also.
General McConville. Yes, they are going to combat training
centers. They are doing home station training, because when
they go off to their deployments, we want to make sure they are
ready.
Senator Inhofe. How about the Navy?
Admiral Moran. Sir, to your original question, do we have
enough to support the strategy? The answer is yes. But every
strategy has some degree of risk to it, so the bigger we get,
the better we get, the less risk there is to that strategy. So
we really appreciate where the budget agreement is going to
allow us to go through the FYDP and beyond, hopefully.
In terms of the dwell, our forces, they are not all
consistent. We deploy in different types, in different groups,
but the vast majority on the optimize fleet response plan are
trying to be at a 1-to-2 dwell.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
And where do you think you are?
Admiral Moran. It depends on which moment in time, and it
depends on what the world has to say about it. It fluctuates.
But our operational dwell time is 1-to-2. Our personnel dwell
time is something less than that because of the rotation.
Senator Inhofe. I understand that, yes. Very good.
General Walters?
General Walters. Yes, sir, much like the other services, we
are an aggregate of 1-to-2 dep-to-dwell. But I will say this,
as we go through this set to globe and where we deploy, I would
just offer this for consideration, that not all deployments are
created equal, although they all count on dep-to-dwell.
But for example, the Marines we now have training in
Norway, they are actually gaining readiness there. They are
gaining readiness to the designed mission. So the only place
you lose readiness when you are deployed, generally, is you are
deployed to a region you are not doing your designed mission.
So for counterterrorism, and you are supposed to be the
blunt force or the surge force, then you are losing that
readiness. But if you deploy for a training deployment, say, in
the Pacific, you will probably come back more ready because you
have operated in the environment that you might be employed in.
I do not know if that makes sense.
Senator Inhofe. Okay. It does.
General Wilson?
General Wilson. Chairman, the majority of our folks are on
a 1-to-2 dwell or better than that. But as mentioned and just
like the rest of them, their pers tempo back home, they are not
spending that time at home. There is what I call an ``are you
sleeping in your bed at night?'' metric, and we need to measure
that, because that has impacts on the retention of the force
going forward.
In terms of your question about people, we think we will be
growing through this FYDP, as I mentioned, about 3,300 a year.
If we do that, we get to about 95 percent of our units being
filled, and that is a step in the right direction, and we need
to continue that long term.
Senator Inhofe. What I want to do is I am going to go ahead
and shift over to you, and then come back, and I want to
specifically talk about, each branch represented here, about
the unique problems that you have. So you go ahead and take
over now, and I will do that.
Senator Kaine. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for Admiral Moran, and it deals with the
action that the Navy is undertaking to learn from and then make
improvements following the collisions of the USS Fitzgerald and
then also the USS John McCain.
We have had testimony about this in the large committee.
But after those tragic collisions, the Navy conducted the
strategic readiness review [SRR], and that found several, the
quote was ``institutional deficiencies.'' The Navy has taken
some significant steps, personnel steps and otherwise, to deal
with those.
The SRR made numerous recommendations to address the root
causes of the incidents. A separate study by the GAO
[Government Accountability Office] also had at least 14
readiness recommendations to the Navy coming out of this.
Talk about the status of implementing--I am not talking
about the personnel side now. I am talking about just the
recommended changes. Talk about the status of implementing
those recommendations from both the SRR and the GAO's work. And
then how will you kind of monitor and evaluate progress on
these going forward?
Admiral Moran. Yes, sir. Thanks for the question.
We stood up an oversight board that is co-chaired by myself
and the Under Secretary of the Navy to pull all of those
reviews together, to include the GAO reviews, previously
completed investigations of other mishaps, not just the ones we
saw but everything else, we are pulling all that information
together at once. Then seeing how the 58 recommendations from
the CR, the 27 recommendations from the SRR, the 14 from the
GAO, all of them, where do they overlap and where can we make
sense of them? And then really rely on the fleet to tell us
what prioritization needs to occur. What are the things that
they believe need to be done immediately for safety? Those
things are completed. Most of them were not a financial burden.
They were more or less policy.
But we have now gone into how we are programming to address
things like common configuration for radars, bridge
configurations----
Senator Kaine. The bridge configuration, because in these
instances, some of the personnel involved were cross-decked
from one platform to another, and there wasn't an identical
configuration, and that may have been part of the problem.
Admiral Moran. That is correct. Yes, sir.
So all of that is being monitored by a series of working
groups overseen by the Under and myself. We meet monthly. Those
working groups are meeting weekly. And then we feed that up to
the Secretary and the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations], and they
are required to deliver a report quarterly to the Congress. We
are approaching the first quarterly report for that, which will
lay out all those things.
I am not willing to call things complete until I not only
see the programming but the arrival of the fixes in the fleet,
so we are going to track these all the way to delivery in the
fleet.
The outcome has to be that we have a safer and more
effective fleet at the end of the day. That is the overarching
goal.
Senator Kaine. One of the particular areas I was interested
in, based on some of the early hearings we had, was whether
there are recommendations for any changes to training
curriculum at Surface Warfare Officers School [SWOS]. Is that a
part of some of these recommendations? And is that under
implementation?
Admiral Moran. Yes, sir. The new leadership at SURFOR
[surface force] out in San Diego, Admiral Brown, has only been
on board a month or so. We are giving him a little bit of time
to figure out how he wants to take this forward. He just came
from our Personnel Command. He was the COO [Chief Operating
Officer] of SWOS. He understands this very, very well.
So he is coming forward through the fleet commanders to the
oversight board with his recommendations on how to implement
career path changes, manning changes, and the training at SWOS.
Senator Kaine. All right, thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Senator Inhofe. I am just going to do it one at a time,
starting with you, General McConville.
The Army priorities are--and you do not have to write them
down, because you know them--long-range precision fire, next-
generation combat vehicle--you and I talked about that at some
length--future vertical lift, network, air and missile defense,
and soldier lethality.
With the priorities identified, do you have a plan to
address all six of these? Or would you like to give us some
kind of a priority? And where do you stand in these priorities?
General McConville. Senator, we plan and we have plans to
address every single one of those. What we are really doing is,
in those priorities, long-range precision fire is the number
one priority. There is a lot of great work going on there, from
hypersonics to extending tube artillery. What we want to do is
probably get down to focus on three systems, work with a lot of
the other organizations with industry and, quite frankly, have
them invest along with us as we bring these systems to bear.
But with each of those portfolios, we see one or two
systems we are going to laser-focus on, and those are the
priorities, and those are the things we need to get done.
Senator Inhofe. We talked about the extension of six feet
and what that does to range. It kind of shows that, once you
make a decision on a vehicle, on a system that as outside
things change, they can change within.
Now the extreme of that is what has happened with our
combat vehicles, as you and I talked in my office. We started
with the Crusader. We spent about $2 billion on that, junked
that one. Went to the Future Combat System, and spent $20
billion on that. Now we are back to our PIM [Paladin Integrated
Management] system that I think we are actually a little ahead
of where we should be on that. But I think, in that case, that
is something that I would hope would have a priority.
Do you think that system, the way it is right now, is going
to be able to sustain all the previous changes that were made?
Because sooner or later, we have to have something, and it has
to be something competitive. We are not ahead of all our--
unlike the American people think, we are not ahead in
everything. We hear about what the Germans are doing with
artillery and what some of the others, even our adversaries,
are involved in.
So as far as that being kind of the stock equipment for the
United States Army, do you think we will stick with it?
General McConville. What we need to do is the capability to
incrementally improve those. In some cases, on the PIM, to 10X
improve them.
What I mean by that is, as you know, the chassis has been
significantly improved to give us much more capability to keep
up with the forces. But we are looking at projects right now
that can take the gun and actually give us much more increased
range.
So we want to have with all our projects the ability to
insert technologies. The technology comes onboard, these are
not disposable-type systems. We want to be able to insert that
technology, keep most of the rest of the system, so we get a
much better return on our investment.
Senator Inhofe. It was kind of interesting, when I was
watching down at Fort Sill, the 6-foot extension and what it
did to the range, while it increased the range from this to
this, I do not remember the numbers, it still left a void in
between. And that was something that we are addressing today.
Okay, General Milley had identified a goal of having 66
percent of our BCTs [Brigade Combat Team] ready for combat
tonight, the words he used. Where are we now on that?
General McConville. Well, right now as far as the--and I
can do this on a closed session on the exact numbers.
Senator Inhofe. Well, it wasn't closed last year when it
was at 33 at that time. So we are somewhere between there.
General McConville. Right, we are at a much better place
than we were last year. I would be glad to go to a closed
hearing on the exact numbers, Senator.
Senator Inhofe. Good. Okay.
And the Air Force, we have the pilot shortage, we have been
talking about that, 1,500 pilots. Of those, I think we said
1,300 of those are fighter pilots. That is probably current
right now.
I am concerned about the T-6 grounding. When is the end of
the story?
General Wilson. Chairman, I do not know if I can give you
the end of that story yet. We stopped flying, had a stand-down
the 1st of February. The first priority is to make sure that we
return to flying safely, so we are looking at, holistically
across, how we do that.
We brought in the Navy, who has had some recent troubles
with the OBOG [On-Board Oxygen Generation], which is what we
also had. We brought in the NASA [National Aeronautics & Space
Administration] team. We have a full court press to be able to
identify the problems. We think it is partly maintenance-
related. We think there is partly an aircrew flight equipment
problem. We think there is a training piece. But we have all
those efforts moving forward.
The head of the Air Force Materiel Command and the head of
Air Education and Training Command are meeting daily on this. I
expect an update on when we will return to fly here this next
week.
But in the meantime, we are not flying about 700 T-6
sorties a day. So there is an impact to the pilot production
piece that has us all laser-focused. But we are not going to
return them to flying until we can safely do it.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, of course. One of those, obviously, is
going to be maintenance. Any time all four services have gone
through what you have gone through, it is O&M [Operation &
Maintenance]. It is maintenance and modernization. It is the
less visible thing, so that is the first thing that we have to
correct. So I do appreciate that.
What you had touched on, Air Force or Navy and Marines----
Senator Kaine. Just one question I indicated in my opening
statement, the questions we are seeing in Hampton Roads around
sea-level rise and our Navy base.
As we get into the NDAA, we are always grappling with
readiness, but we are also grappling with MILCON [military
construction]. We may be talking about an infrastructure bill
in Congress where we could be looking at resilience
investments. That may not be in the DOD space, but there could
potentially be some synergies where we could be doing some
potential infrastructure investments that would help.
Talk about how you, each in your own service branch, are
dealing with kind of weather-related challenges on
installations, whether it is drought, fire, sea-level rise. How
do you approach those topics? And how do you factor in to your
budgetary requests or other planning what we need to do?
General McConville. We look at some of the hazards that
have happened over the last couple--I mean, the hurricane, we
had three major hurricanes. We have installations, camp posts
and installations really in all those type areas, so they
certainly affect us. We have fires in certain parts of the
country. That certainly affects where our post is. The flooding
is certainly there.
We are building some resilience. An example right now, we
are building in partnership at Schofield Barracks a power plant
in conjunction with the local area. So it will be used. We do
not necessarily need it, but if there is a situation where the
power goes out, we will have that capability, resilience. It is
a private-public partnership, which I think is a good way to
get after, and they seem very excited about that partnership
that is going on there.
Senator Kaine. Excellent. So that is a shared investment
that is being done by both DOD and the local community.
General McConville. It is actually the community that is
actually paying, but we are allowing them to use the land. Then
if something happens where we lose power, we have first dibs on
the power. It is on the grid right now, but if something
happened serious, we have the opportunity to use it.
Senator Kaine. Smart contracting. Thanks.
Admiral Moran?
Admiral Moran. I attended a briefing by the Naval Academy
here recently, and they are looking out 30 years at the flood
plains and the seawall associated with the Chesapeake Bay and
the Severn River. It was a pretty stark demonstration of what
could happen, if we do not take some action in the next 30
years to address that rise in water level. And as you know,
General Walters and I, we share bases of pretty much waterfront
property all over the world, so if the ocean is going to rise,
we are going to be impacted everywhere.
So it does demand kind of a comprehensive look at all of
our bases, especially in those areas that you already cited in
Hampton Roads, Florida, on the West Coast in San Diego, et
cetera. So we are going to look at that very hard in the next--
--
Senator Kaine. I had not really thought about it until you
were using flood plains, so we are talking not just about ocean
but about tidal rivers. So Quantico is on a tidal river. NAVSEA
[Naval Sea Systems Command] Dahlgren is on a tidal river, and
the Potomac. So we are talking about a lot of installations
either right on the ocean, on the bay, or on tidal rivers that
could be affected.
Admiral Moran. Yes, sir.
Senator Kaine. General Walters?
General Walters. Yes, sir. We are a waterfront organization
also. We have come to the conclusion that we are not going to
turn the tide, but we are looking at it closely.
In this job that I am in right now, I have taken two briefs
in the last 8 months on what I consider our most critical
vulnerability, and that is Parris Island, South Carolina. Our
logistics folks, the Deputy Commandant for I&L [installations
and logistics], has done extensive work and studies. They have
projected out what is the best case, what is the worst case.
Obviously, there is a big variance in there.
But what I do know is that we will eventually have to
bolster that. I have come to the conclusion in my own mind that
it is not today. We do not have to build a seawall today, but
we have to consider one. And we are monitoring it every day as
we watch that, because, remember, that started out as a marsh
with a little bit of an island, so marshes turn into seawater
and land turns into marsh.
Senator Kaine. I am amazed at how expensive seawalls and
projects like that are. And so I know how much MILCON doesn't
get done. I mean, we will do a MILCON budget through approps or
work here in the NDAA authorizing projects, but I do not know
how many don't get done because of the absence of budgetary
resources. You start to add in significant resilience
investments and things like seawalls, et cetera, you are really
going to have a traffic jam of projects looking for scarce
dollars.
Admiral Moran. I guess my message, Senator, is, I do not
believe it is a crisis today, but it is something that I think
we as a Nation have to watch over time. And we will have to
make an adjustment, because we are not going to--I do not think
we can----
Senator Kaine. Pretend it is going away.
Admiral Moran. That is right.
Senator Kaine. Yes.
Yes, General Wilson?
General Wilson. This last year was a great example. So we
were fighting fires in California and using our C-130s to help
fight those. We did the floods here or the hurricanes, both in
Texas as well as Florida, and as the ones came up the East
Coast affecting bases like Langley.
So everything we look at in terms of infrastructure, we
have to look at through the lens of, how would I build and
design infrastructure that would support changes in climate?
I think that and energy resiliency across our bases, as the
Army just talked about, to be able to partner with local
communities because our bases are power projection platforms,
so we have to make sure they are energy-resilient.
Senator Kaine. The last thing I will say before I hand it
back over to the chair is, I am asking about sort of readiness,
MILCON, resilience investments, but the other thing that we are
seeing around the world is really the persistence and
acceleration of refugees and migrants. Often, they are driven
by civil war. They are driven by corruption and governance
challenges. But they are often driven by big weather
emergencies, by long-term, persistent droughts.
We probably think of migrants and refugees as kind of
episodic emergency, but anymore, it is getting to be kind of a
permanent reality, and we have seen how destabilizing migrant
flows can be coming into other nations, like Syrian refugees in
Jordan. Jordan doesn't have enough water for its own
population, much less millions of refugees.
So I think these weather-related effects, whether you are
planning for resilience on bases or whether you are thinking
about the national security challenges that they could cause by
pushing people across borders, we will be dealing with this and
having to factor this into our planning for a very long time.
Thank you for your testimony on this.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Kaine.
Admiral, I was going to go into this, I think Senator Kaine
already did, on the Fitzgerald and McCain, and where we are now
and what could have been contributing factors to that. I think
we all know pretty much what is happening there.
But in the area of the Marines, General, last year, I guess
it was, I was trying to find it. Last year, you testified our
F-18s operationally were down around 40 percent, is that right,
if my memory serves me?
Admiral Moran. It was about 50 percent last year, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. What kind of progress have we made on
that?
Admiral Moran. So we have increased by about 44 aircraft.
That is good. With what happened in 2017, and I am looking
forward to--so the contracts in the RAA [Request for Additional
Appropriations] have been let. The increase in flight hours per
pilot is getting up to not quite at the level we wanted.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, you are a little higher than the Air
Force, aren't you?
Admiral Moran. Yes, sir. We are getting somewhere between
14 and 16 hours per pilot per month.
Senator Inhofe. Which I think, General Wilson, you are down
close to 9 or 10.
General Wilson. Senator, I think we got a little bit more
than that. We are trying to increase it about an hour per month
going forward this year, and that is what we put forward in our
budget, an increase in flying hours to support----
Senator Inhofe. Why do you think the Marines are ahead of
you on this?
General Wilson. I do not have a good reason why they are
ahead of us. I know that we are trying to increase not only our
production capability, our infrastructure, our instructor
pilots, our flying hours, our weapons system supports, our
ranges and capacity to be able to do that. And right now, I
would just say we were too small for all the missions we have
been asked to do. And going to the people part will be very
helpful to be able to turn that tide and get us moving in the
right direction.
Senator Inhofe. I have had a lot of conversations with a
lot of pilots, both Air Force and Marines, and I am more and
more convinced every time I talk to them, it is not so much
bonuses as it is flying hours. They want to fly.
And when I stop and think, Senator Kaine, our calculation
was it costs about $16 million to take someone off the street
and get them qualified in an F-22, for example. So the money,
that is an easy response, but that doesn't solve the problem.
I am convinced of this, and I think we need to get those
up. I know you are working hard to get that done. That is a
complaint that I hear all the time, because I have a background
in that.
General Wilson. Senator, we have talked about this. You
know exactly that our pilots want to fly. So trying to let them
do their job, to get the right work-life balance in their life
so that they can fly but be able to spend the right amount of
time at home, because just as you said, if it takes $10 million
to make a fighter pilot and we are over a thousand short, then
that is a $10 billion capital investment lost, and it takes 10
years to make up.
So we are working all three efforts. On production, how do
we get that right work-like balance in the middle to be able to
season them, to make sure that they are proud and confident in
what they are doing, and then retain them on the back side. And
I hear the same thing that you hear, that money, certainly, the
compensation is a piece of it, but it is not the big piece of
it.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, I think you are right. Tony just
handed me a note saying that all four of the vices are
aviators, which is probably a first, right?
Do you all agree with our comments about the source of that
problem, that it is not flying hours?
General McConville. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. It is not so much bonuses.
General McConville. They did not come in to get rich, sir.
They came in to fly.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, I know that.
All right, you guys, on our side, we do not have anyone
else coming. Do you know of any? Okay, we are going to go ahead
and adjourn the meeting.
I appreciate your time very much. And we are on the mend.
That is the message for today.
[Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Joni Ernst
additive and advance manufacturing
1. Senator Ernst. General McConville, the Army's organic industrial
base, especially at the arsenal level, is critical to the readiness of
our forces, as it allows for surge capability during times of conflict
or extended need. As additive and advanced manufacturing continue to
become more predominant in the U.S. and abroad, I believe it is vital
that the Army also looks to increase the use of additive and advanced
manufacturing at its arsenals. Could you please provide explain the
Army's position on expanding the practice of additive manufacturing on
arsenals, as well as the benefits that doing so would provide?
General McConville. The Army works to expand the practice of
Additive Manufacturing (AM) by focusing on the increased use of AM as
well as the continued development of AM capabilities. The Army has been
involved in AM for many years with current capabilities at 18 sites
across labs, depots, arsenals, and sustainment brigades. To expand the
practice, the Army has designated the Army Materiel Command as the lead
command to integrate and synchronize AM capabilities, doctrine, policy,
and resources. The Army's initial focus of additive manufacturing is to
address readiness drivers, parts refurbishment, obsolete parts that are
difficult to obtain through standard supply chains, long lead items,
and specialty tooling requirements. These actions will enhance
readiness.
2. Senator Ernst. General McConville, how does the Army plan to
leverage advances made in the private sector to improve the Army's
additive and advanced manufacturing practices?
General McConville. The Army is participating in the Additive
Manufacturing Users Group with private sector participation including
original equipment manufacturers. The Army is collaborating with
numerous industry partners, and gaining knowledge with the private
sector through America Makes which is structured as a public private
partnership to advance additive and advanced manufacturing
capabilities.
3. Senator Ernst. General McConville, could you please provide
recommendations for how arsenals like Rock Island Arsenal can posture
themselves to better support the Army's additive and advanced
manufacturing needs?
General McConville. The Army has already begun working with Rock
Island Arsenal--Joint Manufacturing Technology Center (RIA-JMTC) to
posture itself to better support additive and advanced manufacturing
needs by designating it as the Army's Organic Industrial Base Additive
Manufacturing Center of Excellence. In this role, RIA-JMTC will work
closely with the engineering support activity to ensure that the most
effective additive and advanced manufacturing technologies (AM) and
processes are transitioned with the required training needed to ensure
that AM parts meet certification and qualification testing
requirements. RIA-JMTC will also manage the data library. More work is
required with industry to develop a data rights strategy.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator David Perdue
jstars and depot maintenance
4. Senator Perdue. General Wilson, across the globe our combatant
commanders have a constant demand for JSTARS due to its unique ISR,
ground targeting, and battlefield command and control capabilities.
There is only a fleet of 16 JSTARS aircraft, but it is dealing with
serious delays in depot maintenance. Right now, 8 of the 16 aircraft
are in the non-organic depot meaning there are less aircraft available
than any time since 2002 due to depot delays. A service life extension
plan for these aircraft is also worrisome because it will increase the
cost and the complexity of maintaining an aging legacy fleet, as
opposed to recapping the fleet as previously planned. I doubt the new
Air Force plan to replace the JSTARS with a ``system of systems'' will
be ready on the schedule the Air Force has planned. Can you speak to
the readiness issues caused by unforeseen delays in the current depot
maintenance?
General Wilson. The Air Force ready aircrew program defines the
minimum required mix of sorties, simulator missions, and training
events aircrew must accomplish to sustain combat mission readiness. In
terms of lost sorties and training, from 2016 to 2017, JSTARS did not
participate in 24 high value combat operations exercises due to depot
maintenance related aircraft availability. Since then, aircraft
availability, which also accounts for time lost to depot maintenance,
has improved. As of 9 March 2018, there are six JSTARS aircraft in the
contractor depot facility. The resulting training and readiness gains
in March 2018, have allowed JSTARS aircrew to fully participate in
combat operations exercises and increase the completion of ready
aircrew program training events by 33 percent.
5. Senator Perdue. General Wilson, can you speak to what benefits
may be achieved by taking the depot maintenance capability from private
to organic, especially if it was collocated with the unit, like at
Warner Robins Air Force Base?
General Wilson. Moving Joint STARS depot maintenance to the Warner
Robins Air Logistics Complex should provide synergy by being collocated
with the Operational Wings and the Program Office. The move could also
cut down on personnel travel time and save the fuel costs of flying
from Robins AFB to the contractor facility.
6. Senator Perdue. General Wilson, if work was moved to an organic
facility, does the Air Force have concerns of violating any 50/50 laws?
General Wilson. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2466 mandates that not more than 50
percent of the funds made available in a fiscal year be used for
contract depot-level maintenance. Accordingly, moving work to an
organic facility would improve the Air Force position with respect to
the 50/50 laws, as such a move would reduce the amount of money spent
on contract depot-level maintenance.
7. Senator Perdue. General Wilson, has the current contractor
maintained its contractual throughput over the past 24 months?
General Wilson. The Joint STARS Total System Support Responsibility
contract does not specify a number of days to perform depot maintenance
or throughput. However, the contractor is incentivized through the
award fee plan to provide mission-ready aircraft and maintain quality.
cross-service depot maintenance
8. Senator Perdue. Admiral Moran, this time last year nearly 2/3s
of the Navy's F/A-18 Hornets were grounded because of maintenance
backlogs, and more than half of the Navy's aircraft were grounded
overall. Cross depot maintenance within the organic industrial base may
be crucial in avoiding readiness issues in the future with programs
like the F-35. I believe we can find extra capacity for these backlogs
through expanding cross-service depot maintenance operations. There was
language in last year's NDAA that directed the Secretary of Defense to
assess the feasibility of expanding cross-service depot maintenance
within the organic industrial base to avoid future backlogs. Can you
provide an update on what steps have been taken to examine cross-
service depot maintenance for the F/A-18?
Admiral Moran. The USMC provided NAVAIR a list of twelve F/A-18
inventory-limited components to explore cross-service organic depot
repair. Of the twelve components it was assessed that seven may be
candidates for cross-service depot maintenance. On 26 October 2017,
NAVAIR submitted Requests for Quote (RFQs) for the seven identified
components to the USAF Depot Source of Repair and Maintenance Inter-
service teams. The USAF is currently analyzing the requirements and
technical documentation provided by NAVAIR. While awaiting responses to
the RFQs, NAVAIR continues to dialog and coordinate with the
appropriate USAF representatives.
9. Senator Perdue. General McConville, Admiral Moran, General
Walters, and General Wilson, how could the Services benefit from cross-
depot maintenance in the future and with future platforms?
General McConville. By the continued use of the Department's Depot
Source of Repair (DSOR) coordination process, which is an integrated
process that ensures the Services collaborate and share depot
maintenance capabilities, the Army seeks to ensure the most efficient,
timely and cost effective results. The Army benefits from this cross-
depot maintenance process today as the inter-Service coordination
creates efficiencies and cost savings. For example, the Air Force
depots perform maintenance on the Army Gray Eagle drones and the Marine
Corps depots perform maintenance on Army ground generators. These DSOR
assignments offer savings that are already calculated into the Army's
budget projections.
Admiral Moran. There are existing policies and processes in place
that are executed by specific Service organizations to optimize the
assignment of depots to support specific platforms and their
subsystems. The policies are primarily codified in Department of
Defense (DoD) Directives and Instructions. The process, known as the
Depot Source of Repair (DSOR) determination process, involves all
Services and is intended to ensure a competitive review and to select
the overall best location for the depot maintenance of a specific DoD
system. For example, the Navy currently executes cross-depot
maintenance support with the U.S. Air Force for the F-35 and certain
aircraft engines, utilizes the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army depots for
many communication systems, and supports most Service Electro-optical/
Infra-red (EO/IR) systems at Fleet Readiness Center Southeast. The Navy
makes all attempts to optimize the Program Manager's investment in
depot level capabilities, with focus on single-siting support so as not
to unnecessarily duplicate depot capability. We are constantly
reviewing and updating the DSOR process for improvements that will be
applied toward utilizing cross-depot maintenance now and in the future.
General Walters. The Marine Corps, as well as other Services,
already benefits from cross-depot maintenance. The Marine Corps
partners with our sister Service depots to sustain our ground equipment
to the point that we view the DoD depots as a system and not as
individual capabilities. We are currently having our tanks repaired at
Anniston Army Depot, our radars repaired at Tobyhanna Army Depot, and
our High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) are repaired at
Letterkenny Army Depot. We also source Tactical Shelters and Defense
Advanced GPS Receivers (DAGRs) to Hill Air Force Base, and Raids and
Recon equipment is repaired at Naval Surface Warfare Center in Panama
City. Our Marine Depot Maintenance Command conducts depot repairs at
our production plant in Albany, Georgia, or Barstow, California, for
the Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) for the Army National Guard,
and Tactical Power Generation sets for the Army. Additionally, we
rebuild Paxman engines at our Barstow production plant for the Coast
Guard and the Navy.
From an aviation standpoint, platforms common between the Services
such as the MV-22, F-35 and KC-130J provide opportunities to deliver
some cross-service capacity to satisfy overall demand. First, it lowers
risk by expanding the supply base. Any disruption from within the
providers can be more easily absorbed if other suppliers have an
established capability. Second, it provides greater overall capacity.
Instead of running one or two facilities at 90-100 percent capacity,
leveraging another Service facility could enable each location to
operate at a sustainable rate with lower throughput. This may be more
expensive but it provides more predictable production when demand
fluctuates.
General Wilson. Considering cross-depot maintenance strategies
allows the Air Force to maximize the use of existing Department of
Defense facilities, efficiently apply resources, and prevent
unnecessary duplication of capabilities. Existing processes facilitate
the consideration of all DoD depot maintenance capabilities when
satisfying requirements, and the Air Force routinely coordinates depot
workload assignments with the other Services.
marine aviation safety and pilot availability and readiness
10. Senator Perdue. General Walters, the Marine Corps had 12 Class
A Mishaps in fiscal year 2017 which have been primarily attributed to
human error. Pilots were not getting enough hours in the air due, in
large part, to aircraft maintenance and readiness. Can you speak to how
a stable budget process would allow you to improve aviation readiness
and keep readiness high in the future?
General Walters. The Marine Corps requires stable, predictable
funding over multiple years to achieve sustained positive results.
There is a direct relationship between readiness and modernization. We
seek to modernize our aviation platforms and reduce resources required
to maintain aging, less lethal and less survivable systems. In previous
years, we were underfunding our readiness accounts to buy new
airplanes--even then we weren't buying enough new airplanes. The budget
Congress is providing now--it allows us to do both. It also allows us
to buy F-35s and CH-53K as we complete procurement of MV-22 and H-1. It
increases our lethality, certainly with those particular airplanes, as
we begin to ramp up into these new air airplanes to fulfill the new
National Defense Strategy.
The new budget also allows us to modernize our depot, hire the
right people, get the right people in the right place at the right time
in our depots. It allows us to train, and allows us to fully fund our
spares accounts to levels they've never been funded to before. Fully-
funded readiness accounts ensure our jets and pilots have the right
flight time to get out the door.
11. Senator Perdue. General McConville, Admiral Moran, General
Walters, and General Wilson, there is currently a retention issue
within the aviation community as we lose fully trained and experienced
pilots to the private sector. This loss of valuable talent occurs
throughout our Services with various other critical skills as well. As
stated during the Current Readiness hearing, one reason pilots leave
the service is the diminished flight hours they are receiving, but
there are also other incentives we can offer to our critical skill sets
across the military. How would a stable budget help you implement
certain incentives for our servicemembers to keep them in our military
versus moving to the private sector?
General McConville. A stable budget ensures a full complement of
resources at our disposal to continue to provide incentives where
needed and address quality of life issues to keep our aviators in an
Army uniform.
Warrant Officers perform the majority of flight duties within the
Army. Therefore, the Army focused its retention efforts on this portion
of our aviator population to maintain our aviation capability. Quality
of life issues are the primary reason for separation from the Army
among Aviation Warrant Officers. Sustained high demand for Army
aviation capabilities by combatant commanders has required frequent
deployments by Army aviators. The high operational tempo of aviation
units coupled with frequent permanent changes of stationing within the
U.S. creates an understandable strain on families. Often, it is the
promise of increased stability in the civil sector and the decision to
put family first that leads an aviator to leave the Army. We are
currently exploring ways to increase stability within the Army for our
Aviation Warrant Officers and improve quality of life. Already we have
begun offering targeted bonuses to the Aviation Warrant Officer
populations deemed to be at higher risk of leaving the Army as an
incentive to stay; however, monetary incentives alone do not fully
address the retention challenge.
That said, a stable budget will help us promote an increased and
predictable throughput of pilots in Army Aviation. Increased and
predictable pilot throughput will allow us to mitigate manning
shortages, thereby reducing the operational tempo for individual pilots
and increasing stability and overall quality of life for the Aviation
Warrant Officer population and their families.
Admiral Moran. When operating under prolonged or recurring
Continuing Resolutions, available funding is based upon the previous
year's appropriated amount with no regard for mandated changes to the
current year, such as pay raises or end strength. Our first requirement
is to ensure we pay our sailors from those available funds. This in
turn pressurizes our ability to offer robust special and incentive pays
in a timely manner. Stable budgets enhance our ability to respond to
the dynamics of changing recruiting and retention behavior and emerging
manning requirements, through judicious application and/or adjustment
to special and incentive pays. Positive retention is just one aspect of
a stable budget. The other benefits are mission capable aircraft,
sustained flying hours, stable PCS budgets, etc. Historically, we have
been able to positively influence retention behavior by providing a
fair compensation package. However, over the past several years, Naval
Aviators have expressed a growing dissatisfaction with the quality of
service resulting from readiness challenges associated with limited
aircraft availability and reduced flying hours while not deployed,
which have inhibited their timely attainment of tactical qualifications
and subsequent career progression. These delays impact the time
Aviators have to train and hone their skills prior to deployment. Such
challenges are further exacerbated by low stocks of critical parts.
Restoring short-term fleet readiness will require sufficient and
predictable funding, which will allow our pilots to fly the hours
needed to maintain optimum proficiency, and ensure our ability to
conduct timely maintenance on our airframes. It would also enable Navy
to restore stocks of necessary parts, return more aircraft to
operational status and better prepare them to remain deployed, as
required. The ability to strategically address these readiness and
retention issues requires a stable budget.
General Walters. A predictable and stable budget allows us to
properly plan and execute bonus and retention incentives to retain
highly qualified marines. Incremental funding for Selective
Reenlistment Bonuses creates unnecessary challenges to planning and
jeopardizes retention of quality marines. The recent Continuing
Resolutions (CR) have negatively impacted fiscal year 2018 reenlistment
approval rates. Once the Marine Corps reaches its SRB funding authority
imposed under a CR, SRB approvals are halted and servicemembers are
forced to delay their reenlistment and potentially explore other
options in the event that their package is not funded in time. The
delay in funding and approval inflicts avoidable uncertainty to a
committed servicemember's future and their family.
Monetary incentives are not the only factor in such a decision,
particularly where pilots are concerned. Pilot retention decisions are
also impacted by availability of flight hours and the opportunity to
train and/or execute their mission sets.
General Wilson. Without budget stability, it is difficult to
effectively manage programs over the long term. Stable budgets provide
predictability and stability in such programs like incentive programs,
such as the aviation bonus, selective retention bonus, and special duty
assignment pay that are designed for multi-year payments for our airmen
serving in shortage specialties or in arduous and demanding positions.
Budget stability also affects the airmen we target with these
programs. With large swings in funding levels or short-term budget
approaches, these airmen could be less inclined to make long-term
commitments to the Air Force. Consistent budgets are a critical part of
the trust agreement we owe our airmen. Bottom line: If we desire airmen
to make long-term commitments to the Air Force, we must show long-term
commitment to them with stable budgets that support our incentive
programs.
12. Senator Perdue. General McConville, Admiral Moran, General
Walters, and General Wilson, how are you currently addressing the
issues with retention of critical skill sets within your respective
Services?
General McConville. The Army continues to offer Selective
Reenlistment Bonuses (SRB) for soldiers serving in critical Military
Occupational Specialties (MOS) and skills. The SRB is reviewed
quarterly through an analysis of the strengths of every skill in the
Active component (AC) Enlisted Inventory to include MOS and all
associated Additional Skill Identifiers (ASI)/Special Qualification
Identifiers (SQI)/Languages.
The SRB is based on the projected strengths of the skill 18 months
into the future and the complexity/duration of the training to
accomplish strength requirements. The SRB message is published Army-
wide and both Career Counselors and Command teams use this with
personal counseling to assist with the retention of critical skills.
Ensuring a stable budget enables the Army to appropriately
incentivize soldiers with critical skills as Army structure and
strengths change.
Admiral Moran. Navy is addressing critical skills retention issues
through a combination of monetary and non-monetary incentives. Officer
retention areas of focus include Aviation, Submarine Officers,
Conventional and Nuclear Surface Warfare Officers, and SEALs.
To increase the retention of top Officer and Enlisted
performers, using non-monetary incentives, Navy has a set of sailor
2025 initiatives to provide greater transparency, flexibility and
choice, such as, advanced education and SECNAV Tours with Industry, and
is pursuing permanent Career Intermission Program authority and
modernization of the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act.
The primary monetary tools supporting aviator retention
are Aviation Incentive Pay (AvIP) and Aviation Bonus (AvB)
respectively. Congress' enactment of the National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 resulted in an increase in the
statutory cap for AvB from $25,000 to $35,000 per year and in the AvIP
from $850 to $1,000 per month, which was well-received and appreciated
by aviators. Using this authority, we made significant changes to the
Aviation Department Head Retention Bonus (ADHRB) by changing when
Aviators are eligible, offering flexibility in contract lengths, and
increasing bonus amounts up to the statutory limits ($35,000/year) for
HM, VAQ, VFA, VAW and VRC pilots who commit to a 5-year contract. For
the Aviation Command Retention Bonus (ACRB), we increased the bonus to
a 3-year contract for $100,000 ($34,000/$33,000/$33,000). For AvIP, we
added a merit element by creating an additional category whereby
Aviators who are screened for their career milestone will receive a
higher level of Flight Pay than those who do not screen.
The Submarine and Surface Warfare (Nuclear) communities
are using monetary incentives including retention bonuses for officers
willing to commit to future service and special duty pays for
challenging nuclear billets. Navy restructured the Naval Special
Warfare Officer Bonus Programs in an effort to increase retention. Navy
offers two SEAL retention bonuses targeting SEAL officers at critical
career decision points: Naval Special Warfare Officer Continuation Pay
(NSWOCP) offered to lieutenants (O-3) and lieutenant commanders (O-4),
and Naval Special Warfare Officer Retention Bonus (NSWRB) offered to
lieutenant commanders (O-4) and commanders (O-5). Historically, these
targeted bonuses have proven effective in retaining high-quality
personnel to meet operational requirements by attacking retention
problems in specific communities, jobs, and experience levels.
Additionally, in an effort to enhance non-monetary retention
incentives, the community has undertaken a review of the career
pipeline to increase career milestone opportunities for traditional
leadership and community valued positions.
The Surface Warfare Officer community implemented a
revised Department Head Retention Bonus (DHRB) program, which increased
the maximum total compensation to $105,000 for Active component (AC)
officers and authorized incentive payments prior to an officer's
Minimum Service Requirement (MSR). The new bonus is only offered to
those highly talented officers who have demonstrated outstanding
performance, possess a strong potential for future success, and have
screened for a department head assignment. This monetary tool is used
in combination with non-monetary incentives to improve overall Surface
Warfare Officer retention and improve the quality of officers retained.
Enlisted retention remains high, but critical skill
communities such as Nuclear Field, Special Warfare, Advanced
Electronics, Aviation Maintenance and Information Technologies are
increasingly requiring focused retention efforts. Navy leverages
multiple special and incentive pays to recruit and retain sailors into
these high-risk and/or high-investment ratings. Navy has also expanded
reenlistment and rating conversion opportunities which offers greater
flexibility and choice in sailors' careers.
General Walters. To resolve pilot inventory shortages in critical
specialties, the Marine Corps will combine materiel readiness
improvements, accurate and supportable accessions, and the Aviation
Bonus, aimed to stabilize retention. In fiscal year 2018, the Marine
Corps unveiled a new series of selective reenlistment bonuses targeting
longer contract lengths for critical skills and specific maintenance
qualifications. Retention bonuses have some influence on an
individual's decision to depart or remain in the service. However,
monetary incentives are not the only factor in such a decision,
particularly where pilots are concerned. Pilot retention decisions are
also impacted by availability of flight hours and the opportunity to
train and/or execute their mission sets. We must address the issue
holistically, by looking at monetary and non-monetary incentives, but
also improving work-life balance, reducing non-flying tasks, and
improving aviation maintenance, training, and production, all of which
will support increased operational readiness.
General Wilson. The Air Force is employing retention bonuses, such
as Aviation Bonus, Selective Reenlistment Bonus, Special Duty
Assignment Pay, and the Critical Skills Retention Bonus to incentivize
experienced airmen with critical skills to stay. However, monetary
incentives are just one piece of our retention portfolio. Commanders
have the authority to approve high-year-of-tenure extensions for
personnel in undermanned key career fields to retain experienced
airmen. Maintaining these airmen is essential to meeting the mission,
training the new accessions and ultimately to improve readiness.
We have also taken steps to reduce the stress of additional duties
on the force. In response to airmen's concerns, we conducted a review
of additional duties, resulting in the realignment, reduction, or
elimination of 29 additional duties across the Air Force in the last 18
months, with workload realigned to newly created Commander Support
Staffs. In conducting a manpower study on the workload transferred to
the Commander Support Staffs, we determined a requirement of 1,600
authorizations. We funded the authorizations beginning in fiscal year
2017, programmed incrementally through fiscal year 2020. Resourcing is
well underway and we are on-target to meet fiscal year 2020
projections.
To assist with quality of life concerns, we are leveraging
technology to assist officers in providing a direct voice into the
assignment process through ``Talent Marketplace.'' Talent Marketplace
is a new web-based assignment matching platform that has been developed
based on an algorithm used in the Nobel-Prize winning National
Residency Matching Program. Currently, we are testing the system on
approximately 430 fighter pilot and combat systems officers scheduled
for Permanent Change of Station in summer of 2018. Following this test,
we will open Talent Marketplace incrementally to all Active Duty Air
Force officer career fields beginning August 2018. It has potential to
expand to the Total Force in the future. Talent Marketplace allows
officers to personalize their resume, dynamically search for jobs, and
submit a prioritized list of desired jobs and duty locations. During
this process, officers receive real-time feedback on how many other
officers are applying for the same positions in addition to having
visibility on how many hiring authorities are prioritizing them to
potentially fill their vacancies. Once implemented, Talent Marketplace
seeks to increase transparency throughout the assignment matching
process, optimize identification and utilization of talent, and
increase retention of airmen in critical skills.
army readiness and security forces assistance brigades
13. Senator Perdue. General McConville, last year in this committee
there was a major focus on the low number of ready Brigade Combat
Teams. The Army continues to maintain a high operational tempo and a
low dwell time meaning the Army still risks consuming readiness as soon
as it builds readiness. Units have also been deployed for security
assistance missions and have not been able to train to their standard,
conventional missions. What is the current readiness level of your
Brigade Combat Teams?
General McConville. We are at a better place than we were last year
when GEN Allyn appeared before this Subcommittee on February 8, 2017.
We have seen a modest increase in the number of brigades ready to fight
tonight. I would be happy to provide the exact readiness status of our
Brigade Combat Teams in a classified setting.
14. Senator Perdue. General McConville, how are you prioritizing
readiness in the fiscal year 2019 budget?
General McConville. The Army's number one priority remains
readiness, and our fiscal year 2019 budget request will support
achieving readiness objectives supporting the National Defense Strategy
(NDS). This includes requests for increased funding for home station
training, conducting 20 Combat Training Center (CTC) rotations,
including four for Army National Guard (ARNG) brigade combat teams, and
a renewed Emergency Deployment Readiness Exercise (EDRE) program. The
EDRE program includes three ground exercises plus one Sea EDRE per
year, in support of the NDS emphasis on readiness to sustain global
commitments. To enhance ARNG and United States Army Reserve (USAR)
readiness, the Army has programmed increased manning, training days,
and combat training events. Additional training days will ensure units
required for immediate availability meet rotation requirements.
15. Senator Perdue. General McConville, how will you balance
growing the force with improving readiness?
General McConville. Manning is one of the four pillars of
readiness. End strength growth will close lethality and capability gaps
in air defense artillery and long range fires, as well as improve
readiness through investment in Security Force Assistance Brigades, the
training base, and the Readiness Enhancement Account (REA). The REA
provides the Army the ability to increase manning of existing units to
compensate for non-deployable soldiers, improving readiness of our
priority units. We are also reviewing our processes to reduce non-
deployable numbers.
16. Senator Perdue. General McConville, will the Security Forces
Assistance Brigade construct help you recover Army readiness by forming
mission focused units?
General McConville. Yes, the Army intends to use Security Force
Assistance Brigades (SFABs) to replace Infantry Brigade Combat Teams
(IBCTs) in current training, advise and assist missions, allowing IBCTs
to prepare for future theater missions once replaced.
For several years, the Army has deployed portions of IBCTs to meet
Security Force Assistance missions. While the missions have been
successful, the partial employment of an IBCT dramatically consumes
Brigade Combat Team (BCT) readiness. Applying BCTs toward non-combined
arms maneuver tasks is inefficient.
In March 2018, the Army deployed the first mission-focused SFAB. We
are developing options with Combatant Commands and Office of the
Secretary of Defense for SFABs to replace IBCT deployments.
cyber readiness
17. Senator Perdue. General McConville, Admiral Moran, General
Walters, and General Wilson, each of the Services has taken slightly
different approaches to address cyber readiness and the organization of
your cyber forces. There is still a concern that DoD may have neither
the tools and capabilities required to be effective in the cyber domain
nor the ``bench strength'' necessary to sustain the high levels of
readiness that will be demanded of the cyber force. What is the state
of cyber readiness in each of the Services?
General McConville. The Army achieved a significant milestone in
cyber readiness in September 2017 when all 41 Active component Army
Cyber Mission Force (CMF) teams became fully-operational, a year ahead
of U.S. Cyber Command's (USCYBERCOM's) mandate. These teams meet the
Joint criteria for manning, equipping, training and certification. We
are moving to a sustainable readiness model that will ensure our cyber
forces are resilient and set to support multi-domain battle. To assess
sustained levels of proficiency, the Army Cyber Protection Brigade
developed ``Cyber Gunnery Tables,'' similar in concept to gunnery
tables utilized by maneuver branches. These tables define individual,
crew, and mission element tasks necessary to effectively conduct
cyberspace operations and provide structured, methodical, and
foundational training for both individuals and teams. These gunnery
tables also serve as training and readiness validation events to
certify that crews have the required knowledge, skills, and abilities
to participate in collective exercises. They also provide an objective
assessment to determine individual and crew readiness. The Army has the
people and processes to continue to evolve the needed tools and
capabilities to match the current and future cyber threat, and
continues to build our ``bench'' of Army cyber professionals.
Admiral Moran. The Navy Cyber Mission Force (CMF) build is
complete. All 40 of the Navy-sourced CMF teams achieved Full
Operational Capability (FOC) as of October 6th, 2017, one year ahead of
the designated U.S. Cyber Command target. FOC is an externally-
validated evaluation indicating the unit has met all its capability
requirements and can perform its mission as assigned. It is not,
however, a measure of combat readiness. Achieving FOC is only a
waypoint as the operational need for a well-trained and motivated cyber
workforce will continue to be defined in the coming years.
The Department of the Navy (DON) will sustain investment levels to
support key CMF requirements for access platforms, cyber tools, and
critical infrastructure to strengthen Title 10 cyber space operations.
As of 1 March, the Navy-provided CMF teams are manned at 88 percent
overall. Navy provides 4 National Mission Teams, 3 National Support
Teams, 8 Combat Mission Teams, 5 Combat Support Teams, and 20 Cyber
Protection Teams.
As directed in fiscal year 2016 NDAA, the Navy is on track to begin
resourcing training for sailors assigned to the CMF teams.
Specifically, the Services have been directed to assume responsibility
for CMF individual skills training from USCC beginning in fiscal year
2019. The transition will remove inefficiencies in the current model,
while maintaining a connection to USCC requirements. Additional
resources will be required to maintain curriculum relevance against the
fast rate of change in threat and technology. Navy is evaluating
resource shortfalls to meet the mandate as part of POM-20.
General Walters. The Marine Corps is currently at a transition
point where we are aggressively working towards building cyberspace
expertise within the MAGTF and pushing cyber capability from the
enterprise level to the tactical edge.
Marine Corps Future Force 2025 (FF2025) provides additional
structure across multiple units to enhance capability and capacity to
conduct Information Warfare (Cyber) operations. FF2025 creates
Information Warfare Coordination Centers at each MEF (within MEF
Information Groups (MIG)) and adds 233 Defensive Cyberspace Operations-
Internal Defensive Measures (DCO-IDM).
In fiscal year 2017 the Marine Corps created additional units and
structure, both in HQMC and the operating forces, to extend operations
in the cyber domain. This includes the creation and manning of the
Deputy Commandant (DC) for Information and the Defensive Cyberspace
Operations-Internal Defensive Measures (DCO-IDM) Companies.
DC Information will develop and supervise plans, policies, and
strategy for all information environment operations (IEO) related
activities, and will identify requirements for cyber doctrine,
manpower, training, education, and equipment for the MAGTF.
DCO-IDM companies will conduct DCO-IDM missions in order to protect
critical capabilities to preserve a MAGTF commander's ability to
command and control forces. DCO-IDM includes mission assurance actions
such as actively hunting for advanced internal threats that evade
routine security measures and performing digital forensics/triage. The
company will dynamically reestablish, re-secure, reroute, reconstitute,
or isolate degraded or compromised local networks in response to
attack, exploitation, intrusion, or effects of malware on the DODIN or
other assets directed to defend.
Cyber is a dynamic, competitive environment, and we are continually
responding to the increasing capability and capacity of our
adversaries. As we have built Cyber Protection Teams (CPT), we have
employed them across the Marine Corps Enterprise Network (MCEN). This
year, our CPTs have conducted named cyber operations to include focused
internal defensive maneuver missions (IDM), ensured security of
Personally Identifiable Information (PII) repositories, and completed
security enhancement missions for cyber key terrain, countering known
threats to the network. In all DCO activities, the Marine Corps
consolidates findings and actionable lessons for dissemination to the
broader operational community. We are making efforts to better
understand system data, and have employed Service aligned CPTs to
harden Service PII repositories. In 2015, MARFORCYBER began efforts to
secure PII repositories across the service. The MCCOG and Service CPTs
assessed the security posture of our 40 largest PII repositories. While
the overall security posture of our systems was within established
standards, we identified areas for improvement we needed to address.
Our Service aligned CPTs conducted on-site visits to several
repositories that were deemed critical high risk. There, we identified
and remediated vulnerabilities and trained system owners and
administrators. We continue efforts to ensure these systems maintain
the highest levels of security.
We have identified a requirement for a more robust Marine Corps
Cyberspace Operations Group (MCCOG) Continuity of Operations (COOP)
capability. The MCCOG COOP is effectively a MCEN COOP capability. MCCOG
lacks the ability to comply with DoD Directive 3020.26 of 9 Jan 2007
requiring up to 30 days Mission Essential Services and Functions
performance for no-notice events. The Marine Corps IT Center (MCITC),
located in Kansas City, Missouri, is the recommended COOP site,
allowing us to leverage available space and integrate with other MCCOG
operations already at MCITC. We have conducted thorough analysis and
research to develop an effective COOP capability, but currently lack
the financial resources to put our plan into action.
We are participating in efforts to shape our battle space by
designing a more defensible architecture. As we move toward
implementing the Joint Information Environment, we are also working to
unify and centralize our network to better see, understand, and defend
the MCEN. We are integrating and standardizing cyberspace threat
reporting, intelligence production and analysis to better inform
commander's situational awareness and decision making. Our network must
be resilient, redundant and interoperable, and extend from garrison to
the tactical edge of battle. In other words, we need a seamless MCEN
that provides a defensible capability providing enterprise services
from ``fighting hole to flagpole.'' We are moving out in this
direction.
With regard to personnel, the Marine Corps has sub-optimal
personnel inventories for field grade communications officers and data
systems staff non-commissioned officers. Generally speaking, these
occupational fields currently provide leadership to the Communications/
IT/Cyber workforce for the Marine Corps. Due to sub-optimal ``bench
strength'', the Marine Corps prioritizes key billets towards the
operating forces and accepts gaps and/or grade mismatches, typically in
the supporting establishment and garrison IT workforce. The impact,
however, is not isolated to garrison IT requirements as the garrison IT
workforce enables much of the warfighting network capability. The
Marine Corps is working to grow a larger communications/IT workforce
and is also growing a specific cyber military occupational field for
specialized cyber capabilities.
General Wilson. Today's cyber teams conduct daily cyber operations
in support of combatant commanders. As such, we are committed to
building a robust and resilient cyber enterprise.
The Air Force is well postured to activate all 39 Cyber
Mission Force teams by September 2018. Currently 35 of 39 Air Force
teams are at Full Operational Capability. With respect to ``bench
strength,'' mission surge, and daily operations, the Air Force has
employed a built-in total force strategy with 15 Air National Guard
squadrons and a classic reserve associate squadron providing additional
trained and ready surge capacity in times of crisis.
We are essentially doubling our cyber workforce
(logically speaking) by introducing Enterprise Information Technology
as a Service. This will leverage industry partners and commercial
solutions for increased information technology effectiveness and
security. This frees our cyber airmen to focus on defense of Air Force
core functions and weapons systems. We will use these cyber airmen to
establish Air Force Mission Defense Teams. The Mission Defense Teams
provide another layer of security for our combat wings by providing
defense for missions, facilities, and networks.
The Air Force leads the development of Unified Platform
and Joint Cyber Command and Control Capabilities. These programs
consolidate service-unique Cyber platform capabilities and integrate
command and control of cyber operations across the Department of
Defense, providing much increased capability to protect friendly
critical infrastructure while increasing lethality of Joint operations.
These programs will also allow the Cyber Mission Force to be
interoperable, interconnected, and conduct integrated planning and
execution across the full-spectrum of cyberspace operations.
The Air Force is also pursuing mission assurance for
weapon systems in a cyber contested environment with the Cyber
Resiliency Office for Weapons Systems. This effort reduces
cybersecurity vulnerabilities to infrastructure, weapon systems and
business systems to enable military operations. It is transforming our
acquisition and sustainment processes to ``bake in'' cyber security
into new and existing weapons systems.
The Air Force has invested in the creation, fielding, and
sustainment of an ever-increasing portfolio cyber defensive and
offensive capabilities, specifically seven cyber weapon systems
designed to provide a tiered global defense of the Air Force
information network. Second, defensive cyber maneuver forces to
actively defend key cyber terrain. And last offensive capabilities to
provide all domain integrated operational effects to combatant
commanders.
18. Senator Perdue. General McConville, Admiral Moran, General
Walters, and General Wilson, what needs to be prioritized to ensure
that we recruit and retain the right people with the right skills for
the cyber domain?
General McConville. People remain our most important weapon system,
our most important asset. Sustained and timely funding is essential to
enabling continued training of the cyber force. For retention purposes,
the Army has approved monetary and non-monetary incentives, including
Advanced Civil Schooling, Training with Industry, and cyber-related
fellowships for cyber forces. Accordingly, the Army has expanded two
key compensation programs for cyber soldiers: Assignment Incentive Pay
(AIP) which is designed to encourage Officers, Warrant Officers and
Enlisted soldiers to volunteer, train, and perform Cyber Mission Force
work roles that are otherwise difficult to fill; and Special Duty
Assignment Pay (SDAP), which is designed to compensate enlisted
soldiers assigned to duties designated as extremely difficult or that
involve an unusual degree of military skill.
Admiral Moran. Navy Cyber Mission Force (CMF) enlisted ratings
(CTI, CTN, CTR, IS, IT) are meeting retention goals. Our current
retention data shows that only four percent of sailors within the CMF
have separated or retired, six percent have done back-to-back tours
within the CMF, 17 percent have transferred to a job/position outside
of the CMF, and the remaining 73 percent are serving in the CMF and not
yet up for orders or end of service obligation. We anticipate that we
will continue to be above Navy averages in retention. We recognize that
tracking overall rating recruitment and retention is only a first step.
We aim to refine specific cyber skills tracking by developing
additional Navy Enlisted Classification(NEC) Codes, updating
Occupational Standards and building proficiency standards at the
journeyman and master level.
Cyber-related officer communities are also meeting retention goals.
While both Cryptologic Warfare (CW) and Information Professional (IP)
communities experienced growth associated with increased cyber
missions, we are retaining officers in these communities at 93 percent
overall. Both CW and IP are effectively-managing growth through direct
accessions and through the lateral transfer process, thereby, ensuring
cyber-talented officers enter and continue to serve.
Additionally, the Navy has 21 Cyber Warfare Engineers (CWE) in the
ranks, the Navy's direct commission program for experienced and highly
talented cyber developers. In the next five years the number of CWE is
expected to grow to 40.
General Walters. With regard to the high-end cyber capabilities,
the Service is conducting a multi-year, Service-integrated, bottom-up
approach to grow MARFORCYBER, which includes a manpower, training, and
facilities/equipment build. Our growth is in-line with the Commandant's
vision, Future Force 2025. Our manpower growth will require the
recruitment, training, and retention of qualified civilian and military
personnel. Our growth will be done right; the Service will conduct a
holistic analysis (DOTMPLF) to ensure our growth is realistic and
complete. Although MARFORCYBER has already postured to grow, we will
begin to see change in fiscal year 2018.
Recruiting and retaining high-quality individuals to become and
remain marines is an enduring challenge. Our cyber marines will prove
no different. We need to make sure our recruiters have the resources
that they need to succeed, and that the Corps will have the resources
to ensure our retention incentives and special pays are adequate.
Overall, we continue to recruit and retain a growing force by adhering
to our quality and performance standards necessary to sustain the
readiness of our operational forces.
We have been working with various entities in the Marine Corps to
develop a dedicated Cyber MOS in order to try and retain these critical
assets in the Service. This 2+ year effort is looking to change not
only the MOS, but the paradigm of how we employ those marines. The
standard model of three year tours doesn't work in the cyber domain. It
is taking approximately 18 months to two years to get personnel fully
trained and ready to operate, so the three year force structure model
is not an efficient way to manage the career track for cyber personnel.
By creating a cyber MOS, we can develop a grade shape model, as well as
a career model that takes this into account, and will allow us to
leverage these hard won skills for longer. And we will have more
success retaining some of our quality people if we have a career model
that allows them to remain competitive for promotion, while staying
operationally focused.
For the Civilian IT Workforce, direct hire authority, flexible pay
and bonus incentives, and continued support for training and education
programs would reinforce our ability to recruit and retain highly
qualified personnel. The proposed Cyber Excepted Service has yet to be
fully realized in the DoD, but promises to streamline time intensive
hiring processes and should provide additional pay/salary flexibility
to improve competitiveness.
The Marine Corps presently does not access directly into the cyber
domain, however, it does recruit marines from feeder MOS's that will
fill out the cyber domain ranks. The Marine Corps is on the cusp of
expanding its military occupational specialties to include a stand-
alone cyberspace occupational field (17xx), which may open the door for
recruiting to this specialty, but these foundational billets will be
filled by marines until we implement a formal accession policy.
Incentive pays can be utilized to retain these individuals with the
right skills for the cyber domain, if needed, based on inventory levels
and/or retention rates. The science of applying monetary and assignment
incentives is important for retention, but should only be seen as part
of the retention process. Another part of the process is ``the art of
retention'', which comes from engaged leadership and fostering a sense
of purpose in our mission. Engaged discussion with our marines at the
individual level is central to understanding what motivates each of
them to stay a marine.
General Wilson. We need continued support for signing bonuses,
retention bonuses, and special duty pay for our military cyber
workforce. While we have begun implementation of civilian Cyber
Excepted Service, the funding support for retention, local market
supplements, etc. based on workforce hiring challenges does not have
sufficient resources. We are also implementing the cyber skills coding
effort. Thus, sponsorship of a federal effort to map cognitive traits
associated with highly skilled cyber professionals, will help us
recruit and identify people with the right skills who may have never
considered a career in cyber. Furthermore, we need continued support
for constructive service credit and direct commissioning programs to
attract top cyber military talent and expedite civilian cyber hiring
efforts to reduce onboarding delays that cause otherwise qualified
hires to accept other employment offers.
f-35 readiness
19. Senator Perdue. Admiral Moran, General Walters, and General
Wilson, the Joint Force is sustaining over 250 F-35 aircraft, and you
plan to triple the fleet by the end of 2021. According to a GAO report
in October 2017, our ability to repair F-35 parts at military depots is
6 years behind schedule which has resulted in the average part repair
time to be 172 days. In the first 9 months of 2017, F-35s were unable
to fly 22 percent of the time due to parts shortages, and initial
deployments of F-35s on ships have lacked necessary intermediate-level
maintenance capabilities. The F-35 is an example of our current
modernization efforts to add technologically advanced systems to our
force, and it is possible that there will be similar problems with
those technologies--buying equipment before being fully set up to
sustain it. What is the current status of the F-35 program across the
Joint Force?
Admiral Moran. According to the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO)
Performance Management Team, for the most current status, 3-9 April
2018, the total F-35 Fleet was unable to fly 25.4 percent of the time
while awaiting parts (Not Mission Capable Supply (NMCS)). For the Navy
F-35Cs, the percentage was 29.1 percent NMCS. These percentages are
roughly in line with what was reported in the GAO report cited for the
first nine months of 2017. The USAF and USMC will respond on the status
of the F-35A and F-35B Fleet separately.
General Walters. In President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2019, the
Navy and Marine Corps programmed money to begin standing up our own
Intermediate Level maintenance capability. The Marine Corps'
Intermediate Level (I Level) maintenance capability will enable the
organic repair of both support equipment and aircraft components, and
will also serve as a point of departure for an effort to bring test,
check and repair closer to the squadron.
This Intermediate level maintenance initiative, as well as
accelerating our standup of our organic depot repair capability, and
fully investing in our spares capacity will drive a reduction in time
lost flying due to parts shortages and bring an increase to our repair
capability and capacity.
The Marine Corps is also investing in engineering to improve parts
reliability and upgrading our software because many of our mission
systems are the ones that give us those fault codes that provide
downing discrepancies, to which new software will help us work through
that--again reducing the time an aircraft is not available to fly.
There is also a learning curve associated with an updated model to
our aviation logistics. The Joint Program Office re-designed their
structure for this in late 2016 and we are just now seeing the effect
of the Hybrid Product Support Integrator (HPSI) on the Global Support
Solution for all Services and Partner nations. As this process becomes
more normalized, we expect to see an increase in the effectiveness of
the Global Asset Management process which will reduce repair-turn-
around-time and have more aircraft flying.
General Wilson. Depot standup is behind schedule and the Air Force
is working with the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) to remedy the
repair cycle deficiencies. In fiscal year 2018 we increased funding for
our initial spares purchase and invested in our repair network. These
investments will result in a deeper parts pool and more robust repair
capability. The combined efforts to build a robust spares pool will
take time. We will continue to work with the JPO Hybrid Product Support
Integrator to prioritize parts support to units conducting or preparing
for deployed combat operations, and identify options to expedite
procurement of mission critical components.
In addition to the items above that address the supply side of the
equation, we're also encouraged by reductions in the demand signal for
spare parts as well. The enhanced performance and reliability of the
recent aircraft 3F software update improves internal diagnostics. The
better fault isolation results in fewer serviceable parts that are
erroneously introduced into the repair pipeline. Also, reliability and
maintainability efforts continue to decrease Mean Time Between Failure
rates resulting in fewer parts needing repair.
The combination of supply side increases and demand signal
reductions will result in improved aircraft availability across the
enterprise.
20. Senator Perdue. Admiral Moran, General Walters, and General
Wilson, what lessons can the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force learn
from sustainment issues with the F-35 that can be applied to future,
complex and technologically advanced programs?
Admiral Moran. The F-35 sustainment program is a global supply
chain and inventory management system based upon a global pooling
strategy with a two-level maintenance concept that is the structure for
the Air Force. Traditional Navy and Marine Corps sustainment relies on
three-level maintenance--a combination of organizational (squadron),
intermediate (CVN/L-class and ashore) and depot (shore).
The Navy and Marine Corps both require underway Intermediate-level
maintenance to support their ``expeditionary doctrine'' of employment
and operations (CVW, CVN, and Air Combat Element (ACE)). The Navy and
Marine Corps also require a different supply chain management structure
to support expeditionary operations. This may include an organic
service integrator like Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) instead
of Lockheed Martin (LM), or some type of mixed structure.
Current squadron stand-up efforts have highlighted the value of
Intermediate-level repair capabilities as necessary for aircraft
sustainment while deployed. Establishment of this capability for F-35
is on-going. Additionally, having a robust, organic depot maintenance
capability, coupled with an easy-to-use, comprehensive enterprise
information system tied into existing DoN (and DoN-external) support
systems and infrastructure, is crucial to realizing an affordable
sustainment solution. As the F-35 sustainment system matures, these
lessons learned will be applied to future weapon systems through
investment in the early stages of the acquisition life cycle.
Finally, detailed sustainment planning and cost forecasting are key
elements that must be incorporated into the early design/development
process to more adequately drive down life cycle costs.
General Walters. In future, highly advanced and technical programs,
it would be beneficial to wargame, conceptualize and then baseline the
anticipated operational and sustainment environment before designing
the sustainment concepts (ex. Global Asset Management, ALIS, O to D
Concept). The technical support infrastructure and software should be
designed to fit the anticipated operating environment (training,
afloat, expeditionary) rather than starting with an innovative set of
sparing and maintenance software concepts and forcing the services,
maintainers, and fleet forces to fit their operational requirements
into that framework. It would also be beneficial to establish multiple
beta test units/software/systems to fleet test and provide robust
feedback before establishing a single system that is difficult to
deviate from due to it being deeply embedded and integrated into the
program. If this had been done with regards to the F-35 sustainment
strategy, the current ALIS and Supply Software builds might not require
an end to end restructure and the GSP/GAM system would be more user
friendly, understandable, effective and tailored to fleet needs. The
effectiveness provided by NAVAIR/NAVSEA/NAVSUP team is somewhat
marginalized by the F-35 sustainment organization and we are currently
working through how to re-structure the Joint Program Office to provide
a more effective long-term solution to the current Hybrid Product
Support Integrator model.
General Wilson. Going forward, we need to urgently bring our best
and brightest 5th generation acquisition, sustainment, operations,
logistics and maintenance experts, who have learned the hard lessons
first hand, into the earliest stages of new development programs. There
is a DoD trend to keep new system development sterile from legacy
platform experience. The advantage of this approach gives the planning
team a blank slate, free from any platform bias, to develop new
capabilities. This way of thinking has allowed the Air Force to develop
the most capable and powerful aircraft in the world. It has also
created an environment where we have repeated some acquisition and
sustainment mistakes, resulting in cost overruns and avoidable
sustainment challenges. It is clear that we need to take steps now to
bring recent experience to our developing capability programs.
Additionally, we must consider greater emphasis on logistics and
affordability from the start in any new major capability development.
Warfighter needs will remain the focus with early consideration of life
cycle costs for affordability.
supply chain improvement
21. Senator Perdue. General McConville, Admiral Moran, General
Walters, and General Wilson, many of our readiness issues, especially
in aviation, are due to a lack of spare parts and the length of time it
takes for a mechanic to order and to receive spare parts so they can
actually do the maintenance on vehicles or weapons systems. The slow
supply chain is unacceptable. Meanwhile, China's industrial base can
produce just about anything in a very short time. We should look very
hard at those supply chains to make them better and more competitive.
Can you speak to the current problems with our supply chains--
especially concerning maintenance and spare parts?
General McConville. Currently, the Army is experiencing challenges
in the supply chain for ground vehicle maintenance and repair parts.
Army aviation is influenced less by lack of repair parts than Army
ground fleets. For our heavy ground fleets, the fluctuating repair part
demands over the past several years have complicated requirements
forecasting; we have refocused on training for major heavy armor
engagements while executing predominantly wheeled vehicle deployments
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the U.S. Army is the sole consumer of
most of these military grade repair parts, some of the supply sources
have atrophied. Army leadership is engaged in reenergizing commercial
vendors that in some cases shifted their business objectives to a more
fruitful and dependable customer base. Maintaining numerous suppliers
for military repair parts ensures depth and a warm industrial base. The
Army will continue to address industrial base capacity while remaining
cognizant of fiscal concerns.
Admiral Moran. The wholesale supply system is built to achieve an
overall supply availability of 85 percent. Wholesale availability,
combined with shipboard and planeside stocks, achieves a 94 percent
first pass effectiveness in sourcing parts from the supply system. This
long-standing goal represents the optimum balance between cost and
supply chain effectiveness. Within the population of supported
platforms and weapon systems, there exists variation of supply
availability. Where systems fall short of this aggregate goal, there
are several key challenges that help explain these gaps in supply
availability. The following challenges are further aggravated by
today's readiness environment to balance prior years' underfunding of
sustainment enabler accounts, increased operational requirements,
accelerated squadron stand-ups, platform growth, and service life
extension of legacy platforms:
Lack of synchronized programmatic support elements prior
to fielding a new weapon system:
o Many supply challenges arise from a lack of key programmatic
Integrated Product Support (IPS) elements and investment in areas such
as timely and accurate provisioning data, fully resourced Interim
Supply Support periods, timely depot stand-up, engineering sustainment,
training, field support, maintenance planning, etc. Shortfalls within
these IPS elements ultimately manifest in degraded supply performance.
Atrophy in Organic Industrial Base:
o The market basket of components repaired at our Fleet
Readiness Centers (FRC) today compared to FRC workload 10-15 years ago
is significantly reduced. Skilled manpower, aging equipment, facilities
and lack of new capability for newer platforms and systems have played
a role in reduced component production and throughput.
Commercial Industrial Constraints:
o Several factors contribute to extended sparing timelines pre/
post contract award, many of which are unique to the component being
procured. A majority of aviation related components are sole-sourced to
a single vendor. This limitation, along with competing requirements
(production versus sustainment), ``warm'' (Super Hornet) versus
``cool'' (AV-8B & Legacy Hornet) production lines, production
complexity, sourcing of forgings and raw materials, availability of
tooling and fixtures, and contract type(s), among others, can drive
uncertainty into sparing efforts.
Obsolescence and Diminishing Vendor Base:
o Lack of data rights hampers our ability to establish multiple
spare and repair sources, augment capacity, increase vendor throughput,
reduce lead times and mitigate obsolescence challenges during
sustainment. Additionally, the length of time a weapon system is in
service forces us to contend with a diminished vendor base as companies
leave the business and equipment becomes obsolete.
Unplanned Reliability:
o New weapon systems are often fielded with overly optimistic
engineering failure rates. This drives inadequate initial sparing
requirements and provides little back up in the wholesale system to
quickly adjust and react.
Service Life Extension of Aging platforms:
o Sustaining aircraft beyond intended service life results in
life-limited components incurring extensive lead time to restart cold
production lines. Restarting cold production lines, when it's even
possible, can be extremely expensive. Obsolescence issues often
preclude new production without engineering redesigns.
Inventory Investment:
o Even under the best of circumstances, timelines for
procurement or repair of components for the Fleet's highly-complex
ships and aircraft are too long to support readiness requirements
without a sufficient level of inventory on hand. This starts with the
critical initial procurement of repairable components when a weapon
system is fielded, and continues throughout the sustainment phase.
During sequestration, key readiness accounts were underfunded in some
cases by 50 percent of the amount necessary to sustain the force.
Tradeoffs were made in parts procured and repaired, which ultimately
impacted the availability of parts to support our ships and aircraft.
Digital Modernization and Supply Chain Modeling:
o In an effort to achieve greater real-time analysis of supply
requirements and enhance supply chain responsiveness, the service
Logistics IT functional managers are evaluating the use Product
Lifecycle Management Systems linked with industry partners and
delivered, mature Technical Data Packages. However, increasing the
effectiveness of our Information Technology that supports supply chain
modeling and asset management has been slowed by sequestration and
reduction in spending for modernization and research and development of
supply modeling technology.
General Walters. Today's MAGTF is equipped with precision
munitions, world-class communications and state-of-the art weapon
systems, but these capabilities do not reduce our requirement to move
large amounts of fuel, water and ammunition throughout the battlespace.
On the one hand, our current inventory of aircraft, vehicles and weapon
systems is more lethal, maneuverable and survivable than any time in
our history. On the other hand, these systems are heavier and more
logistics intensive. Success in this hybrid era will also require
efficiency and sustainability in austere environments. We must
modernize our supply and maintenance capabilities. For these reasons,
we believe we are in an era of hybrid logistics, where we must continue
to meet perennial demand requirements, while at the same time working
to evolve our supply and maintenance, lift and distribution, medical,
and other logistics capabilities to enhance the endurance, reach and
overall effectiveness of the 21st Century MAGTF.
General Wilson. The supply chain has experienced stable and
consistent customer response times despite having less inventory on the
shelf. Across the Air Force we experience a major supply breakdown,
where we do not have a part anywhere in the supply chain, .02 percent
of the time (200 orders a month against a 70,000 monthly order
population). One quarter of these major supply failures (50 orders a
month) are parts that have not failed previously and highlight the
challenges of maintaining an aging aircraft fleet.
Maintenance manpower is equally important to sortie production. As
a result of sustained and sufficient manpower, our aircraft maintainers
are becoming more effective each day. Because the average aircraft age
is 27 years, from time to time we will experience difficult repair
requirements which often will stress our supply and repair capacity.
However, we have continued to invest in improving on-hand stocks at
base level and making our maintainers more effective during each
maintenance task.
22. Senator Perdue. General McConville, Admiral Moran, General
Walters, and General Wilson, what are you doing or recommend to be done
to improve the efficiency of our supply chains?
General McConville. The Army is implementing a number of
initiatives to increase efficiency and effectiveness of the supply
chain. We are focusing on forecasting effectiveness of required
supplies by improving our forecasting methodology. Improvements will
address refining the accuracy of sporadic demands and fluctuating
quantities. We also increased funding flexibility by providing Life
Cycle Management Commands with the majority of their annual funds at
the beginning of the fiscal year. This allows item managers greater
flexibility in planning while mitigating any effects associated with
fiscal interruptions.
Senior Army leadership has increased engagement with industry
partners to improve relationships and supply chain effectiveness. This
supports the Army's ability to increase stockage levels of key
readiness driver items that typically suffer from long acquisition
times.
We have designed and implemented a revised repair parts stocking
methodology within our brigade combat teams. The change has decreased
repair part wait times, reduced fiscal churn, and begun to stabilize
the demand signal from the tactical level to the strategic base.
The Army continues integrative efforts with the Defense Logistics
Agency (DLA) to streamline the supply chain. Pilot programs at Fort
Carson, Colorado, and Anniston Army Depot seek to optimize warehousing
space, reduce repair cycle times, and lower Army-owned inventory costs.
The Army is also pursuing increased system integration with DLA to
shorten repair part procurement timelines.
These initiatives are designed to improve materiel readiness rates
through a more robust, responsive, and efficient supply chain.
Admiral Moran. Leveraging Data and Innovation to Improve Supply
Chain Effectiveness: In an effort to tackle some of our most complex
supply challenges, NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support (WSS) is aggressively
evaluating our command's utilization of existing logistics management
systems, as well as investing in innovative IT solutions that will
advance supply chain digital initiatives and streamline our business.
We are rapidly refining and expanding the use of Logistics Cell
(LOGCELL), incorporating the use of other Government and Commercial IT
platforms (e.g., VECTOR, AMDB, CAST, and FCOE) into our daily
processes, overhauling how we communicate across the aviation readiness
value chain, and aligning to the DoD's overarching LOG IT vision.
Additionally, NAVSUP WSS is finding new ways to leverage these tools
and available data (i.e., Supply Chain End-to-End, Production
Financial, and Critical Line-Item Reviews) to achieve high-velocity
learning, improve requirements forecasting and data integrity, to
enhance our responsiveness and capability across readiness
stakeholders.
Infusion of Logistics Cell (LOGCELL): One key initiative noted
above is the Logistics Cell (LOGCELL) collaboration concept, which
aligns supply chain metrics to Fleet readiness and creates a single
accurate view to aid timely decision making and streamline logistical
processes. This single view enables real-time collaboration with our
DLA and commercial providers, ultimately expediting needed materials to
the Fleet.
``Right-Sizing'' the Commercial and Organic Component Supplier
Base: NAVSUP WSS and DLA, in partnership with the Engineering
Maintenance and Supply Chain Leadership Team are pursuing multiple
efforts to increase capacity across the support provider network to
meet current and future aviation material requirements. Efforts include
standing-up secondary sources, reviewing and reallocating engineering
resources and authorities, licensing agreements, revising material
acquisition processes and strategies, and strengthening partnerships
with the Fleet, SYSCOMs, industry and organic depots. By focusing on
transparency, open communication, and knowledge sharing, we our
optimizing supply support to make the most of our available resources.
Strategic Sourcing: Numerous efforts are underway to optimize long
term performance based strategic contracts to increase material
availability and incentivize Prime Contractors and Original Equipment
Manufacturers (OEMs) to improve system reliability. Approximately one-
third of NAVSUP WSS aviation requirements are supported via performance
based contracts and we are continuing to evaluate additional
opportunities to expand this effort.
Logistics Engineering Change Proposals: NAVSUP WSS is committed to
making Navy Working Capital Investment to improve reliability and
maintainability, while reducing supply support costs, to ultimately
enhance or provide additional capability to the end user. This is
achieved through engineering initiatives to extend service life of an
item, introduce a new enhanced replacement item or changes to the Level
of Repair Analysis to increase efficiency and supply responsiveness.
Supply Chain Levers: NAVSUP WSS, in collaboration with NAVAIR,
COMFRC, and DLA, is developing a ``Supply Chain Levers'' strategy for
the NAE to address component repair throughput at the Fleet Readiness
Centers. Major action items address aged Work in Process at
intermediate and depot level; eight-quarter forecasting; piece part
supportability analysis for eight quarter forecast; Repair Turn Around
Time accuracy; sub-routing minimization and capacity and capability
assessments inclusive of manning, benches, and facilities.
Component Find and Fix Team (CFFT): NAVSUP WSS executed a services
contract with Price Waterhouse Coopers to leverage industry best
practices. PWC is comprised of subject matter experts in the functional
areas of supply chain management, maintenance, and engineering. The
charter of the team is to identify individual components driving
readiness degradation across the fleet, develop solutions that provide
immediate relief to the warfighter, and implement improvement
initiatives that address systemic issues in the long term. The CFFT
methodology merges extensive forensic data analytics with onsite fact
finding to separate myth from fact and isolate the root causes of
material shortfalls. The true value of the CFFT effort comes from its
enablement of collaboration across organizational boundaries to focus
cross-functional stakeholders on the objective shared by all: getting
components back into the fight.
General Walters. In the future battlefield, we will still need to
move large amounts of sustainment, but we will optimize tactical
distribution with unmanned platforms, flatten the supply chain with 3D
printing, and enhance preventive and predictive supply/maintenance with
sense and respond logistics. We will extend the MAGTFs operational
reach and capacity with a blend of ``old and new'' logistics. State-of-
the-art logistics C2/IT, enabled by artificial intelligence will bring
this vision to fruition. We see a future where the very nature of the
supply chain is disrupted in a positive way. We envision a flattened
supply chain with 3D capability arrayed in key forward operational and
tactical locations, ready to manufacture ``good enough'' parts for
emergent operational requirements. Through ``sense and respond''
logistics, we will have the ability to create predictive maintenance
capability with our ground equipment that will save many man-hours in
recovery and maintenance costs while enhancing supply-chain
responsiveness.
We are developing Expeditionary Logistics systems with the
following attributes:
A Hybrid mix of legacy and evolving 21st Century
logistics capabilities:
o Additive manufacturing (3D printing).
o Unmanned air and ground capabilities.
o Sense and respond logistics.
o Expeditionary medicine.
From the sea, and naval in character:
o Sea-based logistical capabilities.
o Connectors, platforms and processes.
o Integrated naval operating concepts.
Flexible and expeditionary:
o Enable multi-domain fire and maneuver.
o Operate in austere environments.
o Reduce individual combat load and requirements for the ``big
three'' (water, fuel and ammunition).
o Increase and streamline lift and distribution.
o Leverage modular logistical capabilities.
Innovative, adaptive and versatile in thought-practice:
o Cross-training and certification in multiple MOSs.
o Training for today; educating for tomorrow.
o Developing leaders at all levels able to think, anticipate and
act, often independently.
o Every marine is a logistics producer.
Resilient and analog-capable C2:
o Logistics C2 ``immunized'' against cyber/EW threats.
o Seamless transition to manual/analog C2.
Data-driven:
o Predictive analytics to increase readiness.
o Resource allocation through artificial intelligence.
o Marines & their gear tracked in ``real time''.
General Wilson. The Air Force has prioritized restoring readiness
and lethality to the force. We are doing this in our supply chain by
centralizing the global management of logistics support requirements at
the Supply Chain Operations Wing located at Scott AFB. This
centralization gives us the ability to determine, prioritize, and
reallocate resources to deliver the right part or equipment item to the
right place at the right time while controlling costs. Inventory
investments have been made to increase aircraft availability and
restore training operations for pilot training with focused efforts on
T-38, F-15, F-16, A-10 and F-22 platforms. All of these efforts are
predicated on sufficient, predictable, and consistent funding which
gives the Air Force stability to continue restoration efforts for the
maintenance workforce and supply chain.
military construction and infrastructure
23. Senator Perdue. General McConville, Admiral Moran, General
Walters, and General Wilson, what infrastructure issues are you facing
that impact our readiness?
General McConville. The Army has taken risk in infrastructure to
fund higher warfighting priorities. We have about 34,000 facilities in
poor and failing condition, and have made great strides over the past
year identifying which of these most affect unit readiness. We will use
this information to focus infrastructure investment on barracks,
airfields, training areas and maintenance facilities. Sustained,
adequate and predictable funding will help restore these facilities and
allow the Army to maintain its critical infrastructure.
Admiral Moran. Over the past several years, Navy took a deliberate
level of risk in shore infrastructure investment to resource critical
warfighting readiness and capabilities. To mitigate this risk, the Navy
targeted its limited resourcing on sustaining mission-critical
facilities, allowing other facilities to degrade at an accelerated
rate. The current facilities maintenance backlog across the Navy is
$14.3B. Although we have taken measures to prevent degradation to
mission-critical facilities, this maintenance backlog affects sailors'
ability to train, their quality of life, and often requires operational
workarounds, such as waivers, temporary facilities, or inefficient
processes.
General Walters. Our installations are platforms upon which our
marines live and train and from which our units launch and recover.
They are the platforms that generate our readiness. Though the Marine
Corps has made significant progress in replacing old and unsatisfactory
infrastructure, reduced funding availability will have long term
impacts on support to training, operations, logistics, and ultimately
readiness.
Underfunding MILCON leads to the deferment of critical
infrastructure required to support training, operations, and logistics.
Further, it limits the capacity of our Installations to serve as
training, sustainment, and deployment platforms. MILCON is also needed
to enable the fielding of new capabilities, including the F-35. Without
MILCON funding, the realization of these capabilities will not happen.
Current Restoration and Modernization funding levels will only
allow the Marine Corps to address potential life/safety/health
requirements and invest in mission critical facilities. We will be
forced to take risks in non-operational facilities such as quality of
life (QOL), warehousing, maintenance/production, administrative, and
some mission relevant training facilities and utilities infrastructure.
This will result in increased long-term costs to restore these
facilities back to current conditions.
Facilities Sustainment funding is intended to ensure that
facilities can be effectively used for their designated purposes.
Currently facilities sustainment is funded to 80 percent of the
requirement. Underfunding facilities sustainment increases the rate of
degradation of Marine Corps infrastructure, which leads to more costly
repairs, restoration, and new construction in the future.
General Wilson. Air Force installations are our power projection
platforms, crucial enablers to readiness and lethality in air, space
and cyberspace. As such, operational facilities capable of mission
generation are vital to our success as a force.
As of 2018, the Air Force has identified approximately $33 billion
in deferred maintenance and repair. This includes facilities and
facility systems which have reached the end of their regular life
cycle, as well as, repairs to failed or failing systems due to
inadequate preventative maintenance over many years. Reversing the
trend of growth in deferred maintenance would take significant
additional investment over many years.
Some near-term examples of needed facility and infrastructure
investment which directly enable readiness and lethality include:
Aircraft hangar fire suppression systems at Nellis Air
Force Base, Nevada; Dyess Air Force Base, Texas; Shaw Air Force Base,
South Carolina; and Columbus Air Force Base, Mississippi (among others)
at a cost of more than $24 million.
Utility transfer and disconnect switches for remotely
piloted aircraft mission facilities at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada
($8 million).
Combat Arms firing range repairs at Joint Base Langley-
Eustis, Virginia ($3 million).
Airfield pavement and lighting repairs at Joint Base
Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska ($18 million).
Electrical distribution system repairs which support Air
Mobility Command and US Transportation Command operations centers at
Scott Air Force Base, Illinois ($5 million).
Despite these challenges, the Air Force seeks to enhance readiness
and lethality by prioritizing our limited military construction and
infrastructure investment funding on the combatant commanders' most
urgent needs, enabling new mission beddowns, and sustaining and
maintaining critical mission facilities.
24. Senator Perdue. General McConville, Admiral Moran, General
Walters, and General Wilson, what is the way forward to address our
infrastructure readiness issues?
General McConville. While the Army has taken risk in infrastructure
to fund higher priorities directly impacting warfighting readiness, we
are methodically increasing facility sustainment levels and focusing
infrastructure investment on readiness priorities that support power
projection platforms, mobilization, and the warfighter. In fiscal year
2019, we will continue to focus infrastructure funding on projects that
most directly contribute to readiness and soldier quality of life, such
as vehicle maintenance facilities at Fort Campbell KY; a multi-purpose
machine gun range at Camp Ravenna, OH; Permanent Party Barracks at Fort
Hood TX; and Training Barracks at Fort McCoy WI.
Admiral Moran. The fiscal year 2019 budget request is an
improvement over fiscal year 2018 levels, and the Navy continues to
prioritize mission-critical deficiencies in our infrastructure. The
fiscal year 2019 budget request also continues to exceed the statutory
minimum funding requirement to modernize and improve the efficiency of
our public Naval shipyards. While the Navy will begin to reduce the
facilities maintenance backlog with the fiscal year 2019 budget
request, maintaining the path to full readiness recovery will take a
long-term commitment of resources, predictable funding and time.
General Walters. As a result of these past resource challenges, we
developed the Commandant-signed Infrastructure Reset Strategy to
optimize and modernize our bases and stations. The intent of the
Commandant's Infrastructure Reset Strategy is to provide Marine Corps
installations that are data-driven power projection platforms, capable
of adapting ready training venues to the evolving operating
environment, while maintaining a high quality of life for our marines
and their families, all at an economically sustainable rate. We will
maximize critical capabilities, minimize total life cycle cost, and
better enable operating force readiness. Congressional support and
continued funding of the Infrastructure Reset strategy will improve the
operational readiness of the Marine Corps.
General Wilson. Installations, the Air Force's power projection
platforms, are a critical component of readiness and lethality. We need
stable and predictable budgets going forward to address infrastructure
readiness. The fiscal year 2019 budget proposes to fund new
construction at various installations and sustain our existing
infrastructure.
Based on our fiscal year 2019 level of investment, we know we have
facility maintenance and repair requirements that will go unfulfilled
and that our accumulation of deferred maintenance will continue to
grow. We minimize impacts to missions through the use of analytical
tools that give us greater fidelity in how risk is manifesting itself
today, as well as how we predict it will impact our facilities and
infrastructure in the future.
Importantly, while we believe the current facility investment rate
is a sound decision amid the many competing and higher budget
priorities, we do not view the current investment rate as sustainable.
We have developed new visualization tools to support our facility
investment decision making as we enter into the internal Air Force
budget deliberations for fiscal year 2020 and beyond.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
maritime security barriers
25. Senator Shaheen. Admiral Moran, there have been concerns
regarding the survivability, reliability, and long-term cost-
effectiveness of existing U.S. Navy (USN) port security barriers,
particularly the survivability of the barriers in high-threat
environments. Have the existing port security barriers been tested to
withstand an attack by a high-speed vessel, to include a vessel laden
with explosives?
Admiral Moran. Current intelligence and threat analysis confirm
Navy's existing port security barrier systems meet the operational
requirements necessary to protect our ships in port. The existing port
security barriers were tested to withstand an attack by a high-speed
vessel during the design validation process. The testing did not
include a vessel laden with explosives.
26. Senator Shaheen. Admiral Moran, have there been any reports of
existing port security barriers being used to protect USN facilities
capsizing during inclement weather, which would temporarily render them
less effective until they can be repaired?
Admiral Moran. Yes, there have been isolated instances of barriers
capsizing in 1 of 24 Navy locations. In particular, the existing port
security barriers in Norfolk have had issues due to local site
constraints, operational tempo and environmental conditions. In the
rare occasion that a port security barrier is inoperable, installation
security and port operations departments have effective mitigation
strategies in place to ensure the continuous protection of Navy vessels
in port.
27. Senator Shaheen. Admiral Moran, has the Department of the Navy
conducted a long-term cost analysis to compare existing USN port
security barriers to commercially-available maritime barrier systems
that meet existing USN requirements?
Admiral Moran. The current Navy port security barrier system is a
commercially-available product that meets Navy requirements. In the
next year, Commander Navy Installations Command will oversee a pilot
project at Naval Station Norfolk to test next-generation barrier
capabilities in an operational environment and gather actual operations
and maintenance data. Navy will use the data from this pilot to produce
a Navy cost analysis within three months of the pilot's completion.
cyber readiness
28. Senator Shaheen. General McConville, Admiral Moran, General
Walters, and General Wilson, according to a recent news article, the
commander of Naval Information Forces, Admiral Matthew Kohler, said
that the Navy's overworked information technology (IT) teams need new
``virtual training tools'' and more time to train, especially for all-
out cyber/electronic warfare against a high-end adversary. Admiral
Kohler likened the Navy's IT workforce situation to that of the recent
ship collisions in the Pacific in that these ships were operating all
the time to meet mission demands, but were cutting corners on training
and safety certifications. Admiral Kohler is concerned about the
assumption that if IT professionals are operating all the time, they
are getting all the practice they need and forego valuable training. I
recognize that this is a Navy example, but I'd like to hear from each
of you about the state of readiness of your respective IT
professionals. How are you ensuring that training is maintained and
what, if any, tools or resources do you need to ensure the IT workforce
is up to date on the latest cyber related technology and training?
General McConville. Readiness is the Army's number one priority and
overall Army readiness is critically enabled by our network readiness.
The Army follows common DoD standards to baseline training requirements
for the IT workforce. Following initial schooling, the IT workforce
utilizes online training courses for Information Technology and
cybersecurity certification to assist soldiers and civilians in
maintaining readiness. The Army continues to enhance the training
facilities at Fort Gordon to enable state of the art capabilities for
training both offensive and defensive operations. Additionally, the
Persistent Cyber Training Environment, if funded as requested, will
ensure our soldiers are initially trained to achieve mission readiness
and subsequently are able to maintain mission readiness through
recurring individual qualifications and collective training and
certification events.
Admiral Moran. The Navy is investing in realistic virtualized
environments in which to train our cyber and IT workforce.
Specifically, SPAWAR is developing a virtual training environment for
training (VE4T) on the Consolidated Afloat Network and Enterprise
Services (CANES) Network. This will allow training to be delivered to
any of the Navy standard schoolhouses via a network connection.
Additionally, for the Navy Cyber Mission Force (CMF) teams, U.S.
Cyber Command (USCC) mandates Joint Cyberspace Training and
Certification Standards, which encompass procedures, guidelines, and
qualifications for individual and collective training. Most of the
training today is delivered by USCC and the National Security Agency
(NSA) in a federated but integrated approach that utilizes existing
schoolhouses and sharing of resources. CMF training specifically
involves 54 role-specific, intermediate through advanced training
pipelines using a mix of nearly 100 Joint, NSA National Cryptologic
School (NCS), and multi-Service courses to prepare officers, enlisted
and civilians for their CMF work roles. These training events are not
only aimed at the individual sailors, but also provide operational team
certifications and sustainment training. Once certified, our team
training is maintained throughout the year via several key unit level
exercise events which allow individuals and the collective team to
demonstrate required skills against simulated adversaries. U.S. Fleet
Cyber Command/U.S. Tenth Fleet (FCC/C10F) augments the required USCC
training pipeline in two ways--online skills development and the
provision of supplemental academics.
Navy Information Technology forces have a mature training path
covering network operations and network defense that is integrated with
the network system's technical authority and covers training
opportunities prior to and during deployment cycles. Individual
training for network professionals occurs within the Navy's Education
and Training system and includes fundamental skills, Journeyman and
Advanced level network security skills, and individual system
operations training. Each of the higher level training sets were
created and are maintained in currency based on a partnership between
the Navy's training domain and the acquisition community. Further, a
partnership has been formed to include technical authority influence on
fundamental system administration skills. Above the individual training
level, Navy training and readiness accounts for team training and
readiness through all phases of deployment and operations.
Navy organic Defensive Cyber Operations (DCO) forces make use of
much of the same training pipeline that is available to forces
associated with CMF. While their initial fundamental training paths are
the same, and they have access to the additional training sponsored
under USCC, their individual training mandate is maturing. The need for
additional resources to assure higher level individual skills training
is under evaluation by the Navy resource sponsor staff. It should be
acknowledged that the individual skills required for Navy DCO are
similar to those required for CMF.
Using the DoD's Enterprise Cyber Range Environment (DECRE)
resources, provided by the Joint Staff, FCC/C10F utilizes Joint
Information Operation Range nodes (JIOR) to connect CMF teams with
ranges which are representative of shipboard networks. These networks
are used for mission rehearsal platforms and to augment individual
training for various team work-roles. FCC/C10F has also invested in a
web-based individual and collective training platform, to augment the
academic portions of the USCC training pipeline with hands-on skills
development. The Persistent Cyber Training Environment (PCTE), managed
by the Department of the Army, is expected to incorporate similar
distributed training methodologies in module-based systems. When
necessary, teams seek out and receive additional training based on work
roles or specific mission requirements.
From a formal educational perspective, to develop officers to
succeed in the increasingly complex cyberspace environment, the Navy
offers the following opportunities for cyber development:
The U.S. Naval Academy requires introductory cyber
courses for all freshman and juniors to baseline knowledge.
Additionally, USNA began a Cyber Operations major in the Fall of 2013.
Furthermore, the Center for Cyber Security Studies harmonizes cyber
efforts across the Naval Academy.
Our Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps' program
maintains affiliations at 51 of the 180 NSA Centers of Academic
Excellence at colleges around the country. Qualified and selected
graduates can commission as Cryptologic Warfare Officers, Information
Professional Officers, or Intelligence Officers within the Information
Warfare Community.
For graduate-level education, the Naval Postgraduate
School (NPS) offers several outstanding graduate degree programs that
directly underpin cyberspace operations and greatly contribute to the
development of officers and select enlisted personnel who have already
earned a Bachelor's Degree. These degree programs include Electrical
and Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Cyber Systems Operations,
Applied Mathematics, Operations Analysis, and Defense Analysis. In
addition, NPS tenure track professors are required to conduct research
in their respective areas of expertise; this research keeps them up to
date and enhances their professional credentials while informing the
curricula they teach and offering research and thesis opportunities for
their students.
The Naval War College is also incorporating cyber into
its strategic and operational level war courses, at both intermediate
and senior graduate-course levels. The College also integrates
strategic cyber research into focused Information Operations IO/
Cybersecurity courses, hosts a Center for Cyber Conflict Studies (C3S)
to support wider cyber integration across the College, and has placed
special emphasis on cyber in its war gaming role.
General Walters. The Marine Corps is responsible for 13 of
USCYBERCOM's 133 Cyber Mission Force (CMF) teams: one National Mission
Team (NMT), eight Cyber Protection Teams (CPTs), three Combat Mission
Teams (CMT), and one Cyber Support Team (CST). These 13 teams are
aligned against USCYBERCOM (Cyber National Mission Force), USSOCOM, and
Marine Corps missions. Three of the eight CPTs are service retained and
oriented to service missions, (23 percent of the total Marine Corps
CMF).
Of our 13 teams, nine teams have reached and four teams remain at
Initial Operating Capability (IOC). All 13 teams are scheduled to reach
FOC in fiscal year 2018. It's important to note, that all 13 teams
designated as having reached IOC are employed against real-world
problem sets and are fully engaged in supporting the mission. It is
also important to note that achieving FOC is also not an indication
that work is done. We must continually ensure we are training and
sustaining the force to ensure we remain agile, adaptable, and ready to
defeat all enemies.
To that end, we are moving forward with the creation of a
cyberspace occupational field. We have learned a great deal in the past
several years about the training, clearance, and experience
requirements across the cyber mission force. We know that in order to
be effective, we must retain a professional cadre of cyberspace
warriors who are skilled in critical work roles, and we know that many
of our marines desire to remain part of the cyber work force. The
Commandant has told us to move out, and we are planning with
Headquarters, Marine Corps (HQMC) to design a cyberspace occupational
field to address offensive and defensive team readiness requirements.
We intend to begin assigning marines to the cyberspace MOS in fiscal
year 2018. This will significantly improve both readiness and retention
of the force.
This year the Marine Corps continued its initial investment in
specialized tools for defensive cyberspace operations. The Deployable
Mission Support System (DMSS) hardware and software tools comprise the
weapons system CPTs use to meet any mission they may be assigned, from
readiness and compliance visits to incident response or Quick Reaction
Force missions. This year, we championed an ability to conduct split
based operations with the DMSS, enabling the CPT lead to forward deploy
a small element and push information back to a home station ``war
room'' for remote analysis and remediation. This initiative and concept
of employment will reduce deployed time and costs and increase our
ability to collaborate more freely with other CPTs or across the
mission force.
We are rapidly establishing relevant operational capability in
support of the warfighter. We have experienced tremendous growth in
operational capability over the past year as we have fully supported
the delivery of operational cyberspace effects under Joint Task Force
Ares, a USCYBERCOM led effort designed to support C-ISIS efforts in
U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM). Our Joint Force Headquarters is
providing relevant support to more fully integrate planning cyber
operations, intelligence and fires, and we continue to refine
procedures with each exercise and operation we support. On the defense,
our CPTs are contributing to Cyber National Mission Force priorities
around the globe, and at USSOCOM. Across USCYBERCOM, marines are at the
point of friction, increasingly relevant and eager to contribute to the
fight.
We are also Active participants with other Service components and
USCYBERCOM in a variety of new processes, infrastructure and tool
development, acquisition initiatives, training transition, and Tactics,
Techniques and Procedures (TTP) development for the CMF. We know we
must continually adapt, innovate, and change to meet future threats.
Additionally, at the service level, the Marine Corps Cyber Range
(MCCR) provides the service the ability to conduct realistic, cyber-
related training, offers tailored cyber effects to unit exercises, and
provides the means to conduct radical / aggressive cybersecurity
testing on products and capabilities in deployment configurations
without risk to the Marine Corps Enterprise Network. MCCR is a critical
component of the 06xx Force Modernization. By leveraging the MCCR, we
provide a distance education and virtual learning capabilities and more
specifically a `live-fire' cyber range to support the Marine
Expeditionary Force (MEF) Information Group and improves training and
TTPs, and increases effectiveness of cyber effects.
General Wilson. The Air Force has similar concerns with its
Information Technology (IT)/cyber workforce. High operational tempo,
coupled with manpower shortages, especially in our mid-grade officer
and enlisted ranks, and retention of civilian talent due to retirements
and exits to industry, have stressed the force. To address training and
readiness of our cyber forces, the Air Force has integrated cyber into
operational exercises to hone skills, enhance readiness, and work
jointly with our Air, Land, Maritime, and Space forces. Additionally,
we are transitioning from front-loaded training at the beginning of an
airman's career to initial apprentice level fundamentals followed by a
career long continuum of training. Furthermore, because the Air Force
is implementing Enterprise IT as a Service and re-missioning airmen
from IT support to Cyber Mission Teams, we will require a robust
learning/training management system, as well as expansion of our cyber
training ranges, additional secure classrooms, and more instructor
billets to support increased training throughput and effectiveness.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2019 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Readiness
and Management Support,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
THE HEALTH OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE AND ITS
ROLE IN PROVIDING READINESS TO THE WARFIGHTER
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m. in
Room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator James M.
Inhofe, presiding.
Subcommittee members present: Senators Inhofe, Rounds,
Ernst, Perdue, Kaine, and Hirono.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE
Senator Inhofe. The Subcommittee on Readiness will come to
order.
The subcommittee meets today to discuss the health of the
Department of Defense (DOD) organic industrial base and their
crucial role in providing readiness to the warfighter.
You know, General Levy, I can remember back 25 years ago
when we were talking about the organic capabilities that we had
to have and the reason for it. And 25 years ago, we made a
decision that 50/50 was arbitrary and we were going to figure
out some way to be more sophisticated. Now it is 25 years later
and nothing has happened. But, nonetheless, it is still just as
important as it was.
We are joined this afternoon by Lieutenant General Edward
Daly, Deputy Commanding General of the Army Materiel Command;
Vice Admiral Paul Grosklags, Commander of the Naval Air Systems
Command; Vice Admiral Thomas Moore, Commander of the Naval Sea
Systems Command; Lieutenant General Lee Levy from Tinker and
elsewhere; and Major General Craig Crenshaw, Commanding General
of the Marine Corps Logistics Command. I thank all of you for
being here. It is very significant what we are doing today.
I would also like to thank our ranking member, Senator
Kaine, as well as the rest of our members who represent the
shipyard industry base so well. I trust that like last year,
you will keep Vice Admiral Moore quite busy today.
In February, the subcommittee received testimony from the
service vice chiefs on the current readiness of our Armed
Forces. We heard many troubling details about how each of the
services is currently positioned to respond to the next global
contingency. Simply put, we are not.
The National Defense Strategy [NDS] provides the Department
of Defense a new approach to ensure our national security.
Several of the lines of effort prioritized by the Secretary of
Defense in the strategy are directly dependent on the organic
industry base. It forms the backbone of our NDS, and for that
reason, it is more important than ever that our organic
industrial base remains strong.
Unfortunately, we are facing serious challenges. Last week
alone, we saw five separate aircraft crashes across the
services. That was on April 3rd and April 4th. Five of them in
that period of time. And you know, you have to come to the
conclusion, without any studies being made, that it is a
combination of either training or maintenance. These are
problems that have been suffering during the last
administration that we are trying to correct now.
The organic industrial base workforce is also facing
serious challenges as it ages across the board, and there is a
lack of skilled personnel. General Levy, you and I have talked
about this. I think they said at the University of Oklahoma,
you are in a position to hire every single one that they
graduate from their engineering school. This is not just
confined to the State of Oklahoma. We need experienced
personnel. It is something that we are going to have to
address. I appreciate your being here.
I recognize our ranking member, Senator Kaine.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM KAINE
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to our witnesses. Three of you testified before us
last year, and hopefully all five of you get promotions and you
will not need to come back next year.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kaine. But it is good to have you here, and this is
going to be an important discussion.
Two months ago, as the chair indicated, we had testimony
from the vice chiefs about pressing readiness challenges, and
today I look forward to delving a little more deeply into some
specific issues. I want to just raise two.
First, with respect to our industrial facilities, I applaud
the Navy for delivering the Shipyard Infrastructure
Optimization Plan. That is very, very helpful. It is a good
first step toward identifying necessary long-term investments
for Norfolk, obviously I am very focused on, but the other
three critical organic shipyards, very helpful. I will have
some detailed questions about that. But I would like to hear
about sort of the long-term strategy for executing on the plan.
We did a 2-year budget deal that I am happy with. I think
it is encouraging for the Department of Defense, but I am
concerned about other federal agencies that support our defense
mission. I am concerned also about the remaining 2 years of the
Budget Control Act after 2019 and needing a bipartisan strategy
for eliminating that burden on our defense.
The ability to hire and train workers is probably the area
where I am going to ask the most about. I had a little chart
put on folks' desks. I think they have it. What this shows is
the average experience of all who work in the Navy shipyards
and then especially the production workers. You see over time,
from 2006 to 2017, this average year experience is declining. I
think that poses some challenges that I would like to hear,
especially from the Navy, about how we deal with it.
I thought it was interesting. We are working on the NDAA
[National Defense Authorization Act] right now, and as we work
on the NDAA, we ought to be thinking about these workforce
questions. There may be things we can do in the NDAA to address
them. I noticed, for example, that when the Trump
administration delivered an infrastructure plan to Congress
about a month ago, they actually within the infrastructure plan
had some bills dealing with a trained workforce because they
knew just investing in infrastructure, you could have whatever
investment you wanted, but you are going to have to have
somebody do the paving, you are going to have to have the
structural ironworkers. They actually put workforce components
into the infrastructure proposal that they delivered to us.
This budget that we got--again, I think it is good for defense,
but it also means if we are going to be ramping up investments
in Columbia-class subs or block buying on carriers or other
things, that workforce is going to be very, very critical.
In the meeting that I had right before I came here, I was
with a number of folks in the defense industrial base. If I
just gave an open-ended question, what do you want to talk
about, the issue that they are sort of grappling with right now
is workforce questions. Giving them predictable funding for
this to your budget is really helpful in that, and if that
represents a step back toward regular order and they think that
we are more likely to do that in the future, that will also
help.
But it is not just predictability funding. It is also
strategies. I am on the Health, Education, Labor and Pension
Committee. We are starting to work on the higher ed
reauthorizing act. There might be some things we could do in
the higher ed act to more vigorously promote the kind of career
and technical training that would feed into the industrial
base.
So these are some of the issues that I am most interested
in hearing you talk about today. I want to thank the chair, and
I know we are going to have a good discussion.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Senator Kaine.
We would like now to have opening statements and try to
confine them to about 5 minutes since there are five of you,
but your entire statement will be made a part of the record. We
will start with you, General Daly.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL EDWARD M. DALY, USA, DEPUTY
COMMANDING GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND
Lieutenant General Daly. Good afternoon. Chairman Inhofe,
Ranking Member Kaine, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the
preparedness of the Army's organic industrial base and its
critical role in providing and sustaining warfighter readiness.
On behalf of Secretary Esper and General Milley, thank you
for your strong support and continued commitment to our
soldiers, Army civilians, families, and veterans.
I am honored to be here today with my counterparts from the
Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.
The Army's organic industrial base, the OIB, is a $14
billion enterprise consisting of 23 ammunition plants, depots,
and manufacturing arsenals with a workforce of over 22,000-plus
professionals.
The OIB delivers readiness through two key functions: depot
maintenance and the Army's role as the Department of Defense
executive agent for conventional munitions. The OIB possesses
unique and critical industrial capabilities and capacity that
is not easily replicated in the corporate sector, providing for
immediate requirements, as well as a base from which to surge
during periods of crisis.
While the OIB successfully surged over the last 17 years of
conflict, it has been largely reactive to emerging
requirements. To be relevant for the future fight going
forward, the OIB is now transforming and modernizing to focus
on the output required to sustain current and future readiness.
The Army is also improving the effectiveness of the OIB
through readiness-driven workload forecasting, innovative
process improvements, and partnerships and collaboration with
the private industry.
The Army's organic industrial base was designed to sustain
the high volume production rates needed to meet World War II
demand. Over the past several decades, the OIB has been reduced
from 77 plants, depots, and arsenals to 23 facilities at
present. Of these 23 facilities, all are at least 50 years old.
Aging infrastructure poses a risk to the OIB's capacity and
capability to meet current and future demands. The Army
recognizes this and as such, has invested over $2 billion to
modernize antiquated, unreliable, inefficient OIB facilities,
shortfalls that affect critical systems such as the Abrams
tank, the Stryker, the Bradley fighting vehicle, and the Apache
helicopter.
President Washington once said to be prepared for war is
one of the most effective means for preserving peace. A strong,
healthy organic industrial base directly generates the
readiness that underpins our preparedness.
I would like to again thank each distinguished member of
the committee for allowing me to appear before you and for your
continued support that enables Army Materiel Command to
maintain and modernize the organic industrial base delivering
materiel readiness to the joint warfighter at the tactical and
operational points of need worldwide. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Lieutenant General Daly
follows:]
Prepared Statement by Lieutenant General Edward M. Daly
introduction
Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Kaine and distinguished members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
preparedness of the Army's Organic Industrial Base (OIB), its critical
role in providing and sustaining readiness for the Warfighter, and our
ongoing initiatives in support of its revitalization.
On behalf of Secretary Esper and General Milley, I would like to
express our gratitude to Congress for its strong support. As the
Secretary outlined in his recent testimony before the House Armed
Services Committee, we face a strategic security environment more
complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. The
Army stands ready to answer the Nation's call--we are a lethal and
effective force. To maintain our effectiveness, we must continue to
focus on Readiness, Modernization, and Reform.
A key component of Readiness is the Army's Organic Industrial Base
(OIB). This $14 billion enterprise consists of 23 ammunition plants,
depots, and manufacturing arsenals, with a workforce of 22,000
professionals. The OIB builds and maintains readiness by executing two
key functions. The first is depot maintenance: the overhaul and rebuild
of major systems such as the Abrams, Bradley, Stryker, communications
equipment, weapons, and other materiel. The second function is the
execution of the Army's role as the DOD Executive Agent for
Conventional Ammunition. This includes the manufacture of critical
conventional munitions, including propellants, energetics, and small
arms ammunition. It also includes maintaining preferred munitions and
the loading, assembling, packing, storing, outloading, distributing and
demilitarization of munitions.
The past seventeen years of conflict have demonstrated the value
the OIB provides to Army readiness and to our Nation's security. The
OIB successfully surged in order to manufacture and sustain the
warfighting equipment needed to execute contingency operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq. As we redeployed forces and drew down the Army
over the past decade, workload reductions contributed to rate increases
and inefficient operations. The OIB has been largely reactive to
emerging requirements. This reactive model does not ensure a healthy
organic capability to maintain core competencies and surge capacity to
generate combat power.
To reverse these trends requires change. Today I will discuss how
the Army is implementing a new, proactive paradigm--one that relies
upon a business and operational approach, rather than historical
practice. I will also discuss how the OIB is in the midst of
transformation as we focus on production output required to support
sustained readiness; how we manage capabilities and capacity; and how
we execute continuous capital investments to attain viable, modern
state-of-the-art industrial facilities. Finally, I will discuss how we
are improving our effectiveness through the creation of reliable
forecasts of our workload; innovative product support; exploitation of
synergies created between the OIB and industry through public-private
partnerships; and streamlining depot maintenance through automation and
continuous process improvement initiatives.
how the oib ensures that the army is ready and maintained
The OIB brings to bear unique industrial competencies that are not
easily replicated in the commercial sector. These capabilities provide
for the Army's immediate needs as well as a base from which to expand
in times of crisis. One example within the depot maintenance arena
resides at Watervliet Arsenal in New York. Watervliet Arsenal is the
Army's Center for Industrial and Technical Excellence for cannon and
mortar systems and is the Nation's only manufacturer of large caliber
cannon barrels, breach blocks and breach rings. Another example is
Anniston Army Depot in Alabama. Anniston returns combat readiness to
the warfighter, resets the Army's Stryker Combat Vehicles and overhauls
M1 Abrams Tank engines. With respect to the ammunition industrial base,
including both organic and commercial segments, the Army has identified
103 critical capabilities, 25 of these reside solely in the OIB.
Radford Army Ammunition Plant in Virginia, is the only producer of
nitrocellulose, a key compound used in making explosives. Holston Army
Ammunition Plant in Tennessee, is the only manufacturer of High Melting
Explosive and Research Development Explosive in the United States.
Holston recently began production of IMX--Insensitive Munitions
Explosive, the first in a family of ``insensitive munitions.''
Insensitive munitions are far more stable than conventional TNT and
Composition B, and much safer to transport. McAlester Army Ammunition
Plant in Oklahoma produces bombs for all the services and is the
principal source of supply for both wartime and training requirements
across the DOD.
The OIB has been sustaining continuous operations since 2003.
During this time, the OIB produced over 21 billion rounds of ammunition
and reset over 3.9 million pieces of equipment valued at approximately
$32 billion. Importantly, $5.7 billion of this work was in support of
other services. This effort has positively impacted Equipment on Hand
(EOH) readiness rates of units across the Army and assisted in the
execution of other key readiness initiatives. One example is the Army's
expansion and reconfiguration of Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS) around
the globe--significantly increasing the speed of response to combatant
commanders' requirements by reducing the amount of time it takes to
issue the equipment to deploying units. A second example is the
building and equipping of the Army's 15th Armor Brigade Combat Team
(ABCT) at Fort Stewart, Georgia
To ensure Army readiness now and into the future, the Army is
developing a schedule-driven, depot workloading strategy that is
directly linked to the Army's Sustainable Readiness Model. This
approach ensures the Army's organic capabilities are focused on meeting
its highest readiness priorities, and precious resources are optimized
at the enterprise-level. This approach also yields a predictable and
stable workload while providing a mechanism to continually evaluate and
assess risk to the operating force.
Simultaneously, we are also creating a resilient and responsive
ammunition industrial base by analyzing storage and outload
requirements and aligning manufacturing capability, capacity and
modernization efforts to support it.
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the oib
The Army's Organic Industrial Base was designed to sustain the
high-volume production rates needed to meet World War II demand. Over
the past several decades, the OIB has been reduced from 77 plants,
depots, and arsenals to 23 facilities at present. The aging
infrastructure poses a risk to the OIB's capability and capacity to
meet current and future demands as well as surge to support all
required missions. The Army recognizes that modernization is especially
critical now and has invested over $2 billion to modernize antiquated,
unreliable and inefficient machinery and facilities at Government
Owned-Contractor Operated (GOCO) and Government Owned-Government
Operated (GOGO) installations. The installation of automation and
robotics, accompanied by upgrades to facilities and infrastructure have
enhanced productivity. As productivity and efficiency increase we are
seeing corresponding decreases in labor, maintenance, and utilities
costs.
Likewise with our manufacturing arsenals and depots--over 6 percent
of these facilities, valued at $2.5 billion--are in substandard
condition. The Army plans to invest over $1.8 billion, which is needed
to address inefficiencies in lines that support critical weapon systems
including Abrams, Bradley, Stryker, Paladin, Apache, Patriot, MRAPs and
C4ISR.
Coupled with modernization, the OIB has recently transitioned to
business systems that use standard, industry-recognized processes. The
Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) and its Complex Assembly
Manufacturing Solution (CAMS) are applications built on commercial off-
the-shelf software for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and shop
floor integration. These tools allow the Army to completely see its
manufacturing and service operations for the first time. These
applications also permit the Army to improve the accuracy of its Bills
of Materials; engage in more efficient production scheduling; enable
interaction with its supply chain of over 11,000 first, second and
third tier vendors; and reduce delays for parts. These capabilities
coupled with the Army's tactical-level ERP called the Global Combat
Support System--Army (GCSS-A), are increasing the speed at which
materiel reaches the warfighter, and provides the Army with true
``factory to foxhole'' asset visibility and auditability.
The OIB is also executing a number of supply chain initiatives to
improve its effectiveness. These include improving demand forecasting
accuracy and imposing tougher performance standards on suppliers. The
aforementioned efforts improve our ability to purchase, manufacturer,
and repair critical parts required to support warfighting equipment.
synergy through public-private partnership
Public-private partnerships are important in assisting the OIB to
improve Army readiness. These partnerships allow private sector
companies to access OIB manufacturing capabilities and permit the
Government to act as a supplier to commercial industry under certain
circumstances. Last year, 263 partnerships across the OIB produced $412
million in additional revenue for the Government and brought with them
innovative ideas and best business practices.
There are many exciting examples of these projects. Anniston Army
Depot continues to partner with General Dynamics to reset Strykers and
with Honeywell to recapitalize Army M1 tank engines at 25 percent of
their original cost, saving the Government $45 million annually. Tooele
Army Depot in Utah, has a joint venture with Safety Management Services
(SMS), Inc., to operate an on-site commercial laboratory that tests and
grades explosives. AM General is partnering with Rock Island Arsenal's
Joint Manufacturing Technology Center in Illinois, and the Army
National Guard to manufacture M997A3 HMMWV ambulances, and with Red
River Army Depot in Texas to overhaul older HMMWV models.
The OIB contributes $3.6 billion to local communities across the
country and often has a positive effect on economies across multiple
states. For example, recapitalizing the M1 Abrams Tank requires
suppliers in 41 states; overhauling an UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter
involves companies in 19 states; and manufacturing a single 5.56 mm
bullet brings work to 9 states.
streamlining depot maintenance
The introduction of Lean Six Sigma and continuous process
improvement has allowed the OIB to realize $5.6 billion in cost savings
and avoidance since 2012.
Industrial operations require tremendous water resources and
energy. The OIB has successfully used Energy Savings Performance
Contracts and Utility Energy Service Contracts to solicit third party
investment and save over $30 million annually.
The Army is actively pursuing advanced manufacturing. Advanced
manufacturing integrates a number of cutting edge technologies
including robotics, artificial intelligence, computer learning and
additive manufacturing to improve products or processes.
Manufacturing organizations successfully employing advanced
manufacturing share a common attribute. They have all recruited and
retained a workforce possessing Scientific, Technical, Engineering and
Math (STEM) skills far above the national average. This requirement
aligns closely with those manufacturing skills required by the OIB to
sustain readiness as it moves into the latter half of the 21st Century,
including: materials engineers, capacity planners, chemists, test
pilots, industrial radiograph operators, and electroplaters. Our
laboratories and Research, Development and Engineering Centers actively
work with local high schools and universities to support STEM
initiatives and expose students to rewarding careers within the OIB. We
are particularly grateful for direct hiring authorities provided by
Congress, which enable us to more efficiently hire skilled and talented
workers.
Additive Manufacturing (AM) is a technology that could
revolutionize the way in which our arsenals and depots maintain,
repair, and recapitalize equipment. AM enables the quick replication of
obsolete and difficult to obtain parts, this translates to reduced down
time and higher operational readiness rates. The Army continues to
participate in the private sector Additive Manufacturing Users Group
which includes original equipment manufacturers. Thus far, AM
capabilities have been installed at 18 sites across our Army. Fourteen
are located within the OIB. Rock Island Arsenal--Joint Manufacturing
Technology Center (RIA-JMTC) has been designated as the Army's Organic
Industrial Base Additive Manufacturing Center of Excellence. RIA-JMTC
is charged with establishing a data library and institutionalizing the
most effective technologies. As we continue to explore this promising
technology, our expectation is to deliver this capability to the point
of need on the battlefield, getting equipment quickly back into action
while eliminating wait time and transportation costs.
These efforts to streamline depot maintenance have been recognized
both inside and outside of the DOD. Collectively the OIB has earned 47
ISO Quality Certifications, 31 Shingo Manufacturing Awards for
Excellence, and 26 DOD Value Engineering Awards.
closing
I would like to thank each distinguished member of the Committee
for allowing me to offer this testimony today. To quote President
George Washington, ``To be prepared for war is one of the most
effective means of preserving peace.'' Consistent, predictable, funding
enables the OIB to optimize resources and to best support the Army.
Your continued support enables us to equip and sustain the best
fighting force in the world.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, General Daly.
Admiral Grosklags?
STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL PAUL A. GROSKLAGS, USN, COMMANDER,
UNITED STATES NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND
Vice Admiral Grosklags. Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member
Kaine, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thanks for
the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about naval
aviation readiness and the health of our industrial base.
As I testified last year, naval aviation faces readiness
challenges, and while we are making some definitive progress,
we also have a long way to go in returning Navy and Marine
Corps aviation to the required level of readiness across the
force. A critical component in our efforts to achieve this
readiness turnaround is the performance and the health of our
organic industrial base, typically called aviation depots, but
in our case, we call them naval aviation fleet readiness
centers, or FRCs.
As I discussed last year, they are continuing a steady
recovery from years of uncertain and limited funding while
facing an increasing workload not only driven by the continued
high utilization of our aircraft but also by the aged and
degraded material condition of the aircraft that are being
inducted into maintenance.
Today I am pleased to be able to report that fiscal year
2017 marked the first time in over 5 years that our FRCs were
largely able to meet the fleet demand signal for production of
aircraft and engines. They produced 485 out of 487 expected
aircraft, including critically meeting the requirement for 69
F-18 A through D aircraft and delivering actually two more than
the required or expected number of F-18E and F aircraft. This
was done while also improving their turnaround time by 5
percent.
Now, over the last 2 years, I have also been able to reduce
the number of aircraft requiring in-service depot-level repairs
and in doing so have returned aircraft directly back to the
fleet available for them to use to meet mission requirements.
Now, the improved performance in these two specific areas
are the good news. The not so good news is that our FRCs are
not performing as needed in the area of component repair and
overhaul, which represents about 20 percent of their workload.
To date in fiscal year 2018, they are lagging their production
plan, and there are a number of actions we are taking obviously
to improve their performance in this area, including workforce
hiring, developmental training, quality and manufacturing
process improvements, and infrastructure upgrades. It is this
latter area in particular, infrastructure, where the history of
constrained resources has had the biggest negative impact and
potentially where the additional resources identified in 2018
and 2019 can have the biggest positive impact.
Today, much like the Army, 50 percent of our FRC component
test equipment--so the individual test equipment for a PC gear
that has to be tested at the FRCs--is greater than 25 years
old. This equipment is also housed in facilities with an
average age of 58 years, and 64 percent of our facilities are
actually greater than 67 years old. So think about
Jacksonville, Florida in the summer with facilities without air
conditioning trying to do avionics maintenance and think about
paint hangars trying to do painting of aircraft in Norfolk that
leak when it rains. Think about facilities dealing with
hazardous material in North Island where the ventilation system
fails on a weekly basis. Those are the types of things that our
workforce is dealing with. So the modern facilities and
equipment are vital to ensuring that our organic industrial
facilities have the capability and the capacity to not only
improve current performance but to support the next generation
of aircraft engines and components such as the F-35.
So the bottom line is that our workforce has made
significant progress over the last 2 years, but we have a long
ways to go and we need to take the next step by providing the
tools and the infrastructure needed for that workforce to
continue to improve their performance. Naval aviation
leadership looks forward to working with this subcommittee and
the larger Congress to achieve this end state.
I would very much appreciate your continued support of our
sailors and marines.
I look forward to your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Vice Admiral Grosklags and
Vice Admiral Moore follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by Vice Admiral Paul A. Grosklags and
Vice Admiral Thomas J. Moore
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Kaine, and distinguished members of
the Subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to testify on organic
industrial base issues, the current state of Navy readiness, the
progress we have made over the past year and the challenges we face
today and in the future. Before we begin, we would like to thank
Congress for your support of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 and the
fiscal year (FY) 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act. This legislation
provides the predictability and stability in funding that allows us to
continue the work we started in fiscal year 2017 to restore the Navy's
organic industrial base.
Our Navy provides the Nation with timely, agile, and lethal options
to win wars, deter aggression and maintain freedom of the seas. Today's
dynamic maritime environment, coupled with proliferating threats from
Nation-state actors and terrorist organizations, requires a global
presence of Naval forces not seen in the past 25 years. However, as a
result of Budget Control Act (BCA) funding caps, years of Continuing
Resolutions, and associated budget uncertainty, the Navy has been
challenged in its ability to adequately address the full range of
investments required to fully support near term commitments. The
resultant confluence of high demand for Naval forces, constrained
funding levels, and budget uncertainty, impeded our ability to build,
maintain and modernize the workforce and infrastructure to support
current and future readiness at the levels the Navy and DOD require.
In our testimony to this committee last year, we described the
challenges of restoring readiness, and how the funds requested in
President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2018 would support that recovery.
Today, with your help, we have stemmed the tide of readiness
degradation. The Fiscal Year 2017 Request for Additional Appropriations
(RAA) helped us arrest some of our most critical readiness problems. We
executed 13 more ship depot maintenance availabilities, increased
aviation depot throughput with 35 additional air frames, increased our
investments in ship and aircraft spares, and funded much needed shore
infrastructure projects. The fiscal year 2018 budget and President's
fiscal year 2019 budget submission will reverse previous trends,
improving readiness.
The Fiscal Year 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act continues to
strongly support our readiness recovery efforts, which include
increased investments in infrastructure, equipment recapitalization and
modernization. The Operation and Maintenance account flexibilities
provided are key to ensure the most efficient and effective use of
taxpayers' dollars and further support our efforts to restore
readiness.
The Navy's 2019 President's Budget continues to build upon the
foundations enacted in the fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018
defense appropriations. It funds afloat readiness to historically high
levels, and continues the course for full readiness recovery, while
simultaneously investing in modernization, increased capacity,
lethality and improvements in infrastructure that are necessary to
maximize naval power. The majority of our Readiness accounts are funded
to 100 percent of the requirement or maximum executable levels. It
includes funds that would support 57 ship maintenance availabilities
across the public and private shipyards and funding to support 100
percent of the required ship operations necessary to ensure ships and
crews get the dedicated time at sea to train and hone skills. In
addition, the budget request would fund aircraft depot maintenance and
aviation spares, at significantly increased levels to allow Navy to
induct 652 airframes and 1,887 engines, reduce part shortages, and
improve flight line availability of operational aircraft. We look
forward to working with this committee and with the entire Congress to
ensure continued support in future budgets for adequate and predictable
funding for readiness.
naval shipyards
Having combat-capable ships forward-deployed around the world is
predicated on having ready ships. Readiness includes ships that are
properly maintained and modernized over their service life. At any
given time, the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) has under its care
approximately one-third of the battle force as they undergo maintenance
and modernization availabilities. For that reason, NAVSEA's number one
priority remains the on-time delivery of ships and submarines to the
Fleet, from both new construction and maintenance availabilities.
Whether a ship is in a public Naval Shipyard or a private shipyard,
NAVSEA is focused on executing the planned work on time and on cost so
our warfighters have the most capable platforms and systems they need
to defend our Nation.
Last year, we testified before this Committee about how shortfalls
in the size of the needed workforce, coupled with reduced workforce
experience levels (about 50 percent of the workforce has less than five
years of experience) and shipyard productivity issues were impacting
Fleet readiness through the late delivery of ships and submarines. The
capacity limitations and the overall priority of work toward our
Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs) and Aircraft Carriers (CVNs)
resulted in our Attack Submarines (SSNs) absorbing much of the burden,
causing several submarine availabilities that were originally scheduled
to last between 22 and 25 months to require 45 months or more to
complete. This situation reached a boiling point last summer when, in
order to balance the workload, the Navy decided to defer scheduled
maintenance availability on the USS Boise (SSN 764) that will
effectively take it off-line until 2020. Ultimately the Boise's
availability was contracted to the private sector and will begin this
year. The Navy will continue to consider the private sector for future
maintenance work during peak workload periods in our Naval Shipyards
and to ensure we maintain the health of the private sector nuclear
industrial base.
As we testify this year, we are on an improving trend. We have
hired 19,200 people across our four Naval Shipyards from fiscal year
2013 through fiscal year 2017 and are on the path to reaching our goal
of having 36,100 full time shipyard employees by the end of fiscal year
2019. The growing and better trained workforce is beginning to have a
positive impact. In 2017, all four CVN availabilities were completed on
time and we significantly reduced the delays in delivery of our
submarine force. More work remains as we continue to train this
workforce, improve our planning, material availability, and execution
performance, but we are on the right track.
People alone will not provide the throughput and productivity
needed to meet the maintenance and readiness requirements today into
the future. As outlined in our recent report to Congress on the Naval
Shipyard Development Plan, we must also make substantial investments in
our four nuclear capable shipyards to ensure we have 21st Century Naval
Shipyards ready for the challenges of maintaining a growing fleet. This
plan has three key investment priorities over the next 20 years. This
includes repairing and upgrading our public shipyard dry-docks to
accommodate future Virginia-class Payload Module submarines and the new
FORD Class carriers, recapitalizing the equipment to replace aging
equipment with up-to-date technology, and optimizing the layout of the
shipyards by moving and upgrading facilities closer to the actual work
to improve productivity and throughput. We look forward to working with
the Congress in the execution of this plan.
The challenges facing our private sector non-nuclear surface ship
repair base are similar to those seen in our Naval Shipyards with the
private sector also facing capacity versus workload challenges and the
need to make investments to upgrade facilities, equipment, and dry
docks. The lack of stable and predictable budgets in an era of
Continuing Resolutions over the past ten plus years has had an even
more detrimental impact on the stability and predictability of work and
how the private sector approaches hiring and investments in their
facilities. The Navy is committed to working collaboratively with
industry to provide them a stable and predictable workload in a
competitive environment moving forward so they can hire the workforce
and make the investments necessary to maintain and modernize a growing
non-nuclear fleet. As the Navy executes readiness recovery, and begins
to grow capacity to provide the Navy the Nation Needs, our industry
partners must grow capacity in stride. We are as dependent on their
capabilities and capacity as we are on the public depots. We know from
hard experience that workload to capacity mismatch creates delays in
maintenance completion, increasing costs and reducing time for training
and operations. As we look to the future, we see the potential for
these conditions to exist. To that end, the Navy has begun working with
industry to build a similar plan that is detailed in the public
shipyard report to Congress.
As we build the Navy the Nation Needs, we must also ensure that we
have the maintenance capacity and infrastructure needed to ensure our
growing fleet is maintained and modernized on-time and on-budget to
deliver forward deployable combat ready ships. Our ongoing efforts to
hire more people and invest in our Naval Shipyards, combined with the
Navy's continuous dialogue with industry, lays the foundation required
to maintain today's force while also looking to future requirements. We
have challenges ahead of us, but we are on an improving trend that will
ensure we have the capacity today and into the future to maintain and
modernize the Navy the Nation needs.
naval aviation fleet readiness centers
Commander, Fleet Readiness Centers (COMFRC) oversees three depots,
ten intermediate level and 25 tenant sites. Our workforce comprises
19,000 shore-based aviation maintenance workers working to deliver
flight-line readiness by providing Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul
(MRO) of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, engines, components and
support equipment, as well as logistics and engineering support to Navy
and Marine Corps squadrons throughout the world. Our highly skilled
workforce spans five countries and territories, 13 states, and is made
up of approximately 10,000 civilians, 6,000 sailors and marines, and
3,000 contractors.
Continuous high operational tempo, chronic underfunding and
financial uncertainty have real and lasting consequences. The
capability and capacity of our Fleet Readiness Centers (FRCs) are still
recovering from the impacts of the 2011 Budget Control Act, fiscal year
2013 sequestration driven furloughs, and years of chronic reduced
funding.
Despite these challenges, the Navy and Marine Corps are working to
stem the tide of Naval Aviation readiness degradation. Across the FRCs,
we are focused on three primary Lines of Effort (LOE): (1) Aircraft
production; (2) In-Service Repairs; and (3) Organic component
production. The enablers for these three LOEs are a qualified
proficient workforce; facilities and infrastructure; and supply.
Sustained improvement in the readiness of our Naval Aviation forces
requires successful execution of multiple ongoing activities across
each of these LOEs, as well as optimal and predictable resourcing.
In particular, we must maintain a focus on increasing throughput to
put aircraft back in the hands of our warfighters faster, investing in
our FRC workforce and infrastructure, and achieving optimal funding of
our ``enabler'' sustainment accounts.
To increase throughput, we are focusing on readiness efforts such
as In-Service Repairs (ISRs). These are emergent, unscheduled repairs
that take place in the field, rather than planned maintenance completed
at a depot. Annually, FRC artisans complete more than 3,000 ISRs around
the world. Before 2015, these repairs were managed locally with use of
existing staffs and equipment. Since then, we have incorporated better
management tools to have corporate visibility into the work at the
sites and quickly assigned artisans, engineers, equipment and material
to where the work is building up. As a result we have seen an average
``Work-in-Progress'' status reduction of 23.8 percent since fiscal year
2016.
We are now meeting Fleet aircraft production goals. During fiscal
year 2016 and 2017, the FRCs have eliminated production aircraft
backlog through the use of Critical Chain Program Management. Now we
are focused on component production through the use of Drum Buffer Rope
to systematically release work into the industrial shops.
In fiscal year 2018, our FRCs continue to rebuild their workforce
to recover from sequestration, and in direct response to increased
aircraft and component workload. At the beginning of fiscal year 2013,
the end strength for engineers was 1,306 compared to the January 2018
end strength of 1,802. The end strength for logisticians at the
beginning of fiscal year 2013 was 536 compared to the January 2018 end
strength of 667. The fiscal year 2013 beginning end strength for
artisans and industrial workforce was 6,305 compared to the January
2018 end strength of 6,815.
Our fiscal year 2018 hiring goals are structured to hire artisans
to meet fleet production demands, particularly in the area of organic
component production, and also include targets for engineers and
logisticians to support readiness recovery initiatives.
Direct Hiring Authority provided by Congress has been vital to our
workforce rebuilding efforts, and we request your support in providing
continuation of that support authority, which currently expires in
September 2018. To attract the best talent, we are also using
incentives such as the Special Wage Increase in the San Diego area.
However, across the FRCs, normal workforce attrition, regional
competition and economic conditions continue to challenge hiring plans.
In addition, once hired, it takes up to 18 months to fully train and
certify an artisan. We have established an apprenticeship program
across the enterprise to build a workforce structure that produces
skilled tradespersons capable of filling key artisan, managerial and
supervisory positions.
Increasing the trained workforce size is only one piece of the
puzzle. Our skilled and diverse artisans must have the proper equipment
and modern facilities to execute their work. Furthermore, proper
equipment and facilities are essential to ensuring we have the capacity
to support next generation aircraft that provide the tactical edge over
our adversaries.
Infrastructure--particularly Military Construction (MILCON)--is a
significant challenge. For many years while working in a resource-
constrained environment, we did not maximize the Navy Working Capital
Fund investment in infrastructure and equipment readiness. We are now
at a point where we must maximize our internal Navy Working Capital
Fund investment.
Finally, creating a path to continued full funding of aviation
sustainment accounts which support FRC production and overall flight-
line readiness is imperative. These accounts support activities ranging
from procurement of new and repaired spare parts, maintaining the
currency of technical and repair manuals, and updating the maintenance
plans used in the FRCs and on the flight line. As we have painfully
experienced over the last few years, being underfunded and
``unbalanced'' in these accounts has resulted in significantly
decreased flight-line readiness.
We look forward to continuing to work with Congress to provide the
Fleet Readiness Centers with the resources necessary to recover Naval
Aviation readiness.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Admiral Moore?
STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL THOMAS J. MOORE, USN, COMMANDER,
UNITED STATES NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND
Vice Admiral Moore. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Senator
Kaine, and distinguished members of this committee, thank you
for the opportunity to discuss Navy readiness, in particular
our readiness in our ship depots today.
Last year, I testified before the committee about how
shortfalls in the size of the needed workforce, coupled with
reduced workforce experience levels and shipyard productivity
issues were impacting fleet readiness through the late delivery
of ships and submarines. The capacity limitations and the
overall priority of work toward our ballistic submarines and
aircraft carriers resulted in our attack submarines absorbing
much of the burden, causing several submarine availabilities
that were originally scheduled to last between 22 and 25 months
to require 45 months or longer to complete. This situation
reached a boiling point last summer when, in order to balance
the workload, the Navy decided to defer the scheduled
maintenance availability of USS Boise that will effectively
take it off line until 2020.
As we testify this year, we are on an improving trend. We
have hired 19,200 people across our four naval shipyards
between 2013 and 2017 and are on a path to reach our goal of
having 36,100 full-time shipyard employees by the end of fiscal
year 2019. The growing and better trained workforce is
beginning to have a positive impact. In 2017, all four CVN
aircraft carrier availabilities were completed on time and we
significantly reduced the delays in the delivery of our
submarine force. More work remains as we continue to train this
workforce, improve our planning, material availability, and
execution performance, but we are on the right track.
However, people alone will not provide the throughput and
productivity needed to meet the maintenance and readiness
requirements today and into the future. As outlined in our
recent report to Congress on the Naval Shipyard Optimization
Plan, we must also make substantial investments in our four
nuclear-capable shipyards to ensure we have the 21st Century
naval shipyards ready for the challenges of maintaining a
growing fleet.
The challenges facing our private sector non-nuclear
surface ship repair base are similar to those seen in our naval
shipyards with the private sector also facing capacity and
workload challenges and the need to make investments to upgrade
facilities, equipment, and dry docks. The lack of stable and
predictable budgets over the past 10 years has had an even more
detrimental impact on the stability and predictability of the
work in the private sector and how the private sector
approaches hiring and investments in their facilities. The Navy
is committed to working collaboratively with industry to
provide them a stable and predictable workload in a competitive
environment moving forward so that they can hire the workforce
and make the investments necessary to maintain and modernize a
growing non-nuclear fleet.
Additionally, I have tasked my staff with developing a
companion plan to the Naval Shipyard Optimization Plan on the
private sector so that we can provide the Navy leadership of
where we need to make investments in the private sector so the
private sector is poised as well to handle the size of the
growing fleet.
As we build the Navy the Nation needs, we must also ensure
that we have the maintenance capacity and infrastructure needed
to ensure our growing fleet is maintained and modernized on
time and on budget to deliver forward deployable combat-ready
ships. Our ongoing efforts to hire more people and invest in
our naval shipyards, combined with the Navy's continuous
dialogue with industry, lay the foundation required to maintain
today's force while also looking to the future. We have
challenges ahead of us, but we are on an improving trend that
will ensure we have the capacity today and into the future to
maintain and modernize the Navy the Nation needs.
I thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today about
Navy readiness, and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.
General Levy?
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL LEE K. LEVY II, USAF,
COMMANDER, AIR FORCE SUSTAINMENT CENTER, UNITED STATES AIR
FORCE MATERIEL COMMAND
Lieutenant General Levy. Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member
Kaine, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to again testify on the readiness of your
United States Air Force. On behalf of the Secretary, the
Honorable Heather Wilson, our Chief of Staff, General Dave
Goldfein, we are grateful for your support and commitment to
our 670,000 Active, Guard, Reserve, civilian airmen, their
families, and our veterans.
About this time last year, I had the privilege of appearing
before the subcommittee to talk about this very topic. Today,
your Air Force Sustainment Center, a $16 billion a year global
enterprise, delivers combat power. We support joint and
coalition forces at the beginning, middle, and end of every
single operation. We secure our Homeland by enabling continuous
surveillance and air defense, and critically, we also sustain
two of the three legs of our Nation's strategic nuclear triad.
We accomplish these missions with a fleet averaging 28 years of
age, an Air Force that is too small for the missions it has
been tasked with, and an aging infrastructure, as my colleagues
also referred to, that continues to present challenges absent
necessary upgrades and, in some cases, replacement.
That said, our total force airmen are dedicated, and nearly
43,000 airmen across the Sustainment Center in 28 locations
around the globe that I have the privilege to lead, our
Nation's sons and daughters, as the Air Force Sustainment
Center Commander--they continually amaze me every single day
with their ability to innovate, achieve, but more importantly,
deliver results.
Make no mistake. The United States Air Force is ready to
fly, fight, and win, but I am concerned with our ability to
sustain our Air Force for tomorrow's fight. Our capability to
deter, respond to, and eliminate threats relies upon our
ability to proactively and continuously develop advanced air,
space, and cyber capabilities while simultaneously honing the
readiness and lethality of the logistics and sustainment
enterprise to meet evolving requirements and ever-increasing
demand signals.
Achieving this requires a healthy organic industrial base.
Our organic industrial base simply serves a national insurance
policy. It underwrites our Nation's ability to respond rapidly
and persevere against threats that may challenge us and our
allies.
As you previously heard, workforce hiring challenges,
unpredictable, inadequate, and insufficient funding, aging
infrastructure, emerging software challenges, cybersecurity,
and weapon systems sustainment are all challenges that impact
our readiness and the health of our organic industrial base
and, by extension, the readiness of our United States Air Force
and the joint team.
I would say our civilian hiring system remains ill-suited
for the 21st Century and bears strategic readiness
implications. We are transitioning to an information age
fighting force, recognizing that our ability to modify key
software in our weapon systems will be a decisive capability in
the conflicts of tomorrow.
To that end, we compete with industry for a limited pool of
science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workforce
candidates. We are thankful for the congressionally approved
direct hire authority, but this is limited in temporary
authority. To remain relevant and ready, we need a more
efficient system to recruit and hire our future airmen, and I
will venture to say that my colleagues would say the same thing
about their soldiers, sailors, and marines.
Additionally, trained mechanics are growing increasingly
scarce. Thus, we rely heavily on former military technicians
separating or retiring from service and seeking government
employment. In these instances, the current 180-day waiting
period to hire military retirees presents a challenge.
We are addressing these challenges and many more such as
the defense supply chain that is growing increasingly brittle
with such innovative technologies as additive manufacturing in
order to provide your Air Force an edge against peer
competitors. This requires rapid reverse engineering capability
and a workforce that understands how to leverage it. It also
requires intellectual property and access to those intellectual
property rights that continue to be a challenge in an
increasingly litigious environment. It is simply that
important.
I would close my remarks by sharing a quote from our Chief
of Staff. As recently published in the National Defense
Strategy, we face the reemergence of great power competition.
While we did not seek this competition, let there be no doubt
in this room and around the world, your airmen stand ready to
defend the Homeland, deter nuclear conflict and nuclear
readiness, own the high ground in any conflict with air and
space superiority and project global vigilance, reach, and
power with our joint teammates, allies, and partners.
Again, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to be with
you today, and I very much look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Lieutenant General Levy
follows:]
Prepared Statement by Lieutenant General Lee K. Levy, II
introduction
Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Kaine, distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify
on the readiness of your United States Air Force. On behalf of our
Secretary, the Honorable Heather Wilson, and our Chief of Staff,
General David Goldfein, we are grateful for your support and commitment
to our 670,000 Active, Guard, Reserve, and civilian airmen, along with
their families and veterans that have faithfully served.
It was about this time last year that I had the privilege of
speaking with you on this very topic. We discussed the fact that
without pause, the United States Air Force delivers global combat power
to deter and defeat our Nation's adversaries; we support joint and
coalition forces at the beginning, middle, and end of every operation;
and we secure our Homeland via continuous surveillance and air defense
and of course we operate two of the three legs of our Nation's
strategic nuclear triad. As you're aware, we're doing this with a
smaller force, a fleet that has an average age of 28 years, and an
aging infrastructure that continues to present challenges absent
necessary upgrades, or in some cases replacement. That said, our Total
Force Airmen (Active Duty, National Guard, Air Force Reserve and Air
Force civilians) are dedicated. The nearly 43,000 airmen across 28
locations around the globe that I have the privilege to lead as the Air
Force Sustainment Center Commander continue to amaze me with their
ability to innovate and achieve. They persevere through these times of
increasing requirements to deliver combat power to warfighters by
adding service life to weapons systems and creating additional
capabilities through innovative modernizations and upgrades. Make no
mistake, the United States Air Force is ready to fight, but my concern
regarding our ability to sustain our Air Force for tomorrow's fight is
very real. Every day the threats to this Nation and our interests
increase. Our capability to deter, respond to, and eliminate these
threats relies upon our ability to proactively and continuously develop
advanced air, space, and cyber capabilities while simultaneously honing
the readiness and lethality of the logistics and sustainment enterprise
to meet evolving requirements. This can only be accomplished through a
vibrant and heathy organic industrial base. This industrial base serves
as a national insurance policy that underwrites our Nation's ability to
respond rapidly and persevere in depth, against threats that may
challenge us.
The Air Force Sustainment Center's mission is to deliver combat
power for America. It is the engine that drives readiness for the Air
Force. The Center's three air logistics complexes, three air base wings
and two supply chain wings directly support combatant commanders with
depot-level maintenance, supply chain management and power projection
for the combatant commands. As the Air Force global supply chain
manager we plan, source, manage, and deliver multi-billions of dollars
in parts annually to the combatant commands. This suite of organic
industrial base capabilities enable not only our AF but the joint team,
other government agencies including NASA, as well as 63 coalition and
partner Nations.
The Air Force Sustainment Center remains critically involved in,
and essential to, sustaining our Nation's nuclear enterprise. Our
sustainment of components for two of three legs of the nuclear triad is
vital to our Nation maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent. We
directly enable bombers, inter-continental ballistic missiles, dual
capable fighters, air launched cruise missiles, and Navy command and
control aircraft that communicate with submerged nuclear assets.
The organic industrial base is the country's national security
insurance policy. It represents protection and coverage for today in
the form of readiness for our joint force, while also enabling
sustained combat operations and force regeneration at the outset of
future conflicts. Simply put, it mitigates risk to the Nation with
strategic depth, in times of crises, with flexible and scalable
response. The Air Force organic industrial base is much different than
in the past. We've broken out of the individual islands of capability
that operate independently with isolated impact to work accomplished in
a particular zip code. We now operate Air Force logistics and
sustainment as a global interconnected eco-system where an action in
one area has an impact on the other side of the planet. The supply
chain is no longer bifurcated into ``wholesale'' and ``retail'' buckets
of work, but is instead managed across the spectrum of sourcing, repair
and delivery to the supported commander at the point of need. Organic
depot maintenance accomplished at our three Air Logistics Complexes is
a ballet of sophisticated theory-of-constraints and guided processes,
with the complexes themselves operating in a symbiotic, interdependent
manner, forming a logistics and sustainment network that underpins Air
Force readiness. This is the logistics kill chain needed for a 21st
Century military to deter our adversaries and reassure our allies.
Traditionally, we think of sustaining the force as maintaining
hardware or `bending metal.' If you consider the highly digitized,
interconnected Air Force of tomorrow, we will instead manipulate ones
and zeroes. As software becomes increasingly pervasive throughout our
weapons systems, test systems and support equipment, our ability to
manage and sustain it organically will be critical. Even today, many of
the weapons systems sustained within the Air Force Sustainment Center
require a vast amount of technology to operate. As an example, the
newest aerial refueling tanker, the KC-46A, requires millions of lines
of code to operate; thus, our ability to maintain a skilled workforce
going forward is critical. Doing so, however, remains an ever-present
challenge.
Last year I expressed my appreciation for your support in
increasing Air Force end strength, while recognizing that we remain
stretched thin as we meet our national security requirements. Over the
past two and a half decades, the Air Force has experienced a 30 percent
end strength reduction across the Total Force. To improve readiness and
attain manning levels matching our mission requirements, we must
increase our Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve end strength, to include
growing the Active Duty force. We appreciate your continued support in
this endeavor.
challenges
The Air Force Sustainment Center, with its organic industrial base,
provides essential enablers in the air, space, and cyber domains with
ever-increasing demand signals. Our readiness challenges persist in the
areas of predictable, sufficient funding, workforce hiring, aging
infrastructure and weapon system sustainment.
workforce challenges
Manning challenges, particularly in our civilian workforce,
continue to impact our ability to keep pace with current workloads, as
well as prepare for emerging workloads like the F-35 and KC-46A. As
Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General David Goldfein, recently
testified at the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing for
the fiscal year 2019 Air Force Budget, ``The security landscape we face
has become more competitive, complex and dangerous. In air, space, and
cyberspace, potential adversaries are rapidly leveling the playing
field. We need the talent to compete and defend against those
threats.'' Within the Air Force Sustainment Center, we depend on an 80
percent civilian workforce; 89 percent if you include contractors, our
``commercial airmen.''
I have spoken previously, and passionately about our `fifth-
generation Air Force' requiring a `fifth-generation workforce.' Few
people realize just how ubiquitous Science-Technology-Engineering-Math
(STEM) is in influencing our workforce and the way we do business in
other areas including: energy and hazardous materials reduction and
elimination; environmental remediation; safety; financial and resource
management; healthcare; structural, mechanical, and computer
engineering--it is a key to defending our infrastructure. Our
requirements for a STEM educated workforce, as well as advanced
manufacturing and technical skills, have rapidly increased and will
continue to do so. The sophisticated software packages and software-
intensive weapons systems that we possess require a sound application
of technical skillsets to keep our fleet flying in air, space, and
cyberspace.
Yet, our civilian hiring system remains ill-suited for the 21st
Century. We are limited in effectively competing with industry for a
qualified workforce, and the ability to hire engineers, scientists,
software developers, and cyber experts remains a strategic concern. As
a case in point, our requirement for software engineers continues to
grow annually at a rate of 10-15 percent. Between Federal agencies and
industry, we simply do not have enough qualified applicants to meet the
shared demand. Thus, we must remain resilient in our recruiting
endeavors to ensure that we can maintain a relevant and ready status as
we transition to an information-age fighting force; recognizing that
our ability to modify key software in our weapons systems will be a
decisive capability in the conflicts of tomorrow. Additionally, we need
to do our part to ensure that we are educating and inspiring the youth
of America to aspire to join the STEM workforce.
Across the Air Force Sustainment Center we have made a commitment
to attract, excite and educate the future STEM workforce. For example,
our personnel partner with schools on robotics and technology teams and
provide support through volunteer hours, mentoring and grants. These
efforts have reached tens of thousands of children and more than a
thousand educators. This is good for our communities and our Nation,
not just our Air Force.
Further, last year was a dynamic year for change as we made
adjustments in our mechanisms to maximize the benefits Defense
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund provides for recruiting,
retaining, training, and developing our scientist and engineer
workforce. Our ability to use this funding has been critical to
remaining competitive with industry. We also worked with Headquarters,
Air Force Materiel Command, to expand the use of the DOD Civilian
Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project (AcqDemo) to
approximately 5,700 non-bargaining employees within the Air Force
Sustainment Center. This pay system offers greater flexibilities and
competitive salaries to compensate our technical workforce according to
labor market considerations. Most importantly, our ability to compete
for top scientist and engineering talent is dependent on the
combination of three things: mission, salary, and benefits. We have a
tremendous mission and are implementing new ways to showcase our
mission to prospective scientists and engineers through additional
internships and innovative partnerships with universities.
On the hiring front, the Air Force Sustainment Center drove hard to
maximize Direct Hire Authority within the Air Force Logistics
Complexes, authorized by Congress. Direct Hire Authority was added to
the Expedited Hiring Authority process, and is currently being used for
almost two-thirds of the external hiring actions in over 100 different
occupational series. A total of 874 employees have been appointed under
Direct Hiring Authority and 212 under Expedited Hiring Authority within
the Air Logistic Complexes with an average end-to-end time of 72 days.
Utilizing a constraints-based management system, efforts are ongoing to
reach our 40-day Direct Hire Authority hiring goal. Concurrently, we
are tirelessly working to reduce traditional hiring timelines. Over the
course of the last four years we have done a tremendous job to reduce
this timeline--a hiring end-to-end average of 280 to 115 days. But
there is much more to be done. Extending Direct Hire Authority and
expanding it to more job series would enable us to go further in
obtaining the best talent the Nation has to offer.
As you know we rely on a very large labor force of highly skilled
technicians and mechanics. Our data shows that the population of
trained mechanics is simply not as available as in the past, and that
it is predicted to grow increasingly scarcer as we move into the
future. While we work very closely with vocational training centers
around our bases, we rely heavily on former military technicians that
separate or retire from Military Service and seek a government civilian
position. Thus, another challenge that we face is the 180-day waiting
period to hire military retirees. Revising the current 180-day waiting
period to hire military retirees would allow us quicker access to fully
qualified, trained personnel and reduce the ramp-up time of hiring a
brand new employee.
Continued unpredictable appropriations for the Department of
Defense has considerable impact on our hiring and partnering. As
previously reported, volatile and uncertain funding discourages many
companies from investing in advanced technologies or sustaining
existing capabilities that support the Department of Defense.
Additionally, government furloughs and repeated continuing resolutions
are not reassuring to potential employees. Industry partners are dis-
incentivized to bid on contracts when budgets are unpredictable or it
is not cost-effective for them to manufacture small quantities of
parts.
diminishing manufacturing
As our weapon systems age we are seeing increased first time
demands for structural parts and other subsystems. For example, over
the past six months, 37 percent of critical parts shortages, those that
ground aircraft, were first time demands. This failure pattern, coupled
with irregular appropriations and the consolidation and reduction of
the Defense industrial base in the early 1990's, presents a significant
sustainment problem to the Air Force. Additionally, when we reach
outside of our organic capabilities, more than half of the items we
manage rely on a single-source vendor for manufacture or repair. The
result is a slow but steady increase in production lead time for items
we manage, with increased costs, and decreased readiness.
When viewed with the demands of worldwide readiness, future pilot
production needs, an evolving global trade environment, and an era of
uncertainty in the amount and timing of appropriations, our dedicated
Air Force Sustainment Center professionals continue to perform a
delicate balancing act ensuring sustainment of warfighter equipment and
weapons systems. We continue to work with industry leaders to watch,
learn and leverage technology, develop advanced capabilities for the
future, advance manufacturing and repair capabilities, as well as
maintenance repair and overhaul to help us sustain our Air Force.
public private partnerships
The Air Force Sustainment Center--with its organic industrial
base--is the Nation's readiness and war sustaining insurance policy.
Throughout the life cycle of a weapon system, our relationship with
industry is integral to the success of our warfighters. However, we
must be clear in our approach, evaluating any relationship against its
ability to: increase readiness, decrease costs, infuse new technology
into our industrial base, and impact our ownership of the technical
baseline. These principles help shape where we invest, and where we
divest of partnered activity. They are applied to support strategic
decisions and ensure we have clarity of purpose to exploit
opportunities, mitigate risks and hold industry accountable, ultimately
ensuring the best outcome for our warfighters. Our first responsibility
is to the Nation . . . to be effective in combat.
innovation centers
The Air Force Sustainment Center, through external partnerships and
organically, is in the process of establishing Innovation Centers at or
near each of its Air Logistics Complexes. These centers will be focused
on inserting agile manufacturing technologies into the production
environment, and allow the workforce to reverse engineer, re-design,
prototype, and qualify Technical Data Packages for weapon system
components, tooling, fixtures, and parts to improve availability and
reduce weapon system sustainment costs. Additionally, it can provide
stop-gap solutions while waiting for contract award and/or first
article testing. These centers will be a shared collaboration space for
the Air Force Sustainment Center, Air Force Life Cycle Management
Center, Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, Defense Logistics Agency,
industry, academia, and other government entities, in order to maximize
lessons learned while solving complex problems with new innovative
methods and equipment. While initially focused on additive
technologies, the Innovation Centers will also explore other emerging
potential manufacturing solutions that could include composites,
robotics, laser processing, and manufacturing.
additive manufacturing
Agile manufacturing technologies, such as additive manufacturing,
support the Air Force Future Operating Concept by providing the Air
Force an edge against our adversaries through a smaller deployed
footprint, more agile/efficient maintenance and modification, and
faster supply chain sourcing. Agile manufacturing technology is
especially well-suited to sustaining low quantity part production
because it is not hampered by high startup costs associated with
traditional manufacturing methods. By growing a cyber secure library of
qualified parts that can be printed across an Air Force network of
certified printers we enable a more agile and efficient logistics
supply chain that can quickly deliver the right part on demand. This
will have a direct and appreciable impact on a weapons systems mission
capable rates.
As an example, the Reverse Engineering and Critical Tooling (REACT)
cell at our Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex has been solving parts
supportability challenges using additive manufacturing since 2013 with
great success. REACT improved local manufacturing support in fiscal
year 2017 by supporting 70 different components and reducing flow time
to the customer by 350 days, and with a cost avoidance of more than
$367,000.
While additive manufacturing presents itself as a viable solution
to rising costs associated with Diminishing Manufacturing Sources, the
process requires a rapid reverse engineering capability and a workforce
that understands how to leverage it in order to provide a responsive,
resilient parts supply chain. It also requires access to Intellectual
Property (IP) that the department currently does not possess. These
challenges remain a barrier.
artificial intelligence / cyber
One of the most daunting challenges remains in the area of
cybersecurity, specifically the roles of artificial intelligence and
data security. The budding artificial intelligence capabilities on the
commercial market promise faster, predictive, and more accurate
decisions for our supply chain and engineers that troubleshoot aging
weapon systems and our industrial plant. Adapting and implementing
artificial intelligence systems to our legacy data systems holds great
promise, but will require significant investment.
To counter cyber-attacks, we are working to secure our industrial
depot maintenance equipment. We have implemented processes and devoted
resources to protect our organic manufacturing capability, responsible
for aerospace quality parts, against similar threats. The cyber threat
also extends to our Nations secrets. The Air Force and our industry
partners must continue to strive to secure our intellectual property
against exfiltration to and exploitation by our adversaries.
nuclear support
The Air Force Sustainment Center remains essential in sustaining
our Nation's nuclear enterprise, from the depot level maintainer in the
Nation's missile fields to managing the nuclear supply chain. As the
Secretary of the Air Force, the Honorable Dr. Heather Wilson recently
testified, ``The Nuclear Posture Review reaffirms the importance of the
triad and nuclear command and control and communication, and says that
it is our responsibility as the military to maintain a safe, secure and
effective nuclear deterrent.'' We thank you for your budgetary support
to ensure we can maintain this responsibility at optimal levels.
shaping future logistics capabilities
Today's evolving warfighting concepts require a fundamental change
to the logistics environment. Within this transformation, a most
critical element is a logistics command and control capability that
truly ensures the effective employment of resources. Only ten years
ago, the focus of logistics command and control was directed at task
organizing and logistics mission assignments. Command and control was
not automated and was functionally centric and non-integrated.
Information was derived from after-the-fact reporting focused on
transactional activity and latent/static white board displays of assets
and resources. The predominant characteristic of logistics--
responsiveness--was achieved by maintaining large stockpiles to meet
every possible requirement. Logistics capabilities may have been
responsive, but they were also cumbersome. Few logisticians spoke in
terms of command and control, and even fewer spoke in terms of
situational awareness and decision support.
The new environment demands a logistics command and control
capability that emphasizes situational awareness and decision support
to meet commanders' emphasis on speed and agility. Operational speed
and agility means logistics forces will need to cover greater
distances, while lacking secure lines of communication. Tempo will be
the key element of operations and thus logisticians can no longer count
on (or cause) the traditional operational pauses that allowed the
logistics effort to catch up. Logistics can become an enabler of tempo
only if logisticians can observe, orientate, decide and act based on
situational awareness and rapid analysis of courses of action founded
in real-time information. Warfighters develop requirements; logistics
must match resources to meet those requirements.
Command and control seeks to reduce the amount of uncertainty
through situational awareness. However, reducing uncertainty comes with
a cost in time. The challenge is to find the optimum balance, reducing
uncertainty within the minimum time. The operational concept for
logistics command and control is to enhance the capabilities of the
agile combat support enterprise by providing a system that improves
logistics situational awareness while reducing the decision-making
cycle time.
By implementing multi-domain logistics command and control, we will
no longer think about one combatant command or region at a time. It
will create complete global asset visibility and decision support tools
to best assign and allocate limited global resources to meet immediate
theater needs. This new way of operating will allow us to integrate
with global and theater planning, articulate risk to the combatant
commanders, provide intelligent logistics command and control in anti-
access and area denial environments, prioritize and synchronize
resources, set and re-set the theaters, and interact with a global
distribution network.
closing
This committee, more than anyone else, knows that the world is more
dangerous and unpredictable than it has ever been and we are
continually surprised this unpredictability. In every instance of
crisis, the organic industrial base has responded by providing
solutions to meet unanticipated demands. We must continue to invest now
in the organic industrial base if we expect its performance in the
future to meet the needs of an increasingly sophisticated . . .
contested . . . and lethal . . . battlespace in the 21st Century.
Adequate, consistent, and predictable funding to preserve, maintain and
modernize our critical logistics and sustainment capabilities
underwrite our ability to produce readiness that guarantees that we
will win whenever and wherever our Nation calls.
I would like to thank each distinguished member of the committee
for allowing me to offer this testimony today. Your continued support
enable our true Total Force Airmen to drive our joint team's readiness
for not only tonight's fight but for tomorrow and what lies beyond.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, General.
Before we hear from General Crenshaw, since Senators Ernst,
Perdue, and Rounds all have a hard stop at the same time,
Senator Kaine and I have agreed to withhold our questions until
after they have had theirs at the conclusion of the remarks
from General Crenshaw.
General?
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL CRAIG C. CRENSHAW, USMC, COMMANDING
GENERAL, MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS COMMAND
Major General Crenshaw. Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member
Kaine, and distinguished members of the Senate Armed Services
Subcommittee on Readiness, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify on an important aspect of Marine Corps warfighting
readiness and our industrial depot. Industrial depot
capabilities help ensure that your Marine Corps and our marines
are ready today to succeed at difficult tasks and return home
safely to their families. The workforce believes this
profoundly and is mindful that what they do is important and
that every day a marine's life depends on their success. This
is why we sincerely thank you for your continued support that
enables our success.
As we look to the future, we see our depot as a pacesetter,
modernizing to meet challenges while embracing the technologies
of the 21st Century. Through our Marine Corps Logistics Command
of the 21st Century and the depot of the 21st Century
initiatives, the Marine Corps is posturing itself to execute
its title 10 responsibility with logistics solutions that
embrace evolving technologies and business processes in order
to provide readiness that achieves Marine Corps Logistics
Command's top priority which is supporting the warfighter.
To communicate the value of our depot in providing the
readiness to the warriors, I will touch briefly on four areas:
depot maintenance, our workforce, innovation, and facilities.
The Marine Corps ground weapons systems depot is centrally
managed by Marine Depot Maintenance Command and is comprised of
two production plants: one in Albany, Georgia and the other in
Barstow, California. Each plant delivers its own distinct
capability to the Marine Corps industrial base while
reinforcing broader industrial base capabilities of the
Department and the Nation. Both plants sustain competitive
capability to repair our most valuable ground combat weapon
systems, such as amphibious assault vehicles and our light
armored vehicles. In addition, each plant specializes as the
center of excellence for specific systems for the Marine Corps
and other Department of Defense customers.
Geography is also an important consideration for our
plants. Strategically located near major east and west coast
operational commands in California and North Carolina, our
depot capabilities are collocated with our supply management
and distribution centers in order to provide integration and
efficient movement of equipment, including war reserves. Our
Barstow production plant is situated with one of the largest
railheads in the Department of Defense and astride some major
interstate highways. Our Albany plant production plant, in
addition to being collocated with the Marine Depot Maintenance
Command and Marine Corps Logistics Command headquarters, also
enjoys access to robust transportation infrastructure, as well
as east coast seaports such as Charleston, South Carolina and
Jacksonville, Florida, home to the Marine Corps maritime
prepositioning program. I share this background so that you can
understand our organization and that our location is integral
to the success of our mission of sustaining readiness.
The funding Congress provides to the Marine Corps depots is
essential to readiness. Those funds are used to make sure the
equipment marines need is provided when it is needed, where it
is needed, and it moves, shoots, and communicates as intended.
In fiscal year 2018, Marine Corps depot maintenance was funded
to 80 percent of identified maintenance requirements. To
optimize the impact on those funds and mitigate the gap, we use
a conditions-based methodology and prioritize depot repair
requirements based on warfighting value. These methods allow us
to keep pace with the ever-present readiness challenges that
have accumulated over the last 17 years of conflict.
I must be frank about the challenge that you can help us
with. One uncertainty is the fiscal environment has exacerbated
this challenge. For each of the past 2 fiscal years, we
received funding in the third quarter. Funding delays disrupt
our maintenance production cycle and pressurizes the supply
chain that supports production. It would be of great assistance
to our effectiveness and efficiency if we could receive funding
at the beginning of the fiscal year. The production plan that
depends on timely resources is complex and diverse.
Our depot would not be what it is today without the highly
qualified experience of our workforce. The 2018 National
Defense Strategy rightly identifies recruiting, developing, and
retaining a high quality workforce as essential for warfighting
success. The Marine Corps is building a balanced, competent,
and adaptive workforce through recruitment, development of
skilled artisans and employees who possess the right skills to
accomplish our mission. We do this in many ways. For example,
the strong relationship we have with our technical colleges and
university, Albany State University and Albany Technical
College. We have access to vital local talent that we can draw
upon to sustain a workforce that increasingly requires a high
level of technical skills. Specifically, we are grateful to
Congress for providing direct hire authorities, which are a
critical asset in the competitive environment of talent
acquisition.
Innovation is inherent and fundamental to marine tradition,
doctrine, and leadership. Innovation is essential to the
industrial capability we need and paves the path to the future
readiness. At the service level, our Marine Corps Warfighting
Lab, our Next Generation Logistics, and Installation-Works
organizations are at the cutting edge of military innovation.
These staff organizations are collaborating with an array of
internal and external partners across the major categories. One
of those categories is additive manufacturing. Across the
Marine Corps, we have over 70 3D printers. Each of our
production plants recently took delivery of a large-scale 3D
metal printer. Our vision is to leverage this technology and
produce targeted, positive readiness impacts. We are also
seeking innovation and constant improvement through
partnerships with academia. Marine Corps Logistics Command's
relationships with outstanding academia institutions such as
Georgia Institute of Technology and Penn State University
exemplify how we are working to leverage the best in class
supply chain manufacturing.
My last topic is facilities. Modern, high quality,
distributed industrial facilities are essential elements in
maintaining a viable Marine Corps depot maintenance capability.
We became acutely aware of this in January 2017 when the base
at Albany was struck by a catastrophic EF-3 tornado. Your
timely response has been invaluable to the restoration of our
operations at our depot and other affected areas of Marine
Corps Logistics Base Albany. Your fiscal year 2018 support to
fund a military construction project for a tornado damaged
combat vehicle storage facility in Albany is greatly
appreciated as well.
We are also very grateful for the fiscal year 2018 funds to
build a combat vehicle repair facility in Barstow.
Senator Inhofe. General Crenshaw, you have to wind up real
quick.
Major General Crenshaw. Yes, sir.
The Marine Corps depot maintenance capability underwrites
warfighting readiness in direct support of dedicated men and
women. It is through your support that we continue to be
successful. On behalf of all marines, sailors, and many
deployed harm's way today and their families and the civilians
that support their service, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss our organic industrial base and its role in supporting
the readiness of our Marine Corps.
[The prepared statement of Major General Crenshaw follows:]
Prepared Statement by Major General Craig Crenshaw
introduction
Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Kaine and distinguished members of
the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on an important aspect of Marine Corps
warfighting readiness, our industrial depot. Industrial depot
capabilities help ensure that your Marine Corps and our Marines are
ready today to succeed at difficult tasks and return home safely to
their families. The workforce believes this profoundly and is mindful
that what they do is important and that every day a Marine's life
depends on their success. This is why we sincerely thank you for your
continued support that enables our success.
As we look to the future, we see our depot as a pacesetter,
modernizing to meet the challenges while embracing the technologies of
the 21st Century. Through our ``Marine Corps Logistics Command of the
21st Century'' and ``Depot of the 21st Century'' initiatives, the
Marine Corps is posturing itself to execute its title 10
responsibilities with logistics solutions that embrace evolving
technologies and business processes in order to provide readiness that
achieves Marine Corps Logistics Command's top priority of supporting
the warfighter. To communicate the value of our depot in providing the
readiness that warriors require, I will touch briefly on four areas:
depot maintenance, our workforce, innovation, and facilities.
The Marine Corps' ground weapons systems depot is centrally managed
by Marine Depot Maintenance Command, and is comprised of two production
plants: one in Albany, Georgia and the other in Barstow, California.
Each plant delivers its own distinct capability to the Marine Corps'
industrial base while reinforcing the broader industrial base
capabilities of the Department and the Nation. Both plants sustain a
competitive capability to repair our most valuable ground combat weapon
systems, such as Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV) and Light Armored
Vehicles (LAV). In addition, each plant specializes as a ``Center of
Excellence'' for specific systems for the Marine Corps and our other
Department of Defense customers.
Geography is also an important consideration for our plants.
Strategically located near our major east and west coast operational
commands in California and North Carolina, our depot capabilities are
collocated with our supply management and distribution centers in order
to provide integration and efficient movement of equipment including
war reserves. Our Barstow production plant is situated with one of the
largest railheads in the Department of Defense and astride major
interstate highways. Our Albany production plant, in addition to being
collocated with the Marine Depot Maintenance Command and Marine Corps
Logistics Command headquarters, also enjoys access to robust
transportation infrastructure as well as major east coast seaports such
as Charleston, South Carolina and Jacksonville, Florida--home to the
Marine Corps' maritime prepositioning program. I share this background
so that you can understand our organization and that our location is
integral to the success of our mission of sustaining readiness for the
Marine Corps.
depot maintenance
The funding Congress provides to the Marine Corps' depot is
essential to readiness. Those funds are used to make sure the equipment
Marines need is provided when it's needed, where it's needed, and that
it moves, shoots and communicates as intended. In fiscal year 2018,
Marine Corps depot maintenance was funded to 80 percent of the
identified maintenance requirement. To optimize impact of those funds
and mitigate the gap, we use a conditions based methodology and
prioritize depot repair requirements based on warfighting values. These
methods allow us to keep pace with the ever-present readiness
challenges that have accumulated over the last 17 years of conflict.
I must be frank about one challenge that you can help with. Our
uncertain fiscal environment has exacerbated this challenge. For each
of the past two fiscal years, we received funding in the 3rd quarter.
Funding delays disrupt our maintenance production cycle and pressurize
the supply chain that supports production. It would be of great
assistance to our effectiveness and efficiency if we could receive
funding at the beginning of the fiscal year. The production plan, that
depends on timely resources, is complex and diverse. In fiscal year
2017, we remanufactured and repaired over 400 different kinds of
equipment and returned over 8,000 items to operating forces--in
addition to thousands of additional items that went into our strategic
programs such as war reserve and prepositioning. The core of our
productivity is consistently dedicated to our primary readiness
drivers--Amphibious Assault Vehicles, Light Armored Vehicles, tanks,
and lightweight howitzers. These systems comprise 50 percent of our
fiscal year 2019 depot maintenance budget. Readiness of these and other
critical systems will remain a service priority and underpin our
overall ground equipment readiness strategy.
workforce
Our depot would not be what it is today without a high quality,
experienced workforce. The 2018 National Defense Strategy rightly
identifies recruiting, developing and retaining a high-quality
workforce as essential for warfighting success. The Marine Corps is
building a balanced, competent, and adaptive workforce through the
recruitment, retention and development of skilled artisans and
employees who possess the right skills to accomplish our mission. We do
this in many ways. For example, through strong relationships with
colleges and technical schools such as Albany State University and
Albany Technical college, we have access to vital local talent pools
that we can draw upon to sustain a workforce that increasingly requires
high levels of technical skill. Specifically, we are very grateful to
Congress for providing Direct-Hire Authorities, which are critical
assets in the competitive environment of talent acquisition. These
authorities are an essential tools that allows us to level the playing
field with industry in order to more quickly fill critical positions
that require top talent and high demand skills. These hiring
authorities will become even more important and effective going forward
as we strive to develop the 21st Century industrial workforce needed by
our Nation and our Marines.
innovation
Innovation is inherent and fundamental to Marine tradition,
doctrine and leadership. Innovation is essential to the industrial
capability we will need and paves the path to future readiness. At the
Service level our Marine Corps Warfighting Lab, Next Generation
Logistics (NexLog), and Installation-Works (I-Works) organizations are
at the cutting edge of military innovation. These staff organizations
are collaborating with an array of internal and external partners
across four major categories. One of those categories is additive
manufacturing. Across the Marine Corps, we have over 70 3D printers.
Each of our production plants recently took delivery of a large-scale
3D metal printer. Our vision is to leverage this and other technologies
to produce targeted, positive readiness impacts. We are also seeking
innovation and constant improvement through partnerships with academia.
Marine Corps Logistics Command's relationships with outstanding
academic institutions such as Georgia Institute of Technology and Penn
State University exemplify how we are working to leverage best in class
supply chain, additive manufacturing and analytical expertise to
enhance readiness and efficiency while posturing for the future.
facilities
My last topic is facilities. Modern, high quality, and distributed
industrial facilities are an essential element in maintaining a viable
Marine Corps depot maintenance capability. We became acutely aware of
this in January 2017, when the base at Albany was struck by a
catastrophic EF-3 tornado. Your timely response has been invaluable in
the restoration of operations at our depot and at other affected areas
of Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany.
Your fiscal year 2018 support to fund a military construction
project for a tornado damaged combat vehicle storage facility in Albany
is greatly appreciated. We are also very grateful for the fiscal year
2018 funds to build a combat vehicle repair facility in Barstow. That
badly needed facility will improve the productivity of the plant and
significantly increase the quality of the work place for our artisans.
We are also looking comprehensively at the future. To that end, we have
initiated an industrial infrastructure strategy to clearly articulate
the long term vision, priorities and pathway necessary to equip and
sustain the industrial facilities that support our Marines and enhance
the combat readiness of our Corps.
conclusion
The Marine Corps' depot maintenance capability underwrites
warfighting readiness in direct support of the dedicated men and women
of our Corps. Its value is realized every day by forward deployed
marines and sailors providing security around the globe, and its value
is most apparent when the rigor of sustained combat operations drive
surge operations throughout the industrial base of the Department and
the Nation. The support of Congress, to our depot maintenance program
and facilities, to our workforce and to the innovation that postures us
for success now and in the future, is essential. On behalf of all of
our marines, sailors--many deployed and in harm's way today--and their
families, and the civilians that support their service, thank you for
the opportunity to discuss our organic industrial base and its role in
supporting the readiness of the Marine Corps.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, General Crenshaw.
We will have 5-minute rounds. Senator Ernst?
Senator Ernst. Thank you. I guess it is ladies first.
General Daly, it is great to see you again. Thanks so much
for your wonderful support at Rock Island Arsenal.
About 15 years ago, I was running convoys with my soldiers
through Kuwait and Iraq, and at that time, I was driving in a
canvas-sided, canvas-top, zip-down vinyl window humvee. We all
remember those days.
But then all of a sudden, we started seeing the development
of IEDs [improvised explosive devices], and more and more of
those came out on the roads. At that point, we were using
sandbags then to basically up-armor our own vehicles because
there was not such a thing in our company as an up-armored
vehicle. That is really where our arsenals came into play at
that time and filled a critical role for the men and women that
were on the roads in Iraq and, in turn, Afghanistan as well.
They rapidly filled a need that the United States Army and the
other components needed with up-armor kits. They did that in
the drop of a hat. So we are very, very thankful for that.
Unlike depots that perform maintenance on existing
equipment on a more predictable basis and which are guaranteed
a large percentage of Army maintenance, arsenals do not have a
predictable workload. They do not have that type of supply.
Can you talk briefly about the critical capabilities our
arsenals provide to our national security efforts and what we
can do to increase their workload? Because they are so valuable
to us in our time of need.
Lieutenant General Daly. Senator, that is a great question.
Thanks.
In terms of our strategy going forward for our arsenals, as
you pointed out, the ebb and flow of that workload--there are
critical capabilities within the arsenals that are needed to
support the warfighter and readiness not only for the Army but
for the Joint Force. As you know Watervliet in terms of what
they do, in terms of manufacturing gun tubes and cannons, but
also the Joint Manufacturing Technology Center at Rock Island
is very, very critical in terms of their capabilities. As you
know, we are increasing their workload.
The initiatives that we have ongoing right now with AM
General in terms of humvees but across the board--we are
working hard at looking at the critical manufacturing
capabilities needed at those arsenals and how we workload them
predictably over the future. We are developing this
comprehensive strategy that looks at that, that maximizes their
abilities, and again going back to the workforce, utilizes our
artisan skill set to be able to provide those capabilities to
the warfighter.
Senator Ernst. Just as follow-up please, can you provide us
with an update on implementing guidance for a make or buy
analysis when it comes to our DOD procurement?
Lieutenant General Daly. I can, Senator. In fact, a make or
buy policy was just signed by the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology on the 15th of
March. What we are looking at now is the comprehensive strategy
and implementation plan associated with it. So it goes much
more beyond just cost in terms of evaluation criteria. This
gets at your point in terms of make or buy and the value of our
arsenals. We expect that our implementation plan will be done
within the next 30 to 60 days, and we look forward to sharing
that with you.
Senator Ernst. Excellent. I appreciate that very much,
General. Thank you.
I will yield back my time.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Perdue?
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
Any hearing where the witnesses either outnumber or match
the number of Senate members in here, you know it is an
interesting topic. Thank you, guys, for all being here.
I have 5 minutes. I am going to be very brief.
Aside from the funding issues that we have all talked about
before, the CRs [continuing resolutions] and what it does to
you guys, sequestration, the Budget Control Act, I would like
each of you to respond to one question. That is, would you rate
your readiness capability right now within your command 0 to
10, 10 being ready to go to war tonight or best in class,
however you want to do it? But then give us three priorities
that you are working on right now that would bring that back up
to where you want it to be. Each of you, if you will. General
Daly, do you want to start? Admiral Moore, he was trying to get
you to go first.
Vice Admiral Moore. I am happy to go.
Senator Perdue. Do you want to do that? That is fine. You
guys are filibustering my 5 minutes here.
Vice Admiral Moore. I am happy to go first.
So I think we are probably at a 6 or a 7 where we are
today, which is probably better than the 3 or 4 I would have
rated it at last year because we have started to grow the size
of the shipyards, and we are almost at the capacity that we
need to get to.
A challenge remains. I really liked the slide that Senator
Kaine handed out. I actually like the logo on the upper left-
hand corner there as well. I have seen the slide before.
If you are talking the three challenges that we have, so,
one, as we grow the size of our depots, the average age of the
workforce has gone down. So we have a relatively inexperienced
workforce compared to where we have been today. Now, that will
start to stabilize and come back up as we sort of get to the
level that we need to be at and just kind of hire at the level
that we attriting at. So that would certainly be one of them.
The second thing is I think in the naval shipyards and in
my private depots that are doing surface ship repair, we are
competing with the big tier one yards, Electric Boat, Newport
News Shipbuilding, et cetera. As we ramp up to build new ships,
we are competing for the same talent to repair the ships as
they are as well. So there is a competition for the talent
going on out there, and I think it is something that we are
going to have to collectively address with industry to ensure
we are getting the skilled labor that we are going to need on
both sides, on the new construction side and on the repair
side.
Thirdly, I would tell you the third most important thing is
a stable and predictable workload or stable and predictable
funding, if you will, as we move forward. That is the one thing
that really prevents the private sector from making the long-
term investments they need to be able to manage the growth to
355 on the new construction side but also the repair work that
is going to come along with that.
So those would be the three things that I think would be
the biggest challenges for me going forward.
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
Vice Admiral Grosklags. Senator, I will be brief.
The first is infrastructure, which I touched on earlier.
That includes both the facilities themselves, as well as the
support equipment and tooling that lets the workforce do their
job.
The second is getting the skilled workforce that we need,
the challenges with engineering, logisticians, but it is
primarily for us with the skilled artisan in some of the very
specific trades. So somebody asked earlier--that direct hiring
authority is absolutely critical to us for that.
The third thing is transforming our workforce and our
workplace and our depots, our Fleet Readiness Centers, into a
digital organization and getting out of the paperwork business,
which is what we are mired in right now.
So infrastructure, workforce, and digital transformation.
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
Lieutenant General Levy. Sir, thanks for the opportunity to
comment on that.
So you asked for a score, so I will give you one. I would
give it an 8, 8 and climbing. But it is something we focus on.
But I would offer that it is not simply the depot or the air
logistics complex system. I would offer that it is the entire
logistics kill chain that we integrate.
To that point, there are parts of that that I would tell
you that keep us from being better than we are today and things
that we are focusing on.
First and foremost for us would be software. If we are
going to be a fifth generation Air Force, we need a fifth
generation workforce, and that includes software sustainment
capabilities. We treat software like hardware today, and we do
not understand that our ability rapidly adjust software to meet
emerging threats and protect against our own vulnerabilities is
a challenge that we need to close the gap on very quickly
inside of the larger industrial base. In my organization alone,
3,500 software engineers. So there is lots of work to do there
in terms of how we accelerate our software velocity.
The second thing I would offer in my universe would be the
supply chain. It is extraordinarily brittle. The industrial
base is very small, both organic and commercial, and it
presents some rapid expansion challenges for us in times of
conflict.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not also say workforce,
workforce, workforce. The quality, the nature, the ability to
hire, recruit, and retain. We do not have the right 21st
Century mindset for a 21st Century workforce across the entire
skill set base in the DOD, and we really simply need to change
that.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
Major General Crenshaw. Sir, one of the things--the
number--I would say 7. Again, there is certainly room for
continued improvement.
As I look at the areas of priority and focus, this kind of
goes back to my opening statement. People are important, and we
have to have a viable workforce, one that is educated, one that
is trained. Part of that is how do we train them in a manner
that they are able to understand the new environment they are
going to be operating in. We have kind of done that within the
command, kind of explained to them what their future looks
like. We are going to have to educate them in order to take on
the new challenge.
We need infrastructure to make that happen. Again, a lot of
our buildings, much as the other services, are old buildings.
We need to institute ways to make them a building of the future
which has all the efforts of wifi, you name it when it comes to
what the new building looks like.
And then really the other one, sir, kind of capsulates on
both, the interests of innovation. Because we recognize the
environment of our workforce, we recognize the challenge of the
workforce and the facility, how do you create an environment of
innovation that causes people to understand how they fit into
the organization. Once you get the buy-in as we see it from our
workforce, that we will have the right skill set, right focus
for our 21st Century Marine Corps.
Senator Perdue. Thank you, sir.
Lieutenant General Daly. Senator, from an Army perspective,
we are in the process of refining our comprehensive strategy
for revitalization of the organic industrial base. So I would
give it a 7 and climbing. In fact, that report--I know it was
due to Congress here based on section 326 of the NDAA.
So three things that we are really focused on here, and it
was mentioned by the other members of the panel here. One is
workforce, the artisan skilled workforce that quite frankly is
worth their weight in gold. With a workforce that in our case
within the Army, 50 percent of the artisan workforce is over
the age of 50 years old. And so to maintain that artisan
workforce going forward is critically important. As you know,
it takes several years to train and get an artisan to the level
of competency that we need them at.
The second piece that was mentioned but it is also for us,
infrastructure and facilitization. So not just the buildings
but obviously state-of-the-art 21st Century depot maintenance
equipment to be able to improve efficiencies and increase
efficiencies on the production line.
Then the third is the way we are doing business in terms of
change, and that is really developing and refining the way we
workload our arsenals and depots and really to focus it on a
workload that drives readiness to support the joint warfighter,
and using business systems and innovation to do that, and in
our business systems, looking at production planning, looking
at auditability, and then looking at supply/demand forecasting.
That would be overarching what we are focused on in this
comprehensive strategy.
Senator Perdue. Thank you, sir. Thank you all.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your discretion. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Perdue.
Let me just ask one general question here. You heard in the
opening statement--my opening statement--we had a little
colloquy with General Levy. I would like to know from each one
of you. You are having the same problems. I hear from both
sides, and I have even talked to our universities about this
thing in terms of the problem with engineers. The quote that I
used came from General Levy several months ago that they could
hire every graduate that came out of Oklahoma University. How
about the rest of you? Are you having the same problems?
Lieutenant General Daly. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take
that question first.
In terms of the organic industrial base wage-grade
workforce, quite frankly I think we have all the direct
authorities for hiring that we need. So the six that were
brought into the NDAA recently we feel very, very comfortable
with. So between direct hiring authorities and then the
Pathways programs, I could just give you a quick data point. To
this point, we have hired about 147 with those new direct hire
authorities, and then for the Pathways program, about 108 in
the last year and a half. We see that increasing exponentially
based on these new authorities going forward, again to get at
the artisan workforce.
In terms of STEM, we have really taken a proactive approach
within the Army. Quite frankly, again there I think we have all
the authorities we need as well. So we are engaging with
colleges and universities. We are attending conferences, Beta
Conference, the Woman of Color and STEM Conference, Hispanic
engineer conferences. Quite frankly, this past year we have
made almost 100 job offers on site at those conferences, as
well as at colleges and universities. So I think we are given
the authorities now to be able to hire both wage-grade
employees for our artisan workforce, but also STEM employees as
well right now.
Senator Inhofe. So I think the short answer is no.
How about you, Admiral Grosklags?
Vice Admiral Grosklags. Yes, sir. On the engineering side
of the house, we are hiring significantly more engineers for
our FRC support this year than we have in the past.
Senator Inhofe. Are you finding it, though?
Vice Admiral Grosklags. To date, we are doing okay. As I
mentioned in response to Senator Perdue's question, we are
actually having a harder time with certain skill sets in our
depot artisans, particularly in areas where there is a lot of
competition like San Diego and where there is a very high wage
rate. Our engineering workforce is spread around the country,
and to date, we have been able to hire the engineers that we
need. But it takes a lot of work.
Senator Inhofe. Admiral Moore?
Vice Admiral Moore. Yes, sir. On the engineering side of
the house, we have to work hard to get them, but we are not
finding on the engineering side of the house that we are
challenged to find the engineers that we need in the depot.
Senator Inhofe. General Crenshaw?
Major General Crenshaw. Sir, today we are fine with them.
As we look at are we going to envision our new depot, what is
it going to look like, there will be a requirement for
additional engineers. But today we are fine with it, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Thank you to the witnesses.
Admiral Moore, I want to ask you about this chart first
since you noticed my NAVSEA [Naval Sea Systems Command] in the
upper left. You can look at this chart two ways. So tell me
what this chart says to you. It clearly shows that the average
years of experience of shipyard workers and production workers
is coming down. That could also be a sign of health if it
showed a workforce where everybody was near retirement, now we
are successfully bringing in younger people, and that is
bringing the average years of experience down. So do you look
at that chart as exemplifying a problem or some positives or a
little bit of a mix?
Vice Admiral Moore. Well, I think if you look at the chart,
it was a negative probably up from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal
year 2011 because that was an era where we were not hiring and
we were losing experienced workers.
I think that what you are seeing from 2011 on--and you will
notice in 2016 and 2017, it has leveled out. I think it is a
positive because we have ramped up substantially, and we are
going to be at 36,100 by the end of calendar year 2018. At that
point, then I adjust the faucet so that the attrition, which is
about 6 percent historically, matches the people I am hiring.
And so you will start to see, I suspect, starting in fiscal
year 2018----
Senator Kaine. It will start to come back up.
Admiral Moore.--you start to see this number come back up.
So I think this is kind of a tale of two cities here, probably
not a good news story for the first half of the chart, but
probably a reflection of a pretty good news story going forward
that we have recognized that we have got to bring the capacity
of the depots back up. This was a necessary outcome of hiring
the people.
Senator Kaine. Excellent.
I want to ask you about the shipyard infrastructure
optimization plan. That plan suggested significant additional
investment, $21 billion over the course of a number of years.
This is going to be an optimization and modernization while you
are also using the shipyards for normally scheduled maintenance
availabilities.
Talk to us about sort of how you plan to execute over this
long period of time if we do what we need to do budget-wise and
what will sort of the metrics and measurements be to determine
whether those dollars are being invested the right way to get
us where we need to be.
Vice Admiral Moore. Yes, sir. Thanks for the question.
So we, as we go, make the investments in the yard. This is
the first time that we have put an integrated plan together
that looked across all four yards.
We know where the investments are going to be made year to
year. What we will do is we will make sure that the work in
that particular depot in that year--we will make sure, for
instance, if I am working on a dry dock at Norfolk Naval
Shipyard in 2022-2023, we will clear out dry dock work to the
left and right of that so we will not interfere with that.
But undoubtedly, there is going to be some impact to
productivity. It is kind of like--my analogy is--I have been
living here for 19 years, and when I first moved here, they had
not built the mixing bowl yet and you still had to get to work
every day. But somehow they were able to figure out how to go
build the mixing bowl, at the same time allowing----
Senator Kaine. I was the governor when we built the mixing
bowl.
Vice Admiral Moore. You sure did a great job. I think it
was on cost and under schedule.
[Laughter.]
Vice Admiral Moore. So we will have to be sensitive to
watching productivity in particular when we are moving and
building new shops and moving the workforce in the yards. We
will have a plan to do that.
As far as the long-term metrics on how this plan goes, we
are going to manage this like a shipbuilding program, not like
four individual shipyards. So we are standing up a program
office, which will have the authorities to go manage this. I am
going to be the person responsible for the plan. The Chief of
the Naval Installations Command and Facilities Command will all
work for me so that we can integrate all the pieces together.
So two things. Near term what we will measure is our
ability to get things under contract and meet program
milestones, and then as we start the work, we will measure
productivity in the shipyards and throughput. So we will be
able to show you, as we start working on these projects and as
we start to recapitalize the yards--you will see the cost
performance and the throughput in these individual yards
improve. Ultimately, when we finish the plan, we believe that
the plan itself eliminates 6 percent of wasted time in the
shipyards just traveling to and from the buildings to the
docks. So the long-term plan will provide substantial savings
and throughput, and we should be able to execute the same
amount of depot work that we are today with probably a smaller
workforce than we have today going forward, and I think that
would be good news for all of us.
Senator Kaine. I have one, Mr. Chair, that is going to
require a little bit of an answer. So why do I not allow
Senator Rounds to go first?
Senator Inhofe. That would be great.
Senator Rounds?
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Senator.
Vice Admiral Moore, you talked about this in your opening
statement a little bit, but I would like to pursue it a little
bit more. When you and I met back in September of 2017, we
discussed the attack sub maintenance delays. Of particular
concern to me at the time were the delays facing the USS Boise.
I understand that insufficient public shipyard capacity has led
to cost inefficiencies and delays and that the Navy was
rescheduling some of the planned maintenance to private
shipyards. I believe the USS Boise was rescheduled from a 2016
public shipyard planned maintenance to, if I am correct, to a
2019 private shipyard availability. Now, you talked about this
briefly earlier in your comments.
Would you mind giving us some more information both on the
delays surrounding the Boise, where it is at right now, and
then also as well the other nuclear attack subs that may also
be experiencing similar delays and what the plans are to
eliminate those delays?
Vice Admiral Moore. Thanks, Senator, for the question.
So there are no other Boise-like submarines out there. So
we have gone back and looked at the rest of the submarine fleet
and ensured ourselves from an engineering standpoint and where
they are going to be loaded in the yard that we do not have the
delays that we saw on Boise.
You know, there is no reason that Boise should have
happened. The Navy should have been able to predict far enough
in advance that we did not have the capacity at our naval
shipyards to do that work.
So today, Boise is going to go to Newport News Shipbuilding
starting in January 2019--you are correct--and we will deliver
in the 2020 time frame. So we are talking about a substantial
period being off line.
We have gone back and looked at the rest of the submarine
fleet. We have also recognized that when we do not have the
capacity in the yards, we need to go look to the private
sector. We have four submarine availabilities right now, USS
Helena, USS Columbus and Boise at Newport News Shipbuilding,
and USS Montpelier up at Electric Boat [EB]. Both Newport News
Shipbuilding and Electric Boat have told the Navy they are
happy to provide capacity when we reach a situation when we do
not have the workload.
So as we move forward, we absolutely have the ability to
predict when I have too much work for the capacity in the
shipyards I have. That is going to be minimized by our growing
the workforce from around 30,000 up to 36,100. But we know far
enough in advance that if I do not have the capacity, we should
move to go put that work into the private sector where the
capacity exists.
Senator Rounds. I have got to ask this, and perhaps I am
misunderstanding. But it seems that last time that we were in
this room and talking about these issues, there were at that
time several other nuclear attack subs that were in the same
position or coming up on the same position as the Boise. The
Boise had been docked not in dry dock or not in depot, but had
been docked for more than 3 years. Perhaps my information is
off by a year. But I am just curious. What changed from last
September until now that allows us to feel confidence that the
backlog at the depot or at the facilities has been addressed?
Because we had those private facilities and public facilities
at that time as well. What changed in terms of management style
or management directives?
Vice Admiral Moore. So I think it is two. It is certainly a
management directive that we look further out than we did
before. So that is why you have the four submarines in there
today. We are looking very closely, as we head out into 2020,
2021, and 2022, where we have a significant amount of work, is
there opportunity to perhaps put some of these submarines into
the private sector at Newport News and Electric Boat. In fact,
it may have a benefit to both Newport News and EB as they have
a requirement to start ramping up their workforce as they start
to build Columbia and the two carriers. So there is a benefit
there.
To your first question on what has changed since last
November is we have done a detailed engineering analysis of
each submarine, and I can tell you there are no Boise-like
submarines out there. There are a handful of submarines which
will have a delay getting into a yard on the order of months,
single digit months, less than 5 months, versus the Boise,
which was years. So we have the capacity in the shipyards to go
put these submarines into the availability, and we will not
have another case of a submarine sitting pier-side for years
like Boise has before we start the work on her.
Senator Rounds. Very good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Yes. Just one last question that I wanted to
ask, and it is really for each of you.
There has been some indication that committee members have
heard that the Department is considering outsourcing some of
the depot and other organic industrial base facilities to
private contractors for cost savings or other reasons. I would
like each of you to talk about that as we seek to rebuild the
military and improve readiness. Do you think that we need to
outsource more work to contractors? Is that sort of the plan
that is in place in any of your responsibilities, or is there
more of a focus on strengthening the Government yards, depots,
and workforce? It could be a little bit of both. So I am
curious.
Lieutenant General Levy. Senator, thank you for the
question.
So from an Air Force perspective, we are actually bringing
work into the organic industrial base. What we find is that we
have been more cost effective and we have achieved greater
throughput through our efficiencies, through our ability to
implement across my logistics enterprise, the command I am
lucky enough to lead, called the ``art of the possible.'' That
is how we manage the horizontal enterprise. By doing that, we
have created efficiencies, cost savings, throughput
improvements, readiness increases, all the numbers that you
would look for in that kind of activity. What that has done is
it has created some competition in the marketplace where in
some cases there has not been competition. We have raised our
performance, and that has given us capacity and capability and
desire to bring work in.
A great case in point at Robbins Air Force Base. By
improving the performance on some of the C-130 lines, we
increased the capacity and drove the cost down such that we
could go back to the Air Force and say, you want to put
infrared countermeasure systems on those airplanes? Okay, we
now can do that more affordably and we have the real estate, if
you will, to bring those airplanes and do it when previously
the Air Force did not have the money allocated and did not have
the time available in the production flow.
So we have been able to do things like that across the
enterprise not just for airplanes but for software--and we can
talk about that extensively--but also for commodities. I would
also tell you that at least in our organization, 70 percent of
what I do is for the Air Force. The other 30 percent is for my
teammates here to either side of me, for example, Navy and
Marine F-135 engines for the F-35 at Tinker, and I could go on
and on supporting the F-18's, et cetera.
So that increase in performance and improvement in capacity
allows us to help the joint team as well, not just the Air
Force team. So not much desire at all to move it to the
commercial space. It is actually quite the opposite because of
performance, efficiency, and effectiveness reasons.
Senator Kaine. How about our other witnesses?
Major General Crenshaw. Sir, again, a great question.
Thanks for allowing me to have a chance to speak on it.
I think there is value when you look at, in some cases,
surges, how the industrial base or commercial can support you.
But I think as the Marine Corps, being able to support the
Marine Corps, being able to be able to deliver as required to
support our Commandant's requirement, at the same time as I
spoke to earlier, as a depot and arsenal, we have numbers of
groups. I look at where is the best place to go to get work
done. The Army does a lot of work for the Marine Corps at
Anniston. The Army does our tanks. At Letterkenny, they do work
for us and Tobyhanna, even to include the Navy and the Air
Force. So we do have, I believe, a good commission that kind of
outlines where are the best places to put the resources based
on type of work that needs to be done. But I think there is
value when it comes to maybe surge capability that we cannot
field, for whatever reason it may be, that we rely on the
commercial industry to provide that gap for us.
Senator Kaine. Please, Admiral Moore.
Vice Admiral Moore. Yes. First and foremost, the most
important thing is to make sure that the public organic depots
are sized properly to handle the work. So there is no plan to
outsource significant amounts of work to the private sector.
Having said that, you would like a level workload. That is
the best, and we do have an obligation to manage the entire
industrial base. Where there is opportunity in a year where we
may have more work than we would typically have in a normal
year, I think it would make sense for us to go look to the
private sector as a way to kind of balance that out. But there
are no plans, in the name of cost savings, to outsource work.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Admiral Moore.
Vice Admiral Grosklags. Senator, there is certainly no
overarching plan one way or the other, quite honestly. We deal
with each individual case kind of on its own merits both from a
business as well as a risk management perspective, whether or
not we want to keep that work inside the Government. One area
where we have started establishing more commercial capability
is second sources of component repairs that we do at our
organic sites to help with some of the workload. But if I look
across our expectations for our organic workload for the next 5
years, it is not going to go up or down dramatically over that
time period. It is fairly consistent.
The other thing we are seeing more of, quite honestly, are
public-private partnerships where we and industry are teaming.
One or the other has the lead, but we are working together to
get capabilities back out to the fleet.
General Levy mentioned, I think one of the areas where we
are trying to pull actually more work into the Government is in
software, and we would really, I think collectively with the
Air Force, like to get our arms around the F-35.
Senator Kaine. Got it.
General Daly?
Lieutenant General Daly. Senator, I appreciate the
question.
Just as was mentioned earlier, I think it comes down to the
exact type of work. There are some specific critical
manufacturing and depot capabilities that only exist in the
organic industrial base, for one, and then looking at where our
centers of excellence are in our 23 organic industrial base
facilities, whether they are in maintenance or ammunition.
The second piece is in terms of private-public
partnerships. Right now, we have about 263 private-public
partnerships valued in terms of revenue at about $263 million.
So that is situations where we have companies that are
operating in our depots hand in hand. Obviously, it affects
cost. It affects quality. It shares best practices and then
drives innovation as well.
Then the third piece is the joint workload that we just
talked about. So we do, as you know, a significant amount of
joint work. If you look at Anniston, for example, mentioned
with M-1 tank engines, the M-1's--and our joint work right now
is about $5 billion over the past several years with about $500
million programmed for this upcoming year.
So it is really a balance of all to really get at the
complexities and the totality of the capabilities in the
industrial base.
Senator Kaine. Great. Thank you for that full answer.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Perdue?
Senator Perdue. Thank you again.
I just have one closing question. I do not need a response
from all of you, but I would like you to think about this. This
is bigger than your responsibility, but you guys have the
backbone of our kinetic responsibility of getting ready to
fight again.
But also in the other two domains, we mentioned space,
General Levy. Nobody has mentioned cyber today. I will hold
that to the side.
But in terms of the leadership continuity, each of you are
laying in plans right now that will go beyond your tenure. That
is the normal thing at your level. You are the up and comers of
our DOD leadership, but you will be on a new responsibility as
these plans come to fruition.
Are we in a moment of crisis that we need to review that at
this level of leadership? I am not talking about chain of
command progression, et cetera, et cetera. But this is a
difficult question. A new leader comes in. New priorities are
set. A new focus is made, and all of a sudden we might lose the
continuity that you guys are laying in right now. This is
coming from a guy that has been a turnaround guy doing exactly
what you are doing right now. If you had changed the top guy in
the middle of that process, I guarantee you it would slow that
process down, change directions. It would be an inefficient use
of resources.
My challenge within the DOD structure of moving individuals
through their career at this level--we are all at very senior
levels here. How would you respond to that today? I mean, how
should we think about that here in terms of trying to--I know
our biggest responsibility is getting the funding. We got that
and we are on it. I consider that the most important thing in
the United States Congress today is to fix that one thing. But
aside from that, I am looking at something here that--please
address the continuity of leadership as you go through a
multiyear effort to get this thing turned around. Anybody.
Admiral, you reached first.
Vice Admiral Moore. I should have let the marine go first.
[Laughter.]
Vice Admiral Moore. So I think it depends on the job. So if
you are talking major business-oriented job like a systems
command or a program executive officer, I think having longer
tenure agreements to stay in these jobs makes sense. I was the
program executive officer for an aircraft carrier for 5 years.
So that is a substantial amount of time to really try to go
make change. I do not know if I will be in this job for 5
years.
But I think there are particular jobs which are very
business-oriented, if you will, and change-oriented, talking
about management plans. Those jobs probably require us to stay
in those jobs a little bit longer than we would, say, in some
of the fleet operational jobs where you have got to go build a
skill set pretty quickly to move up to the four-star rank.
Senator Perdue. Sorry. But the turnover at your level is
not necessarily the entire story. You have got big staffs that
run this too. And so you do not turn everybody over at the same
time. Is that correct? I mean, for the most part.
Vice Admiral Moore. That is correct. At the systems
command, 90 percent of the systems command is civilian. So I
have a very strong leadership team there that provides some of
that continuity as well. So there is a balance there. It is not
a wholesale change-out. I may move but a lot of the senior
leadership at the systems command will stay in place.
Senator Perdue. General Crenshaw, do you have something?
Major General Crenshaw. Sir, just from the Marine Corps
perspective, if you look at this, it is really much broader
than at the level that I am at at this command level. It is a
top-driven issue. We do not operate independently in terms of
what that cyber plan is. It is less about the individual who is
in command. It is more of a process, what type of things we
have in place that allow that focus to stay.
Marine Corps Cyber Command kind of has that overarching
responsibility in terms of how do we fight this and what are
the right process and policies and training that is required
that goes into the various commands at different levels. So it
is not an independent command. It is more of a Marine Corps
process and overarching approach and how you get after that. So
almost anyone can come in and fill the shoes and continue to
move because the process in place allows us to get after that
issue of cyber threat, sir.
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Perdue.
First of all, the line of questioning that Senator Kaine
came up with talking about the core capability, no one said it,
but let us go back historically. The reason for that is--it is
a security reason that we have to keep that capability there. I
can remember back when--I have been around long enough--there
were a multitude of contractors and all of that. Then when it
became smaller and smaller, to me that became more important
because we do not want to be in a position where we are held
hostage.
I would just ask you a yes or no question. Do you think
right now with the requirements that we have concerning core
capability that is adequate in your minds?
Lieutenant General Daly. Mr. Chairman, I think it is
adequate right now.
Vice Admiral Grosklags. Adequate and appropriate.
Vice Admiral Moore. Yes.
Lieutenant General Levy. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think so.
Major General Crenshaw. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Even though it was totally arbitrary.
We had a hearing yesterday, and we talked about the--well,
I would say the aircraft--the problems that we have right now.
We have the KC-46 is going to be coming on board. We have had
the KC-135 for 61 years. We have discontinued the production of
a KC-17--or C-17. When you are looking at this and we are
looking at the fact that the KC-46 is still down the road--and
this would be for you, Admiral Grosklags and you General Levy--
do you think the math is going to work on that? And is that not
going to have the effect of increasing your workload? Are you
going to be capable of handling that? Because the big question
that was before our committee yesterday is the math working in
terms if we are going to be able to keep the equipment going
long enough until help has arrived with the KC-46. What do you
think about your capability of doing that? Because the older
the vehicles get, the longer it takes to maintain.
Lieutenant General Levy. So, Senator, thanks for the
question.
You are spot on. Absolutely, the older the equipment gets,
the more it takes to maintain and the more it requires us to
plan and be thoughtful and the more it requires us to manage
the industrial base to support that weapon system. So I will
give you a vignette on the KC-135 and then I will connect it to
your KC-46 question specifically.
So the single source repair for the KC-135 for modification
and for maintenance repair and overhaul for depot maintenance
is Tinker Air Force Base. Last year, they did 73. They are on
track to do 75 this year. That is a pretty significant number
of airplanes. All the while the workload package, the amount of
work, if you will, the hours, however you want to measure it,
has almost doubled--almost doubled--but yet we have held the
amount of time that they have remained in the facility fairly
constant, accommodated that almost doubling of workload, and
still met the warfighter requirements to produce the aircraft
availability that he or she needs to fly.
Senator Inhofe. You see that is the past. I am projecting
forward.
Lieutenant General Levy. So if past is prologue for us and
I look at the trend lines, I would say we are absolutely poised
to continue to support the KC-135 while the KC-46 comes on
board. I think that is your specific question, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Well, it is. Right now, they are talking
about 179 is the figure they are using in the KC-46. But we
always know that--you know, it is going to fall behind that. We
know that. But go ahead.
Lieutenant General Levy. So as the sustainment guy, I will
not necessarily speak to the requirements side of that. I will
leave that to Air Mobility Command and U.S. Transportation
Command [TRANSCOM]. That is maybe a little bit out of my lane.
But to your question about can we keep the 135 going as the
KC-46 comes on board I think is sort of your question for us as
professional sustainers, the answer is yes. As you know, the
Air Force has a plan to keep the KC-135 in the inventory till
the 2040s time frame. So we are on path. We are on course, on
glide slope to do that.
Senator Inhofe. Admiral?
Vice Admiral Grosklags. Senator, it is kind of an
interesting question. When I look at the new platforms we have
coming on line--take P-8, for example, where there are certain
pieces of equipment on that aircraft, certain parts that we are
100 percent organic. There are other parts such as the engines
and big chunks of the airframe, because it is a commercial
derivative aircraft, that it makes much more sense to use
commercial capabilities that already exist out in the private
sector. So that is one instance.
F-35 is another great example where General Levy and our
organization are working with the program office to try and
increase the speed with which we transition that work from the
private sector into our organic depots. I think it is important
to note we have the ability to surge or increase our capacity.
We just need a couple years to do it, whether it is facilities
or as we have talked today about workforce. So bringing a new
airplane on line or new type model series or taking something
that is in the commercial sector today and bringing it into the
organic sector does not concern me at all as long as we have
got the amount of time we need to plan and get adequate
workforce and tooling in place.
Hopefully that answers your question. I think it depends on
the airplane.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, it does. This comes from the hearing
we had with TRANSCOM yesterday. So I knew we were going to be
in this today.
All I have left is one. I want to get this on record for
each one of you to respond to two things. You had to be going
through a real era of trauma before we took care of the fiscal
year 2018 and fiscal year 2019. What I would like to get from
each one of you, if we are not able to continue to do that,
because that stops in fiscal year 2020--now, if that should
happen, what is going to happen to you at each of your
facilities if we do not rectify that and continue that past the
end of fiscal year 2019?
Lieutenant General Daly. Mr. Chairman, if we do not
continue beyond 2019----
Senator Inhofe. So it goes back, you know, what happens if
we do not.
Lieutenant General Daly. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Well, you know the consequences if we
cannot continue what we did in 2018 and 2019 into future years.
Lieutenant General Daly. Yes, sir. If we do not continue
beyond 2019, there will be significant adverse impacts to the
organic industrial base.
Senator Inhofe. Okay. Try to be a little more specific.
Vice Admiral Grosklags. My answer is going to be less about
the organic industrial base and more about the readiness of the
fleet because in the end the organic industrial base there is
to ensure that we have that readiness. What you have seen up
until the fiscal year 2017 additional funding and then into
2018 and 2019 is that the state of naval aviation readiness has
degraded significantly over the last 7 or 8 years. That is due
in large part to the fact that our readiness accounts, which
include support for our fleet readiness centers, have been
funded well less than the requirement.
I will give you a great example. Just spares for aircraft
across that 8-year period was funded to an average of 72
percent of the requirement for 8 years. That is like skipping
two full years of funding spares at all. That is the type of
impact that will continue to perpetuate itself if we cannot get
a consistent budget after 2019. It is both consistency as well
as--people have mentioned--getting it on time at the beginning
of the fiscal year.
Senator Inhofe. The reason I am asking this, we want to get
something started on the record now to prepare for that
possibility.
Vice Admiral Moore. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
I agree with everything that Admiral Grosklags said, and I
would additionally add that we are already seeing some of this
in the private sector right now because they know the money is
there in 2018 and 2019. They are not sure it is there in 2020
and 2021. Therefore, they can see the workload in 2020 and they
should be hiring just like I am hiring in the naval shipyards,
and they are hiring at a much slower pace because they are not
sure the money is going to be there in 2020. So they are not
hiring and they are not making the investments in the private
sector surface ship facilities. We are already starting to see
a little bit of a backlog in work in private sector surface
ship maintenance because of their reluctance to make the long-
term investments and hiring necessary because they do not know
if there is any stability in the plan beyond 2019.
Senator Inhofe. Excellent.
Lieutenant General Levy. Mr. Chairman, so I would agree
with everything my colleagues said.
So we have been managing in this unusual fiscal
environment. We have a 2-year agreement that adds funding. The
majority of it, at least in the Air Force, is for
modernization, which we very desperately need. It helps us with
readiness. Please, do not misunderstand me. We are grateful for
that. But we have the same concerns particularly in the
industrial base, both the commercial and the organic industrial
base, where I see, just like Admiral Moore opined, commercial
industries somewhat reluctant to take risk because they are not
sure that there will be the opportunity in 2020 and beyond. And
so they are hedging.
What that does for us from a readiness perspective is that
sort of diminishes the value of the money you have given me
today--right--because the vendor says I am not sure you are
going to be there in 2020. I am not so sure how much I am going
to respond to you today even though you have money today. That
runs a readiness risk. So in one or two little examples, it is
not particularly impactful, but what I would tell you is across
the $9 billion of the supply chain that I manage for you every
year, it is corrosive. When that corrodes, it affects fleet
readiness, and when that affects fleet readiness, pilots do not
fly. When pilots do not fly, they leave the Air Force. All of
these things are very interconnected from the budget to the
industrial base, both organic and commercial, all the way to
our readiness of our Air Force, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Excellent answer.
General Crenshaw?
Major General Crenshaw. Chairman, sir, thank you.
I could not have stated it any clearer than what has been
said earlier.
I would add it is all about readiness. For the Marine
Corps, it is. We are trying to maintain some legacy systems
today as we wait for our new ACVs [amphibious combat vehicles]
to come on board, other new tech equipment. And so not having
that dedicated funding and deliberate funding can reduce our
readiness, as well as General Levy talked to, there is a
possibility of our workforce. So what do they do? As they start
to read the tea leaves as well, do we have a probability of the
workforce moving to another sector where the organic base now
does not have that workforce to meet the potential workload of
the future. So all those are different variables that we kind
of look at as we address the funding issue as we go forward,
sir.
Senator Inhofe. We saw the problem that you had with the F-
18 during this past 4 years.
All right. We do not have any more questions. We appreciate
very much--I really wanted to get this on record, though,
because people are kind of shrugging their shoulders. They are
not too sure. There is a lot of competition with defending
America. I do not think there should be but there is. So we
want to prepare for it now.
I appreciate all of you and the statements you made and the
help you are to us.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator David Perdue
workforce issues
1. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Levy, in your written
testimony, you discussed the antiquated hiring process for the civilian
workforce and the need to recruit and hire a ``fifth-generation
workforce'' with an emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Math. Can you tell me, how long on average, does it take you to hire a
scientist, an engineer, or a trained mechanic?
Lieutenant General Levy. Scientists and engineers (S&E) average 97
days; trained mechanics average 114 days.
2. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Levy, what is causing this
delay, and have you been able to overcome the hurdle of last year's
civilian hiring freeze?
Lieutenant General Levy. With regard to the hiring freeze, due to
the rapid approval process and exemptions the Depots did not have
problems recovering. However, our Air Base Wings and supply chains are
still recovering. Delays in Hiring: Overall the hiring process is slow
to need as our average time to fill an S&E and FWS position in
comparison with industry is significantly higher. We must continue to
drive the timeline down through our Art of the Possible initiatives. In
addition:
S&E: The main challenge is keeping the candidate
interested and engaged during the recruitment process while waiting for
a firm job offer. Air Force Sustainment Center (AFSC) was 134 S&Es
short of its hiring target of 417 in fiscal year 2017 and will most
likely fall short of the 560 target in fiscal year 2018.
Federal Wage Grade Positons: Due to low unemployment and
the changing landscape (i.e. higher levels of skills to support new
technology, etc.), a trained mechanic is hard to find. We have a
shrinking candidate pool as industry is paying higher salaries and
making firm job offers to students prior to graduating the Vocational
Technical Schools.
3. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Levy, does the slow hiring
process impact your ability to recruit new and talented people?
Lieutenant General Levy. Yes on all fronts. We are facing a supply/
demand crisis in a variety of different series. Whereas industry can
compensate (i.e. salary increases, higher bonuses, etc.) if they face a
shortage to meet their demands, the Department of Defense does not have
the flexibility to react in a corresponding fashion in either the
General Schedule (i.e. Science & Engineering, child care, air traffic
controllers, firefighters, etc.) or the Federal Wage System (mechanics,
Non-Destructive Inspection inspectors, etc.).
4. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Levy, how can you stay
competitive in the market for these highly qualified people?
Lieutenant General Levy. There must be a multi-prong approach to
this problem:
OPM's Federal Wage Classification Standards, established
in 1965, have had only minor revisions that have not kept up with the
pace of technology and/or skills requirements. This is not progressive.
We must recognize that the Federal Wage System employee
skill sets, as well as the technology to operate in those environments,
have changed. We must have the ability to develop a flexible, fluid
process to classify positions that rapidly respond to our changing
environments, enabling our supervisors to compete and pay for the
talent they require.
We must protect our benefits for our civilian workforce.
There are numerous studies published which show the fifth generation
workforce values quality of life issues more than higher salaries.
Preserving existing core benefits, and exploring other opportunities
for expansion, is a critical piece to our success.
Expand flexibilities in support of school loan repayment
programs, increasing funding for tuition assistance, moving costs to
attract out of state candidates, recruitment/retention guidelines,
graduate programs leading to Master's and, in some cases, PhD degrees
paid for by the Department. Increase internship programs such as Palace
Acquire, SMART Scholars, etc.
5. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Levy, how would competitive
salary and benefits for the STEM workforce improve the Air Force's
ability to hire and retain a highly skilled civilian workforce?
Lieutenant General Levy. The AFSC loses quality Science &
Engineering candidates due to low starting salaries for our engineers
in comparison to industry. We have made some advances with the onset of
Acquisition Demonstration as we have established pay setting guidance
based on local market conditions. However, due to limited budgets and
unemployment conditions, we still fall short. We have combined the
flexible pay setting with recruitment bonuses to help us fill the
majority of our positions. A competitive salary, combined with
increased quality of life benefits and additional flexibility in work
hours would enhance our ability to effectively compete for, and retain,
these talented individuals.
6. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Levy, what more can be done
on our end to help you hire the right people faster?
Lieutenant General Levy. Defense Acquisition Workforce Development
Fund (DAWDF) funds are sporadic in delivery making early recruitment
initiatives within our Science & Engineering community difficult. We
need Congress to help advocate the continued support of this funding as
it helps us deploy our critical outreach programs, offer incentives in
sometimes budget constrained environments, and retain/ develop our
acquisition workforce. Initiate the security clearance process at the
time of the tentative job offer; not waiting until the firm job offer
is made. Many tentative job offers are made months in advance of the
firm job offer. These months can be well spent clearing the selectee
for the level of security needed. For example, the wait time for an F-
22 employee security clearance is approximately 200 days after the
person's effective date. If the selectee starts the security process at
the tentative job offer stage, this could cut the time down to an
average of 80 days.
7. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Levy, as you know, SASC
granted Direct Hiring Authority for depots. To what extent have all the
DOD maintenance depots begun using the Direct Hiring Authority to hire
new personnel?
Lieutenant General Levy. Over the last 6 months Direct Hiring
Authority accounted for 89 percent of our external hiring actions; 1398
personnel were on-board within an average of 79 days. Note: The
remaining 11 percent were brought on board through veteran's hiring
authorities (VRA, VEOA), Schedule A (30 percent disabled vet program,
persons with disabilities), as well as traditional hiring.
8. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Levy, has this authority been
a useful and necessary tool used during recent hiring actions, and to
what extent has this hiring tool been more beneficial or useful in
certain regions of the country than others?
Lieutenant General Levy. Direct Hire Authority has helped us
revolutionize the way we hire in a number of ways. First, it has
brought the supervisors directly in touch with the applicant where they
can evaluate their skills and assess if the person is the best fit
within their organizations. Secondly, it has enabled us to integrate
our on-boarding (fingerprint, drug testing, and medical) processes into
our hiring events. For example, we recently hosted a hiring event at
Robins Air Force Base where we issued 44 firm job offers in
approximately 2.5 hours. This included meeting with the applicant,
working them through the on-board process, HR qualifying them, and
tendering the job offer. Finally, it has provided the avenue to marry
our forecasting with real time needs, gaps, and competencies as well as
gauge our successes through our consolidated metrics.
9. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Levy, given this authority,
how do depots prioritize what critical skills and positions they plan
to use this authority to hire for?
Lieutenant General Levy. We have annual and supplemental
requirement and determination reviews during the year which provide a
baseline for future workload and how much manpower is required. This
assessment enables us to prioritize critical skill sets if needed. In
addition, our Depots work very closely with our Human Resource
professionals to 'walk the wall' using Art of the Possible principles
on a weekly basis. These meetings identify each gate in the hiring
process to identify constraints. Additionally, they work through any
affects this may have on hiring critical skills. Overall, Direct Hiring
Authority has provided us with the authority to hire all skill sets.
Use of these mechanisms allows us to manage very well.
10. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Levy, do you believe an
extension is warranted for this authority?
Lieutenant General Levy. Based on our demonstrated success--a
Direct Hiring Authority extension is critical to our ability to deploy
combat power. Since Direct Hiring Authority was instituted, we have
maintained a 95 percent manning rate. Of note, just three years ago we
were at a 77 percent manning rate.
11. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Levy, what other initiatives
could assist in decreasing the hiring timeline associated with on-
boarding new staff?
Lieutenant General Levy. The critical nature of classification
impacts our ability to respond to changing conditions and enables us to
offer competitive salaries. We must have Congressional support to
tackle the Federal Wage Classification Standards and re-engineer how we
classify our positions. When positions are classified correctly we can
decrease timelines because we are recruiting for needed skill sets
rather than those that we have to accept, which subsequently bears a
cost on our mission as we have to then spend time training personnel to
meet the required/desired qualifications.
12. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Levy, I've heard from people
at the Robins Air Logistics Complex that the current direct hiring
authority could be expanded to cover civilian engineers conducting
plant service and planning. Would you agree that this would be
beneficial?
Lieutenant General Levy. The Department appreciates the many
personnel flexibilities and authorities that Congress has provided the
DOD, including those granting direct hire for certain occupations
supporting national security missions. DOD's existing direct hire
authorities have allowed for additional flexibility and efficiency;
however, the number of stand-alone authorities-each with varying scopes
of coverage, waivers of law, usage restrictions, and expiration dates-
has increased variability and complexity, creating challenges within
the DOD for simplified, efficient, and standardized use. The Department
would prefer a comprehensive and streamlined direct hiring authority to
meet all hiring needs. DOD hiring policies and processes must be as
expeditious, clear, and concise as possible to enable DOD components to
acquire new talent when needed.
albany--tornado damage to mclb
13. Senator Perdue. Major General Crenshaw, in January 2017,
Albany, Georgia was impacted by not one, but two tornados. As you know,
the Marine Corps Logistics Base suffered hundreds of millions of
dollars in damage to equipment and facilities. Could you give us the
total dollar amount of that damage?
Major General Crenshaw. Total equipment and facilities related
costs for clean-up, emergency repairs, permanent repairs to equipment
and construction = $396.8 million ($208 million--Facilities) ($188.8
million--Equipment)
14. Senator Perdue. Major General Crenshaw, what is the status of
the recovery and repair at Albany?
Major General Crenshaw. Our regeneration effort following the
tornado covered two broad areas, our equipment and our facilities.
Equipment: Approximately 47,390 pieces of equipment were impacted
by the tornado. To date we have returned over 75 percent (35,587) back
to ready-for-issue condition. The funding you provided to support these
actions has been critical in rapidly getting us the resources necessary
to perform this work.
Facilities: There were 64 structures damaged and in various stages
of disrepair. Approximately 65 percent of the repairs have been
completed. Twenty facility repairs have been completed to date, 44
facility repairs are ongoing, and four facilities were destroyed.
15. Senator Perdue. Major General Crenshaw, what was the impact of
Congress's inability to pass the 2018 budget on time on the recovery
efforts in Albany?
Major General Crenshaw. Funding delays caused by Continuing
Resolutions (CRs) resulted in delayed procurement of parts, equipment,
and services needed to recover and repair damaged property which
ultimately slowed our recovery efforts.
albany--net zero facility and private-public partnerships
16. Senator Perdue. Major General Crenshaw, Marine Corps Logistics
Base Albany is on track to be DOD's first Net Zero installation. This
is a major accomplishment that improves our warfighting readiness by
enhancing energy security, energy resiliency, and energy efficiency.
MCLB Albany's ability to become Net Zero relies heavily on crucial
public-private partnerships with the local community. What is the
status of MCLB Albany's Net Zero initiative?
Major General Crenshaw. Energy security: MCLBA will be the first
installation in the Marine Corps to achieve Net-Zero energy status. The
base is on track for Net-Zero by Spring 2019 when it will produce as
much electricity from renewable energy sources as it consumes.
Therefore, we will no longer be dependent on the electrical grid.
Energy resiliency: MCLBA will be the first installation in the
Marine Corps to have a fully functional and accredited Smart Grid.
MCLBA energy resiliency consists of (1) Hardened against attack--
Information Assurance, (2) Ability to quickly restore power from
internal system failure, and (3) Ability to quickly restore power from
external grid failure.
We have a fairly resilient grid now, as evidenced by the Jan 17'
hit by an EF-3 tornado which severely damaged the base, but key
facilities were up on generators within hours. However, much of the
back-up power was diesel and was manually operated. The Smart Grid the
base is currently installing will be automated and have the ability to
open and close electrical switches to re-route power, start and stop
generators, load shed non-essential services (such as reduce cooling
and heating in facilities), etc . . . It includes all required cyber-
security measures (hardware and software) and has been reviewed by the
MCICOM G-6/CIO in preparation for full IA accreditation.
Energy efficiency: MCLBA has a large portfolio of cutting edge
energy technologies to reduce overall energy consumption. An example is
Bore Hole Thermal Energy Storage (BTES). The traditional chillers and
boilers which heated and cooled my HQ building (800+ personnel) were
replaced in summer 15' with a ground source heat pump (GSHP) system
which included controls and dry cooling towers. The system was heavily
modeled with technology which has proven very successful in the
Netherlands and South Africa but is very new to the U.S. It has
achieved a 52 percent annual reduction in overall energy consumption
and a 100 percent reduction of water usage (the traditional cooling
towers were removed).
17. Senator Perdue. Major General Crenshaw, how important have
public-private partnerships been to the Net Zero initiative?
Major General Crenshaw. MCLBA relies on Energy Savings Performance
Contracts (ESPC) to reduce energy consumption and improvements to vital
equipment and infrastructure. Without this type of partnership MCLBA
would not be able to fund energy projects to provide the base with
energy resiliency as well as reducing energy usage. This also allows us
to tap into outside resources which have far more experience doing
these projects than the Government has. This partnership allows us to
move forward without having to compete with other programs for funds
that are needed elsewhere.
18. Senator Perdue. Major General Crenshaw, what is the importance
of our installations and industrial base being energy resilient and
having robust energy security, and can you describe the cost savings
achieved?
Major General Crenshaw. A secure supply of energy is critical to
enable our bases and stations to fulfill the role of force projection
platforms and support the training the necessary to make Marines
successful on the battlefield. To achieve this resilience, the Marine
Corps is moving beyond the assumption that ``energy will always be
there,'' adopting a proactive approach to improving its energy security
posture by reducing dependence on external suppliers of vital energy
resources through conservation, efficiency, and on-site generation, as
well as improving the resilience of energy infrastructure against
physical and cyber vulnerabilities.
A prime example is Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB) Albany which
is a leader within the Department of Defense in utilizing third party
financing agreements to implement innovative technology solutions to
ensure the resilience of mission operations. Through an ongoing Energy
Savings Performance contract (ESPC) with Chevron, methane gas from the
Dougherty County landfill is piped aboard the Depot and converted into
electricity and process steam to directly support the Maintenance
Center. Included is the capability to support functions during a
commercial grid outage. The resilience aspects of this project were on
display in January 2017 when despite a direct strike by an EF3 tornado,
the Maintenance Center was back on-line within hours of the event.
Energy resilience solutions should not be limited to traditional
standby or emergency generators. They can include integrated,
distributed, or renewable energy sources; diversified or alternative
fuel supplies; and movements to alternative locations, as well as
upgrading, replacing, and maintaining current energy generation
systems, infrastructure, and equipment. Cost savings can be attributed
to reduced number of power outages and improved command and control
capabilities allowing for greater support of critical mission
requirements.
19. Senator Perdue. Major General Crenshaw, what lessons learned
from MCLB Albany's successes have you or will you share with other
installations across all the Services?
Major General Crenshaw. I would say be sure to do ample research
and question anyone who tries to sell a one-size-fits-all product or
service. Ask the hard ball questions: Where have you done this before;
Show us the measured results delivered from your company and bottom
line guarantees with your service.
cross-service information/workload sharing
20. Senator Perdue. Vice Admiral Grosklags, this time last year
nearly 2/3s of the Navy's F/A-18 Hornets were grounded because of
maintenance backlogs. Overall, more than half of the Navy's aircraft
were grounded. We're starting to fix the money issue but fixing these
maintenance backlogs is still going to take time and a lot of manpower.
Cross depot maintenance within the organic industrial base may also be
crucial in avoiding readiness issues in the future with programs like
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. I believe we could find extra capacity
for these backlogs through expanding cross-service depot maintenance
operations, which is why I secured language in last year's NDAA that
directed the Secretary of Defense to assess the feasibility of
expanding cross-service depot maintenance within the organic industrial
base to avoid future backlogs. Can you update the subcommittee on what
steps have been taken to examine cross-service depot maintenance for
the F-18?
Vice Admiral Grosklags. The Navy has two tools to service F/A-18
maintenance across inter-service depots. The first is a Depot
Maintenance Inter-Servicing Agreement (DMISA) that puts an entire
aircraft into another service's depot for repair. The second is a
component-level repair where another service provides a component
repair capacity until the Navy's workload has increased to meet demand.
There are currently no Active DMISAs. DMISAs would be helpful if we had
a capacity issue (facilities for example), but since this is not the
case, an agreement to have another service or even another depot work
on the aircraft would only bring us to the same problem more quickly.
The F/A-18 Program Office (PMA-265), has been approved to move a
portion of the component workload as needed to meet production goals
organically.
21. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Daly, Vice Admiral
Grosklags, Vice Admiral Moore, Lieutenant General Levy, and Major
General Crenshaw, have the Services conducted the required study on the
use of cross-depot maintenance?
Lieutenant General Daly. The Army, along with its sister Services,
is involved in extensive inter-Service collaboration within the DOD's
Organic Industrial Base (OIB). This coordination includes:
1) a variety of meetings and information sharing groups;
2) the active and continuous coordination of actual depot
maintenance assignment of all DOD Component Services' depot maintenance
workload via the Depot Source of Repair (DSOR) determination process as
outlined in DODI 4151.24; and
3) the Maintenance Inter-Service Support Management Offices
(MISMOs), through its established network and their location within the
depot maintenance and repair structure of each of the Services,
provides a conduit for opportunities to collaborate and share best
practices.
Vice Admiral Grosklags and Vice Admiral Moore. We are not aware of
a requirement to have the Services conduct a study on the use of cross-
depot maintenance.
Lieutenant General Levy. Yes, the study was completed. The results
were sent forward by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics
and Materiel Readiness in March 2018, entitled, Report to Congress On
Sharing of Best Practices for Depot-Level Maintenance Among the
Military Services.
Major General Crenshaw. The Marine Corps partners with our sister
service depots to sustain our ground equipment to the point that we
view the DOD depots as a system and not as individual capabilities. We
are currently having our Tanks repaired at Anniston Army Depot, our
radars are repaired at Tobyhanna Army Depot, and our High Mobility
Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) are repaired at Letterkenny Army
Depot. We also source Tactical Shelters and Defense Advanced GPS
Receivers (DAGRs) to Hill Air Force Base, and Raids and Recon equipment
is repaired at Naval Surface Warfare Center in Panama City. Our Marine
Depot Maintenance Command conducts depot repairs at our Production
Plant in Albany, Georgia, or Barstow, California, for the Air Force on
their Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) for the Army National Guard, and
Tactical Power Generation sets for the Regular Army. Additionally, we
rebuild Paxman engines at our Barstow Production Plant for the Coast
Guard and the Navy which, propel their coastal patrol fleet.
22. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Daly, Vice Admiral
Grosklags, Vice Admiral Moore, Lieutenant General Levy, and Major
General Crenshaw, how could the Services benefit from cross-service
depot maintenance in the future and with future platforms?
Lieutenant General Daly. We collaborate with each other through the
Depot Source of Repair (DSOR) process to identify the best overall
location for maintaining a new weapon system depot maintenance
requirement. Each Service submits to the other Services their new
program depot maintenance requirements for review. This process has
several goals, to include: 1) identifying the overall best location for
the performance of depot maintenance requirements; 2) creating
transparency in the process; 3) limiting locations to the minimum
necessary number to support readiness requirements; and 4) helping
ensure compliance with the ``CORE'' laws (10 USC 2460/ 2464/ 2466 &
etc.)
Second, looking forward, we expect to continue reaping the above
benefits and even greater rewards. Areas for future improvement
include: greater manufacturing within the Organic Industrial Base
(OIB), especially the Army Arsenals and all DOD depot maintenance
facilities, as well as, expanded efforts in the Joint Technology
Exchange Group to share innovation, technology improvements and sharing
of best practices in the maintenance fields. As our inter-Service cadre
become more experienced and continue to expand their influence, a
synergistic effect will occur and create greater cooperation between
the Services. This is already underway and will have its greatest
effect on future weapon platforms.
Vice Admiral Grosklags. OSD has a program, the Joint Depot
Maintenance Program, that has been employed for years to formally
execute the Depot Maintenance Interservice (DMI)/DSOR process. It's a
collaborative program whereby a requiring service formally coordinates
across other services to nominate a specific depot activity for its
weapon system support. Once it receives concurrence from all services,
then funds can be expended to stand up that depot capability. The DMI/
DSOR process is codified in a fairly new instruction, DODI 4151.24. In
addition, the Navy has OPNAVINST 4790.14B that also provides guidance
regarding the formal DSOR process to the Systems Commands. Lastly,
within the last year, the Joint Group on Depot Maintenance developed a
Memorandum of Agreement between the services to leverage joint
industrial capabilities and processes for depot level maintenance and
manufacturing needs. We always look to leverage capabilities of the
other Services to help optimize a program manager's investment in depot
sustainment support.
Vice Admiral Moore. OSD has a program, the Joint Depot Maintenance
Program, that has been employed for years to formally execute the Depot
Maintenance Interservice (DMI)/DSOR process. It's a collaborative
program whereby a requiring service formally coordinates across other
services to nominate a specific depot activity for its weapon system
support. Once it receives concurrence from all services, then funds can
be expended to stand up that depot capability. The DMI/DSOR process is
codified in a fairly new instruction, DODI 4151.24. In addition, the
Navy has OPNAVINST 4790.14B that also provides guidance regarding the
formal DSOR process to the Systems Commands. Lastly, within the last
year, the Joint Group on Depot Maintenance developed a Memorandum of
Agreement between the services to leverage joint industrial
capabilities and processes for depot level maintenance and
manufacturing needs. We always look to leverage capabilities of the
other Services to help optimize a program manager's investment in depot
sustainment support.
Lieutenant General Levy. The Services will benefit from cross-
service depot maintenance relationships in the future by sharing
business practices and processes, such as the capital investment
program and public private partnerships, as well as exploring sister
service capabilities before potential contract to non-organic entities
with engagement of continued DMISAs. This brings efficiencies to the
Department by capitalizing on existing organic capabilities, reducing
CORE shortfalls, and achieving cost-effective readiness by increasing
throughput and reducing costs. By utilizing cross-service depot
maintenance practices, we are able to quickly match available
capabilities to the emergent requirements. Internal to the Department
of Defense, we are able to share information that one Service may have
(i.e., Tech Data) and collaborate on the development of technologies
and best practices improving our overall readiness and effectiveness.
Major General Crenshaw. Continuing to collaborate with our sister
service depots is an operational imperative given the need to conserve
the resources that Congress provides. We have a Maintenance
Interservice Support Management Office at our Logistics Command that
interfaces with the joint community continuously. The joint body is
responsible for Depot Maintenance Inductions and determining which
service depot is best suited to perform depot maintenance on a specific
piece of equipment, based on several factors including capacity and
capability. We look to see which service has a niche for a certain
platform, and that capability weighs heavily on the decision.
Additionally we are working in a shared environment where collaboration
is the daily theme. Our Depots share innovation, technology, and best
practices with each other through the Joint Technology Exchange Group
to ensure that we are operating at peak levels, and staying on the
cutting edge along with our industrial partners in the civilian sector.
So we plan to continue this collaborative theme well into the future as
we continue to modernize our equipment sets and try to squeeze the most
out of the resources with which we have been entrusted. We have had
great success in this area over the years and will continue to enjoy
that flexibility in the years to come.
jstars--legacy fleet maintenance
23. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Levy, I understand that
JSTARS maintenance is done by a private contractor, and not at one of
your depots. However, I was very concerned to see the DOD Inspector
General's audit report regarding the maintenance of the E-8C JSTARS
fleet. The report found that the Air Force overpaid in contracts for
this work, and that the contractor did not meet aircraft availability
metrics needed for aircraft operators to meet their mission
requirements from 2011 to 2015. Do you think it would make sense to
bring maintenance for the JSTARS fleet into the Air Force depot system?
Lieutenant General Levy. E-8C JSTARS aircraft are a high-demand
asset needed in theater today. We must find ways to increase aircraft
availability. Adding an organic Program Depot Maintenance capability
would help accomplish that goal. This initial induction should help
prove that the concept will work.
24. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Levy, what types of cost
savings could you achieve, especially with JSTARS fleet being located
next to the Warner Robins Air Logistics Complex at Robins Air Force
Base?
Lieutenant General Levy. Inducting an aircraft, and potentially
others down the line, at Robins AFB may offer numerous advantages: the
program office, operational wings, functional check flight crews, and
Air Combat Command's flight test detachment are all located at Robins
AFB; the community has significant expertise with JSTARS; the community
of potential JSTARS mechanics is fairly broad; and transportation costs
would be reduced.
25. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Levy, is this something we
should consider doing when the current contract expires?
Lieutenant General Levy. Despite more than two years of intense
focus on the contractor's depot performance, the amount of time
aircraft are kept in depot remains too high. We have to find ways to do
better and to increase overall depot capacity. Other JSTARS may be
inducted in the future.
usmc--use defense logistics agency for services
26. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Daly, Vice Admiral
Grosklags, Vice Admiral Moore, Lieutenant General Levy, and Major
General Crenshaw, the Military Services have, to varying degrees,
transferred retail supply, storage, and distribution functions at their
depot-level industrial sites to the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and
achieved some efficiencies. Specifically, Air Force Air Logistics
Complexes (ALC) and Navy Fleet Readiness Centers (FRC) transferred all
retail supply, storage, and distribution functions to DLA over the
course of several years, which has led to a number of benefits,
including a 20 percent reduction in on-hand inventory and a 10 percent
reduction in backorders at the Air Force ALCs over a 5-year period. By
contrast, the Army and Marine Corps have retained most supply functions
at their depots and DLA manages inventory at the Navy shipyards while
still using Navy systems and processes, rather than those of DLA. What
steps are the Military Services pursuing in collaboration with DLA to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of retail supply, storage, and
distribution functions at the depots and shipyards?
Lieutenant General Daly. Since BRAC 2005, DLA is using Army systems
and processes rather than those of DLA at five of our industrial sites.
Army and DLA have created a team of subject matter experts and have
identified three Courses of Action (COAs) in determining a rough order
of magnitude (ROM) for DLA providing full retail support at the Army
organic industrial sites. Currently, this team is mapping out the
business processes for these COAs and will present ROM assessment and
updated COA analysis with recommendations to Senior Army Leadership for
decision August 2018.
Vice Admiral Grosklags and Vice Admiral Moore. The Navy's transfer
of supply, storage and distribution functions within the depots and
shipyards to DLA have been completed. The Navy and DLA continue to
finalize a Strategic Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA) to align the
command and control structure within the shipyard to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of supply support functions executed by
both DLA and Navy.
The Navy and DLA have a Performance Based Agreement (PBA) that
provides senior leader engagement in an overarching framework for
continuing cooperation, coordination and alignment of resources in
support of Navy logistics. The PBA highlights key strategic and
partnering efforts that affect DLA's collective ability to provide
effective, efficient and best value to Navy FRCs. The PBA outlines the
governance framework for the Navy-DLA Partnership Council, which
provides senior level engagement and summarizes performance metrics
(e.g., Total Customer Orders, Material Availability, Unfilled Customer
Orders, and Aged Unfilled Customer Orders) and goals that both parties
agree to use to measure success and support readiness. These
performance metrics and goals are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure
coordination of the repair and availability of parts and materials that
could reduce fleet aircraft availability, directly impacting on the
Department of Navy's ability to carry out the national defense
strategy.
Lieutenant General Levy. See Appendix A--Bullet Background Paper--
AFSC Collaboration with DLA.
Major General Crenshaw. The Marine Corps has already transferred
some functions to DLA, has additional integration planned, and is
assessing the potential for further incorporation of DLA support at the
tactical level within the Operating Forces.
In 2009, Marine Corps Logistics Command (MARCORLOGCOM), the
organization responsible for depot level repair in the Marine Corps,
transferred depot-level industrial retail storage and distribution
functions to the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA).
Given the success of the 2009 transition efforts to DLA and
recommendations from a 2016 GAO audit (GAO-16-450), in October 2018,
LOGCOM launched a continuous process improvement (CPI) event to develop
a Business Case Analysis (BCA) that would provide an objective, third-
party perspective on the merits of transferring the depot-level
industrial ``Supply'' functions to DLA. Based on the results of the
BCA, LOGCOM intends to move forward with transferring industrial supply
functions to DLA in order to gain additional efficiencies in support of
depot-level maintenance.
In addition to the efforts ongoing at LOGCOM, we are evaluating
opportunities to leverage DLA capabilities to gain efficiencies within
our operating force retail supply management units at the tactical
level. We've conducted process improvement events at both Marine Forces
Command and Marine Forces Pacific and are currently evaluating the
outcomes. While there are some potential efficiencies to be gained
through partnering at the retail level, we are working with DLA to
ensure our forces maintain the right level of flexibility to provide
effective support for exercises, deployments and contingency
operations--especially during periods of reduced funding. I am
confident we can find the right balance between DLA and organic
capability. Most recently, at the USMC-DLA Service Day in early June,
expanding DLA inventory partnership opportunities was the subject of
detailed discussion. Both the Deputy Commandant for Installations and
Logistics and the Director, DLA emphasized the value of increasing our
interoperability and leveraging DLA resources.
27. Senator Perdue. Lieutenant General Daly and Major General
Crenshaw, why have the Army and Marine Corps been reluctant to transfer
aspects of the noted functions to DLA and are there plans/efforts
underway to do so?
Lieutenant General Daly. Army and The Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA) have a collaborative team that is working to identify
opportunities to improve effectiveness, efficiency, and cost of
managing depot support inventories. The team is reviewing cost
efficiencies between DLA and Army systems' integration, and are
analyzing solutions to develop mutual key performance indicators and
metrics for optimum DLA retail support.
Major General Crenshaw. The Marine Corps has already transferred
some functions to DLA, has additional integration planned, and is
assessing the potential for further incorporation of DLA support at the
tactical level within the Operating Forces.
In 2009, Marine Corps Logistics Command (MARCORLOGCOM), the
organization responsible for depot level repair in the Marine Corps,
transferred depot-level industrial retail storage and distribution
functions to the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA).
Given the success of the 2009 transition efforts to DLA and
recommendations from a 2016 GAO audit (GAO-16-450), in October 2018,
LOGCOM launched a continuous process improvement (CPI) event to develop
a Business Case Analysis (BCA) that would provide an objective, third-
party perspective on the merits of transferring the depot-level
industrial ``Supply'' functions to DLA. Based on the results of the
BCA, LOGCOM intends to move forward with transferring industrial supply
functions to DLA in order to gain additional efficiencies in support of
depot-level maintenance.
In addition to the efforts ongoing at LOGCOM, we are evaluating
opportunities to leverage DLA capabilities to gain efficiencies within
our operating force retail supply management units at the tactical
level. We've conducted process improvement events at both Marine Forces
Command and Marine Forces Pacific and are currently evaluating the
outcomes. While there are some potential efficiencies to be gained
through partnering at the retail level, we are working with DLA to
ensure our forces maintain the right level of flexibility to provide
effective support for exercises, deployments and contingency
operations--especially during periods of reduced funding. I am
confident we can find the right balance between DLA and organic
capability. Most recently, at the USMC-DLA Service Day in early June,
expanding DLA inventory partnership opportunities was the subject of
detailed discussion. Both the Deputy Commandant for Installations and
Logistics and the Director, DLA emphasized the value of increasing our
interoperability and leveraging DLA resources.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
small arms industrial base--medium machine gun
28. Senator Graham. Lieutenant General Daly, the Army has
acknowledged that the M240 provides a unique and vital capability for
the service. I understand that the Army intends to continue to operate
the weapon well into the future. Sustaining this weapon technology and
the industrial base that produces it is of critical importance to US
national security. However, I am concerned that the current plan for
the program, as reflected in the fiscal year 2019 budget and Future
Years Defense Plan, does not provide sufficient resources to maintain
and sustain the M240 industrial base. The M240 manufacturing process
requires specialized facilities and a highly trained and skilled work
force. A lack of sufficient production volume could result in a
complete shutdown of the manufacturing capability, which would be very
difficult to re-establish given the highly specialized nature of the
process. Can you respond to the following questions?
Lieutenant General Daly. Yes
29. Senator Graham. Lieutenant General Daly, how does the Army
intend to sustain the M240 production capacity and industrial base for
the projected life of the program until a replacement is developed and
fielded?
Lieutenant General Daly. Army is at its Army Acquisition Objective
on all M240 systems. Sustainment is done via organic overhaul at
Anniston Army Depot. PM Soldier Weapons funded a limited survey
conducted by TACOM on the M240B weapon system to assess the condition
of the fleet for high tempo units to determine if weapon replacement is
warranted. TACOM Weapons Equipment Specialists visited Ft. Bragg and
Ft. Leonard Wood. PM Soldier Weapons has the results and will use that
information to determine whether to pursue funding in support of weapon
overhaul/rebuild, or identify funding necessary for replacement
weapons.
30. Senator Graham. Lieutenant General Daly, what would be the
operational impacts of an M240 production shutdown?
Lieutenant General Daly. The current Fabrique National (FN) M240L
contract is being extended through May 2020 in order to accommodate
other Service buys, additional Army procurement as directed by Congress
and spare receiver procurement to support weapons overhaul at Anniston
Army Depot. The Army has procured enough M240 series to equip all units
to their authorization. The Army has met its acquisition objective for
M240 weapons and conducts weapon overhaul (as needed) at Anniston Army
Depot to keep inventory levels sufficient to meet readiness
requirements.
31. Senator Graham. Lieutenant General Daly, what does the original
equipment manager report the annual cost is to maintain the production
line?
Lieutenant General Daly. The Rough Order of Magnitude to maintain
M240 production at the minimum sustaining rate of 150 weapons per month
is $12-$15 million per year.
32. Senator Graham. Lieutenant General Daly, in the event of a
production line shutdown, how long would it take to reestablish the
line?
Lieutenant General Daly. Last year Fabrique Nationale (FN) did
state that restarting a cold production line would take 44 months and
cost $16.8 million.
33. Senator Graham. Lieutenant General Daly, what is the current
Ready for Issue (RFI) M240 Inventory and how does the Army maintain and
assure RFI status while the system is stored in inventory?
Lieutenant General Daly. There are approximately 1,572 M240s in the
Army inventory. TACOM utilizes Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) to
track and monitor the M240 series inventory.
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
workforce at portsmouth naval shipyard
34. Senator Shaheen. Vice Admiral Moore, I have studied the report
to Congress on extending the service life of select Los Angeles-class
submarines and I am in support of this effort to reduce the expected
shortfall in fast attack submarines. The proposed service life
extension effort spans a decade from 2021 to 2031 and it is proposed
that the work be performed at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Given that
our public naval shipyards, particularly Portsmouth, are the foremost
experts at overhauling and refueling submarines, this makes sense.
While the report details infrastructure investments needed to support
this effort, what actions are being taken to ensure that the Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard has a sufficiently sized and experienced workforce that
is ready to efficiently carry out this important mission?
Vice Admiral Moore. To properly align Portsmouth Naval Shipyard's
(PNSY) workforce and capacity, the Navy reassigned five availabilities:
three Los Angeles-class inactivations, one Los Angeles-class Docking
Selected Restricted Availability, and one Virginia-Class Extended
Docking Selected Restricted Availability to the other shipyards to
ensure PNSY was not overloaded during the five planned Los Angeles-
class engineered refueling overhauls (ERO).
As the Navy developed its fiscal year 2019 to fiscal year 2023
future years defense plan, it determined that it needed to increase the
size of the workforce across all NSY in order to execute the expected
workloads in fiscal year 2019 to fiscal year 2020. The subsequent
realignment of availabilities to support the Los Angeles-class EROs to
PNSY necessitated an additional nominal increase in the manpower
requirement in fiscal years 2020 to 2022 to sufficiently size the
workforce to match this additional workload. Based on NSY ability to
hire, onboard, and train new employees, we are confident PNSY will be
able to increase employment to match the workload. The ability to hire
is based on the shipyard's ability to accommodate new hires into
training and development pipelines and facility constraints in
accommodating a larger workforce. This hiring effort is already in
place and underway.
To ensure a proficient and capable workforce, PNSY has a robust
full scale training and qualification program for new and existing
employees who will be performing work on the EROs including reactor
servicing. PNSY is already performing reactor servicing work on the S8G
prototype. This work allows employees to achieve and maintain
qualifications and establish proficiency for reactor servicing--an
essential element in conducting a successful ERO. Finally, PNSY has an
ongoing element of nuclear and non-nuclear workload on Los Angeles-
class submarines that fosters employee hands-on, deck-plate level
experience. The consistent schedule of EROs allows personnel to
continually train, qualify, and perform work on multiple EROs.
private sector maintenance of attack submarines
35. Senator Shaheen. Vice Admiral Moore, in your advance opening
statement you indicated that deferred maintenance of the USS Boise
attack submarine reached a boiling point in the Summer of 2017 and that
in order to balance the workload, the Navy opted to contract
maintenance of the USS Boise to the private sector. Further, you stated
``The Navy will continue to consider the private sector for future
maintenance work during peak workload periods in our Naval shipyards
and to ensure we maintain the health of the private sector nuclear
industrial base.'' How does the Navy define ``peak workload periods''
in order to determine whether the maintenance of our attack submarines
will be conducted by our public shipyards or private companies?
Vice Admiral Moore. The Navy defines peak workload periods as times
that require excessive overtime work or creates such a workload peak
that a project's duration would significantly exceed its notional
duration. During these periods, the Navy will reassess the naval
shipyard workload to identify opportunities to better balance
maintenance work across the nuclear enterprise.
36. Senator Shaheen. Vice Admiral Moore, how many public shipyard
overload periods does the Navy project to see over the next five years?
Vice Admiral Moore. The Navy is actively and continuously manages
the public shipyard workload to eliminate potential overload periods
across the FYDP. The Navy has undertaken workforce right-sizing and
workload-to-capacity matching efforts at the public naval shipyards to
improve accuracy in assessing overall executability, arrest year-to-
year carryover of workload, improve on-time maintenance delivery, and
best support Fleet operational requirements. The Navy also considers
using the private sector industrial base when balancing maintenance and
modernization requirements.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
enhancing the cybersecurity of small defense suppliers
37. Senator Gillibrand. Lieutenant General Daly, Vice Admiral
Grosklags, Vice Admiral Moore, Lieutenant General Levy, and Major
General Crenshaw, we can all agree that the country's small
manufacturers play an important role in the defense supply chain. For
that reason, I am concerned that so many of these companies face
significant cybersecurity vulnerabilities that threaten our national
security. Further, as of December 2017, Department of Defense (DOD)
suppliers must comply with new, tougher cybersecurity requirements to
continue doing business with the Government. The federal Hollings
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program has interacted with
over 1,000 small manufacturers regarding DOD's cybersecurity
requirements, and have found a significant lack of awareness of these
new requirements and a deficiency of financial and technical resources
required to manage cybersecurity risks. If this goes unaddressed,
defense supply chains face a higher likelihood of serious and
exploitable vulnerabilities, as well as a substantial reduction in the
number of suppliers compliant with Department of Defense requirements,
and thereby eligible to provide products and services to the Department
of Defense. Please provide an explanation for what your respective
service branch is doing to help small manufacturers in your defense
industrial base come into compliance with DOD's new cybersecurity
requirements.
Lieutenant General Daly. The Army does provide guidance to Small
Manufacturers through the Army Small Business Office on how to leverage
the assistance available to them through the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP) program. Examples like the U.S. Army Tank and
Automotive Command (TACOM) provide tools and hyperlinks on its public
facing website to help small manufacturers locate their respective MEP
center. The Army recognizes the challenge Small Manufacturers face
meeting the recent cybersecurity requirements associated with being a
part of the Department of Defense's supply chain. We are also aware of
recent success stories Small Manufacturers, in our supply chain, have
experienced by reaching out to their local MEP for assistance.
References: https://www.tacom.army.mil/sbo/newsevents.html http://
www.in- dustryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/small-manufacturer-solves-
cybersecurity-puzzle.
Vice Admiral Grosklags and Vice Admiral Moore. The Naval Sea
Systems Command (NAVSEA) is working to make sure small manufacturers
are aware of DOD cybersecurity requirements. Outreach has included
cybersecurity sessions at last year's NAVSEA Small Business Industry
Day and additional planned cybersecurity sessions at this year's
upcoming Small Business Industry Day. In addition, we provide expertise
to respond to questions on cybersecurity from suppliers and to guide
suppliers toward low or no cost options to address DOD cybersecurity
requirements. This includes the free-to-the-public Cybersecurity
Evaluation Tool (CSET) Tool developed by the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), which provides easy to use checklists for suppliers to
self-assess their compliance with National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-171 requirements for
Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal
Information Systems and Organizations.
The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) is working through its
program offices, Cyber Detachment, Contracts Department, and Small
Business Office to ensure small manufacturers are aware of new DOD
cybersecurity requirements. This outreach has included involving the
Cyber Detachment early and upfront in the program planning and
requirement development phase to guarantee cybersecurity requirements
are understood and levied upon large and small manufacturers
contractually. In addition, NAVAIR's Contracts Department, Cyber
Detachment, and Small Business Office are establishing relationships
with small manufacturers to provide informed answers to questions on
cybersecurity, to include low or no cost options to address DOD
cybersecurity requirements. This includes the free-to-the-public CSET
Tool developed by the DHS.
Lieutenant General Levy. See Appendix C--Cyber Insecurities.
Major General Crenshaw. DOD Contracting personnel follow
contractual cybersecurity requirements implemented through the Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). Specifically, DOD
contracting personnel incorporate cybersecurity-related clauses into
applicable contracts (such as DFARS clause 252.204-7012 ``Safeguarding
Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting''). In
addition, DOD contracting personnel enforce compliance with contract
terms and conditions after contract award, which may include
cybersecurity requirements.
DFARS Clause 252.204-7012 ``Safeguarding Covered Defense
Information and Cyber Incident Reporting'' leverages security standards
such as those identified in National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171 ``Protecting
Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems
and Organizations.'' NIST SP 800-171 standards help small businesses
meet cybersecurity responsibilities to protect DOD's supply chain, and
improve the security posture of their information systems and networks.
38. Senator Gillibrand. Lieutenant General Daly, Vice Admiral
Grosklags, Vice Admiral Moore, Lieutenant General Levy, and Major
General Crenshaw, given MEP's national network of assistance for small
manufacturers and focus on helping such companies improve their
cybersecurity, do you see cross-government partnership opportunities
between DOD and MEP to improve small defense manufacturers
cybersecurity?
Lieutenant General Daly. Yes, the Army does see possibilities for
cross-government partnerships between the Department of Defense (DOD)
and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to
improve small defense manufacturers' cybersecurity. The NIST has
partnered with the Department of Commerce to implement Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP), and the DOD already has a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Department of Commerce that creates the
Institutes for Manufacturing Innovation that leverages DOD authorities
and resources that allow the DOD to seek contract proposals from MEP
network partners. These are, again, opportunities to raise awareness
and provide guidance to small manufacturers. Reference: https://
www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/mep/about/MOU-NIST-OSD-
Signed-Executed-2015.pdf Background: The Hollings Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP) is based at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). The National Program Office (NIST MEP)
which provides the Federal Government funding for the MEP National
Network is located in Gaithersburg, MD. The MEP National Network
comprises the NIST MEP, 51 MEP Centers located in all 50 states and
Puerto Rico, and it's over 1,300 manufacturing experts at over 400
service locations, providing any U.S. manufacturer with access to
resources they need to succeed. MEP is a public-private partnership,
designed from inception as a cost-share program. Federal appropriations
pay one-half, with the balance for each Center funded by state/local
governments and/or private entities, plus client fees. This cost-share
model contributes to MEP's success. A GAO study found that because
client fees give manufacturers a higher stake in the outcome of
services, the positive impact on their businesses is greater.
Meanwhile, public funding allows smaller manufacturers to afford
services. NIST MEP uses 2 CFR 200 to monitor and govern the recipients'
use of Federal funds.
Vice Admiral Grosklags and Vice Admiral Moore. The Naval Sea
Systems Command (NAVSEA) consistently stresses the importance of
cybersecurity in our interactions with our small defense manufacturers.
We see the resources provided by MEP as valuable assistance, especially
the NIST Handbook 162 ``NIST MEP Cybersecurity Self-Assessment Handbook
for Assessing NIST SP 800-171 Security Requirements in Response to
DFARS Cybersecurity Requirements.'' This handbook provides a step by
step guide allowing small defense manufacturers to self-assess their
compliance with the DFARS 252.204-7012 required NIST SP 800-171
security controls, which is a critical first step. NAVSEA will be
providing information on MEP resources as part its Small Business
Industry Day scheduled for August 21 to raise awareness of these free
resources.
The Naval Air Systems Command's (NAVAIR's) Office of Small Business
Programs (OSBP) consistently stresses the paramount importance of small
business compliance with the DFARS 252.204-7012 clause, the NIST SP
800-171 Security Standard, and the risks associated with non-
compliance. This is reiterated at our one-on-one meetings, pre-
solicitation conferences, and industry days, Small Business Round
Tables.
Secondly, NAVAIR is collaborating with the Small Business
Development Centers and the Procurement Technical Assistance Centers to
assist in reaching small businesses and advising them about the NIST
Hollings MEP, which has cybersecurity resources for manufacturers,
along with the NIST Small Business Center.
The NAVAIR OSBP refers small businesses interested in doing
business with the Navy to the ``Small Business Information Security:
The Fundamentals,'' NISTIR 7621 Rev1 for additional information and
guidance.
Lieutenant General Levy. See Appendix C--Cyber Insecurities.
Major General Crenshaw. While we cannot speak to the potential of a
DOD/MEP relationship, small defense manufacturers that obtain a
contract with the Government will improve their cybersecurity posture
through compliance with the NIST SP 800-171 standards required by DFARS
Clause 252.204-7012 ``Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and
Cyber Incident Reporting.''
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie Hirono
public shipyard modernization
39. Senator Hirono. Vice Admiral Moore, the Navy's effort to fully
plan and synchronize the modernization of our nation's public shipyards
over 20 years was a significant task and I applaud the work you've
done. I am concerned that if shipbuilding levels increase in the near
term, the demand for the repair yards, specifically from the Virginia-
class, may come earlier than originally planned. Does the shipyard
modernization plan have room for growth to match possible increased
shipbuilding levels?
Vice Admiral Moore. Yes. Based on the current submarine and
aircraft carrier acquisition and service life extension plans, the
investment strategy provided in the February 2018 Shipyard
Infrastructure Optimization Plan Report to Congress is projected to
support the near-term needs of a 355-ship fleet. However, as the
additional nuclear-powered ships are added to the inventory over the
next two decades, we will continue to evaluate public shipyard dry dock
and facilities capabilities to ensure any additional infrastructure
investments required to support the fleet are identified and
programmed. This includes ensuring dry dock capacity allows for
emergent work and periodic dry dock maintenance. These evaluations will
be performed using existing resources, including the newly established
shipyard infrastructure optimization program office, in accordance with
the normal budget process. The annual updates to the Shipyard
Infrastructure Optimization Plan will capture new mission requirements,
submarine or aircraft carrier acquisition plan changes, new ship class
requirements, new technology insertion opportunities, and other fact of
life changes.
40. Senator Hirono. Vice Admiral Moore, what investment in time or
resources will be required to ensure that the shipyard modernization
plan stays in sync with changes in shipbuilding levels?
Vice Admiral Moore. Based on the current submarine and aircraft
carrier acquisition and service life extension plans, the investment
strategy provided in the February 2018 Shipyard Infrastructure
Optimization Plan Report to Congress is projected to support the near-
term needs of a 355-ship fleet. However, as the additional nuclear-
powered ships are added to the inventory over the next two decades, we
will continue to evaluate public shipyard dry dock and facilities
capabilities to ensure any additional infrastructure investments
required to support the fleet are identified and programmed.
workforce issues
41. Senator Hirono. Lieutenant General Daly, Vice Admiral
Grosklags, Vice Admiral Moore, Lieutenant General Levy, and Major
General Crenshaw, the written testimony from all of the witnesses
mentioned the challenge of recruiting and maintaining the skilled labor
force, and that direct hiring authority has been a useful tool to meet
workforce demand. What other authorities for hiring or retention would
help you to maintain your workforce?
Lieutenant General Daly. Army Materiel Command does not see a
current need for additional hiring or retention authorities. Previous
Defense Authorization bills have provided a number of authorities to
assist us in meeting manpower and retention requirements. Going
forward, we need time to implement the authorities and take the time to
assess their effectiveness. In the future, we may need Congress' help
in making these authorities permanent.
Vice Admiral Grosklags and Vice Admiral Moore. The current hiring
process for public shipyard apprentices takes an average of six to
eight months and results in considerable attrition of high quality
candidates. While the Navy will work to streamline processes that are
under its control, the Navy requests congressional support for
streamlining hiring processes outside of the Navy to allow for
expedited recruitment, selection and onboarding of highly qualified
candidates while meeting all administrative requirements. Examples for
causes of delays outside of the Navy include the Advanced Fingerprint
Report requirement (Federal Bureau of Investigation) and security
clearance processing (Office of Personnel Management).
The following authorities for hiring or retention would help the
Naval Air Systems Command Fleet Readiness Centers (FRCs) better
maintain its workforce:
Expand the use of a retention incentive for workforce members who
want to stay within Government service. Managers cannot currently use
retention incentives to retain workforce members who take other
government positions--they are only available for use if a member of
the workforce is retiring or moving into private industry.
Lieutenant General Levy. The Department appreciates the many
personnel flexibilities and authorities that Congress has provided the
DOD, including those granting direct hire for certain occupations
supporting national security missions. DOD's existing direct hire
authorities have allowed for additional flexibility and efficiency;
however, the number of stand-alone authorities-each with varying scopes
of coverage, waivers of law, usage restrictions, and expiration dates-
has increased variability and complexity, creating challenges within
the DOD for simplified, efficient, and standardized use. The Department
would prefer a comprehensive and streamlined direct hiring authority to
meet all hiring needs. DOD hiring policies and processes must be as
expeditious, clear, and concise as possible to enable DOD components to
acquire new talent when needed.
Major General Crenshaw. Specifically, we are very grateful to
Congress for providing Direct-Hire Authorities, which are critical
assets in the competitive environment of talent acquisition. These
authorities are essential tools that allow us to level the playing
field with industry in order to more quickly fill critical positions
that require top talent and high demand skills. These hiring
authorities will become even more important and effective going forward
as we strive to develop the 21st Century industrial workforce needed by
our Nation and our Marines.
Authorities to approve recruitment, retention, and relocation
incentives at the local level will help MARCORLOGCOM to maintain its
workforce.
42. Senator Hirono. Lieutenant General Daly, Vice Admiral
Grosklags, Vice Admiral Moore, Lieutenant General Levy, and Major
General Crenshaw, how can STEM education efforts better target the pool
of workers you are trying to recruit?
Lieutenant General Daly. The Army Materiel Command's STEM outreach
is very strong. Our activities realize the importance of working with
our youth, colleges and various associations (all proficiency levels)
and create opportunities to engage and support, in meaningful, real-
world STEM experiences, competitions, and paid internships. The next
generation of scientists, technicians, engineers and mathematicians
need to be exposed to as many opportunities as possible to realize how
much is available to them and the difference they can each make to
support our National Defense and the Department's future modernization.
Events such as Black Engineer of the Year Awards (BEYA), Hispanic
Engineer National Achievement Award Conference (HENAAC) and Women of
Color (WOC) Conference are just a few recent events AMC has
participated, promoted interest, and increased awareness about the
Army's educational, high-technology career and leadership opportunities
as well as showcase how much the STEM candidates can contribute to the
critical mission in support to the Warfighter.
Vice Admiral Grosklags and Vice Admiral Moore. By participating in
outreach programs and educational partnership agreements, the Navy can
better target the pool of workers in for which they are trying to
recruit. The long-term goal is to interest students in a future STEM
career with the Navy.
It is incredibly important that the Naval Shipyards (NSY) and Naval
Aviation Fleet Readiness Centers (FRCs) have access to candidates with
STEM education in order to achieve their--hiring goals. The NSYs and
FRCs foster STEM education efforts by sponsoring events for children of
all ages where they can participate in a number of engaging STEM-
related projects. At the post-secondary level, the NSYs' apprentice
programs partner with local community colleges to develop prospective
employees. These events and partnerships introduce young people to the
NSYs' operations and generate interest in future employment.
Lieutenant General Levy. As a nation, we must continue the full-
court press to attract, excite, and educate the next generation of STEM
patriots. The increase in electronics and computer science in all of
our weapons systems platforms, legacy and future, means that workers at
every level, both civilian and military, will need these fundamental
skills. Last year volunteers from the Air Force Sustainment Center
donated over 7,100 hours to STEM outreach initiatives. We need
continued Congressional funding through the Department of Defense for
STEM outreach programs, such as STARBASE; in fiscal year 2017 the Air
Force Sustainment Center provided approximately $700,000 to support
competition teams, sponsor events, and provide classroom enhancements.
Additionally, continued fiscal support and expansion of K-12 STEM
outreach, scholarships, and internships like the DOD SMART scholarship
program, will help expand the supply for STEM graduates that will
enable the Air Force Sustainment Center to hire the technical workforce
needed for the future.
Major General Crenshaw. We are building partnerships with local
high schools, colleges and technical schools, such as the Commodore
Conyers College and Career Academy; Albany State University; and Albany
Technical College to develop talent pools that we can draw upon to
sustain a workforce that will require increasing levels of technical
skills.
maintenance funding gaps
43. Senator Hirono. Major General Crenshaw, your written testimony
stated that Marine Corps Depot Maintenance was funding to 80 percent of
the identified maintenance requirement in fiscal year 2018. What are we
giving up by not funding 20 percent of the requirement and what is the
projected long-term impact of delaying or deferring this maintenance?
Major General Crenshaw. The 20 percent represents $115 million in
deferred maintenance which includes 74 different weapon systems for a
total of 11,785 assets. These weapon systems include a wide variety of
automotive, combat vehicles, construction equipment, electronic and
communications equipment, and ordnance weapons. Delaying maintenance
has a negative impact on Enterprise readiness, which must be balanced
with modernization, which equates to future readiness. To mitigate
funding impacts to current readiness, we use an Enterprise Life Cycle
Maintenance Process to inform senior USMC leadership on the
prioritization of maintenance to develop an optimized plan that
maximizes readiness with available resources. Systems that are
deferred, have the opportunity to become future candidates in the
subsequent annual prioritization and planning cycle.
44. Senator Hirono. Major General Crenshaw, does the Marine Corps
Fiscal Year 2019 budget fund depot maintenance to 100 percent of the
identified requirement?
Major General Crenshaw. No. The fiscal year 2019 Marine Corps depot
maintenance budget funds 80 percent of the total depot maintenance
requirements as mandated by the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD).
45. Senator Hirono. Major General Crenshaw, I want to understand
the trend in Marine Corps Depot Maintenance funding. What level was
depot maintenance funded to on average over the past five years?
Major General Crenshaw. The following provides the Marine Corps
depot maintenance funding profile for fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year
2017.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Requirements........................ $623M $802M $724M $428M $467M
Total Funded.............................. $623M $802M $677M $428M $367M
% Funded.................................. 100% 100% 93% 100% 79%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of resetting equipment returning from Operation
Enduring Freedom and the subsequent use of OCO funding received, the
Marine Corps was almost fully funded fiscal year 2013 to 2016.
Beginning in fiscal year 2017 and beyond the Marine Corps will fund
depot maintenance at the OSD mandated 80 percent of the total depot
maintenance requirements.
milcon
46. Senator Hirono. Lieutenant General Daly, Vice Admiral
Grosklags, Vice Admiral Moore, Lieutenant General Levy, and Major
General Crenshaw, each of the services has requested MILCON funds to
address maintenance facility modernization and optimization. What is
the biggest deficiency in your area that can be addressed with MILCON
funds and how would that funding ultimately result in increased
readiness for the warfighter?
Lieutenant General Daly. Over half of Army Materiel Command's
facilities were built before or during WWII. The average age of our $40
billion inventory of facilities (building and supporting
infrastructure) is 53 years and our identified requirements needing
recapitalization totals $1.7 billion. We have used Restoration and
Modernization to address many recapitalization requirements but MILCON
investment is essential for us to meet our goal to recapitalize the
Organic Industrial Base (OIB) by 2030. We can attain that goal with
steady and consistent MILCON funding of between $200 million and $300
million annually. We have come close to meeting those targets in the
current program but must continue to receive Congressional support of
our projects if we are going to meet the requirements for State-of-the-
Art Depots and Arsenals. The OIB must be optimized to both maintain
unit readiness across the force and the ability to surge in support of
contingencies. Failure to recapitalize the OIB risks losing the Army's
capabilities and capacities to deliver tanks, helicopters, wheeled and
track vehicles, electronic systems, ammunition, and other essential
warfighting materiel to our soldiers and to the non-Army components
which we support (Air Force, Navy, Marines).
Vice Admiral Grosklags and Vice Admiral Moore. The naval shipyard
facilities are not optimally configured to support modern maintenance
processes.
The naval shipyards are comprised of infrastructure from the 19th
and 20th centuries, primarily designed for ship construction using
early 20th century industrial models. There have been minimal major
recapitalization efforts since the early 20th century. In addition to
the poor material condition of naval shipyard production facilities due
to age, their configuration is not optimized to support modern nuclear
ship depot maintenance. Moreover, dry dock and infrastructure
investments are needed to support USS Gerald R. Ford-class, USS
Virginia-class including Virginia Payload Module (VPM) variants, and
the growing nuclear fleet. If not improved, an estimated 68 major
maintenance periods between fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2040 will
have to be moved, deferred and/or rescheduled primarily due to dry dock
obsolescence.
The February 2018 Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan Report
to Congress provides the 20-year investment strategy that will provide
required dry dock capacities and modernize, reconfigure, and best
locate facilities to maximize submarine and aircraft carrier depot
maintenance throughput. This plan includes the following facilities and
dry dock investments funded primarily by MILCON appropriations:
$14 billion in facilities layout and optimization
investments that are required to best execute current and future
shipyard mission and recover 328,000 man-days per year back to
productive work solely by reducing worker and material movement as well
as fully realize capital equipment return on investment.
$4 billion in dry dock investments to recover 67 of the
projected 68 moved, deferred and/or rescheduled submarine and aircraft
carrier maintenance availabilities, support new class introduction,
maintain dry dock certifications, and provide seismic and flood
protection improvements.
These investments will maximize the Navy's return on investment and
improvement to depot maintenance throughput, returning 67 aircraft
carriers and submarines on time to the fleet and significantly
increasing readiness of the Navy's nuclear fleet.
Similarly, the current condition of naval Fleet Readiness Centers
(FRC) is also not optimally configured to support modern maintenance
processes. With almost $800 million in unfunded projects ranging from
modern maintenance hangars to state-of-the-art paint and corrosion
control facilities (12 projects, between fiscal year 2021 and fiscal
year 2025), the biggest deficiency that can be addressed with MILCON
funds is depot-level Air Vehicle Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul, and
Upgrade (MRO&U). From an FRC perspective, the impact of funding these
projects would have significant positive impact on the rate at which
aircraft are returned to the flight line for operational use. Upgrading
these facilities would increase capacity, quality and performance at
the organic depots, and reduce or eliminate the requirement for depot
induction deferments or extensions thus creating a larger pool of
aircraft available to the warfighter to support training and
operational missions. In addition, the artisans tasked with conducting
the MRO&U events would be working in properly sized and configured
workspaces that are fully compliant with modern safety, environmental,
and quality requirements.
Lieutenant General Levy. The greatest deficiency in our AF Depots
are facilities for component repair (commodities, software, engines,
etc.) and their associated support infrastructure (waste water
treatment, electrical grids, natural gas lines, steam operations,
etc.). These facilities are aged beyond useful life and stressed due to
current operations. Additionally, equipping new facilities with future-
state technologies to improve energy resiliency, cyber/communication
and safety would best support current and future workloads. Funding for
new component, engine, and software repair and associated support
infrastructure would yield readiness increases through higher materiel
availability. First, new facilities would eliminate unscheduled
disruptions and work stoppages, resulting in aircraft returning back to
the warfighter on or ahead of schedule. Second, these facilities also
support the AF supply chain, so updated, more efficient facilities
would enable a decrease in wait times and flow days, putting critical
commodities back into the pipeline to reach warfighters more quickly.
Finally, more efficient facilities and infrastructure would cost less
to operate/sustain and those savings could fund more operational
readiness for the warfighter.
Major General Crenshaw. For the Marine Corps, our depots generally
require MILCON to support improved efficiency and capacity to maintain
and perform depot work on vehicles and equipment. The MILCON that
Congress has approved for the Marine Corps' depots in the past enables
the depots to provide vehicles and equipment to the Operating Forces
faster.
The Marine Corps unfunded priorities list for fiscal year 2019
includes a $31.9 million MILCON project at Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany to provide a dedicated welding and body repair shop facility.
This facility would provide the capacity needed to support the
increased demand for welding, fabrication, and light/heavy combat
vehicle repairs and meet production commitments for essential
warfighting equipment.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Kaine
condition of shipyard capital equipment
47. Senator Kaine. Vice Admiral Moore, what is the Navy's plan to
reduce the average age of its capital equipment, and what specific
types of shipyard equipment are you targeting to improve efficiency and
effectiveness for shipyard operations?
Vice Admiral Moore. The February 2018 Shipyard Infrastructure
Optimization Plan Report to Congress (RTC) provides the investment
strategy to modernize naval shipyard capital equipment to within
private industry standards. This will result in efficiencies that
improve submarine and aircraft carrier depot maintenance execution and
throughput. Targeted Capital Investment Program requirements include
Industrial Plant Equipment, Information Technology, portal cranes,
MILCON collateral equipment, test and inspection equipment, and reactor
support equipment. Navy is programming funding that reflects a 30-year,
$150 million per year capital equipment modernization strategy, with
fiscal year 2018 funding increased to $151 million from the $57 million
funded in fiscal year 2017. Fully funding the President's Budget
requirement is needed to realize efficiencies outlined in our 2018
Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan RTC.
In addition to modernization, capital equipment investments are
also needed to support new mission requirements, including Los Angeles-
class refueling evolutions at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, concurrent
Virginia-class availabilities at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and Pearl
Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Virginia-
class introduction at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, and Ford-class
introduction at Norfolk Naval Shipyard and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
and Intermediate Maintenance Facility.
48. Senator Kaine. Vice Admiral Moore, to what extent would
improving capital equipment affect the demand for skilled workers or
personnel retention at the shipyards?
Vice Admiral Moore. Modernizing and improving public shipyard
capital equipment will not reduce the demand for skilled workers but
instead provide these skilled workers the tools they need to best
perform submarine and aircraft carrier depot maintenance at the
increased tempo required to support increased fleet size. Modernizing
shipyard capital equipment infrastructure is expected to improve
personnel retention. Showing the workforce that the Navy is investing
in them by recapitalizing their current industrial plants with modern,
state of the art capital equipment that is comparable to what they'd
use in private industry will increase job satisfaction, morale, and
dedication to best executing mission.
additive manufacturing capabilties
49. Senator Kaine. Lieutenant General Daly, Vice Admiral Grosklags,
Vice Admiral Moore, Lieutenant General Levy, and Major General
Crenshaw, the Department has been experimenting with a variety of
materials and applications for additive manufacturing, given the
potential to reduce long lead time for parts delivery, decrease costs,
etc. What specific actions are you taking to advance the qualification
and certification of additive manufacturing?
Lieutenant General Daly. The Army has established an Additive and
Advanced Manufacturing Center of Excellence (COE) at Rock Island
Arsenal, IL--Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center (RIA-JMTC). The
purpose of this COE will be to develop and mature Additive
Manufacturing (AM) technologies, establish processes, and develop AM
technical data packages specifically for near-term use in the Organic
Industrial Base (OIB) as well as for deployed tactical and operational
units. The Army is working AM certification and qualification through
our engineering centers including collaboration with the other
Services, other Government Agencies (including NASA), Industry and
Academia. The Army has Additive Manufacturing capabilities at 18 sites
including the OIB (depots, arsenals, and ammunition plants), Research,
Development, and Engineering Centers, Corps of Engineers, and Medical
Research.
Vice Admiral Grosklags and Vice Admiral Moore. The Navy is actively
leveraging Additive Manufacturing (AM) to develop innovative new
designs, address part obsolescence, and shorten part acquisition
timelines that impact readiness. The Navy is working with our sister
Services, other Government organizations, Academia and Industry to
develop plans that will enable Additive Manufacturing across the
enterprise--harnessing rapid AM advances from the private sector while
tapping the innovation potential of our sailors, Marines, scientists,
engineers and industrial workforce. The Naval Systems Commands
(including the Marine Corps) have developed a DoN Implementation Plan
that will speed adoption of AM and support the safe and cost-effective
use of additively manufactured parts within Naval systems and
processes. The Implementation Plan maps out 5 focus areas, including
Qualification and Certification. In addition to Qualification and
Certification, development of an AM Digital Engineering environment and
the ability to print in afloat and expeditionary environments are among
other focus areas that will enable distributed AM design sharing and
production, including in dynamic environments aboard Navy combatants
and auxiliaries. To enable this plan, an executive committee, comprised
of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for RDT&E, the Deputy
Chief of Naval Operations, Fleet Readiness and Logistics (OPNAV N4),
the Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics (DC, I&L) and the
commanders of all of the Naval Systems Commands, is guiding Naval AM
maturation and roll-out. This EXCOMM has identified specific projects
that align with the implementation plan and will accelerate Naval AM.
Of these acceleration projects, qualification and certification is the
#1 priority, and efforts are underway to develop the necessary
technical requirements to qualify AM processes and certify AM
components to be installed shipboard.
NAVSEA will employ Technical Authority to develop these technical
requirements and promote AM application across our enterprise--afloat
for ships and embarked systems/personnel, in our shore-side industrial
facilities, and at our research labs where material and component test
& evaluation and new design methods are currently under development. My
engineering organization is issuing guidance on approval of AM parts
for shipboard use, and developing specifications and standards to
communicate Naval AM qualification and certification requirements to
Industry. I'm seeing an increased use of Additive Manufacturing in the
Naval Shipyards as affordable, capable printers become available. The
shipyard workforce is leveraging AM to design and create tools and
mock-ups, then use them in training and the job site; and throughout
the NAVSEA enterprise personnel use AM to rapidly prototype at low
cost, encouraging a culture of affordable innovation.
Lieutenant General Levy. See Appendix B----Bullet Background
Paper--Organic Innovation Center Standup.
Major General Crenshaw. The Marine Corps has embarked on an
aggressive effort to implement additive manufacturing (AM) across the
Marine Corps. This includes a detailed focus with multiple stakeholders
to address qualification and certification of parts.
On the lower end of AM capability, we are using desktop polymer 3D
printers in the field to produce low-criticality, high-demand parts and
have published interim guidance to empower local commander's authority
to approve the use of parts within the established Risk Assessment
Criteria. These results are iteratively demonstrating the minimum
requirements of qualification/certification for ``good enough'' parts
that keep our equipment and Marines in the fight.
On the higher end of AM capability, we are pursuing several
qualification/certification efforts across Marine Corps Logistics
Command, Marine Corps Systems Command, and the Office of Naval
Research. The primary initiative is the ONR led QUALITY MADE project,
focused on parts qualification/ certification of specific metals and
alloys. MARCORSYSCOM has established an initial certification process
and is establishing an in-house AM engineering capability to provide
Program Management Offices the ability to organically perform AM parts
qualification/certification. In March, LOGCOM installed two metal AM
machines, and are partnered with leading universities to develop AM
parts candidates to help further refine the qualification/certification
process in partnership with MARCORSYSCOM. We have already developed
several candidate parts using this organic metal AM depot capability.
We look forward to continuing to strongly advocate for increased
efforts that advance AM qualification and certification.
APPENDIX A
BULLET BACKGROUND PAPER
ON
AFSC COLLABORATION WITH DLA
purpose
To provide information on steps AFSC is pursuing in collaboration
with DLA to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of retail supply,
storage, and distribution functions at the depots?
discussion
DLA is a strategic partner to the Air Force Sustainment
Center. Over the past five years, AFSC has taken a number of steps to
make DLA more efficient and effective as a retail supplier to Depot
Maintenance and Base Maintenance:
DLA Planners are key members of the Depot Supply Chain
Management (DSCM) Team, a joint AFSC supply, maintenance, and DLA
focused on forecasting depot maintenance parts requirements and
procuring those assets in advance of maintenance actions. DSCM plans
90-180 days in advance of maintenance activities and takes steps to put
parts at the point of use.
Planning for Depot Maintenance Consumables (PDMC) is a
AFSC-centric effort to forecast base and depot maintenance
requirements, through demand data ecxchanges, direct to DLA Planners
for items with known shifts in historic demand patterns. PDMC processes
were developed jointly between AFSC and DLA to ensure clear, concise
demand signal communication.
Performance Management is a joint effort with AFSC and
DLA. DLA participates actively in AFSC Production performance reviews
and briefs parts status to AFSC Senior leaders on a weekly basis. DLA's
participation in performance reviews is a critical component of
instituting Art of the Possible and accountability of DLA to the depot
maintenance machine.
Supply Chain Integration
Strategic Sourcing is a joint effort between AFSC and
DLA. AFSC uses DLA Procurement Detatchments to buy spare parts.
Further, AFSC is working with DLA to take advantage of Captains of
Industry contracts including (but not limited to) Raytheon (8$408
million), Rockwell (8$298 million) and BAE (8$209 million) to reduce
redundant contract vehicles and take advantage of economies of scale.
Additional commodity-based PBLs are being collaborated
and awarded to improve readiness. Most recent (11Jun18) includes an
award on the UTAS Wheel & Brake PBL increment 1 for the F-16. The
contract includes a future cost reduction of 10 percent over previous
unit price and reduced Production Lead Time (PLT) for carbon brakes by
50 percent through the reutilization of carbon. The next increment will
be on the C-130 platform.
DLA has representatives embedded in the 635th Supply
Chain Operations Wings to help resolve supply constraints effecting
Operational Air Force bases. These reps are our DLA ``First
Responders'' to help improve parts support to weapon systems.
AFSC and DLA jointly work annual excess inventory
reviews to reduce excess matieral no lonoger needed to support weapon
systems.
AFSC and DLA have focused on reducing the number of
suspended assets in stock through the Suspended Asset Working Group.
DLA has supported multiple AFSC and Air Force
initiatives over the past years, to include HAF's Aircraft Availability
Campaign and Full Spectrum Readiness.
AFSC and DLA hold annual Planning Conferences to
address and improve planning processes between the agencies, plus
select specific programs and initiatives to focus improvement efforts.
AFSC and DLA meet annually at Air Force & DLA Day to
discuss common issues at a strategic level.
summary
For information only.
APPENDIX B
BULLET BACKGROUND PAPER
ON
AFSC ORGANIC INNOVATION CENTERS
purpose
To provide information on AFSC's organic Innovation Centers.
discussion
More than 70 percent of the funds required to develop,
qualify, and operate an aircraft in service are spent in operation and
maintenance (SAB-TR-11-01). The time spent in operation and maintenance
is much longer today than it ever has been in the history of the USAF
(SAB-TR-11-01). Reverse engineering & production efforts for aircraft
parts requires on average 4.6 years for a redesigned part, 3.2 years to
develop a part repair procedure, and 2.1 years to test and qualify a
new vendor.
Emerging technologies are promising to shorten the
timeline from design to production and revolutionize long held
operating constraints with respect to production lead time requirements
and supply chain support. These include: additive manufacturing (3D
Printing), additive repair, in-situ quality control and non-destructive
assessment. Investment is needed to purchase equipment, develop
processes and procedures, and validation through prototypes to
accelerate the fielding of these game changing technologies.
AFSC's vision of innovation focuses on exploration of
these advanced manufacturing technologies for introduction into the
sustainment infrastructure. Innovation Centers (IC) will provide a hub
for manufacturing innovation by providing access to a variety of
technologies, tools, training, and fostering collaboration with
industry in a maker-space open to scientists and engineers across the
sustainment enterprise.
The ICs will provide a controlled environment to
design, test, redesign without impacting depot production. This can be
done relatively inexpensively with organic capabilities when compared
to non-organic options.
AFSC/EN is working jointly with AFLCMC/EZP to develop a
repeatable & reliable production process and air worthiness
certification methodology for additively manufactured parts.
An organic capability will enable AFSC to address
critical parts shortage issues and overcome diminishing source of
supply issues currently affecting the sustainment enterprise.
Almost 50 percent of AFMC's Scientists, Engineers, and
Technicians reside at an AFSC location
The rapid speed enabled by this technology is most
effective when performed at the point of need by those with an intimate
knowledge of the problem needing to be solved. Every flow day saved
decreases the time an aircraft is in depot and back to the warfighter
quicker.
In fiscal year 2017, 309 MXSG (Hill AFB) additively
manufactured and/or developed TDP for 147 different components, cut
production flow time by 420 hours, and yielded $211,000 in savings. To
date for fiscal year 2018, they have produced 90 different components,
cut production by 640 hours, and yielded $198,700 in savings.
In fiscal year 2017, 76 CMXG (Tinker AFB) additively
manufactured and/or developed TDP for 120 different components, cut
production flow time by 1850 days, and yielded $480,000 in cost
avoidance. To date for fiscal year 2018, they have produced 56
different components, cut production flow time by 780 days, & yielded
$230,000 in cost avoidance.
In fiscal year 2017, 402 EMXG (Robins AFB) developed
TDP/Repair processes for 9 projects, resulting in the repair of 11
items, yielding $1.5 million in savings. To date for fiscal year 2018,
they have completed 10 projects, resulting in the repair of 34 end
items, yielding $96,000 in savings.
AFSC/EN and the Innovation Centers regularly collaborate
with other industry and DoD partners to share best practices and
lessons learned in a effort to bend the learning curve.
Participates in monthly Additive Manufacturing for
Maintenance and Sustainment telecom hosted by America Makes.
Participates in monthly Air Force Additive
Manufacturing User Group telecom hosted by UDRI and AFLCMC/EZP.
Participates in OSD led Joint Technology Exchange Group
(JTEG).
Collaborates with AFRL on Maturation of Additive
Manufacturing for Low-cost Sustainment (MAMLS) projects.
Participates in monthly Additive Manufacuturing for
Maintenance Operators (AMMO) Working Group.
Collaborating directly with DLA to validate AM as a
viable alternative manufacturing source.
Regularly presents at AM forums, summits, and
symposiums (i.e Military Additive Manufacturing Summit, National Center
for Defense Manufacturing and Machining).
The AFSC IC strategy proposes investments over multiple
years to purchase additional equipment, software, services, and
facility construction to fully achieve the benefits these technologies
offer.
Examples include: metal and polymer 3D printers, sand
printers for castings, design software, robotics, cold spray equipment,
multilayer circuit board printers, facility upgrades for handling
reactive materials.
Current approach is to apply for WCF funding across 10
years. Additional funding sources are being sought that would speed up
the timeline.
summary
For information only.
APPENDIX C
BULLET BACKGROUND PAPER
ON
CYBER INSECURITIES ASSESSMENT IMPACT TO AFSC
purpose
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)
252.204.7012 addresses ``Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and
Cyber Incident Reporting.'' Defense contractors shall implement the
requirements of the clause no later than 31 December 2017. AFSC is
pursuing a multifaceted approach to ensure our small business partners
are aware of and working diligently to comply with this requirement.
Below is a synopsis of the work AFSC has done to date.
discussion
DFARS 252.204.7012 requires contractors to protect unclassified
information in accordance with National Institute of Science and
Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-171. Contractors must
complete a Cybersecurity Compliance Readiness Assessment, to include a
gap analysis, plan of actions and milestones, and implement a security
plan. Defense contractors must meet 110 security control requirements
and report incidents to the Pentagon. All contractors should have a
plan to achieve cybersecurity compliance by EOY 2017.
The burden of DFARS 252.204.7012 compliance falls on
contractors. Specifically, prime contractors are held accountable for
the performance of their suppliers. There is recognition that smaller
contracting companies may struggle to implement strong cybersecurity
with limited staff and resources.
AFSC has contracts to buy, repair, and modify assets as
well as engineering services contracts with hundreds of contractors/
suppliers. Cyber risk is reduced when DFARS 252.204-7012 requirements
are included in contract documents for any company with a direct
contract with the AF.
AFSC has already taken action to prepare for the new rules and
mitigate any impacts from these changes being enforced on AFSC's small
business contractors.
AFSC will continue to ensure solicitations and contracts
include the DFARS prescribed cybersecurity requirements.
To date, AFSC concludes DFARS 252.204-7012 has not had
a negative effect on contractors doing business with the Government.
Our analysis of the history of this clause revealed that this type of
requirement began around 2011 with an initial implementation beginning
around 2013. Over the span of six years the clause has been revised
from a broad requirement to a more specific requirement. Ultimately,
companies have had ample time to adapt to implementing the requirement
in DFARS 252.204-7012.
AFSC surveyed our geo-locations to determine if
contractors have complained or expressed concern of this clause. The
consensus is that there has been limited concern from all businesses
which includes covered small businesses.
AFSC has been proactive with its approach to helping
small business prepare for the new cyber requirement. Some of the steps
taken to mitigate obstacles include:
The DOD Office of Small Business Programs and the DOD
CIO engaged industry with a media blitz, most notably the DOD CIO
Industry Day in June 2017.
The Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (PTAC)
took on the training of small businesses to increase awareness. The
Utah PTAC held two sessions for industry.
In collaboration with DLA and the PTAC, grant money has
been available for Small Businesses to begin the process.
The Small Business Administration has initiated
Cybersecurity for Small Business training at its regional districts and
online.
The large OEMs have taken an aggressive posture in
assuring that their supply chain is in compliance, which in some cases
are the same DOD suppliers.
summary
With overall Center awareness of this increased focus on
cybersecurity, and appropriate mitigation strategies, AFSC can position
itself along with our small business partners to succeed in a
challenging cybersecurity environment.