    [Senate Hearing 115-674, Part 2]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                    S. Hrg. 115-674, Pt. 2

     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION OF 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 2

                                    SEAPOWER

                                    __________

                          MARCH 6, 20; APRIL 17, 2018

                                    __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Available via: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                      __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    42-589 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2020

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

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

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

    ________________________________________________________________

                            Subcommittee on Seapower

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

                                      (ii)

                               C O N T E N T S

    _________________________________________________________________

                                 March 6, 2018

                                                                       Page

    Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Programs..........................     1

    Grosklags, Vice Admiral Paul A., USN, Commander, Naval Air            4
      Systems Command.

    Addendum A.......................................................    15

    Questions for the Record.........................................    46

                                 March 20, 2018

    Marine Corps Ground Modernization................................    73

    Walsh, Lieutenant General Robert S., USMC, Deputy Commandant for     77
      Combat Development and Integration; Commanding General, Marine
      Corps Combat Development Command; and Commander, United States
      Marine Forces Strategic Command.
    Smith, Jimmy D., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for          78
      Expeditionary Programs and Logistics Management.

    Questions for the Record.........................................   102

                                 April 17, 2018

    Navy Shipbuilding Programs.......................................   105

    Geurts, The Honorable James F., Assistant Secretary of the Navy     109
      for Research, Development, and Acquisition; Accompanied by Vice
      Admiral William R. Merz, USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations
      for Warfare Systems (OPNAV N9); Lieutenant General Robert S.
      Walsh, USMC, Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and
      Integration, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat
      Development Command, and Commander, United States Marine Forces
      Strategic Command.

                                     (iii)

     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
                   2019 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM.

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2018

                          United States Senate,
                              Subcommittee on Seapower,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                                                        Washington, DC.

                    NAVY AND MARINE CORPS AVIATION PROGRAMS

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m. in
    Room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Roger F.
    Wicker (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Subcommittee Members present: Senators Wicker, Cotton,
    Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Hirono, Blumenthal, Kaine, and King.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROGER F. WICKER

        Senator Wicker. This hearing will come to order.
        The Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower meets
    this afternoon to examine Navy and Marine Corps aviation
    programs.
        Our Subcommittee welcomes three distinguished witnesses:
    Vice Admiral Paul A. Grosklags, Commander of Naval Air Systems
    Command; Lieutenant General Steven Rudder, Deputy Commandant
    for Marine Corps Aviation; and Rear Admiral Scott Conn,
    Director of Air Warfare at the Department of the Navy.
        Our Subcommittee is grateful to each of you gentlemen for
    your service to our nation.
        I would like to offer a special welcome to Admiral Conn and
    General Rudder who are testifying to this Subcommittee for the
    first time. And there is speculation, Vice Admiral Grosklags,
    that you are testifying before the Subcommittee for the last
    time. Is that correct?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. There is a rumor, sir.
        Senator Wicker. There is a rumor to that effect. Well, we
    will see about that.
        Last year Subcommittee hearings on naval aviation programs
    were productive. Since then, the Department of Defense has
    articulated a bold, new National Defense Strategy. In
    particular, the NDS focuses on preparing for long-term security
    challenges, notably the ability to wage high-end fights against
    near-peer competitors such as China and Russia. I look forward
    to hearing how Navy and Marine Corps aviation will meet the
    direction of this new strategy.
        Years of continuous combat operations and inadequate
    funding have put the Navy and Marine Corps aviation into a hole
    from which they are only now beginning to recover. Congress
    shares the blame, but we are beginning to turn things around.
    The 2-year budget agreement signed by President Trump in
    February will help provide much needed stability and relief. In
    a matter of weeks, Congress should take the next by ending the
    cycle of continuing resolutions with an fiscal year 2018
    appropriation bill that funds the Department of Defense at much
    higher levels. DOD's [Department of Defense] fiscal year 2019
    budget request also matches the fiscal year 2019 level set by
    the budget agreement.
        Our witnesses should address how the budget helps restore
    full spectrum readiness and supports modernization. Secretary
    Mattis, Secretary Spencer, and General Neller have stated that
    improving readiness should occur simultaneously with efforts to
    modernize forces for future challenges.
        This afternoon, our Subcommittee will examine five key
    areas relating to Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs.
        First, physiological episodes. The Subcommittee remains
    deeply concerned by the continued occurrence of physiological
    episodes within the military aviation community. We recognize
    naval aviation's mitigation efforts particularly in the T-45
    trainer aircraft, but we remain frustrated by the overall pace
    of progress. The Subcommittee is eager to understand how the
    Navy and Marine Corps are handling the continuing problem and
    how the President's Budget request advances efforts to discover
    root causes while implementing mitigations and solutions. The
    safety of our Navy and Marine Corps aviators is of course
    paramount.
        Next, aircraft readiness. The Navy and Marine Corps
    continue to fall short in the required number of ready basic
    aircraft. Witnesses should outline the steps the Navy and
    Marine Corps are taking to arrest and reverse the decline in
    aircraft readiness.
        Next, strike fighter shortfall. Our Subcommittee would also
    like to learn more about gaps in the Navy fighter fleet and the
    Navy's plans to close them, including through legacy Hornet
    retirement, new Super Hornet procurement, and preparations for
    the service life extension program for existing Super Hornets.
        Next, joint strike fighter operations. The Subcommittee
    also wants to understand the development and operations of the
    F-35B and F-35C joint strike fighter. Last year, the Green
    Knights of VMFA [Marine Fighter Atlantic Squadron] 121
    permanently changed their home station to Iwakuni, Japan and
    just completed the first F-35 shipboard deployment. The Joint
    Program Office is currently revamping its plan for F-35
    modernization and is examining how to make the sustainment of
    the aircraft affordable. The Subcommittee looks forward to
    hearing an update on the F-35 operations and the challenges
    associated with modernization and sustainment.
        And then finally, munitions shortfall. Our Subcommittee
    would like an update on the status of the Navy and Marine
    Corps? air-launched munitions inventories. We remain concerned
    that inventories of many of our weapons are critically low. At
    the same time, technological advances by our potential
    adversaries require us to modernize our munitions to remain
    relevant. The Subcommittee needs to understand if we have
    enough munitions and, more importantly, if we have enough of
    the munitions required to fulfill the National Defense Strategy
    to be prepared for the high-end fight.
        So a lot to talk about, and once again, I want to thank our
    witnesses for their service and for appearing before us today.
        I am delighted to recognize at this point our ranking
    Member and my teammate in this regard, Senator Hirono.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAZIE K. HIRONO

        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome to our witnesses. Thank you all for your service.
        In today's discussion, we will examine how the Department
    of the Navy's fiscal year 2019 budget request for Navy and
    Marine Corps aviation programs would help increase readiness,
    address shortfalls in munitions, pilots and maintenance
    personnel, and modernize our maritime strike and expeditionary
    power projection capability, all of which have already been
    mentioned by the chairman.
        Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs play a critical
    role in supporting and advancing our country's strategic
    interests in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region, including from bases
    in Hawaii. We face a number of complex threats around the
    world, and we need to consider the best way to get the Navy and
    Marine Corps the resources they need to confront these threats.
    At the same time, it is critical that any increase in these
    resources does not come at the expense of important domestic
    programs that families, including our military families, rely
    on every day.
        In this request, the administration has submitted a budget
    that is consistent with the top line agreement for fiscal year
    2019. As we meet today, we still do not have a final
    appropriation for fiscal year 2018. This is unacceptable, and
    we need to return to a more normal appropriations schedule and
    process.
        As we consider the 2019 budget, we also need to consider
    the significant challenges we face in naval aviation. In
    particular, we need to hear more about how the new National
    Defense Strategy will impact the Department of the Navy's
    aviation programs.
        Navy and Marine Corps pilots have been experiencing
    problems with the environmental control system in certain
    aircraft, mainly F-18's and T-45's, that have resulted in what
    is referred to as physiological episodes, also referred to by
    the chairman.
        In recent years, naval aviation has been challenged to meet
    current demands by a high operational tempo and uncertainty in
    the fiscal environment. We need to hear from the services what
    progress is being made to address these problems.
        I would also like to discuss what the Department of the
    Navy is doing to address corrosion, a significant issue that
    costs the Department $20 billion a year. I was happy to see in
    the fiscal year 2019 budget a request including a military
    construction for a $66 million corrosion control hangar at
    Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay. I will continue to
    support efforts to help prevent and treat corrosion to mitigate
    its impact on the readiness of our forces.
        This hearing will also provide a chance to discuss some of
    the ongoing issues in the F-35 program, particularly how
    testing is proceeding and the timing of the Navy's initial
    operating capability declaration. I am also interested in
    learning more about how the Navy and Marine Corps view the F-35
    Joint Program Office's plans to modernize the F-35 fleets.
        At a time when we face a major shortfall in the Navy's
    strike fighter inventory, I would like an update on any
    progress the Navy is making to address this situation. A few
    years ago the Navy responded to forecasts of a shortage of
    almost 200 aircraft by trying to better manage the remaining
    life of the existing aircraft. They have done this by
    redistributing aircraft within the force, designing a series of
    maintenance and rehabilitation measures, including a service
    life extension program, or SLEP [Service Life Extension
    Program], for older aircraft and buying new F-18 aircraft. The
    Navy has predicted that SLEP would lead to significant
    improvements in its ability to support operating forces, such
    as aircraft carrier squadrons and Marine Corps squadrons, for
    several years.
        This year, however, the Navy is still having difficulty
    moving F-18 aircraft through the SLEP lines, which means that
    fleet squadrons are having to make do with fewer aircraft. This
    puts a strain on the whole system. We need some clarity about
    what actions the Navy is taking to improve the situation.
        I would also like to hear about the investments the Navy
    and Marine Corps are making in training and maintenance
    operations.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to
    hearing from our witnesses.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Senator Hirono.
        We will begin with testimony from Vice Admiral Grosklags.

     STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL PAUL A. GROSKLAGS, USN, COMMANDER,
                       NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND

        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The intent
    is to make a single opening statement for the entire panel.
        Senator Wicker. Well, I am glad I called on you first.
        [Laughter.]
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Well, I could have passed it on to
    somebody else.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Ranking Member Hirono and
    distinguished Subcommittee Members. Along with myself, General
    Rudder, and Rear Admiral Conn, we appreciate the opportunity to
    be here today to talk about naval aviation and our President's
    Budget 2019 budget request.
        We believe that President's Budget 2019 budget request is
    very well aligned with and supportive of the National Defense
    Strategy. Our ability to achieve this alignment is greatly
    facilitated by the additional budget flexibility provided by
    the recent bipartisan budget agreement. The lethality which
    naval aviation brings to bear in support of our nation's
    interests will be greatly enhanced by the increased procurement
    numbers for aircraft, weapons, increased investment and
    development of new and advanced capabilities, and increased
    funding for our critical readiness and sustainment accounts.
    Our alliances and partnerships will continue to be strengthened
    through an ever-increasing number of international cooperative
    and FMS [Foreign Military Sales] programs such as P-8, Triton,
    V-22, and H-1, F-35 certainly.
        And the need to transform our business and acquisition
    processes is being directly addressed with investments in
    agile, accelerated capabilities-based acquisition, leveraging
    authorities provided by the Congress in the fiscal year 2016
    through 2018 NDAAs and investment in naval aviation sustainment
    Vision 2020, which will leverage commercial tool sets and best
    practices in making fundamental changes to the processes by
    which we plan and execute aviation sustainment activities.
        And while this is a fiscal year 2019 budget hearing, it is
    important to note that the additional funding which appears
    will be provided in the fiscal year 2018 budget is just as
    critical to our ability to align with the National Defense
    Strategy, and while this is broadly true for the entire
    Department, it is especially critical for naval aviation,
    specifically the support for additional aircraft, such as F-
    18's, F-35s, V-22's, H-1's, 53 helos, P-8's, KC-130J's,
    additional weapons such as LRASM [Long-Range Anti-Ship
    Missile], Sidewinder, Harpoon block 2-plus, and additional
    funding for our critical readiness accounts, such as spares,
    depot maintenance, program-related logistics, will put us on
    the proper glide slope to National Defense Strategy alignment.
        However, it is important to note that we must get this
    funding soon for it to be most effectively utilized during this
    fiscal year, although I also note with appreciation that there
    are many Members of this Subcommittee who have requested some
    additional flexibility be provided by the appropriators in our
    execution of those dollars in fiscal year 2018.
        I would also be remiss if I did not mention the continuing
    challenge we face with physiological episodes that both of you
    mentioned in your opening statements. This remains naval
    aviation's top safety issue and has our full attention. While
    we have made clear progress in some areas, solutions to the
    broader problem still remain frustratingly illusive.
        In parallel with pursuit of root causes, we are continuing
    implementation of hardware, software, and procedural
    mitigations. We are conducting additional flight testing and
    system characterization, and following NASA's [North American
    Aerospace Agency] independent review of last year, we have a
    greatly increased focus on aircrew physiology and the
    operational environment.
        Full funding of the President's Budget 2019 PE request is
    critical to continuation of these efforts, and we will continue
    to keep the Subcommittee informed on our progress until this
    issue is resolved.
        In closing, thank you again for your efforts in reaching
    the current budget agreement and for your continuing support of
    our sailors and marines. And we look forward to answering your
    questions.
        [The joint prepared statement of Vice Admiral Grosklags,
    Lieutenant General Rudder, and Rear Admiral Conn follows:]
      Joint Prepared Statement by Vice Admiral Paul Grosklags, Lieutenant
               General Steven Rudder and Rear Admiral Scott Conn
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hirono and distinguished Members of
    the Subcommittee, we thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today to discuss the Department of the Navy's (DON) fiscal year (FY)
    2019 aviation programs. Our budget request aligns to the current
    National Defense Strategy which identifies a more complex global
    security environment characterized by overt challenges to the current
    international order and the resurgence of long-term, strategic
    competition between nations. This request recognizes that we are
    emerging from a period of strategic atrophy that has resulted in the
    erosion of some of our competitive military advantage.
        DON aviation remains highly capable today and we are prepared to
    respond as the nation requires. The Navy-Marine Corps team provides a
    maritime strike and expeditionary power projection force that is
    continuously forward-deployed. We provide the persistent presence and
    multi-mission capabilities that represent a majority of U.S. influence
    across the global commons. To protect our Nation and support our allies
    and partners, Naval Aviation programs require your continued support.
    As we prioritize our preparedness, we request your assistance to
    improve the resilience of our current force posture, modernize key
    capabilities, and accelerate technological advancements to address new
    adversary challenges in every domain.
        Our fiscal year 2019 investments are focused, balanced and
    prioritized to deliver a ready, capable, global sea-based and
    expeditionary force. We request your support for the continued
    transition of the major components of the Carrier Air Wing (CVW),
    Expeditionary Strike Group, Amphibious Ready Group, and land-based
    Expeditionary Wings. We ask you to help us expand on the assimilation
    and teaming of manned and unmanned systems and the further integration
    of advanced platforms, sensors, networks, the electromagnetic spectrum
    and long-range strike weapons that provide the necessary military
    advantage over those challenging the global posture.
        As part of our enduring commitment to fiscal responsibility and
    accelerating delivery of advanced capabilities to the warfighter, the
    Department continues its pursuits of accelerated acquisition and
    business process reforms.
        We are maturing accelerated acquisition authorities Congress
    provided under the fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act
    (Sections 803, 804 and 806). These new measures include implementation
    of accelerated acquisition policies for Rapid Prototyping,
    Experimentation and Demonstration, establishment of Maritime
    Accelerated Capability Office programs, and the use of Rapid Deployment
    Capability processes. As part of these efforts, we are actively
    promoting innovation, government/academia partnerships, and the
    transition of key manufacturing technologies and processes with
    investments focused on affordability and those most beneficial to the
    warfighter.
        Our business reform measures include new focus on achieving full
    auditability of operations, improving financial control systems, and
    providing advanced tools to our workforce to better understand, manage
    and reduce cost. We intend to reform our business operations and
    leverage savings to improve readiness and increase the lethality and
    capacity of Naval Aviation.
        The strategic environment continues to be complex, uncertain, and
    technologically advanced; the proliferation of modern conventional and
    cyber weapons from state and non-state actors is anticipated to
    propagate as rival states and organizations attempt to contest our
    influence. With the sustained support of Congress we can begin to
    restore our competitive naval advantage, enhance global deterrence, and
    ensure Naval Aviation remains uncontested in an increasingly complex
    global security environment.
                               tactical aviation
    Strike Fighter Inventory Management Overview
        The Naval Aviation Enterprise continues to actively manage strike
    fighter inventory challenges. The President's fiscal year 2019 budget
    request puts us on track to reach our desired force structure no later
    than fiscal year 2022 (est.). The key enabler will be stable, on-time
    funding over multiple years to achieve the desired results.
        The fiscal year 2019 request addresses the strike fighter shortfall
    with procurement of 20 F-35Bs, 9 F-35Cs, 24 FA-18E/F Block III Super
    Hornets and additional aircraft across the FYDP. In tandem with these
    procurements, Service Life Modification (SLM) initiatives and
    capability upgrades enhance our inventory by maintaining the tactical
    relevance of the F/A-18 E/F and legacy F/A-18 A-D aircraft.
        Based on current requirements and inventory modeling, we will
    maintain a portion of the Navy and Marine Corps F/A-18 A-D aircraft to
    meet operational requirements through the fiscal year 2030 timeframe.
    Navy will expedite its divestiture from the legacy Hornet--7 years
    ahead of schedule--with the last Navy active component squadron
    transitioning to the F/A-18E/F in 2018. As the Navy divests legacy F/A-
    18 A-D, the ``best of breed'' aircraft will be transferred to the
    Marine Corps, Naval Warfare Development Center, Blue Angels, and the
    Naval Reserves. The fiscal year 2019 request will allow the DON to
    completely divest from the legacy A-D Hornets no later than the fiscal
    year 2030 timeframe.
    F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
        The F-35 Lightning II will form the backbone of U.S. air combat
    superiority for decades to come. Whether the mission requires the
    execution of strike, close air support (CAS), counter air, escort, or
    electronic warfare (EW), both the F-35B and F-35C are vital to our
    future as they become the lethal cornerstone of our naval air forces.
    The Navy and Marine Corps will transition 25 squadrons over the next 10
    years as we replace our aging legacy fleet. Delivering this
    transformational capability to front-line forces as soon as possible
    remains a top priority.
        The DON is committed to reducing F-35 costs. The Department's goal
    is to reduce the flyaway cost of the Marine Corps F-35B to be no
    greater than $104 million dollars and the Navy F-35C cost to be no
    greater than $98 million dollars no later than Low Rate Initial
    Production (LRIP) Lot 14. We are also working to decrease operation and
    sustainment costs by 30 percent over current projections.
        The baseline program has delivered over 250 aircraft to test,
    operational, and training sites. The F-35 program continues to mature
    with base stand-up, sustainment of fielded aircraft and maturation of a
    global sustainment enterprise.
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $4.2 billion in
    Aircraft Procurement funds (APN) for 20 F-35B and 9 F-35C aircraft,
    modifications and spares.
    F-35 Continuous Capabilities Development and Delivery (C2D2)
        As the F-35 program looks to close Block 3F System Development and
    Demonstration, we must continue to modernize the aircraft with advanced
    capabilities to maintain the advantage over advancing adversary
    fighters and ground-based radar threats.
        Towards that end, the Department is restructuring the original
    Block 4 Follow-on Modernization acquisition strategy into a more agile
    Continuous Capabilities Development and Delivery (C2D2) model. The C2D2
    approach leverages commercial practices, develops capability in
    smaller, more easily managed increments, and accelerates delivery of
    warfighting capability. The approach also advances Departmental goals
    of reducing C2D2 risk and lowering cost. In support of fiscal year 2019
    C2D2 ramp-up we request $644.0 million in Research, Development, Test,
    and Evaluation funds (RDT&E).
    F/A-18 A/B/C/D Hornet
        Service Life Extension Plan (SLEP) efforts extended the F/A-18 A-D
    beyond its original service life of 6,000 hours to 8,000 hours, and in
    select aircraft, up to 10,000 flight hours. Along with flight hour
    extensions, these aircraft require capability upgrades to maintain
    tactical relevance as the Marine Corps plans to fly a portion of the
    legacy F/A-18 A-D fleet through the fiscal year 2030 timeframe to
    bridge the transition gap to an F-35B/F-35C fleet.
        The fiscal year 2019 budget requests $273.2 million in APN to
    implement aircraft commonality programs, enhance capability, improve
    reliability, and ensure structural safety of the F/A-18 A-D inventory,
    and $67.0 million for the continuation of the Hornet SLEP.
    F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
        The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will be the numerically predominant
    aircraft in CVWs into the mid-late 2030s. Continued investment in new
    aircraft and capability upgrades and flight hour extensions
    significantly improves CVW lethality.
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $1.99 billion in
    APN for procurement of 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft and $301.4
    million of RDT&E for Block III, Infrared Search & Track (IRST)
    development/test, F/A-18E/F SLM initiatives and RADAR upgrades.
    AV-8B Harrier
        The fiscal year 2019 budget requests $46.4 million in RDT&E funds
    to continue design, development, integration and test of platform
    improvements. These improvements include continuation of an Engine Life
    Management Program, Escape System upgrades, Joint Mission Planning
    System updates, Link-16 Digital Interoperability (DI) integration,
    Operational Flight Program block upgrades (mission and communication
    systems), navigation improvements, weapons carriage updates,
    countermeasure improvements, and updates to an Obsolescence
    Replacement/Readiness Management Plan.
        The fiscal year 2019 budget also includes $58.6 million in APN to
    continue the incorporation of Obsolescence Replacement/Readiness
    Management Plan systems, electrical and structural enhancements,
    LITENING Pod upgrades, F402-RR-408 engine safety and operational
    changes, DI upgrades that include Link 16, and inventory sustainment
    and upgrade efforts to offset obsolescence and attrition.
    Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Family of Systems
        The Department is continuing a Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)
    Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) to address the anticipated retirement of
    the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft beginning in the mid-2030s.
        The Joint Chiefs of Staff approved the Initial Capabilities
    Document that frames NGAD study requirements to support the full range
    of military operations from carrier-based platforms. The AOA is
    considering the widest possible range of materiel concepts while
    balancing capability, cost/affordability, schedule, and supportability.
    It will assess manned, unmanned, and optionally manned approaches to
    fulfill predicted 2030+ mission requirements. Analyses will consider
    baseline programs of record (current platforms), evolutionary or
    incremental upgrades to baseline programs (including derivative
    platforms), and new development systems or aircraft to meet identified
    gaps in required capability. We anticipate the NGAD AOA to report out
    in fiscal year 2019.
                        airborne electonic attack (aea)
    EA-18G Growler
        The EA-18G Growler is a critical enabler for the Joint force as it
    brings fully netted electronic warfare capabilities to the fight,
    providing essential capabilities in the Electromagnetic Maneuver
    Warfare environment.
        The EA-18G program will complete deliveries in fiscal year 2018,
    with a total procurement quantity of 160 aircraft. This fulfills
    current Navy requirements for Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) for nine
    CVWs and five expeditionary squadrons plus one reserve squadron.
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $147.4 million of
    RDT&E for additional modernization to ensure the EA-18G maintains its
    edge in the electromagnetic spectrum domain.
    EA-6B Prowler
        The Marine Corps currently has one remaining operational EA-6B
    squadron to support joint AEA operational requirements through fiscal
    year 2018. These organic AEA capabilities include the Intrepid Tiger II
    EW pod, which provides communications electronic attack and support for
    the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF). The fiscal year 2019
    President's Budget request includes $18.5 million in RDT&E and $11.5
    million in APN for Intrepid Tiger II updates and procurement.
    Next Generation Jammer (NGJ)
        The NGJ is the follow-on to the legacy AN/ALQ-99 initially fielded
    in 1971. The ALQ-99 has reached capability limits both technologically
    and materially and is challenged against modern state-of-the-art
    digital surface-to-air missiles systems. NGJ will provide improved
    capability in support of Joint and coalition air, land and sea tactical
    strike missions and is critical to Navy's vision for the future of
    strike warfare. It will become the Defense Department's only
    comprehensive tactical airborne electronic attack platform and is
    essential to counter current and emerging threats.
        NGJ will be implemented in three increments: Mid-Band (formerly
    known as Increment 1), Low-Band (formerly known as Increment 2), and
    High-Band (formerly known as Increment 3). The April 2017 NGJ-Mid-Band
    Critical Design Review revealed deficiencies in the design of the pod
    structure that necessitated a redesign effort to meet air worthiness
    requirements. The information available to date about this redesign
    indicates a potential for a schedule impact of more than six months. A
    collaborative government/industry analysis effort to redesign the
    structure is expected to complete in April/May 2018. Once the redesign
    of the pod structure is complete, we will realize the full impact to
    the NGJ-Mid-Band program. Independent of the structural issue, the
    design, integration, manufacture, and testing of all other pod
    components, sub-assemblies (such as the arrays, power generation,
    cooling, common electronics unit), and software continue. Platform
    integration efforts remain aligned to the EA-18G H16 System Software
    schedule; the next Generation Jammer Low Band program is investigating
    possible accelerated acquisition strategies to accelerate Initial
    Operating Capability (IOC).
        Our fiscal year 2019 budget requests $459.5 million in RDT&E to
    maintain Mid-Band schedule, continue procurement and assembly of the
    Engineering and Development Models, and commence developmental flight
    testing. In addition, we also request $115.3 million RDT&E to complete
    Low-Band technology feasibility studies and initiate technology
    demonstration efforts.
                        airborne early warning aircraft
    E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (AHE)
        The E-2D AHE is the Navy's carrier-based Airborne Early Warning and
    Battle Management Command and Control system. The E-2D AHE provides
    Theater Air and Missile Defense and is a cornerstone of the Naval
    Integrated Fire Control--Counter Air system of systems capability.
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $223.6 million in
    RDT&E for continuation of added capabilities, to include Aerial
    Refueling, Secret Internet Protocol Router chat, Advanced Mid-Term
    Interoperability Improvement Program, Counter Electronic Attack,
    Multifunctional Information Distribution System /Joint Tactical Radio
    System Tactical Targeting Network Technology, Sensor Netting, and Data
    Fusion, Navigation Warfare, Fighter to Fighter Backlink, ALQ-217
    Electronic Support Measures, and Crypto Modernization/Frequency
    Remapping.
        In the first year of what will be a 24 aircraft Multi-Year
    Procurement contract covering fiscal years 2019-2023, the budget also
    requests $983.4 million in APN for four Full Rate Production (FRP) Lot
    7 aircraft and Advance Procurement for fiscal year 2020 FRP Lot 8
    aircraft.
                 assault support and logistics support aircraft
    MV-22B/CMV-22B
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $143.1 million in
    RDT&E for continued product improvements and development of the Navy
    variant, the CMV-22B; $843.2 million in APN for seven Lot 23 CMV-22Bs,
    procurement of long lead items for fiscal year 2020 (Lot 24) aircraft;
    and $214.8 million to support `Operations and Safety Improvement
    Programs' (OSIPs). Planned OSIP efforts include the correction of
    deficiencies, readiness improvements, common configuration
    modernization, aerial refueling, and avionics improvements.
    C-2 Greyhound
        As the DON recapitalizes the long-range aerial logistics support
    and Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD) capabilities with CMV-22B, the C-2A
    fleet will continue to provide critical COD support for operations
    worldwide until the fiscal year 2024 timeframe. The fiscal year 2019
    budget request provides for $11.32 million in APN and $0.8 million in
    RDT&E to manage remaining C-2A aircraft mission systems obsolescence,
    including critical Center Wing Section repair kits to maintain
    sufficient capacity and readiness to safely complete the transition to
    CMV-22B.
    CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement Program
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $326.9 million in
    RDT&E to continue the CH-53K Engineering Manufacturing Development
    phase and $1.3 billion in APN for procurement of eight Lot 3 LRIP
    aircraft, including Advance Procurement and initial spares.
        During fiscal year 2019, the program will continue to execute
    developmental test flights including propulsion testing, initial
    shipboard testing, avionics qualification testing, service ceiling
    testing, and hot/high altitude testing.
    CH/MH-53E
        To keep the CH-53E and MH-53E viable through their remaining
    services lives, the fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $52.0
    million in APN and $17.0 million in RDT&E. The funding will provide for
    Condition Based Maintenance software upgrades, cockpit upgrades,
    Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System, T-64
    engine reliability improvements, survivability upgrades, satellite
    communications kits, and Phase I of CH-53E's Degraded Visual
    Environment capability. These critical safety and avionics upgrades are
    essential to address obsolescence issues within the cockpit, increase
    overall situational awareness, and maintain mission effectiveness.
        Maintenance on both variants of the H-53E becomes more challenging
    as they approach 30 years of service. The unprecedented operational
    demand of the CH-53E degraded the material condition of the heavy lift
    assault support aircraft sooner than expected; therefore, modernization
    to the CH-53K King Stallion is vital. The MH-53E will continue to
    perform its primary mission of airborne Mine Countermeasures as well as
    transport of cargo and personnel until it is replaced by the Littoral
    Combat Ship (LCS).
                          attack and utility aircraft
    AH-1Z/UH-1Y
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $907.9 million in
    APN for 25 AH-1Z aircraft and system improvements and $58.1 million in
    RDT&E for continued product improvements/upgrades.
        The H-1 upgrades program integrates a DI environment established
    throughout the MAGTF. H-1 DI and Full Motion Video efforts have
    expanded this capability for both the Venom and the Viper. With the
    integration of Intrepid Tiger II, the Marine Corps' Light Attack
    Helicopter Squadron community provides MAGTF Commanders multi-domain
    maneuverability.
    MH-60R/S
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $130.7 million in
    APN and $23.4 million in RDT&E. APN funds support safety related
    systems improvements, correction of deficiencies, warfighter upgrades,
    and obsolescence issues such as Mission Computer modernization and
    procurement of kits for the Helmet Display Targeting System and
    Advanced Data Transfer System. RDT&E,N is requested to support
    development efforts that include MH-60S Service Life Assessment
    Program, software integration of the Advanced Off-board Electronic
    Warfare pod, and implementation of Link-16 J11 and J12.6 series
    messages that will enabling the helicopter to provide in-flight target
    updates to Net Enabled Weapons.
                           executive support aircraft
    VH-3D/VH-60N Executive Helicopter Series
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $23.6 million of
    APN to continue programs that ensure the in-service Presidential fleet
    remains safe and reliable. Ongoing efforts include a Communications
    Suite Upgrade (Wide Band Line of Sight) that provides persistent access
    to the strategic communications network, the continuing Structural
    Enhancement Program necessary to extend platform service life, and
    Obsolescence Management needed to sustain and improve system readiness
    for both VH-60N and VH-3D platforms. The Cabin Interior and
    Environmental Control System upgrade is a critical obsolescence
    management effort for the VH-3D, reducing aircraft operational weight
    and improving maintainability. Where appropriate, technology updates
    for legacy platforms will be directly leveraged for the benefit of the
    VH-92A program.
    VH-92A Presidential Helicopter Replacement Aircraft
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $245.1 million in
    RDT&E to continue Engineering Development Model (EDM) activities, to
    include, contractor test for airworthiness certification and
    modifications of EDM and System Demonstration Test Article aircraft.
    Additionally, $649.0 million of APN is requested to procure six LRIP
    Lot 1 aircraft and associated support.
                              fixed-wing aircraft
    KC-130J (USMC)
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $270.4 million to
    procure two KC-130Js and spares as part of a proposed multi-year
    procurement (MYP III) and $78.1 million in APN for targeted
    improvements. Key improvements include increased survivability through
    advanced electronic countermeasure modernization and obsolescence
    upgrades to the Harvest HAWK Intelligence, Surveillance and
    Reconnaissance/Weapon Mission Kit. The obsolescence upgrade includes
    compatibility with additional Hellfire variants and an improved full
    motion video data-link. Today, the KC-130J remains in high demand,
    providing tactical air-to-air refueling, assault support, CAS and
    Multi-sensor Imagery Reconnaissance capabilities in support of Special
    Purpose MAGTFs and deployed Marine Expeditionary Units.
    KC-130J (Navy)
        New in the fiscal year 2019 President's Budget, Navy has started a
    recapitalization effort for its legacy C/KC-130T aircraft. This
    initiative creates a uniform DON procurement of KC-130J model aircraft.
    To support the plan, we request $12.0 million in fiscal year 2019 APN
    (Advance Procurement) to pay for up-front costs needed to support the
    multi-service KC-130J MYP III. This effort begins the recapitalization
    of a 25 aircraft program of record.
                           maritime support aircraft
    P-8A Poseidon
        The P-8A Poseidon recapitalizes the wide area Anti-Submarine
    Warfare (ASW), Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW) and armed ISR capabilities
    of the aging P-3C Orion. The P-8A combines the proven reliability of
    the commercial 737 airframe with modern avionics that enables the
    integration of modern sensors and robust military communications.
        In fiscal year 2019, we request $1.98 billion in APN for ten
    aircraft and $197.7 million in RDT&E for aircraft updates to include
    the addition of Networked Enabled Weapons capabilities, satellite
    communications, track management and sensor fusion capability.
    P-3C Orion
        The aging P-3C fleet will continue to provide critical ASW, ASuW
    and ISR support for operations worldwide until the fleet completes
    transition to P-8A. The fiscal year 2019 budget request includes $0.8
    million to manage P-3C aircraft mission systems obsolescence and $2.13
    million to fund the P-3 Fatigue Life Management Program to maintain
    sufficient airframe safety margins and capacity to complete transition
    to P-8A.
    EP-3 Aries
        The EP-3E Aries is currently Navy's only Maritime ISR and Signals
    Intelligence (SIGINT) platform. The Joint Airborne SIGINT Common
    Configuration includes Multi-INT sensors, robust communication, and
    data links employed by the P-3 air vehicle to ensure effective fleet
    support across the full spectrum of military operations.
        The fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act directed
    the Navy to sustain EP-3E airframe and associated mission systems to
    minimize SIGINT capability gaps until the systems are fully
    recapitalized with a system or family of systems that in aggregate
    provide equal or better capability and capacity. The Navy's family of
    systems approach to ISR shifts the focus from platforms to payloads to
    deliver increased capacity and persistence by the end of this decade.
    To support these efforts, we request $9.0 million for the EP-3 program
    as we transition Navy's maritime ISR.
    C-40A
        The C-40A is a military variant of the Boeing 737-700C, a
    combination passenger/cargo aircraft, with military avionics and
    aircraft survivability equipment. In fiscal year 2019, we request $206
    million in APN to procure two C-40As for the Marine Corps.
                        unmanned aircraft systems (uas)
        The DON has placed a priority on the development of unmanned
    systems leading to a fully integrated manned and unmanned fleet.
    Unmanned technology will not replace our Sailors and Marines; instead
    it will unlock their full potential as we integrate this technology
    within our total force.
    MQ-4C Triton UAS
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $14.4 million in
    RDT&E to continue Triton baseline development activities; $219.9
    million in RDT&E for Multi-INT modernization; and $719.4 million of APN
    for procurement of the fourth lot of LRIP aircraft and spares, retrofit
    of the LRIP Lot 1 aircraft to the Multi-INT configuration, and
    procurement of long-lead materials for the fifth lot of LRIP aircraft.
    MQ-25 Stingray
        MQ-25 will deliver the Navy's first carrier-based UAS to function
    primarily as a mission tanker to extend the range, reach, and lethality
    of the CVW, with secondary recovery tanking and ISR capabilities. MQ-25
    will reduce current use of F/A-18E/Fs as CVW tankers, freeing F/A-18E/
    Fs to execute strike fighter missions, effectively increasing strike
    fighter capacity within the CVW. The fiscal year 2019 President's
    Budget requests $718.9 million in RDT&E for MQ-25 development
    activities.
    MQ-8 Fire Scout
        The MQ-8 Fire Scout is a rotary-wing system that includes two
    airframe types, the MQ-8B and MQ-8C. The MQ-8C is a larger, more
    capable and more cost-effective airframe that uses the same mission
    control system, avionics and payloads as the MQ-8B. Both systems are
    designed to operate from any suitably-equipped air-capable ship, carry
    modular mission payloads, and operate using the Tactical Control System
    (TCS) and Line-Of-Sight Tactical Common Data Link.
        In fiscal year 2019, we request $9.8 million of RDT&E to continue
    hardware and software modifications, payload integration, cyber
    vulnerability closure and safety capability improvements and $92.7
    million in APN to procure four MQ-8 mission control systems and three
    MQ-8C Active Electronically Scanned Array radar kits. Included in the
    procurement request is support for ancillary shipboard equipment,
    trainers/aircraft support equipment, technical support, and the
    logistics to outfit suitably-equipped air-capable ships and train the
    associated Aviation Detachments.
    Tactical Control System (TCS)
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $8.5 million in
    RDT&E for the MQ-8 System's TCS. TCS provides a standards-compliant
    open architecture with scalable command and control capabilities for
    the MQ-8 Fire Scout system. In fiscal year 2019, we will continue the
    transition of the Linux operating system to a technology refreshed
    mission control system, enhance the MQ-8 System's Automatic
    Identification System and sensor track generation integration with ship
    systems, overcome hardware obsolescence issues with the Solaris based
    control stations, provide lower cost software updates using DOD common
    application software, and enhance collaboration with the Navy's future
    UAS Common Control System.
    RQ-21A Blackjack
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $16.3 million in
    RDT&E ($5.4 million USN, $10.9 million USMC) and $21.8 million in APN
    for support of Marine Corps and Naval Special Warfare forces to address
    ISR capability requirements.
    MAGTF Expeditionary UAS (MUX)
        As the Marine Corps recapitalizes toward a more diverse, lethal,
    amphibious and middleweight expeditionary force, Marines require a UAS
    that is network-enabled, digitally interoperable, and built to execute
    responsive, persistent, lethal, and adaptive full-spectrum operations.
    MUX is planned to be the system that will provide the MEF/MEB-sized
    MAGTF with an advanced multi-mission platform.
        The fiscal year 2019 budget requests $20.4 million in RDT&E for the
    MUX program to conduct an AOA and begin development of an acquisition
    strategy; $4.9 million in RDT&E for KMAX operations (i.e. CQ-24A Cargo
    UAS Experimentation and Support Services) in support of MUX technology
    demonstrations and Concept of Operation development (included under the
    MUX line).
    Common Control System (CCS)
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $49 million in
    RDT&E and Other Procurement Navy (OPN) for continuation of Common
    Control System (CCS) activities. The primary mission of CCS is to
    provide common control across the Navy's unmanned systems (UxS)
    portfolio to add scalable and adaptable warfighting capability,
    implement robust cybersecurity attributes, leverage existing government
    owned products, eliminate redundant software development efforts,
    consolidate product support, encourage innovation, improve cost
    control, and enable rapid integration of UxS capabilities across all
    domains (air, surface, sub-surface, and ground). CCS leverages existing
    government owned software to provide UxS Vehicle Management (VM),
    Mission Management (MM) and Mission Planning (MP) capabilities. CCS
    uses an open and modular architecture and will integrate with MQ-8B/C
    in fiscal year 2019 with future integration of MQ-4 and Large
        Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle. CCS VM (Increment 1) was
    delivered to the MQ-25 program office in fiscal year 2017 and planned
    updates are being accelerated to maintain alignment with the MQ-25
    schedule. In fiscal year 2019, CCS/Increment 1 will conduct VM
    integration and test in both MQ-25 and MQ-8. Concurrently, CCS,
    Increment II will continue to develop MM/MP capabilities to meet
    platform operational requirements with the first release planned for
    mid-2020.
                            strike weapons programs
    Cruise Missile Strategy
        The Department's Cruise Missile Strategy (CMS) provides for the
    development of stand-off attack capabilities from air, surface, and
    undersea platforms against both Surface and Land Domain targets. The
    key CMS tenets are:
        1.  Maintain and upgrade legacy cruise missiles.
        2.  Pursue advanced near/mid-term capabilities.
        3.  Plan and develop next generation integrated solutions.
    Tactical Tomahawk (TACTOM) Block IV Cruise Missile
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $282.4 million in
    RDT&E, $98.6 million in Weapons Procurement Navy (WPN) and $92.9
    million in OPN.
        RDT&E will be used for development/test of navigation and
    communications upgrades to improve TACTOMs performance in Anti-Access/
    Area Denial environments (A2/AD), development/test of Maritime Strike
    Tomahawk (MST), development/test of a Global Positioning System M-Code
    capability, development/test of the Joint Multiple Effects Warhead
    System and Fuse, and associated Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System
    (TTWCS) and Tomahawk Mission Planning Center (TMPC) updates that
    support all upgrades and address usability, interoperability and
    information assurance mandates.
        WPN is required for the transition from a missile production to a
    missile recertification phase, production line shutdown, procurement of
    112 A2/AD kits and completion of 87 missile recertifications.
        OPN is required for procurement and installation of TMPC and TTWCS
    hardware/software modifications to address evolving security
    requirements, critical program information protection, obsolescence
    updates, and modern computing architecture improvements.
    Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 1 (Long Range Anti-
            Ship Missile (LRASM))
        OASuW Increment 1 (LRASM) will provide Combatant Commander's the
    ability to conduct ASuW operations against high-value surface
    combatants protected by Integrated Air Defense Systems with long-range
    Surface-to-Air-Missiles and deny adversaries sanctuary of maneuver
    against 2018 to 2020 threats. The program is scheduled to achieve Early
    Operational Capability on the Air Force B-1B by the end of fiscal year
    2018 and Navy F/A-18E/F by the end of fiscal year 2019.
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget request $143.1 million in
    RDT&E for LRASM development and testing and $81.2 million in WPN to
    purchase 25 LRASM All-Up-Round weapons.
    Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 2
        OASuW Increment 2 is required to deliver the long-term, air-
    launched ASuW capabilities to counter 2028 threats (and beyond). The
    Department continues to plan for OASuW Increment 2 to be developed via
    full and open competition. To inform the long-term path forward, the
    DON will leverage Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW) AOA
    results to inform the required ASuW capabilities. Due to Increment 2
    budget marks, Navy requests support for an incremental upgrade to LRASM
    to bridge the gap until an OASuW Increment 2 program of record can be
    established. Increment 2 IOC is now planned for the fiscal year 2028 to
    2030 timeframe.
    Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW)
        NGLAW will provide the next generation of long-range, kinetic
    strike capability to destroy high-priority fixed, stationary and moving
    targets--as well as those targets hardened, defended or positioned at
    ranges such that engagement by aviation assets would incur unacceptable
    risk. NGLAW will be capable of kinetic land and maritime attack from
    both surface and sub-surface platforms. NGLAW initially complements,
    and then eventually replaces the Tomahawk Weapon System. IOC is planned
    for the 2028 to 2030 timeframe (est.). The fiscal year 2019 budget
    requests $16.9 million to begin the transition of NGLAW to a program of
    record.
    Sidewinder Air-Intercept Missile (AIM-9X)
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $40.1 million in
    RDT&E and $78.3 million in WPN. RDT&E will be applied toward the
    Engineering Manufacturing Development of critical hardware redesign
    driven by obsolescence; developmental test of System Improvement
    Program missile software (Version 9.4); and design and development of
    Insensitive Munitions (IM) improvements (Joint Chiefs of Staff IM
    mandate).
        WPN funding is requested to procure a combined 192 All-Up-Rounds
    and Captive Air Training Missiles and associated missile/trainer
    related hardware.
    Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM/AIM-120D)
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $32.5 million in
    RDT&E for continued software capability enhancements and $212.2 million
    in WPN for 141 All-Up-Rounds and associated missile/missile-related
    hardware.
        RDT&E resources support the development and test of an Electronic
    Protection Improvement Program and a System Improvement Program to
    counter emerging electronic attack threats.
    Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II)
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $104.4 million in
    RDT&E for continued development/test of the SDB II weapon, the BRU-55
    bomb rack modification (required for IOC onboard F/A-18E/F aircraft),
    and the BRU-61 bomb rack modification (required for the F-35B/C
    platform launch). The DON also requests $91.3 million in WPN to procure
    750 All-Up-Round weapons.
    Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) & AARGM Extended Range
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $6.3 million of
    RDT&E for AARGM Foreign Material Assessment; $15.3 million for AARGM
    Global Positioning System M-Code development, AARGM Derivative Program
    transition, and Block 1 follow-on development; $99.2 million of RDT&E
    for AARGM Extended Range development; and $188.0 million of WPN for
    production of 257 AARGM Block 1 modification kits for integration into
    All-Up-Rounds and Captive Training Missiles.
    Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $6.8 million in
    RDT&E to complete JAGM integration onto the Marine Corps AH-1Z
    platforms and $24.1 million in WPN to procure 71 tactical missiles and
    four captive air training missiles.
    Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II)
        APKWS II has become a weapon of choice in current operations as it
    provides an unprecedented precision guidance capability to the DON
    rocket inventories, thereby significantly improving accuracy and
    minimizing collateral damage.
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $108.8 million in
    PANMC for procurement of 3,686 APKWS II guidance section kits for use
    on both rotary-wing and fixed-wing platforms.
    Direct Attack Weapons and General Purpose Bombs
        Fully funding General Purpose Bombs and the Joint Direct Attack
    Munition (JDAM) line items are critical to building the DON's direct
    attack weapons inventory. In the last forty-two months of ongoing
    contingency operations DON aircraft have expended nearly two times the
    number of 500 pound JDAM kits than we have taken delivery of during the
    same period.
        The fiscal year 2019 President's Budget requests $142.4 million in
    PANMC for Direct Attack Weapons and General Purpose Bombs and an
    additional $180.9 million to procure 7,594 JDAM kits to enhance
    readiness and prepare for future contingencies.
                                   conclusion
        Naval Aviation continues to operate forward--fully prepared for
    conflict in the full range of military operations while managing near-
    term service-life, mid-term capability improvements and long-term
    investments in research and development for delivery of future
    capabilities. We are building and sustaining a lethal, resilient force
    through balanced investments across readiness, capability and capacity.
    Naval Aviation is actively pursuing and seizing innovation and
    advantage wherever it can as we implement our vision to provide the
    right capability in the hands of the warfighter, on schedule, and in
    the most affordable manner possible.

                               Addendum A

                              safety (part 1 of 2)
    Physiological Episodes (PE)
        All Navy senior leadership views the occurrence of Physiological
    Episodes (PE) in our tactical aircraft and trainers as our number one
    aviation safety priority until we fully understand all causal factors
    and mitigate PEs as a risk to flight operations. To date, we have
    identified multiple interrelated causal factors but the entirety of the
    root cause(s) of physiological episodes remains unidentified.
    Mitigation efforts currently in place, to include software
    modifications, personnel education, and equipment changes are
    positively affecting the PE rate for all Type/Model/Series aircraft but
    most notably in T-45s. With these mitigations, Naval Aviation is
    currently meeting operational requirements and personnel are working in
    an operational environment with an acceptable level of risk.
        For our T-45 aircraft we have reduced the overall PE rate
    substantially with over 30,000 flight hours flown and only seven minor
    events since the return to flight. Five of the seven cases post return-
    to-flight were attributed to human factors; in all T-45 cases,
    negligible contaminants were found in the monitoring devices, all well
    below Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. Beyond
    mitigating the identified flow problem from the engine, we are
    integrating an Automatic Backup Oxygen System (ABOS) to improve oxygen
    generating system performance overall.
        In our F/A-18 aircraft, we continue to implement changes that are
    improving the Environmental Control System, increasing system stability
    of failure modes and improving the cockpit environment for our
    aviators. More work remains to be done, but mitigation and redesign
    efforts are producing positive results in all FA-18 variants. We are
    collaborating across the DOD to leverage research efforts to help
    characterize the cockpit environment to ensure we reach a long-range,
    holistic solution rather than interlaced mitigations in both current
    and future aircraft. We have investigated every line of inquiry
    recommended by the NASA report to include measuring breathing gas
    quality at the mask. We are drafting a request for proposal for a new
    MIL-STD-3050 compliant On Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS)
    concentrator designed to replace the existing well performing but less
    capable concentrator currently in the F/A-18 and EA-18 aircraft. This
    effort will provide digital data logging of performance, increased
    reliability and oxygen scheduling in compliance with the MIL-STD. The
    replacement OBOGS concentrator will be the first in the DOD inventory
    to comply with the MIL-STD that was created in 2015.
        We have also assigned a Flag Officer to oversee a Physiological
    Episodes Action Team (PEAT). Together, our engineers, industry
    partners, physiologists and outside support from groups as diverse as
    the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Naval Medical
    Research Units are working diligently to find a solution to the
    physiological episodes issue.
        RDML Joyner, the Department's PEAT lead, recently testified to the
    House Armed Services Committee on February 6, 2018. Her formal
    statement provides a comprehensive update on all PE efforts to-date and
    the hearing transcript provides additional relevant data. Both can be
    found at: https://armedservices.house.gov/legislation/hearings/
    addressing-physiological-episodes-fighter-attack-and-training-aircraft-
    0
                              safety (part 2 of 2)
    Class A, B, and C Aviation-Related Safety Issues Summary
        A summary of all Naval Aviation Class A, B and C aviation-related
    safety issues, including recent mishaps, trends, and analysis from
    October 2015 through December 2017 follows. The rates presented in the
    table are based on total mishaps per 100,000 flight hours and include
    Flight, Flight-Related and Ground mishaps.

                                         Table 1. Plan Choices for Military Beneficiaries Compared to Federal Civilians
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Flight                   Class A                   Class B                   Class C
                                 Year                                 Hours       Class A        Rate       Class B        Rate       Class C        Rate
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2016.............................................   1,098,519           18         1.64           26         2.37          216        19.66
    Fiscal year 2017.............................................   1,072,156           25         2.33           33         3.08          242        22.57
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The most recent (fiscal year 2017-14 February 2018) DON flight
    Class A mishaps include:
          11 December 2017 (Tinker AFB, OK): E-6A struck birds
    during descent, leading to number 4 engine flameout.
          04 December 2017 (NAS Fallon): FA-18A right leading edge
    flap departed aircraft in flight and hit the vertical stabilizer.
          22 November 2017: (Philippine Sea) C-2A ditched while
    inbound to CVN with 11 onboard. Three fatalities.
          11 October 2017: (Futenma MCAS, Japan) CH-53E engine fire
    in flight, emergency landing. No injuries.
          01 October 2017: (Monroe County, TN) T-45C crashed on
    low-level training route. Two fatalities.
          28 September 2017: (Syria) MV-22B crashed on landing
    during support mission.
          12 August 2017: (Bahrain) F/A-18E departed runway during
    landing after a ship to shore divert due to an engine malfunction.
    Pilot ejected. No injuries.
          09 August 2017: (25 Miles South of Key West, FL) F-5N
    went down over water. Pilot ejected safely.
          05 August 2017: (15 nm off NE Australia IVO Shoal Water
    Bay) MV-22B struck LPD flight deck on final approach and then crashed
    into water. Three personnel are missing and presumed deceased. 23
    recovered.
          05 August 2017: (North Island NAS, CA) F/A-18F struck
    round down with right horizontal stabilator upon landing. Diverted
    successfully.
          16 July 2017: (Bay of Bengal) F/A-18F engine borescope
    plug backed out in flight causing hot air to burn to engine bay and
    aircraft skin.
          10 July 2017: (Indianola, MS) KC-130T crashed on
    logistics flight from Cherry Point to El Centro. 16 fatalities.
          27 April 2017: (Off the Coast of Guam) MH-60R collided
    with water on initial takeoff from ship. No injuries.
          21 April 2017: (Philippine Sea) F-18E lost on approach to
    landing on carrier. Pilot ejected without injury prior to water impact.
          05 April 2017: (Yuma, AZ) CH-53E landed hard and rolled
    on day training flight. Crew of five uninjured.
          28 March 2017: (El Centro NAF) HH-60H main rotor blades
    contacted tail rotor driveshaft on landing.
          17 January 2017: (NAS Meridian, MS) T-45 crashed
    following a BASH incident on takeoff. Both crewmembers ejected. No
    fatalities.
          12 December 2016: (Off the Coast of Okinawa, Japan) MV-
    22B attempted a precautionary emergency landing (PEL) to dry land but
    crash landed in shallow water. Crew of five evacuated with injuries.
          07 December 2016: (Off the Coast of Iwakuni MCAS, Japan)
    F/A-18C crashed into the water while conducting a night mission. One
    fatality.
          21 November 2016: (Upper Mojave Desert Region) F/A-18F
    struck a tree while instructor pilot was conducting a currency flight
    event. Returned to base safely. No injuries.
          09 November 2016: (Off the Coast of San Diego) Two F/A-
    18As were conducting basic flight maneuvers and had a mid-air
    collision. One aircraft crashed in the water. Pilot ejected
    successfully. One aircraft landed with significant damage.
          27 October 2016: (MCAS Beaufort, SC) F/A-35B had an
    inflight weapons bay fire followed by an uneventful landing. No
    injuries.
          25 October 2016: (Twentynine Palms, CA) F/A-18C crashed
    on final approach. Pilot ejected successfully. No injuries.
          20 October 2016: (Yuma, AZ) CH-53E main rotor contacted
    building causing damage to the aircraft.
        DON Class A aviation ground and Flight Related mishaps (AGM and
    FRM):
          17 August 2017: (NW of San Clemente Island) MH-60R lost
    SONAR transducer at sea. (FRM)
          11 July 2017: (New River MCAS, NC) Maintenance personnel
    struck by lightning on the flight line while working on MV-22B. One
    fatality. Two others were treated and released. (AGM)
          25 June 2017: (MCAS Miramar, CA) Two Marines injured and
    F/A-18A damaged after flammable material in drip pan caught fire. (AGM)
          19 January 2017: (NAS Norfolk, VA) Three E-2C aircraft
    damaged in an engine oil related event. (AGM)
          18 December 2016: (Kadena AFB, Japan) Tow bar separation
    resulted in aircraft/tow collision with damage to nose gear and lower
    fuselage of P-8A. (AGM)
          15 December 2016: (NAS Whidbey Island, WA) Canopy on EA-
    18G exploded/jettisoned resulting in severe injuries to two personnel.
    (AGM)

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           End of Addendum A

        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Admiral.
        Let us talk then about the budget. Tell us what this added
    flexibility would do for you, and how is the additional funding
    going to assist the Navy and Marine Corps in modernization and
    readiness restoration? What will you be able to do extra that
    you have not been able to do? And please give us some specific
    examples.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Mr. Chairman, I will give it a
    start and let my colleagues join in as well.
        So a couple of things. On the modernization front, you
    could use MQ-25 as an example, our carrier-based refueling
    platform. We added an additional $250 million approximately
    over what we had planned in 2018 to our fiscal year 2019
    request. That allows us to accelerate the initial operational
    capability of that platform by 2 years. That is a specific
    example on modernization.
        On the readiness front, our readiness accounts are funded
    in the President's Budget 2019 request to between 92 and 100
    percent, which is across the board a level at which they have
    not been funded for over a decade. There is significant
    progress we are going to be able to make in terms of improving
    our facilities at our depots, in terms of making sure that the
    publications and the support equipment that our sailors and
    marines need to maintain the aircraft on the flight line are up
    to date and of the highest quality. And we have also been able
    initiate the funding for Vision 2020, our sustainment plan for
    the future, which I mentioned in my opening statement. Those
    are additional things that we are doing in fiscal year 2019
    that we did not have in previous years.
        Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, what can you
    add?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. Senator, thank you.
        Simply put, I think what it allows us to do is the things
    that Admiral Grosklags talked about. But what it does, if you
    look at, as you appropriately stated, the Commandant's
    priorities as far as modernization and readiness and doing them
    at the same time, is just that. Before we were underfunding our
    readiness accounts to buy new airplanes, and we were not buying
    enough new airplanes.
        With the budget that this committee and Congress is
    providing now, it allows us to do both. And it allows us to do
    both, modernizing our depot, hiring the right people, getting
    the right people in the right place at the right time in our
    depots. It allows us to train. It allows to buy the spares,
    fully fund our spares accounts, our parts, which they have
    never been funded to the levels before. But it also allows us
    to buy F-35's and CH-53K. For us, as we begin to ramp out of
    MV-22 and H-1's, we begin to ramp up into these new airframes
    to fulfill the new National Defense Strategy, it increases our
    lethality certainly with those particular airframes.
        While this is being done, it allows us to do this in
    stride. And in stride means that we have sailors and marines
    currently right now in combat operations and forward in Asia
    that are conducting high tempo operations. We have, for
    example, MAG-31 right now out of South Carolina. They have two
    squadrons. One squadron is in Asia. One squadron is in CENTCOM
    [Central Command] theater, and one squadron is on the ship. And
    I have two squadrons that are getting ready to go. That flight
    line for a period of time will be empty. The readiness accounts
    to make sure those jets and pilots have the right flight time
    to get out the door. And that is exactly what this budget this
    past couple years, starting with the RA in 2017, has allowed us
    to do.
        Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn?
        Rear Admiral Conn. Thank you, sir.
        I would say the overall funding level has taken us away
    from simply managing risk to now to have the funds available to
    manage the opportunities that are presented to us.
        For some specifics in terms of what the funding level has
    provided, additional funding, our MQ-25 in 2019, has allowed us
    to pull that IOC [Initial Operational Capability] to no later
    than 2026 and potentially as early as 2024. We have been able
    to get our CMV-22 replacement aircraft in line, getting out of
    the C-2 aircraft earlier, up to be divested of that aircraft by
    2024 which has divested 28 PMIs that we need for that airplane,
    $8 million in engines, totaling $60 million that outside the
    FYDP [Future Year Defense Program] what we are able to roll
    into the CMV-22 program.
        It has also afforded us an opportunity to put $240 million
    into our next training system, live virtual constructive, which
    will offer us a new way to train to fight and win that high-end
    fight that you described earlier.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much.
        Senator Hirono?
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        General Rudder, Admiral Grosklags, and Admiral Conn, we all
    have been concerned, as both of us have mentioned, about
    aircrews experiencing physiological events apparently caused by
    aircraft environmental control systems. I understand that you
    are still trying to isolate or to identify the causes of these
    problems. Can you describe what progress you are making in
    solving these physiological problems? And what can you tell us
    about the fact that the Air Force grounded the T-6 trainer
    aircraft, but the Navy chose not to ground its T-6 trainer
    aircraft? Why did the Air Force ground that aircraft and you
    did not?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Senator, I will start and again let
    my colleagues jump in here.
        I go into T-6 first where you ended. During the month of
    January and early into February, the Air Force had 19
    physiological events--I believe that is the correct number--in
    their T-6's, which is why they grounded the aircraft. During
    that same time period, the Department of the Navy had a total
    of two. So we are staying in very close contact with the Air
    Force.
        We are taking steps with our T-6's to make sure we
    understand the environment, both the cockpit, the quality of
    the air in the cockpit both on the ground and in flight. So we
    are doing testing with that both at our fleet sites, as well as
    Patuxent River. And we are also working with the Air Force to
    replace a component in the oxygen generating system that will
    give the system greater reliability and also allow us to do
    some actual in-flight monitoring.
        We did not have the same problems of incidence that the Air
    Force had. So we are watching it closely and working very
    closely with them to make sure we stay in sync.
        Senator Hirono. Do I understand you to say that because the
    Air Force experienced many more physiological events, that you
    are also looking at what was going on with their aircraft an
    the environment in their aircraft as different from the
    environment of the aircraft in the Navy?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. No, ma'am. We are looking at our
    aircraft specifically. The Air Force is doing the same type of
    testing, evaluation of the air quality in their T-6's.
        Senator Hirono. But is it not the same aircraft, though?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. It is. They fly primarily the A
    model. We fly primarily the B model. But the oxygen generating
    system and the environmental system is essentially the same.
        Senator Hirono. My point is that you are learning from
    whatever the experience was with regard to the Air Force.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Yes, ma'am. Both ways.
        Senator Hirono. The safety of our crew is very important.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. On the T-45 front, we are back at
    full flight operations since September of last year on T-45's.
    Since September, we have had a total of seven incidents, seven
    physiological episodes since we resumed flying, basically one
    per month since then. That is the same rate we were
    experiencing back in 2012, 2013, and 2014 when we started
    monitoring this issue closely. Of those seven, it is important
    to note two of them were mechanical failures of the aircraft.
    One was flight in a regime that was a known issue where we get
    low flow through the aircraft. One was a pilot error, and three
    were human physiological issues where the pilot was either
    sick, had a sinus condition or some other condition. The
    important point there is that we know what is occurring in that
    aircraft for each one of those, and within 24 to 48 hours, we
    are able to provide that feedback to the entire population of
    T-45 pilots so that they understand exactly what occurred and
    what we are doing about it.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Hirono, I am going to give you
    plenty of time.
        You are not saying, Admiral Grosklags, that we have gotten
    to root cause of what is going on with the T-45's.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Senator, one of the things that we
    found out, the primary thing we found out before we resumed
    flying last fall, was that there are certain environments,
    conditions during flight where if the power is reduced to too
    low of a setting in flight, that it reduces the flow of
    breathing gas from the oxygen generating system to the aircrew.
    We did not know that until we had put an additional sensor in
    the aircraft last summer while we were in the operational
    pause. Now that we know that, we can actually see when this is
    occurring in the aircraft. So that was one of the root causes,
    was that the pilots were not getting sufficient flow not
    specifically of oxygen but entire breathing gas was not getting
    sufficient pressure to flow to the masks.
        Senator Wicker. Okay. It sounds like you believe that you
    all have put your finger on the root problem in the T-45's.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Yes, sir, in the T-45. But we have
    not stopped trying to further mitigate the risk of operating in
    that environment. We are doing things today such as turning up
    the wick on the engine so it operates at a little higher
    percentage so that the opportunity for the pilots to get into a
    flight condition where they get this low flow scenario is
    further reduced and further mitigated.
        Senator Wicker. Okay, Mazie, go ahead and take another 2
    minutes because I cut in on you here.
        Senator Hirono. Earlier this year, Secretary of Defense
    Mattis announced a new defense strategy that would shift the
    focus for planning defense capabilities from one focusing on
    smaller regional contingencies to one focusing on being able to
    deal with near-peer competitors like Russia and China.
    Secretary Mattis also told the Armed Services Committee that
    the fiscal year 2019 budget had been adjusted to reflect this
    change in strategy.
        Could each of you describe how the Department of the Navy
    aviation programs have been changed to reflect the new
    strategy?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. I think when the new defense
    strategy came out, we looked at that being developed as
    something that we had to place all of our forward-deployed
    assets, sailors and marines, that technically if you look at
    the principles behind that, the contact, blunt, and surge kind
    of principles and foundation of it, as the Marine Corps inside
    force, we are technically for the most part in a contact phase
    on a regular basis.
        We had to think about that in a way that we had been
    thinking about for quite some time. The F-35's that just flew
    on the USS Wasp a few days ago that are now out there deployed
    for the first time--this is a concept of having a forward force
    that has the capability to maintain contact and actually be
    able to use its new capabilities against a higher-peer
    competitor. The same with blunt and surge as far as looking at
    how we do the larger scale operations, how we rethink our
    exercises to begin to conform to a higher-end threat.
        We have been doing that over the past couple of years. The
    F-35 is one aspect of that. If we look at being able to do
    distributed operations in a contact or blunt force where we
    have to be able to maneuver the battle space, the MV-22 does
    that, but also the heavy lift CH-53K will do that for us as
    well to begin ramp-up production on that.
        This year, you will see $20 million in for our group 5
    unmanned system, the MUX, and that is designed to provide--to
    come off our amphibious ship to provide that forward ISR,
    forward early warning to be able to connect the network of the
    amphibious force.
        Senator Hirono. Do either of you have anything to add,
    Admiral Grosklags or Admiral Conn?
        Rear Admiral Conn. Yes, ma'am. I think the National Defense
    Strategy in terms of impacting the Navy's budgeting, by
    recognizing a return to a great-power competition, as well as
    articulating the maritime responsibilities within that strategy
    and then the development of the Navy the nation needs, which is
    the maritime expression of that strategy for the CNO [Chief of
    Naval Operations], within naval aviation, just as a caveat,
    within a carrier air wing allows us to build a bigger air wing.
    It allows us to build a better air wing with F-35C, block 3
    Super Hornets, MQ-25 in the future, CMV-22's, E-18G's with next
    generation jammer. It is those family of systems that network
    together that is going to give us greater combat power and
    lethality operating from the sea.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you.
        Senator Rounds?
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to just focus on the F-35 to begin with for just a
    little bit. And I am just curious. I have seen the review that
    we did that the F-35C--you are going to be purchasing 9 in 2019
    and 16 in fiscal year 2020. And then the F-35B, which is the
    short takeoff and landing version--you are looking at 20 in
    2019 and 20 in fiscal year 2020. And I am just curious. I am
    presuming the Marines are using the short takeoff and landing,
    the B's. Is that correct that those will all be yours, sir?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. That is correct. And out of the
    F-35C's, we have two Marine Corps because we are buying both
    variants.
        Senator Rounds. Of the 35C's, how many are you buying of
    the carrier version, the F-35C's? How many are the Marine Corps
    purchasing in 2019 and 2020?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. In fiscal year 2019, we have two
    out of that nine, and I believe we will have four or five or
    more, depending upon what the 2020 budget looks like, in 2020,
    with a total of 67, which will allow us to have four carrier
    squadrons to fulfill our tactical air integration
    responsibilities with the Navy. Those aircraft will be in a
    cycle of carrier deployments as well.
        Senator Rounds. My assumption is the Navy will be primarily
    purchasing the F-35C's. Is that correct, sir?
        Rear Admiral Conn. That is correct, Senator.
        Senator Rounds. Of the 35C's, how many are you intending
    then to purchase in 2019 and in 2020?
        Rear Admiral Conn. 2019 is seven, and 2020, depending on
    the 2020 top line, will be approximately 10 to 12 airplanes.
        Senator Rounds. Does that fall in line with trying to get
    to the--I am just thinking a lot about the production rate. Is
    that how many you want, or is that how many you can afford? Or
    what is the process for determining the number that you are
    going to put into effect?
        Rear Admiral Conn. Sir, the F-35C is a new platform. You
    have to transition a squadron. It takes up to a year, 9 months
    for a pilot, almost a year to train those sailors. As you are
    growing a new type model series, you have to do it on a very
    deliberate pace where you first build your infrastructure, if
    you will, and your fleet replacement squadron is the squadron
    that trains those aviators and in some sense trains some of
    those maintenance so that when they are complete with that
    transition, they are ready to start the optimized fleet
    response plan in terms of being able to prepare for a
    deployment.
        Senator Rounds. Are you on board--is the Navy on board the
    F-35C as the right aircraft long term for the Navy's needs?
        Rear Admiral Conn. Yes, sir, we are.
        Senator Rounds. So your goal is to acquire in such a
    fashion as to keep the price down. The more we buy and keep up
    to an appropriate production rate, the better off we are going
    to be in terms of the actual price we are paying. I think we
    are in agreement on that?
        Rear Admiral Conn. Yes, sir, we are.
        Senator Rounds. And is the F-35 being produced in the block
    numbers and with the appropriate anticipated software installed
    that you would have wanted, or is the manufacturer ahead of or
    behind in that regard?
        Rear Admiral Conn. For us to declare our initial operating
    capability, the aircraft has to be configured in block 3F and
    it has to be going through its IOT&E with the weapons and
    various sensors that have to perform in a threat-representative
    environment to the standards identified in the operational
    requirements document. When those conditions are met, we will
    declare IOC which will be well before the first deployment of
    the FA-47 in fiscal year 2021.
        Senator Rounds. Do you feel like you are on target with
    regard to the deployment of the F-35C?
        Rear Admiral Conn. Yes, sir, we do.
        Senator Rounds. Okay, good.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. Just one comment, Senator. We
    just accepted the first three 3F configured production model,
    VF-62 out in Yuma. So those are coming off the flight line
    right now, and I think this spring/early summer we will be able
    to insert 3F into most of our jets that are technical refresh
    to capable.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        I am just curious, and this is just as much so that you
    have a chance to tell the story. The MQ-25--can you share with
    the Subcommittee the need and the value of that MQ-25 and how
    valuable it is to the long-term operations?
        Rear Admiral Conn. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        The value of the MQ-25--and I will be brief. It is going to
    expand the operational reach of the air wing in light of the
    potential scenarios that we may be engaged with as an in-flight
    refueling tanker, being able to give a certain amount of gas up
    to 500 miles away from the ship so those strike fighters can go
    forward, coupled with its ISR capabilities in terms of
    persistent stare, if you will, being able to collect
    information, process, and disseminate it back to the commanders
    to have a better operational picture that is operating around
    the carrier.
        Senator Rounds. Fair to say it is just a very large Pacific
    Ocean.
        Rear Admiral Conn. That is correct, sir.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Hirono. On behalf of the chairman, I call on
    Senator King.
        Senator King. Senator Hirono, did you say that we spend $20
    billion a year on corrosion?
        Senator Hirono. Yes.
        Senator King. That gives new meaning to the old rock song,
    ``Rust Never Sleeps.'' It is unbelievable.
        Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment
    Ellen Lord has said that the sustainment costs for the F-35
    will become unaffordable. I had a meeting recently with the
    Deputy Secretary of Defense. He said the same thing. Why is the
    F-35 so expensive to keep flying? Does anybody want to tackle
    that? Admiral?
        Rear Admiral Conn. I will start. From a warfighting
    perspective, we need the airplane.
        Senator King. No doubt about that. I am just asking why
    does it cost so much to keep it going.
        Rear Admiral Conn. From an affordability aspect, we have to
    drive down the operating and sustainment costs. There is a 30
    percent reduction goal within 10 years----
        Senator King. I understand that too. My question is, why is
    it so expensive? What is it about the airplane that is costing
    so much?
        Rear Admiral Conn. I think the fifth generation airplane in
    and of itself is an expensive airplane to procure.
        Senator King. I know that. So I am going to ask again. This
    is your fourth time. Why is the F-35 so expensive to maintain?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Sir, I think I can help a little
    bit here.
        The aircraft is very expensive. Period. A lot of the parts
    on that aircraft are very expensive. If a component fails, the
    repair costs at this time are quite high. We are still having
    to go back to the original equipment manufacturers for the
    repair of most of those components because the program
    collectively--the collective was laid to stand up things like
    organic depot level repair capability. We are just now starting
    to stand up intermediate level capability. We are actually just
    starting to fund it in President's Budget 2019. That is one of
    the new things in 2019.
        The reliability of some of the components is not as high as
    we expected it to be at this point in time. So we have more
    failures.
        Senator King. Is the manufacturer responsible for those
    failures? What do we get for a warranty?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. There is no warranty, sir.
        Senator King. There is no warranty?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. No, sir.
        Senator King. You mean a product can be delivered to us
    that costs 100 million bucks, and if it fails, it is on us?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. There are some criteria in the
    contract, sir. There is actually congressional language that
    dates back many, many years about the government paying
    industry for warranties. We actually have to get special
    permission to pay industry for warranties on things we buy.
        Senator King. Well, we will talk about that I guess. I am
    astounded.
        Senator Wicker. The aircraft would have cost even more had
    we insisted on a warranty.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Yes, sir. There are very few
    exceptions. I will give you an example of an exception. H-60's
    we were able to buy with a warranty because that was a standard
    Sikorsky used at the time for their commercial practices, and
    they just rolled it over to the government. But in the vast
    majority of cases, that is not true.
        Senator King. Well, perhaps we could have some discussion
    of this. I can argue it both ways, but the idea of buying
    something like this and having parts fail and having the
    manufacturer, the OEM [Original Equipment Manufacturer], not
    responsible strikes me as an odd way to procure most anything.
        Let me ask a different question.
        Senator Wicker. Admiral, that goes back to what year?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. It is a long time, sir. I would
    have to go back and look.
        Senator Wicker. Even before Senator King. Well, if you
    would supply that to us because there is some interest in the
    room obviously there.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Yes, sir.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator King. But I would be interested in the overall
    question of the sustainment costs and why they are so high
    because, as I say, Ellen Lord said they are unaffordable. That
    is a fine--unaffordable means we ain't going to be able to do
    it, and we have got to figure that out.
        Quickly, in the Air Force we have had a lot of work on the
    pilot shortage. Is there a pilot shortage in the Navy and the
    Marines as well? We are talking about acquiring aircraft here.
    Do we have the pilots to fly them? General Rudder?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. We are a couple of percentages
    below where we should be. So we are not in as dire of a pilot
    shortage as what I think we were seeing on the Air Force front.
        But it is no secret that the airlines are hiring, and we
    are working our pilots hard. So we are working on a few
    different fronts. I will give you some examples.
        The Marine Corps and the Navy, along with our Air Force--we
    started up pilot bonuses again. We had not done this since
    2011, and we were probably at the low end of that. We were with
    a 2 years' bonus, $20,000 per year for TACAIR, 88-B, F-18, F-
    35, and V-22 too because we were worried about our tow brother
    because they are a high value item out in the market as well.
    So far we had a 68 percent take on that. So 33 out of our 35 F-
    35 pilots took the bonus, 123 out of 169 V-22's took the bonus.
        With that we are still watching it closely, and I tell you
    we watch it every day. In a normal 10-year program, pilot
    retention, attrition rates, probably around 8.9 percent. We are
    probably at about 10.5 percent TACAIR-wide. What it means is we
    are putting as many folks as we can in our squadrons and maybe
    some of the B billets for fighter pilots maybe are not filled
    in some cases and we keep people in the squadrons longer. But
    we are looking at throughput to make sure we keep up the pilot
    rate because for us and as the Navy, we both are in this thing
    together transitioning to the F-35. We have to be able to stand
    down F-18 squadrons to stand up the F-35 squadrons. So we got
    to make sure we are transitioning those people to those
    squadrons while we are still maintaining our legacy fleet as
    well.
        Senator King. Admiral Conn, I am over my time, but how is
    the Navy doing on pilot retention?
        Rear Admiral Conn. For our department heads and post-
    command commanders, we are not meeting our goals. The bonuses
    may provide some opportunities to address some of those. My
    focus in my position is on readiness, to get the aircraft up
    and get those pilots flying, to make sure that lack of flight
    time is not a distracter.
        Senator King. I would commend to both of you--Senator
    Cotton and I on the Airland Subcommittee had an informal
    roundtable with a group of Air Force pilots to talk about this
    issue without a lot of officers and press or anybody. And it
    was very interesting because what we heard was that it was not
    necessarily about money. It was more about OPTEMPO [Operational
    Tempo], time with family, and interestingly, time to fly, that
    the pilots did not want to be at desks and on different tracks.
    The Air Force is doing some serious work on this. I would urge
    you to talk to them about it because they are sort of--I was
    about to say they are at the front edge of this. That is not a
    good place to be, but they are working on it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Wicker. What do you think about that, Admiral Conn?
    Does that make sense to you? Those Air Force conclusions.
        Rear Admiral Conn. Yes, sir. We are in a competition for
    talent, and it is not just with the airlines. I had the
    privilege of working out of Fallon, Nevada, and I had a lot of
    enterprising junior officers, top gun JOs, Havoc, which is the
    Growler equipment, just marvelous people to have to command.
    But it is not just the airlines. They are going to med school.
    They are going to law school. They are trying to get their MBA
    [Masters of Business Administration]. There are a lot of
    choices for them out there.
        Senator Wicker. Well, Senator King says they are having to
    sit at a desk a lot, but the OPTEMPO is killing them too. What
    do you say to that?
        Rear Admiral Conn. The OPTEMPO for our aviators for a
    department head that is deployed on a carrier--all he knows is
    combat operation during his entire career.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Sullivan?
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        To Senator King's point, is the big issue not they are just
    not flying enough? I mean, they come to the Marine Corps and
    the Navy to fly. They get their wings. I think there was some
    anecdote that the Chinese pilots and the Russians are flying
    more hours monthly, way more, than our men and women. I mean,
    is that not it? Do they not want to fly? Is that not why they
    became naval aviators? And how do we fix that? We all want to
    fix that.
        Rear Admiral Conn. Senator, that is a valid point. These
    young aviators wear the wings proudly. They want to get in the
    air.
        Senator Sullivan. I mean, is there a way we can help you
    with that, General?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. You are, Senator Sullivan. And I
    will tell you about 3 years ago when I was out of 1st Marine
    Air Wing in Okinawa, we had F-18 squadrons come out to Iwakuni.
    There was a time where those squadrons had maybe six or seven
    airplanes on the flight line maybe a couple months before they
    were getting ready to deploy, maybe not all their pilots. And
    that Marine air group cobbled together that squadron to get
    them out the door to forward deploy them at a 1 to 2 dwell
    rate. That means you were deployed for 6 months and home for a
    year.
        Today, through a lot of the strike fighter management, we
    have been able to fill those squadrons up. So everybody is
    going out the door with 12 airplanes now. We have more trained
    crew. We are seeing from 3 years ago when we first started
    getting into the 2017, we are seeing some spikes and positive
    movement in both readiness levels in those particular
    organizations through funding of the depot. The good news is
    last year we got 70 airplanes, 70 F-18's, out of the depot. The
    bad news is we still had to work on them to fix them in the
    squadron. We are correcting that inside the depot, the depot
    ready initiative.
        As the Navy begins to divest out of this legacy Hornet for
    us, we are able to take advantage of the high lot number, lot
    15 and above F-18's. And we are going to manage those within
    the squadrons so they have the best fighters they have
    available.
        Senator Sullivan. You say the trends on training, you know,
    stick time, is getting better?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. For the F-18 community in
    particular. Maybe 8 hours a month was the average per pilot.
    Now it is up to 13.5. Marine Corps-wide, it is up to 17 hours.
        Senator Sullivan. Is that the same in the Navy, Admiral?
        Rear Admiral Conn. We are looking at about 14 to 16, but
    averages can be deceiving. The folks that are operating forward
    are getting over 30 hours a month. It is the folks that are on
    the bench that we need to get in the air.
        Senator Sullivan. But we all agree that we need to keep
    that trend line going in the right direction.
        Rear Admiral Conn. Absolutely.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me ask real quick a couple other
    questions.
        General, on the Osprey, I noted last year there were three
    hard landings. One of those crashes killed three marines in
    Australia. I know that that aircraft has a pretty solid track
    record. It started out wobbly, as we all know. But should we be
    concerned about its overall reliability? Are you concerned
    about its overall reliability? And is there anything we can do
    on that?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. No. I think the readiness
    funding that we are getting is going to allow us to initiate
    some readiness initiatives, for example. The aircraft itself is
    safe, and it has been safe for years. I think although a lot of
    those investigations are still being worked through, in the
    past, the ones that I will talk about, for the most part the
    aircraft was operating as designed.
        But back to your point, we have run these aircraft hard.
    They are, I will not say, the Marine Corps' centerpiece but
    they are DOD's centerpiece. They are on standby around the
    world as we speak, whether you are off the ship supporting
    special operators or supporting folks in both the CENTCOM,
    EUCOM [European Command], and AFRICOM [African Command] AOR
    [Area of Responsibility]. So we have run them hard.
        We have just put our two first aircraft--it will be three
    total this year--up into a common configuration, refit up in
    the Boeing plant up in Philadelphia, and we are going to refit
    most of our airplanes. We had 75 different configurations of
    that aircraft overall, the lot numbers. We are going to get
    that down to five. We are also going to redesign the cell
    because that is where most of our readiness issues are.
    Although the third multiyear will allow us to buy out, the Navy
    to buy in, the Japanese to buy in because they are going to get
    their first MV-22 this November, but now we are focusing a lot
    of our funds on readiness for that particular airplane.
        Senator Sullivan. Thanks.
        Let me ask one final question on training, a little
    parochial for me. I had the Commandant of the Marine Corps up
    in Alaska about a year and a half ago. We got a brief on
    finishing up a Red Flag exercise at Eielson. When we got there
    early on Sunday morning, there was I think 10 or 11 Marine
    Corps Hornets there. The squadron commander was with the
    aggressor squadron commander of the F-16 squadron out at
    Eielson. The Marine Corps squadron commander called it the best
    training he had ever done in his entire Marine Corps career. As
    you know, JPARK out there has airspace bigger than Florida.
        And yet, the Red Flag and even Northern Edge is kind of, in
    some ways, dominated by the Army and Air Force. We would
    welcome the naval aviation component represented here to come
    out to Red Flag exercises at JPARK, to Northern Edge exercises.
    That is great training to get a carrier battle group out there.
    I just want to put that in your ear. The Commandant heard that
    his squadron commanders view that as the best training they
    have ever done, and if you gentlemen can take a look, that
    would be good for the nation.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. We have sent many a squadron up
    there. And they do. I would agree with you. It is great
    training. We also sent a radar up there, a TPS-59, to a place
    called Bear Mountain, which actually lives up to its name my
    marines found out.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Sullivan, can you see all the way
    to Russia from there?
        Senator Sullivan. Those marine and naval aviators probably
    fly closer to Russia than anybody. As you know, our F-22's up
    there intercepted I think at least Bear bomber incursions into
    U.S. airspace last year. So we are quite familiar with the
    Russians in Alaska.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you.
        Senator Blumenthal?
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome to all of you and thank you for your long and
    distinguished service.
        Lieutenant General Rudder, I want to begin with your most
    important qualification. I seem to recall that you are a native
    of Canton, Connecticut.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. That is right, Senator.
        Senator Blumenthal. I hope you, if you still have family,
    give them my best there.
        The CH-53K King Stallion has been funded in this fiscal
    year. I was pleased to see that the Marine Corps requested to
    accelerate funding to increase the production ramp rate in
    fiscal year 2019 by one helicopter. I do not need to tell you,
    but maybe you should say for the record why you think the King
    Stallion is so important to the Marine Corps as a heavy lift
    capability.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
        This aircraft is mechanically and technologically amazing.
    It fits directly into the National Defense Strategy as far as
    heavy lift for distributed operations in whatever theater you
    are talking about.
        We have got about 800 hours on the airplane right now in
    the test sequence, and we are working through all reliability
    issues early on. We have front-loaded reliability and spares of
    this airplane. Quite honestly, it gets the marine and naval
    force off our amphibious ships or wherever you are in a manner
    which cannot be accomplished by any other aircraft in DOD. We
    have a KPP for 110 nautical miles lifting at 27,000 pounds. We
    have met that. As a matter of fact, we just lifted 36,000
    pounds with this airplane the other day. That is the highest--
    now, I do not want to argue with our Russian counterparts
    because they have got a helicopter that might have lifted more
    than that. But in the free world, that is the largest life of
    any helicopter that we have done. It is performing to that
    level that allows us, as we look at the things that we are
    buying like the JLTV [Joint Light Tactical Vehicle]--and we
    just lifted one the other day that was 19,000 pounds. We are
    able to lift that with ease. We are able to dual lift HUMVEES,
    full-up armored HUMVEES. That capability allows maneuver on the
    battlefield.
        I think another thing I will say just for the logistic
    experts in here is we built that thing to be able to slide in
    four 63-L pallets. Those are the standard DOD pallets. You can
    park a C-17, C-130 tail to tail with this thing and just roll
    pallets off right into the back of this helicopter, and you
    cannot do that with any other system.
        Thanks for asking the question, Senator.
        Senator Blumenthal. I hate to put you on the spot, but
    ideally how many more of the CH-53K's would you like to see
    funded in fiscal year 2019?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. I think there is capacity. You
    know, as we always look at this thing, sometimes we are
    thinking about what is going to happen in 2018 and how that
    brings forward and whether we are going to overrun our
    interested partners. But I think there is capacity for two
    more.
        Senator Blumenthal. And I read about that test that you
    recently cited that involved lifting 36,000 pounds hovering
    for, I think, a 100 feet for about 10 minutes. And one of the
    comments made afterwards was that it was extraordinarily
    stable, indicating its safety. Is that consistent with your
    view?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. It is. It is a composite. It is
    fly-by wire. It is one of those helicopters you can fly hands
    off. And it is really going to help us in another area that we
    have challenges with over the years, and that is a degraded
    visual environment and conditions in the desert. That stability
    of that helicopter will help us greatly in that environment.
        Senator Blumenthal. I want to ask a more general question
    of all the witnesses talking about unmanned helicopters. What
    do you see as the future for this program? As you know, in
    Connecticut, Command is one of the companies doing research and
    development in this area. Could you give me your assessment of
    how you think that program is going?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Senator, I think that there is
    going to be an increased demand for unmanned vehicles of all
    types, not just for aircraft, but rotorcraft will be in that
    family. You are well aware we already have MQ-8's throughout
    the Navy, and we are spreading them through LCS. As we get into
    the future vertical lift discussion with our contemporaries in
    the Air Force and the Army, as well as the Marine Corps, I
    think we will see some of those future vertical lift platforms
    will also be unmanned or perhaps alternately manned depending
    on the mission that they need to execute.
        Senator Blumenthal. The reason we are not moving more
    quickly on that program.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. On future vertical lift?
        Senator Blumenthal. Yes.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. I think it is really a question of
    setting the requirements. As you know, we are still in the
    process across Navy and Marine Corps acquisition of
    recapitalizing. We are still buying new V-22's and new H-1's,
    and we just finished production of H-60's, as you are well
    aware. I think we need to now nail down the requirements for
    the next set of aircraft that we want to go after now that we
    have recapitalized our current inventory.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. I think there were two parts to
    that, but just to build upon the Command and KMACS, we bought
    two of those. The operational test squadron that I own, VMX-1
    in Yuma, Arizona--we own some. Once the 2018 budget gets
    signed, we are going to pull those out and begin doing more
    unmanned logistics resupply experimentation. We already had
    those two in Afghanistan for a time. We are going to pull those
    back out again with 2018 funds and build upon 2019 funds to fly
    those some more.
        Rear Admiral Conn. Sir, I think the funding levels in 2019,
    if they continue and it provides an opportunity to look at the
    right time to go to either an MHXX or a future vertical lift
    with respect to the Navy's rotor wing. And part of that may be
    unmanned teaming that is mapped to the 355-ship Navy that we
    are trying to build to.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Tillis?
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, thank you for your service.
        General Rudder, I will start with you. I want to get an
    update on the 94 airframes that are scheduled for Cherry Point,
    the 35B in, I believe, October followed by 22. Are they still
    on track?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. I think we have got to work
    through some depot modifications, but right now it has got to
    stay on track for that. FRC [Fleet Readiness Center] East is
    going to be a key point for the F-35B or F-35 in general for
    rework and depot level maintenance.
        Senator Tillis. Well, actually I wanted to get a quick
    update. We made progress in the prior NDAAs on the lift-fan
    facility, the security fence, all the prerequisites for
    standing up the lift-fan capability, which I guess today is
    gated by the Rolls Royce plant in Indiana, if I am not
    mistaken. Are we still tracking to have that capability down
    there along with building out our depot capabilities?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. We do. So lift-fan--MILCON was
    in the fiscal year 2018 budget, so we are waiting for that
    budget. That is one of those restrictions. But it is. I mean,
    that is in the budget. We funded it. We are going to build it.
        Typically once you get the plan and design done, which I
    believe is pretty close--typically with any MILCON [Military
    Construction] project, it is a 2-year build. Then you have got
    to get your tooling in there, which is 12 months and then
    qualification of your depot level artisans or your maintainers
    to be able to do that. But for lift-fan maintenance, 2021 is
    when we start to incur kind of a demand signal for lift-fan
    rework that will have to go back----
        Senator Tillis. Back?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. Just because we will not have
    the FRC East production. But that is not to say that we are not
    pressing forward to having that capability. This is back to,
    broadly speaking, F-35 and taking organic intermediate depot
    maintenance and getting it closer to the flight line. We must
    do that and we will do that.
        Senator Tillis. That also speaks to the question I think
    Senator King asked about the expense of operating these
    machines over time. Until we have that organic capability, you
    are going to pay a part of a premium. And I think that FRC East
    is going to be an important part of achieving that downward
    curve on maintenance over time. Do you agree with that?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Yes, sir, it absolutely will be.
    What we are doing working with the Joint Program Office right
    now, both ourselves and the Air Force are trying to accelerate
    the standup of the depot capability. Typically we would work
    that through the OEM, in this case Lockheed Martin, but we are
    actually trying a new way of doing it where we are going back
    to the actual vendor of the part, the component. In this case,
    you are talking about Rolls Royce. In other cases it may be
    whoever makes the wing or the EOTS or whatever component that
    happens to be on the aircraft to accelerate that standup
    capability.
        Senator Tillis. The reason I asked the question about the
    94 airframes is we had heard some of the deliveries to some of
    our partners shifting to the right. I wonder if you could infer
    from that some of our own domestic deliveries were delayed for
    supply chain or other reasons.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. I do not know that we have had any
    aircraft delivery delays of that magnitude. The last three lots
    of aircraft across the board----
        Senator Tillis. So you do not see a general trend of
    deliveries shifting to the right.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. I think that if you look at the
    past couple years, we did not buy at the rate that we wanted
    to. Again, back to the budget scenario that is presented to us
    today, we are ramping back up again----
        Senator Tillis. Got it because you have the certainty.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. Our international partners--we
    believe there is all in. There are probably going to be a few
    more that jump in. There are a lot of countries involved for
    buying this----
        Senator Tillis. Well, anything we can do with the help and
    support of the efforts for FRC East, count me in. We even had
    the legislature weigh in. They appropriated money at the State
    level to kind of lay the groundwork for some of the outfit I
    think outside of the complex. And we will continue to work with
    you.
        My last question in the time remaining really relates to
    tactical aircraft. One of the last times that I was down at
    Cherry Point, we had a lot of aircraft on the flight line, and
    they were due for certain maintenance that I had described to
    me the challenge had less to do with the ability to repair the
    aircraft and more to do of having funding in the underlying
    accounts that were necessary for them to actually complete the
    repairs. Does any of this make sense to you all? Because we
    were trying to figure out if we have had the funding depleted
    over time, with the new spending are we replenishing those
    accounts and is that in any way going to improve getting the
    shortfall based on the requirement. I think we currently have a
    shortfall in the requirement for tactical aircraft. Is that
    right? For the Hornet in particular.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. We would have to get specifics. The
    funding request in President's Budget 2019 basically gets the
    depots to the point where they can execute all the aircraft,
    specifically production requirements, with the exception of a
    handful of aircraft, and those are spread across a number of
    different type model series.
        For F-18 A through D specifically, today we have the
    requisite number of in-reporting aircraft. So the Navy and
    Marine Corps has a requirement for X number of airplanes on the
    flight line available to them. They have those, in other words,
    out-of-reporting versus in-reporting. The number of in-
    reporting aircraft are what is required to support the fleet.
    We still have issues with those in-reporting aircraft in
    getting them mission capable, whether it be repairs, spares,
    whatever it happens to be.
        The same is largely true on the E/F side of the house.
    There is not a backlog of E's and F's Super Hornets in the
    depots either at this point in time. We had that challenge 2
    years ago, but we are past that point. And actually the
    requirement for F-18 A through D's drops dramatically over the
    next couple of years.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Tillis.
        Senator Kaine?
        Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the
    witnesses.
        Just a foundational question I have been sort of thinking
    about a little bit. All of our service branches, Marine, Navy,
    Army, Air Force, have aerial platforms, and we are in this
    development of a lot of unmanned aerial assets. As you see the
    development going forward, do you see kind of philosophical
    differences between the four service branches and the mixture
    of manned versus unmanned? Is the Air Force more wedded to
    human pilots and other branches less so? Or do you think the
    sort of mixture of manned and unmanned is something that is
    really more at the OSD level and there will be some consistency
    among the service branches?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. I think you are seeing the
    unmanned technology grow at a rate that is creating such
    opportunities that you are seeing, whether it is rotary wing
    unmanned like the MQ-8, obviously the Reapers, MQ-4--you are
    seeing this wave of unmanned technology kind of present the
    services with a lot of opportunities. And they are growing so
    fast that we are trying to keep up with it.
        As a matter of fact, we talked about this logistics
    capability for unmanned systems. That is something that we are
    pursuing. My counterpart in I&L is pursuing unmanned logistics
    resupply. We did it in Afghanistan. We are going to do it in
    the future.
        Very shortly, we will be pursuing with industry what you
    see in our budget this year with the MUX, the MAGTF [Marine Air
    Ground Task Force] unmanned systems. You are going to see us
    put out a group 5 requirement to industry to be able to fly off
    the amphibious ships. Right now, what we have is RQ-21, which
    is a group 3, smaller item that we use on a regular basis on
    every deployment now. So you are seeing that.
        And what is really exciting about the unmanned is--a lot of
    it is physics. If you have a runway, it is good. If you have it
    come off expeditionary, you got to have some sort of vertical
    lift. But the exciting part of this is, one, they are
    presenting ourselves with a way to network ourselves better,
    persistent networks. They are also presenting with the optics,
    the EO optics, the synthetic aperture radars a way to have this
    sensor out there in many different waveforms.
        In that sense, there are so many ideas out there that I
    think we are connected. Network-wise we are beginning to
    connect each other. But how you get to that and the ability to
    get up in the air is still technology, and every time we turn
    around, an industry partner comes up with a new idea. It is
    very exciting.
        Senator Kaine. Can I ask, Admiral Grosklags, as you are
    seeing the different service branches tackle it--and all the
    branches use aviation assets in slightly different ways--do you
    think there will be different philosophies about manned and
    unmanned?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The biggest philosophy difference I
    have seen today between us and the Department of the Navy and
    the Air Force is in how we operate them. I think as you are
    aware, the Air Force basically has a pilot in the loop for most
    of their unmanned systems. We have a pilot but we are not
    flying it. We are pushing buttons, so it is more of a touch
    screen. We are not even sure in the future we need aviators to
    do that. We need somebody with the right training to do that.
    It does not necessarily need to be somebody wearing pilot
    wings. That is a different philosophy from the Air Force right
    now.
        In terms of what we use the aircraft for, I am not sure
    there is a huge gap. If you look at the ISR assets that both
    services are fielding today, there is a lot of commonality
    between them not only in the airframe types, if you will, but
    also in the sensors that we are using.
        Senator Kaine. Let me ask this. It is kind of an extension
    on the question. Sometimes we can go for complexity and stumble
    over simplicity. The more we rely on unmanned and the more we
    rely on data link dependent weapon systems--there are fight
    environments that require restricted electronic emissions for
    safety or to be covert. How do we grapple with that security
    challenge with all these interlinked systems?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. I will make two comments and then
    ask my colleagues here.
        One is that we are very intent on dealing with
    cybersecurity issues for our data links particularly for
    unmanned aircraft for the reasons you just stated.
        We also have a number of efforts underway for what I will
    generically call low probability of intercept data links, more
    secure data links that will help us prevent intrusion by, say,
    unwanted actors. I probably cannot go into a whole lot more
    detail in here. But those are things we are working across
    services.
        Senator Kaine. Admiral Conn, would you want to add in to
    that? I think my time is about up. But, yes, please.
        Rear Admiral Conn. I think the comment about low
    probability of intercept, low probability of detection is an
    important point to make. It is not only for the cyber
    protection but it is also not necessarily revealing your
    location. Even with the expanse of the Pacific on a maneuvering
    ship, there are some things you need to consider in terms of
    how you are going to operate.
        Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Kaine.
        Senator Cotton?
        Senator Cotton. Thank you, and thank you, gentlemen.
        Admiral Conn, I would like to talk about antisubmarine
    warfare. Very stealthy diesel submarines continue to
    proliferate around the world. It is increasingly a platform of
    choice of a lot of friendly nations but some not so friendly as
    well. And then obviously China and Russia have very high-end
    capabilities. While our airborne platforms seem to be where we
    want them to be, the sonobuoy technology and the Mark T-4
    torpedo are pretty old school. Can you talk to us about those
    systems and the state of antisubmarine warfare if we were to be
    in a fight especially against high-end adversaries like Russia
    and China?
        Rear Admiral Conn. I think with the P-8, the existing P-3,
    our MH-60 Romeos and the capabilities they bring to bear in
    terms of finding, fixing, tracking, targeting, and engaging
    submarines, they have significant value in that mission set. As
    with all weapons, this is against a pacing threat. We will
    continue to look at what we need to modernize based on that
    pacing threat and make the investments that we need to make to
    ensure that we have the lethality we need in that specific
    mission set.
        Senator Cotton. Do you think we need to modernize the buoy
    and the torpedo technology?
        Rear Admiral Conn. I think for now we are good, but
    sometimes there are threats out there that move faster than we
    do. We just need to keep tune with the intelligence community
    and make the decisions at the right time.
        Senator Cotton. Admiral, you look like you would like to
    add something on that point.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Yes, if I might. If you are
    familiar with multi-static active coherent, it is a capability
    that we introduced to the P-8 a couple years ago. That is an
    initial capability for certain water conditions. That is a new
    family of sonobuoys.
        There is a follow-on effort that we have been trying to get
    started for the P-8 as part of their increment three, which is
    enhanced multi-static active coherent. That is particularly
    useful against diesel submarines and submarines difficult to
    detect, very quiet nuclear-powered submarines in deep water. We
    need the support of this Subcommittee and others in order to
    keep that funding in the budget because it is one of the areas
    for P-8 that is continually being marked as our budget comes
    forward.
        Senator Cotton. And by support of this Subcommittee, you
    mean money.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cotton. Is there anything else you mean?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. No, sir. That is it specifically.
    It is P-8 increment three and the two ECPs associated with it.
        Senator Cotton. We can usually manage money. I think we can
    do that. Thank you.
        General Rudder, when the last Prowler squadron sunsets in
    2019, the Marine Corps, as I understand, will have no more
    dedicated airborne electronic attack aircraft. Is that correct?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. That is correct.
        Senator Cotton. What is the Corps going to do through MAGTF
    EW system of systems to replace electronic surveillance,
    electronic attack capabilities that we currently have through
    the Prowler?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The E/A-6B for many years, like
    all the electronic airborne platforms that we have, really has
    been a joint asset. The last deployment that it does in fiscal
    year 2018 will fulfill that mission. We have one squadron left
    with six airplanes.
        As far as looking at airborne high-end mission set for DOD,
    we have 160 Growlers currently. That is what the program is.
    When the E/A-6B goes away, much like we are doing at the
    weapons and tactics course that we are going to put on here in
    a few months, the Growlers are going to come down, and we are
    going to work with those particular airplanes.
        Aside from DOD airborne electronic warfare, electronic
    support, we are buying jamming pods called Intrepid Tiger 2
    that we are going to put on our AV-8B's, our F-18's, and
    actually are on our Hueys. And they are actually deploying on
    the MEUs [Marine Expeditionary Unit] jammer system.
        For a larger extent, the F-35B and C for that matter will
    provide not all the bands that it needs to provide as far as
    what the Growler can do and what the joint force can do, but
    that will be a very capable platform and that will fill a
    fairly significant gap really throughout DOD and certainly for
    the Marine Corps.
        For that aspect of electronic attack, I think we are going
    to be okay with the F-35B with our Growler counterparts.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you, gentlemen.
        Senator Wicker. Admiral Grosklags, the F-35 is an amazing
    aircraft. Looking back knowing what you know, was it a good
    idea? How much longer you got in the service?
        [Laughter.]
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. I do not know. It may depend on my
    answer.
        Yes, sir. I mean, we absolutely need that capability.
        Senator Wicker. Why do you not take a deep breath?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. We needed that capability 10 years
    ago, quite honestly. We still need it today but we needed it 10
    years ago. And that is where my deep breath comes in. It is, I
    think, disappointing to all of us that it has taken us so long
    to get that aircraft into the hands of the fleet,
    notwithstanding the fact the Marines have had it out in their
    first deployment on a ship starting yesterday. But it has taken
    too long to get into the hands of our warfighters. That is the
    biggest issue I have with that program.
        Senator Wicker. When did we know that it was going to take
    so long? When should we have known?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Sir, I think it is like many of our
    programs where as they evolved over time, you incur a year
    delay, you incur another year delay, and it adds up over the
    years. In a case like this, it has been--and I do not even know
    anymore what the original initial operational capability was
    intended to be. But it has grown over time. The delays have
    just added on top of each other.
        Now, I will say, if I could, that since they re-baselined
    the program back in the 2012 time frame, they have largely
    maintained that schedule for the last 5 or 6 years. That was, I
    will say, a watershed event. And since then, they have----
        Senator Wicker. Explain that to us.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. I believe it was 2012 time frame
    when they re-baselined the program. They reestablished all the
    intent for the IOC [Initial Operating Capability] for all three
    services. The totality of the program is probably within 6 to
    12 months of that reestablished baseline from 2012. I believe
    it was 2012.
        Senator Wicker. Admiral Conn, the NDAA for fiscal year 2017
    gave the Navy temporary reprieve from the requirement to
    maintain and fully staff 10 carrier air wings until additional
    deployment aircraft carriers can fully support a 10th carrier
    air wing or October 1st, 2025, whichever comes first.
        How does this budget request begin to lay the groundwork to
    fully equip and man the 10th carrier air wing? And are the
    procurement profiles outlined in the FYDP [Future Years Defense
    Program] for Super Hornets, Joint Strike Fighters, Hawkeyes,
    Growlers, Seahawks, and CMV-22's built with the requirement for
    10 air wings or only 9?
        Rear Admiral Conn. Sir, first and foremost, we will comply
    with the law. The 10 carrier air wing piece or having 10
    carriers to be able to host 10 carrier air wings is not going
    to be really available anytime soon. We are looking at the 1
    October 2025. We are going to march down that path.
        There will be opportunities with the 110 Super Hornets that
    are in the budget, 97 JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] that are in
    the budget. But those lines are still hot based on future
    investments that will probably need to be made, including
    manpower, but that is a little early to need right now with
    respect to that 2025 timeline, sir.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you.
        Senator Hirono?
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Vice Admiral Winter, the head of the F-35 Joint Program
    Office, has laid out a strategy to modernize the F-35 by
    transitioning the F-35 software to an open systems architecture
    with new capabilities being released every 6 months or so.
        What is the Navy's plan for having the F-35 logistics
    software autonomic logistics information system, or ALIS,
    interface with other logistic systems within the Department of
    the Navy? Whichever one of you gentlemen can best answer this
    question.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Senator, I am not sure. Were there
    two questions there? Because the C2D2 [Continuous Capability
    Development Delivery] plan that you described, the 6-month
    software release, is both for ALIS [Autonomic Logistics
    Information System], as well as for the core aircraft software.
        Senator Hirono. Let us focus on the ALIS.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. It is certainly our desire and our
    plan at some point to be able to interface ALIS with the rest
    of our naval aviation sustainment systems, DECKPLATE, AMSRR,
    those types of things that we use for all of our other
    aircraft.
        One of our challenges right now, quite honestly, is us, the
    government, gaining insight into the software and the coding
    within ALIS. Right now, much of that is held as proprietary,
    and we have very limited rights and access to the data coming
    out of ALIS. That is one of the challenges that Admiral Winter
    is tackling in his new role as head of the JPO [Joint Program
    Office].
        Senator Hirono. What kind of time frame are you thinking of
    in order to be able to interface these systems?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. I would have to get back with you
    with an answer on that.
        Let me refer back to what I thought you were going to go
    with the question originally, which was for the core software
    on the aircraft. A similar scenario where we, the Air Force and
    the Navy, are ready to stand up our software sustainment
    activities, which could include ALIS software, as well as the
    operational software program in the airplane. We have been
    ready to do that for a couple of years. To date, we have not
    been given the access to the software required for our folks to
    get the required insight and understanding of how the software
    is developed and the code itself so that we can take on part of
    that responsibility from industry.
        Senator Hirono. Can someone? Do you have to get this
    access----
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. It is a contractual issue, Senator.
        Senator Hirono. Contractual issue.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Hirono. Are you working on that part?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. That is something that Admiral
    Winter is working on in the JPO. And quite honestly, the plan
    for follow-on development in this 6-month period just so you
    have software releases will not be possible without the
    government getting additional insight from Lockheed Martin into
    the software development. It is not just about the sustainment.
    It is about our ability to quickly turn it, test it, and deploy
    it to the fleet. If we do not have that insight, it will not
    work.
        Senator Hirono. Well, keep working on it. We will check in
    with Admiral Winter.
        Admiral Grosklags, one of the fundamental questions that we
    face on a program like the F-35 is when we think we have fixed
    a problem and we are surprised to hear new, unpleasant
    information. And of course, would be completely risk-free,
    otherwise it would not be development. It would be production.
        I am especially concerned about the delays in regard to the
    software development. This is sort of in line with the other
    question too. The Marine Corps has declared initial operating
    capability, or IOC, for F-35 2 years ago with a version of the
    software called block 2B. And the Air Force declared IOC last
    year with a version of the software called block 3I with
    basically the same capability as the block 2F software.
        It is hard to keep track of all of these I have to say.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Hirono. To achieve full operational capability for
    the Marine Corps and the initial operating capability for the
    Navy, the F-35 program will have to deliver a newer version of
    the software called block 3F. The Navy had been planning to
    declare IOC of the F-35C in 2018, and now it appears that the
    completion of operational testing could extend well into 2019.
        Admiral, will the Navy's IOC declaration be event-based, or
    is this declaration being driven by the calendar?
        Rear Admiral Conn. For the IOC declaration, it has been
    pretty consistent from the Navy that we are event- and
    capability-based not calendar-driven. And we are holding firm
    on that. Although IOT&E has slid to the right, we expect the
    IOT&E to begin in September, to be complete sometime----
        Senator Hirono. September of this year?
        Rear Admiral Conn. Correct, and to be complete early 2019.
    And when we get the results or get informed that the aircraft
    has met all the requirements set forth in the original
    requirements document in terms of how the aircraft tasks
    perform with the sensors and weapon systems that are on it,
    then we will declare IOC, which is plenty of time before fiscal
    year 2021 first deployment.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you. And you do not expect any
    further delays. You will meet the fiscal year 2021----
        Rear Admiral Conn. That is correct, Senator.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
        Senator Kaine?
        Senator Kaine. Just briefly. I want to follow up, Admiral
    Grosklags, on your long pause when you answered the question
    about the F-35 worth it and your answer that we needed it a
    long time ago. It is demonstrating great capacity now.
        Just in terms of kind of lessons learned for us, I paid a
    lot more attention to the carrier programs than the F-35. I am
    from Virginia. You know, we build carriers. It seems like the
    delays there, as you look backward at them--one of the main
    reasons for the delay was, you know, it was not just a
    completely redesigned ship and a lot of the systems on the
    ship, arresting gear and the propulsion and communication
    systems, were also being all redone sort of at the same time.
    When you are building in class, you are trying to do it all at
    once, so we kind of learned some lessons from that.
        I am a little curious with the F-35. You were building an
    advance platform for the different service branches to spread
    costs and to improve interoperability, including a lot of
    allied nations and trying to get them to commit in advance to
    purchase this.
        As you look at the overall delay in the F-35, if you want
    to simplify it, was it more on the technical changes along the
    way or was it more trying to design a platform for all the
    different branches and also other nations? How would you
    characterize kind of the lesson learned from the delay that we
    might try to improve on going forward?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. This is probably a personal
    opinion, but it was both. There were certainly technological
    hurdles with that aircraft largely driven by software. That has
    been the, I will say, Achilles' heel for the most part on a
    timeline.
        But there are also tremendous challenges brought to bare by
    the joint nature of the program and the influence of the
    partner nations, which is a good thing. It is a great
    partnership, but it creates a decision-making morass in some
    cases where it is very hard to get decisions made in a timely
    manner to move forward with the things that need to be changed
    or need to happen.
        Senator Kaine. Right. So you gained in interoperability.
    You probably gained in some cost sharing by dealing with other
    nations. But it makes the decision process, which sometimes we
    are not good at anyway, much more cumbersome.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Yes, sir. I will be honest. That is
    not just an issue with our international partners. Quite often
    that is just an issue internal to the United States Government
    between our services when we have different priorities and
    different requirements, and getting through the process of
    coming to a consensus that, okay, we are going to move forward
    collectively along this line is a very time-consuming process
    and made more so, as you noted, by bringing the partners into
    the discussion and making sure that we are also addressing
    their equities.
        Senator Kaine. It gives me a lot of thoughts about the ways
    we could look at programs like this in the future. But I really
    appreciate that answer.
        Thanks, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Wicker. General Rudder, let us talk about light
    attack. The Air Force appears to be on the cusp of procuring a
    fleet of light attack aircraft to conduct operations against
    violent extremist organizations in a more fiscally sustainable
    way to free up their fighter aircraft to focus on training for
    the high-end fight.
        Has the Marine Corps considered pursuing a light attack
    aircraft of its own? And why or why not?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. Thank you, Senator.
        We have been watching, tracking, and participating with the
    Air Force on this same program. As a matter of fact----
        Senator Wicker. Participating?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. We have a pilot ready to go in
    case they were to deploy that airplane, and he is actually
    anxious to go. But that is another story.
        We are looking at this right along with the Air Force. And
    I think if you look at what that particular turbo prop platform
    is doing around the world as far as foreign military sales, it
    is doing well in some of those environments. I think in that
    aspect, it is very good. We are going to evaluate. We are going
    to continue to look at it. What we have for our light attack is
    our H-1 Zulu that can carry 16 Hellfire. We are kind of happy
    with the physics and the dynamics of what that airplane can do.
        But back to your point, we are going to continue to track
    this particular program. The one thing that we have to always
    consider when it connects to the National Defense Strategy is
    can I self-deploy this airplane and will it go on a ship. And
    some of those things and as far as that environment, all the
    airplanes--and we went through with the OB--10 years ago with
    survivability and ability to go on ships and how it operates
    with the marine air-ground task force. We have to take that in
    kind of a holistic account. That is some of the things we look
    at when we talk about that particular airplane.
        Senator Wicker. Could the Air Force light attack go on a
    ship?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. They have prototype aircraft
    today that they are actually flying and testing, and we are
    tracking to see what they do on that. We are actually tracking
    some variants that they have actually put into the field with
    some of our partner countries.
        Senator Wicker. Would it not save money for the Marine
    Corps?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. It depends what variant you are
    talking about.
        Senator Wicker. Well, because if it would not save money,
    there is no point in discussing it. Is there?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. I think in the mission sets, if
    I were to review what we do in the world today--for example, we
    have an F-18 squadron in CENTCOM theater right now. When it
    takes off, it has a defensive counter-air mission, a counter-
    UAS mission, and it is going to drop some fairly significant
    weapons in support of ground forces on the ground. And it has
    got to get there fairly quick out of an airfield that is not
    necessarily close to the battlefield.
        In Asia, in that type of fight, I am not sure it is
    survivable. If you are talking about Africa special operations
    and some of the countries that is in right now, I think you
    have a cost effective means to do that. For our TACAIR
    [Tactical Air] right now and where we are, we are not
    necessarily in an environment where that particular, as it
    stands today, fits in there. Yet, for our partner nations that
    are using it, it is doing quite well.
        Senator Wicker. Well, further comparing what you all are
    doing to the Air Force, Admiral Conn, the Air Force has opted
    to cancel its JSTARS [Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar
    System] recapitalization plan, arguing that the proposed
    replacement was not able to survive a high-end fight. The Navy,
    on the other hand, has invested heavily in the E-2D advanced
    Hawkeye and P-8 Poseidon, which both have similar vulnerability
    concerns as the proposed JSTARS recap program.
        So what about this? What is the Navy's approach and why
    have you seemingly come to a different conclusion from the Air
    Force?
        Rear Admiral Conn. Sir, I cannot answer on behalf of the
    Air Force.
        I will say for the E-2D and the airborne early warning
    mission that it does as an elevated sensor up and away from the
    carrier, there is nothing I am aware of right now that can
    replace that capability with a persistent capability providing
    airborne command and control, as well as some of the higher
    fidelity aspects of the E-2D and how it contributes to kill
    chains. I am not aware of anything else that can provide it.
        Senator Wicker. Okay, but does this have any affect on the
    Navy and Air Force jointly executing airborne battle management
    in a high-end fight?
        Rear Admiral Conn. No, sir, I do not believe it does.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you.
        Two more questions.
        Admiral Conn, give us an update on efforts to replace the
    Navy's TH-57 training helicopters.
        Rear Admiral Conn. To replace the 115 TH-57 helicopters, we
    are taking a new approach. We are going for commercial off-the-
    shelf aircraft that is going to be competed, and we are going
    to, then after the competition, buy those aircraft. And we are
    still working through the actual maintenance plan,
    certification plan. But that is the approach that we are
    taking. We are not building a new military aircraft. We are
    going to take a commercial aircraft and put it into that
    mission of training the next generation of rotary wing pilots.
        Senator Wicker. What is your schedule on that, sir?
        Rear Admiral Conn. You will see that next year, sir.
        Senator Wicker. Finally, Admiral Conn and General Rudder,
    as the Department focuses increasingly on the high-end fight,
    how important are adequate training ranges and supporting
    equipment in ensuring our aviation forces are adequately
    prepared? Are there areas where our training infrastructure
    needs to be improved in terms of airspace, equipment, and other
    elements?
        Please describe efforts by the Navy and Marine Corps to
    increase and improve the use of live, virtual and constructive
    LVC training and how these efforts are interoperable within and
    among all the services.
        Who wants to go first? Admiral Conn?
        Rear Admiral Conn. In terms of investments in the training
    environment of the future, there are four key attributes to any
    successful training program. The first one is you have to have
    an environment itself that is reliable, realistic, relevant,
    and recordable. That could be a live environment or it can be a
    virtual constructive environment in which to train it.
        Then you need a syllabus that has defined standards of
    performance that you measure against.
        Then you need an instructor to teach that syllabus to those
    standards in that environment.
        And then you need truth data to be able to record the event
    just like NFL [National Football League] plays or NFL game
    tapes where they look not only at the offense and defense but
    down to specific players on the field. That is the capability
    that we are developing.
        In terms of the live side, we do need to upgrade our
    ranges, specifically the Fallon range training complex, getting
    it out of the Cold War era and into the 21st century, and those
    investments are starting to be made.
        In terms of building a virtual constructive environment
    where we do our high-end training, that is being done at Fallon
    as well in an integrated training facility. We are doing that
    for a number of reasons. One, our live ranges themselves. We
    are running out of real estate measured in terms of the
    physical size and space of those ranges and our ability to
    access and control spectrum the way we are going to do it in
    combat.
        The other part of that is from OPSEC. There are things we
    want to do and things we must train to, but we do not want to
    do it in the open air. That is why we are making those
    investments in integrated simulator facilities with F-18's,
    with F-35's, with E-2D, with Aegis, with MQ-25 to be able to
    train to the high-end fight at an integrated level.
        Senator Wicker. General, what do you say?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. To build upon that, just for
    airspace in general, we have to protect it as much as we can.
    We have encroachment issues around the world quite honestly and
    certainly in the United States. We need to protect the ranges.
        The F-35 brings a different dimension in the ranges where
    you would take off in an F-35 or a legacy aircraft, you would
    fly within a certain distance from each other. You would fly
    with a wingman that you could either see or he is not that far
    away, you might be 10 or 15 miles apart between airplanes and
    maybe 50 or 60, 70 miles apart between a flight of four. That
    type of airspace needs to be protected.
        The ranges, our weapon systems for the range of our weapon
    systems that require the safety zones required for drop zones--
    we need to be able to protect the air-to-ground piece as well
    because we still have a requirement for the high-end fight.
    Although we talk a lot about air-to-air, we talk a lot about
    this maritime environment, we have to be able to train with our
    maneuver elements on the ground.
        Finally, for new systems, we rely on places like Fallon or
    places like Northern Edge, that exercise in Alaska, or Red Flag
    or Nellis or China Lake for them to have the most updated
    systems. We have to maintain updated systems. So when our
    airplanes fly against a high-end threat, they are actually
    flying against those high-end systems.
        The simulation. I think all the services are in the same
    drive to make sure that we have our simulators that are
    networked together. Even on MEU, marine expeditionary unit,
    missions today, we can actually fly in Cobras, Hueys, V-22's,
    AV-8B's, and we can link those systems together to be able to
    fly those missions. We endeavor to do that with the F-35 and
    all our strike assets. But that high-end fight is something
    that, as a matter of fact, we are going to do it in Fallon and
    we are going to do it at Red Flag, and we are practicing that
    at our next weapons and tactics course.
        Senator Wicker. All right. We are going to try to give you
    a Seapower title that gives you what you need.
        Admiral Grosklags, do you have anything you need to add in
    this, your final testimony before this Subcommittee? You have
    the last word, sir.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Sir, I will only say--I will
    reiterate what I said at the start, that the additional funding
    that is likely to be made available in fiscal year 2018 and
    fiscal year 2019 is absolutely critical to increasing our
    lethality, but just as critical to making sure that we can get
    our readiness back up on step because we can only be lethal if
    we have ready, available airplanes. That is absolutely
    critical.
        We appreciate the Congress's in general but this
    Subcommittee's, in particular, support for getting there. I
    would just again reiterate that we are almost halfway through
    fiscal year 2018, and we need to get those dollars available to
    us as soon as possible so we can execute them as efficiently
    and effectively as possible.
        Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Well, I hope we can have a signing ceremony
    the evening of March 23rd.
        Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate it.
        This hearing is closed.
        [Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]

        [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Roger F. Wicker
                           national defense strategy
        1. Senator Wicker. Vice Admiral Grosklags, Rear Admiral Conn and
    Lieutenant General Rudder, how does the President's Budget request for
    Naval and Marine Corps aviation align with, and support, the National
    Defense Strategy and its emphasis on preparing for the high end fight?
    Please provide specific examples.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags and Rear Admiral Conn. The DON President's
    Budget 2019 budget request aligns to the current National Defense
    Strategy which identifies a more complex global security environment
    characterized by overt challenges to the current international order
    and the resurgence of long-term, strategic competition between nations.
    Our budget request reflects this national security environment and
    prioritizes the high-end fight. This is demonstrated by our request for
    appropriations that procure advanced fighter aircraft, expands the
    assimilation and teaming of manned and unmanned systems, integrates
    advanced platforms, sensors, networks, and the electromagnetic
    spectrum, and advances the development & procurement of long-range
    strike weapons that provide the necessary military advantage over those
    challenging the global posture.
        Specific examples include procurement of additional 5th generation
    F-35 aircraft, development of the first carrier-based Unmanned Aerial
    System; improvements to the E-2D and kill-chains, initiation of a new
    start for a next generation long-range strike weapon (NGLAW),
    procurement of a new advanced ASuW weapon (LRASM), and development of
    A2/AD improvements for as Tactical Tomahawk.
        Our modern expeditionary force requires fixed-wing aircraft capable
    of flexible basing ashore or at sea in support of our Marine units. A
    top priority is the F-35B and F-35C. Other priorities for aviation
    include investing in lethal, persistent, multi-role intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) Vertical Take-Off and Landing
    (VTOL) UAS like our MAGTF Unmanned Expeditionary (MUX) program;
    modernizing key lift capabilities with the CH-53K; supporting
    capabilities such as electronic attack; implementing robust strike
    weapons programs; creating manned-unmanned teaming capabilities; and
    pursuing other sustainable modern aviation platforms ultimately
    increasing our competitive advantage against current rivals.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The DON President's Budget 2019 budget
    request aligns to the current National Defense Strategy which
    identifies a more complex global security environment characterized by
    overt challenges to the current international order and the resurgence
    of long-term, strategic competition between nations. Our budget request
    reflects this national security environment and prioritizes the high-
    end fight. This is demonstrated by our request for appropriations that
    procure advanced fighter aircraft, expands the assimilation and teaming
    of manned and unmanned systems, integrates advanced platforms, sensors,
    networks, and the electromagnetic spectrum, and advances the
    development & procurement of long-range strike weapons that provide the
    necessary military advantage over those challenging the global posture.
        Specific examples include procurement of additional 5th generation
    F-35 aircraft, development of the first carrier-based Unmanned Aerial
    System; improvements to the E-2D and kill-chains, initiation of a new
    start for a next generation long-range strike weapon (NGLAW),
    procurement of a new advanced ASuW weapon (LRASM), and development of
    A2/AD improvements for legacy weapons as Tactical Tomahawk.
        Our modern expeditionary force requires fixed-wing aircraft capable
    of flexible basing ashore or at sea in support of our Marine units. A
    top priority is the F-35B and F-35C. Other priorities for aviation
    include investing in lethal, persistent, multi-role intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) Vertical Take-Off and Landing
    (VTOL) UAS like our MAGTF Unmanned Expeditionary (MUX) program;
    modernizing key lift capabilities with the CH-53K; supporting
    capabilities such as electronic attack; implementing robust strike
    weapons programs; creating manned-unmanned teaming capabilities; and
    pursuing other sustainable modern aviation platforms ultimately
    increasing our competitive advantage against current rivals.
                                   dod budget
        2. Senator Wicker. Vice Admiral Grosklags, Rear Admiral Conn and
    Lieutenant General Rudder, congress recently passed a 2-year budget
    agreement providing additional funds to the Department of Defense in
    fiscal years 2018 and 2019. How will the additional funding aid Navy
    and Marine Corps aviation's modernization and readiness restoration and
    ability to meet the National Defense Strategy? Please provide specific
    examples.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags and Rear Admiral Conn. All of Congress's
    efforts to provide the Navy and Marine Corps stable and predictable
    funding allow us to maximize every taxpayer dollar and increase our
    purchasing power. With a two-year budget, it will enable the DON to
    improve our current force posture, modernize key capabilities and
    accelerate technology advancements. Each of these key areas contributes
    to and supports the National Defense Strategy. With regard to our force
    posture, stable resources help us recover readiness by funding flight
    hours, depot maintenance and procurement of spare/repair parts. With
    regard to modernization and technology advancements, predictable
    resources enable the maturation of multiple weapon system modernization
    programs, to include F/A-18E/F BLK III upgrades; F-35 Continuous
    Capabilities Development and Delivery upgrades; incremental updates to
    Next Generation Jammer; updates to the MQ-4 Triton to a Multi-Int
    configuration and modernization of various strike weapons such as
    LRASM, Tomahawk and Harpoon BLK II+.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. Congress's efforts to provide the Navy
    and Marine Corps stable and predictable funding allows the Department
    to maximize every taxpayer dollar and increase our purchasing power.
    The 2-year BBA and associated budget increase enables the DON to
    simultaneously improve our current force posture, modernize key
    capabilities and accelerate technology advancements. Each of these key
    areas contributes and supports the National Defense Strategy. With
    regard to our force posture, stable resources help us recover readiness
    by funding flight hours, depot maintenance and procurement of spare/
    repair parts. With regard to modernization, predictable resources
    enable modernization of key capabilities by procuring platforms like F-
    35 and CH-53K. Advancements in technology include maturation of
    multiple weapon system modernization programs, such as lethality and
    survivability upgrades for legacy F/A-18A-D and BLK III upgrades for F/
    A-18E/F; F-35 Continuous Capabilities Development and Delivery
    upgrades; incremental updates to Next Generation Jammer; updates to the
    MQ-4 Triton to a Multi-Int configuration, investments into MAGTF
    Unmanned eXpeditionary (MUX), and modernization of various strike
    weapons such as LRASM, Tomahawk and Harpoon BLK II+.

        3. Senator Wicker. Vice Admiral Grosklags, Rear Admiral Conn and
    Lieutenant General Rudder, is the President's Budget sufficient to meet
    the needs of Navy and Marine Corps aviation in terms of readiness and
    modernization? What are the primary budgetary challenges you are facing
    in the wake of the recently agreed to 2 year budget deal?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags and Rear Admiral Conn. The current
    President's Budget 2019 budget is sufficient to meet Naval Aviation
    readiness and modernization goals. The challenge is that multiple years
    of insufficient resources cannot be corrected in one or two budgets.
    The DON requires stable, predictable funding over multiple years to
    achieve sustained positive results.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The current President's Budget 2019
    budget is sufficient to meet Naval Aviation readiness and modernization
    goals. The challenge is that multiple years of insufficient resources
    cannot be corrected in one or two budget cycles. The DON requires
    stable, predictable funding over multiple years to achieve sustained
    positive results.

        4. Senator Wicker. Vice Admiral Grosklags, Rear Admiral Conn and
    Lieutenant General Rudder, the Defense budget request includes zero
    real growth in spending from President's Budget 2020 to 2023.
        Given the state of readiness and military capabilities today, how
    will Navy and Marine Corps aviation sufficiently rebuild to meet the
    requirements of the National Defense Strategy after fiscal year 2019,
    without additional funding?
        If the Department is responsible for funding internal savings to
    help pay for additional capability and capacity, please provide
    specific examples of what those savings will be in the aviation
    accounts.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags and Rear Admiral Conn. The National Defense
    Strategy calls for sustained and predictable funding over multiple
    years to improve readiness, restore program balance and build capacity/
    lethality. Future budget requests will be informed by ongoing or
    pending DON and DOD weapon system investment assessments that will
    identify out-year real growth requirements.
        To achieve the desired savings, the Department will create new
    initiatives and/or emulate ongoing self-funding initiatives, to
    include: divestiture of less capable legacy capabilities (e.g. early
    Navy divestiture of legacy F/A-18 A-D Hornet aircraft), block-buys and
    multi-year procurement contracts (e.g. F-35 block-buy and KC-130J
    multi-year procurement contract), repurposing of existing capabilities
    (e.g. V-22 for the Carrier On-Board mission vs. development of a new
    aircraft), and application of accelerated acquisition processes to
    reduce weapon system development cycle-times (e.g. the Long-Range Anti-
    Ship Missile (LRASM) accelerated acquisition program). The projected
    estimated cost savings and/or cost avoidance amounts will be determined
    via financial analysis as each initiative is matured.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The National Defense Strategy calls for
    sustained and predictable funding over multiple years to improve
    readiness, restore program balance and build capacity/lethality. Future
    budget requests will be informed by ongoing or pending DON and DOD
    weapon system investment assessments that will identify out-year real
    growth requirements.
                                industrial base
        5. Senator Wicker. Vice Admiral Grosklags, how would you describe
    the state of the industrial base that supports Navy and Marine Corps
    aviation programs? What must this Subcommittee be particularly mindful
    of related to the industrial base?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. As delineated in DOD's 2017 industrial
    capabilities report to Congress, overall, the general defense industry
    remains viable and relatively competitive. The aircraft sector is
    financially strong and defined by robust teaming and supplier
    relationships. The long-term outlook for the defense aircraft market is
    stable, although world-wide budget issues continue to drive short-term
    uncertainty. The large U.S. commercial aircraft and engine industries
    are healthy and have stable backlogs over the next decade. Military
    sales are more difficult to project as numerous governments have
    announced plans to reduce defense spending. Overall, the Aerospace and
    Defense (A&D) sector supporting Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs
    continues to outperform the broader markets. Major A&D prime system
    integrators (and significant subsystem suppliers) are profitable,
    showing positive Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation and
    Amortization (EBITDA) margins.
        A key risk to the A&D sector is attracting and retaining a
    qualified workforce. The need for talent across the defense industrial
    base is recognized by both industry and government as a major concern.
    Personnel shortages in hardware and software design/test continue due
    to increasing retirements, limited platform knowledge transfer, and a
    high demand for software engineers that is outstripping supply. A
    highly skilled workforce is essential to basic research, future weapon
    system development, advanced manufacturing/robotics, the progress of
    affordable sustainment strategies for complex Naval Aviation weapon
    systems and overall innovation in the A&D sector.
        The Subcommittee must be particularly mindful to the fact that a
    healthy defense industrial base is essential to U.S. economic strength
    and U.S. national security--and losing our innovation and technological
    edge would have far-reaching negative national security implications.
                 multiyear procurement or block buy authorities
        6. Senator Wicker. Vice Admiral Grosklags and Lieutenant General
    Rudder, are there programs that would benefit from cost reduction
    initiatives, such as Multiyear Procurement or block buys, that do not
    currently have these authorities?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The E-2D and F/A-18/EA-18G programs have
    both submitted legislative proposals requesting multiyear procurement
    authority from Congress. The AIM-9X program is studying the viability
    of a future multiyear. The Department of Navy is also participating in
    a proposed multiyear procurement legislative proposal submitted by the
    Air Force for the C-130 program.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. If conditions permit, an MV-22 7-Year
    Multi-Year contract would save the DON 8$152 million across the FYDP,
    allow us to concentrate on improving readiness in the near years (which
    is critical), and make the program more attractive to our foreign
    partners that are considering the aircraft. If we were forced to buy to
    the POR inside the 5 year multi-year, we would have to balance the
    spending increase with our planned CCRAM and nacelle improvement
    readiness initiatives.
                             physiological episodes
        7. Senator Wicker. Vice Admiral Grosklags, please describe the
    Navy's most recent efforts to mitigate physiological episodes.
        Is a limited number of vendors hindering equipment modification
    efforts? Can industry produce enough specialized components?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The Navy's most recent efforts to mitigate
    physiological episodes (PEs) consist of a multi-faceted approach (warn
    the aircrew, fix the machine, protect and prevent) involving close
    coordination and cooperation between a broad swath of internal and
    external partners, including subject matter experts from United States
    Air Force (USAF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
    Federal Aviation Administration, industry, academia, medical, and dive
    communities. The Navy and Marine Corps are directly targeting the
    effects of PEs in our F/A-18/EA-18G and T-45 aircraft. Formed by the
    result of a Comprehensive Review ordered by the Chief of Naval
    Operations (CNO), the Physiological Episode Action Team (PEAT) serves
    as the singular source of coordination between the CNO, Commander,
    Naval Air Forces, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), Bureau of
    Medicine and Surgery, Naval Safety Center, private industry, and
    academia. Most of the PEs have occurred in two basic aircraft, the T-45
    Goshawk and the F/A-18 (to include F/A-18 A-D Hornet, F/A-18 E/F Super
    Hornet, and EA-18G Growler). While there is cross-talk between all
    tactical air and training platforms on common problems and solutions,
    the strategies for T-45 and F/A-18 are slightly different and described
    separately below.
        In the T-45, a variety of actions have been undertaken to address
    the occurrence of predominately hypoxia-type PEs. Training and
    procedures were updated to optimize crew posture for PE recognition,
    response, and avoidance. Air sampling using sorbent tubes and
    hydrocarbon detectors were installed on aircrew to monitor breathing
    gasses, and contaminant levels have shown values less than that of
    ambient air, and are well below Occupational Safety and Health
    Administration standards. CRU-123 solid state oxygen monitoring units
    were fielded, which provide aircrew alerting if delivery pressure
    falls, and its data recording capability have provided invaluable
    insight into the performance of the T-45 oxygen system while increasing
    system confidence with the aircrew. A draft request for proposal for a
    new oxygen concentrator was released, the GGU-25, and it will include
    increased reliability and data logging, delivering an increase in
    capability over the 1980s era concentrator that is currently in the T-
    45. Additional redundancy will be provided by the implementation of an
    Automatic Backup Oxygen System.
        In the F/A-18, the PEAT believes that hypoxia and decompression
    events are the two most likely causes of recent physiological episodes.
    Because symptoms related to pressure fluctuations, hypoxia and
    contamination overlap, discerning a root cause is a complex process. A
    variety of actions have been undertaken to address the occurrence of
    PEs in the F/A-18 to include: new maintenance rules for handling the
    occurrence of specific Environmental Control System (ECS) built-in test
    faults; forward deployment of transportable recompression systems to
    immediately treat aircrew in the event they experience pressure-related
    symptoms; mandatory cabin pressurization testing on all F/A-18 aircraft
    every 400 flight hours; mandatory ECS pressure port testing is
    performed on all F/A-18A-D aircraft every 400 flight hours; improved
    overhaul and aircraft servicing procedures for ECS components; revised
    and expanded emergency procedures; annual hypoxia awareness and
    biennial dynamic training using a Reduced Oxygen Breathing Device to
    experience and recognize hypoxia symptoms while operating an aircraft
    simulator. In addition, aircrew are provided portable barometric
    recording watches to alert them when cabin altitude reaches preset
    thresholds or exceeds fluctuation thresholds. Internal components of
    the F/A-18 On-Board Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS) have been
    redesigned to incorporate a catalyst to prevent carbon monoxide from
    reaching the pilot and provide an improved capability molecular sieve
    material (oxygen filter). These new OBOGS components have been
    installed in 92 percent of the in-service F/A-18 fleet so far. F/A-18
    A-Ds are undergoing a two-phased ECS overhaul; Phase 1 is the
    incorporation of Air Frame Bulletin (AFB)-821 to replace seven of the
    most critical ECS components; Phase 2 is currently under development
    and is intended to replace valves, duct lines, couplings and brackets
    to restore ECS system integrity and provide aircrew with a stable
    cockpit environment.
        Common (F/A-18 and T-45) actions include: an increased capacity for
    the emergency oxygen bottle is under contract for both F/A-18 and T-45;
    leveraging sorbent tube assembly data to identify breathing gas
    contaminants; and construction of an ECS laboratory. To date, the
    levels of contaminants measured in OBOGS breathing gas are well below
    published limits known to cause human impairment. SlamStick data is
    downloaded post-flight and synchronized with aircraft maintenance data
    for rigorous analysis, increased aircrew awareness, and post PE
    investigation. Future projects include systematic evaluations of
    technologies to monitor and detect physiological symptoms for both F/A-
    18 and T-45.
        Across the Naval Aviation Enterprise, every effort has been made to
    share information and rapidly develop a shared solution. Data
    management and collection has been enhanced through initiation of a new
    data management plan. New test procedures have been developed with
    OBOGS and ECS bleed air contaminant testing conducted on fleet aircraft
    to establish measurement thresholds and foment a predictive system
    performance methodology. Also, new test sets have been developed to
    assess oxygen system degraded performance. As stated in the report
    commissioned by NASA, PEs happen to people, not machines. The most
    capable experts in aeromedical research have been consulted. PMA-202,
    who specializes in aviation life support and human systems at NAVAIR,
    is working with Naval Aviation Medical Research Unit--Dayton (NAMRU-D)
    to actively research multiple topics where medical understanding is
    immature. NAMRU-D is a key member of the Aviation Environmental Safety
    Advisory Board (AESAB), tasked with providing recommendations on
    multiple physiological issues. NAMRU-D enjoys a strong partnership with
    the USAF 711th Human Performance Wing (HPW) providing complementary
    capabilities for aeromedical research while supporting cross service
    collaboration in both research and experimentation. Oxygen cross talks
    bring specialists from NAVAIR, the 711th HPW and academia altogether to
    share research and expertise to optimize life support systems for all
    of our platforms.
        Based upon the Navy's mitigation strategy, no supplier constraint
    has been identified to date that would impede equipment modification
    efforts, and industry can produce enough specialized components.

        8. Senator Wicker. Vice Admiral Grosklags, how much funding does
    the budget request include for addressing physiological episodes in
    Navy and Marine Corps aircraft? Please describe specific examples of
    items or efforts that are funded in the budget.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags.

    APN, P-1 #30, PE/BLI 0204136N/0525 (APN5)
    APN, P-1 #45, PE/BLI 0804745N/0569 (APN5)
    APN, P-1 #48, PE/BLI 0204161N/0575 (APN5)
    APN, P-1 #64, PE/BLI 0204161N/0605 (APN6)
    OPN, P-1 #92, PE/BLI 0204161N/4268
    RDTEN, R-1 #103 PE/PU 0603208N/3367
    RDTEN, R-1 #106 PE/PU 0604264N/0606
    RDTEN, R-1 #219 PE/PU 0204136N/1662
    OMN, 1804, PE/LI 0708012N/1A4N (PRL)
    OMN, 1804, PE/LI 0702207N/1A4A

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year
     President's Budget 2019        APPN          2019 ($M)     2020 ($M)     2021 ($M)     2022 ($M)     2023 ($M)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aircrew Systems
      1A4A                    OMN                      11.4           5.5           0.0           0.0           0.0
      PE 0604264N             RDTEN                     2.7           2.8           2.5           1.5           1.4
      BLI 4268                OPN                       2.2           2.0           2.0           3.9           0.7
      BLI 0575                APN-5                    15.9          38.3         38.05          41.7           2.8
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    F/A-18
      1A4N                    OMN                      13.3          13.7          14.0          14.4          14.7
      PE 0204136N             RDTEN                    28.0           2.5           1.5           1.5           1.5
      BLI 0525                APN-5                    30.1          25.8          15.8          24.9          16.8
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    T-45
      A4N                     OMN                      13.3          13.5          13.7          14.0          14.0
      PE 0603208N             RDTEN                     6.1           5.1           0.8           0.8           0.8
      BLI 0569                APN-5                    40.4          48.3           5.4           1.6           1.6
      BLI 0605                APN-6                     8.7           5.1           0.0           0.0           0.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Specific examples of items or efforts that are funded in the budget
    include Enhanced Emergency Oxygen System (EEOS), Automatic Backup
    Oxygen Systems (ABOS), flight tests, pilot physiological testing, and
    data analytics.

        9. Senator Wicker. Vice Admiral Grosklags, are T-45s back flying at
    their full envelope?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Yes, the T-45 is flying at full envelope.
    The fleet returned to full envelope On-Board Oxygen Generation System
    (OBOGS) on 18 July 2017 with fully reconfigured OBOGS aircraft.

        10. Senator Wicker. Vice Admiral Grosklags and Lieutenant General
    Rudder, have the Navy or Marine Corps experienced any physiological
    episodes in their F-35s recently? What is being DONe to combat
    physiological episodes in Navy and Marine Corps F-35s?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Since 2012, there have been a total of 15
    physiological episodes that have occurred on F-35Bs and F-35Cs, with
    seven events transpiring on the F-35B and eight events on the F-35C (as
    tracked by the Naval Safety Center). The most recent PE event happened
    on August 24, 2017 at MCAS Beaufort, SC and was the result of a pre-
    existing condition with the pilot.
        To combat PEs on Navy and Marine Corps F-35s, a thorough
    understanding of their root cause(s) must be obtained prior to
    developing potential changes to the aircraft and/or life support
    system. It must be noted that the life support system on the F-35 is
    the same on all F-35 models. Extensive laboratory testing of Onboard
    Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS) units involved in May 2017 Luke AFB
    PEs on F-35A models recently completed in February 2018 at Wright-
    Patterson AFB. The tests confirmed that the OBOGS was not a contributor
    to PEs on the F-35. The testing demonstrated a high level of
    repeatability and statistical robustness, providing a high level of
    confidence in the following conclusions: in-flight oxygen
    concentrations recorded by F-35 aircraft provide reasonable estimates
    of the oxygen concentrations delivered to the pilot, there is no
    evidence of undetected oxygen concentration disruptions, the life
    support system appropriately detects and reacts to failures, and the
    OBOGS delivers oxygen levels well above minimums required to prevent
    hypoxia. There is some evidence to suggest that operator breathing
    technique influenced the results from these OBOGS tests and will be
    explored during subsequent testing. This next round of testing will
    include the OBOGS and all other components of the F-35 Life Support
    System (LSS), shifting the emphasis toward understanding the behavior
    of the breathing regulator, backup oxygen system, pilot interface
    connector, and oxygen mask/hoses to fully characterize all components
    of the F-35 LSS and its performance across representative F-35 flight
    envelopes. Once this latest round of testing is complete and the data
    analyzed, sufficient information should be in-hand to support any
    additional mitigation activities.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. Since 2011, there have been a total of
    nine (9) physiological episodes (PEs) that have occurred on F-35Bs and
    F-35Cs, with four events transpiring on the F-35B and five events on
    the F-35C. The most recent PE event happened on August 24, 2017 at MCAS
    Beaufort, SC and was the result of a pre-existing condition with the
    pilot.
        To combat PEs on Navy and Marine Corps F-35s, it must be noted that
    the life support system on the F-35 is the same on all F-35 models.
    Extensive laboratory testing of Onboard Oxygen Generation System
    (OBOGS) units involved in May 2017 Luke AFB PEs on F-35A models
    recently completed in February 2018 at Wright-Patterson AFB to confirm
    that the OBOGS was not a contributor to PEs on the F-35. The testing
    demonstrated a high level of repeatability and statistical robustness,
    providing a high level of confidence in the following conclusions: in-
    flight oxygen concentrations recorded by F-35 aircraft provide
    reasonable estimates of the oxygen concentrations delivered to the
    pilot, no evidence of undetected oxygen concentration disruptions, the
    life support system appropriately detects and reacts to failures, and
    the OBOGS delivers oxygen levels well above minimums required to
    prevent hypoxia. There is some evidence of other issues suggesting the
    influence of operator breathing that were seen during OBOGS testing
    that will be explored during additional testing. This next round of
    testing will include the OBOGS and all other components of the F-35
    Life Support System (LSS), shifting the emphasis toward understanding
    the behavior of the breathing regulator, backup oxygen system, pilot
    interface connector, and oxygen mask/hoses to fully characterize all
    components of the F-35 LSS and its performance across representative F-
    35 flight envelopes.
                            future carrier air wing
        11. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn, what is your vision for the
    future carrier air wing?
        Rear Admiral Conn. As carrier aviation looks to the future, it is
    evident we are facing a rapidly evolving threat capability baseline
    requiring a substantial force modernization to pace the threat in both
    the near term as well as the 2024-2030 timeframe. This will require
    investments in the industrial capacity and advancements in capabilities
    to outpace the threat. The future Carrier Air Wing is one that needs
    complementing 4th and 5th generation aircraft; manned and unmanned
    capabilities; and netted sensors, systems, and weapons to ensure the
    Air Wing is able to decisively defeat increasingly advanced near peer
    threats.
        The Air Wing will be composed of 4th and 5th generation strike
    fighters to provide the required complementary capacity and capability
    to counter threats through the 2030s. The strategy of sustaining and
    recapitalizing strike fighter inventory is reliant on fully funding
    readiness sustainment accounts, managing strike fighter utilization,
    and procuring of additional F/A-18E/Fs and F-35Cs. Our current
    assessments balance requirements and fiscal constraints in an effort to
    pace the threat. With that, the future Air Wing will be composed of two
    F-35C Lightning II squadrons and two F/A-18E/F Super Hornet squadrons
    totaling a minimum of 44 Strike Fighters with continued modernization
    efforts. This makeup provides the best balance between capability,
    capacity and affordability.
        This 4th and 5th generation mix is complemented by the only
    dedicated tactical electronic attack airframe in the Department of
    Defense inventory, the EA-18G Growler. The Growler has the capability
    to detect and identify emitters as well as provide passive precision
    targeting and connectivity. Future integration of the Next Generation
    Jammer will improve electronic attack capabilities to pace future
    threats. As the threat becomes more technologically advanced there is a
    requirement to have multiple Growlers airborne and therefore we
    anticipate a requirement for seven EA-18G aircraft in the Air Wing.
        We are currently conducting the Next Generation Air Dominance
    Analysis of Alternatives (AOA). The AOA will provide recommendations
    across a family of systems to replace the capabilities of the F/A-18E/F
    and the EA-18G as those platforms reach the end of their service lives.
    We are considering the widest range of trades to balance capability,
    capacity, affordability, and survivability across platforms, sensors,
    weapons, and networks. The AOA team has been working closely with
    government and industry to ensure we properly assess those future
    technologies which will have the greatest impact on Strike Group
    lethality.
        As a result of initial AOA findings, we are investing in propulsion
    technologies to benefit both legacy and future platforms. Not only do
    we require increased range and speed, but also improvements to the
    power and thermal management systems to support future technologies.
    Those technologies include advanced missions systems, on-board and off-
    board sensors, weapons, and the potential benefits of increased
    autonomy and manned/unmanned teaming.
        We will continue to align with the demands and availability of
    future technologies. As unmanned and autonomous systems become more
    available and affordable, we will leverage unmanned capabilities now
    and in the future. This includes providing communications relay nodes;
    intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, targeting (ISR&T);
    refueling; and logistics. Integration of such systems with manned
    systems will reduce risk to the force, provide access to areas
    otherwise denied to manned platforms, increase force capability and
    capacity while lowering costs and providing distributed intelligent
    battlespace awareness. Future unmanned assets will augment manned
    tactical aircraft beginning with the MQ-25 Stingray. This, along with
    other capabilities, will provide the Carrier Air Wing the ability to
    blend legacy air platforms with 5th generation fighters and other
    autonomous capabilities to achieve the desired warfighting effect.
        The Air Wing of the future must not rely on a single targeting
    sensor, system, or weapon in order to be successful. Instead, they must
    be able to rapidly share multi-spectrum sensor and target information
    across the battlespace while countering the threat's sensor and weapon
    capabilities. In order to do this, the Air Wing of the future will rely
    on robust, secure, and survivable tactical data link networks. These
    systems will fuse information from multiple input sources into a clear
    and accurate common operational picture. In order to counter the
    advanced threat and process the tremendous amounts of information being
    collected and transmitted across the battlespace, the requirement for
    multiple E-2Ds to be airborne simultaneously is increasing and thus we
    will require five to six E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes to meet this mission
    demand. Follow on efforts from the 2016 Force Structure Assessment
    continue to review the optimal force structure to include options for
    six aircraft per squadron.
        These systems and platforms will be complemented by a variety of
    support aircraft. The oldest aircraft currently operating from the
    flight decks is the C-2 Greyhound. In fiscal year 2018, the Navy begins
    procurement of the new CVW logistics aircraft; the CMV-22 Osprey. The
    Osprey will provide increased flexibility and range to our fleet
    logistics capability and is the only aircraft capable of transporting
    the F-35 engine to the carrier.
        Additionally, the Navy has multi-mission combat helicopters, the
    MH-60R and the MH-60S. The MH-60R is a multi-mission combat helicopter
    that conducts Anti-Submarine Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare, Naval
    Surface Fire Support, Search and Rescue, and Logistics Support. Future
    Air Wings will continue to deploy with 11 aircraft HSM squadron--five
    of which embark the CVN, and six of which embark the Strike Group's
    Cruisers and Destroyers. By 2025, the MH-60R will be approaching its
    Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) and Mid-Life Upgrade (MLU)--
    processes that will update the airframe, its sensors, and its mission
    systems to extend the service life and improve its tactical utility.
        The MH-60S is a multi-mission combat helicopter that conducts Anti-
    Surface Warfare, Personnel Recovery, Naval Special Warfare Support,
    Search and Rescue, and Logistics Support. Future Air Wings will
    continue to deploy with an eight-aircraft HSC squadron--six of which
    embark the CVN, and two of which embark a supporting auxiliary ship. By
    2025, the MH-60S will be well into its Service Life Extension Program
    (SLEP) and Mid-Life Upgrade (MLU)--processes that will update the
    airframe and its mission systems to extend the service life and improve
    its tactical utility.

        12. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn, the Air Force Research
    Laboratory's Loyal Wingman program seeks to pair unmanned aircraft with
    a fifth generation fighter. How do you envision such manned-unmanned
    teaming manifesting in naval aviation and with strike-fighters in
    particular?
        Rear Admiral Conn. The Department of the Navy is committed to the
    use of unmanned capabilities providing communications relay nodes;
    Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, Targeting (ISR&T);
    refueling; logistics; Airborne Electronic Attack; and strike.
    Integration of these systems with manned systems will reduce risk to
    the force, provide access to areas previously denied to manned
    platforms, increase force capability and capacity at lower costs, and
    provide distributed intelligent battlespace awareness.
        Continued research is required to determine how to most efficiently
    use inexpensive, unmanned systems. This enables our 5th generation
    manned aircraft to maintain the tactical advantage. How the Navy
    envisions employing these systems would need to be addressed at a
    higher classification.
                             10th carrier air wing
        13. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn, the NDAA for fiscal year
    2017 gave the Navy temporary reprieve from the requirement to maintain
    and fully staff 10 carrier air wings until additional deployable
    aircraft carriers can fully support a 10th carrier air wing, or October
    1, 2025, whichever comes first.
        How does this budget request begin to lay the groundwork to fully
    equip and man the 10th carrier air wing?
        Are the procurement profiles outlined in the FYDP for Super
    Hornets, Joint Strike Fighters, Hawkeyes, Growlers, Seahawks and CMV-
    22s, built with the requirement for 10 air wings or 9?
        Rear Admiral Conn. The President's Budget 2019 DON Aviation plan
    investment funding includes procurement of aircraft, initial spares,
    and research and development. This plan is consistent with the
    Secretary of Defense's President's Budget 2019 focus on recovering
    warfighting readiness while increasing capability and lethality. This
    procurement plan puts the Navy on a path to meet the 1 Oct 2025
    requirement
                            strike-fighter shortfall
        14. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn, please update us on the
    Navy's strike-fighter shortfall, efforts to alleviate it, and the
    biggest challenges to overcome.
        Rear Admiral Conn. The Naval Aviation Enterprise is actively
    managing strike fighter management challenges in the near term that
    will require several years to correct. The fiscal year 2019 request
    effectively helps us address the strike fighter shortfall with
    procurement of 9 F-35Cs, 24 FA-18E/F Block III Super Hornets and
    additional aircraft across the FYDP. In tandem with these procurements,
    Service Life Modification (SLM) initiatives, capability upgrades,
    concurrent engineering, and innovative manufacturing techniques enhance
    our inventory by maintaining the tactical relevancy of the F/A-18 E/F
    and legacy F/A-18 A-D aircraft as we transition to new, more modern
    tactical aircraft.
        The President's Fiscal Year 2019 Budget request puts us on track to
    reach our desired force structure and readiness. The key enabler and
    biggest challenge to managing the strike fighter inventory will be
    stable, on-time funding over multiple years to achieve the desired
    results.
                           legacy hornet divestiture
        15. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn, the Navy intends to divest
    all Legacy Hornets from its active component squadrons by 2019, with
    full department divestiture complete by 2030.
        Please explain the rationale for the Department's Legacy Hornet
    divestiture plan.
        The divestiture plan includes the Blue Angels transitioning to
    Super Hornets in 2020, while the Reserve squadrons do not transition
    until 2028. Please explain why the Blue Angels would be a higher
    priority to transition than the Reserve squadrons, Naval Aviation
    Warfare Development Center, the test squadrons or the general fleet
    inventory, which has been severely challenged for a number of years.
        Rear Admiral Conn. In October 2017, a decision was made by NAE to
    put the transition timeline for the Navy Fleet Demo Team (Blue Angels)
    from Legacy Hornets to Super Hornets on hold. This decision was based
    on a Navy plan to divest of Legacy F/A-18 Hornets from the four
    remaining active Navy Fleet squadrons between 2017-2019. These four
    operational squadrons will transition to Super Hornets in an effort to
    bring the best capability to the operational Navy fleet as early as
    possible. The decision required the Navy to delay the transition of the
    Blue Angels into Super Hornets until a later date. The NAE is looking
    at procurement/delivery, current inventory and the Service Life
    Management plan to identify the aircraft to be modified to support the
    Blue Angel team. Current timeline for the Blue Angel transition is TBD
    with a modified plan expected in late fiscal year 2018.

        16. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, please explain how
    the Department's Legacy Divestiture plan affects USMC aviation
    readiness and combat capability.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The Navy's decision to transition its
    Schedule A F/A-18C squadrons earlier than originally planned has
    allowed for the transfer of Lot 15 and above legacy hornets,
    essentially the latest and most capable models, to the Marine Corps.
    This will allow the Marine Corps to operate all Lot 15 and above
    hornets in their Schedule A squadrons in 2019. It will provide the
    Marine Corps more commonality and better combat capability within its
    F/A-18 fleet. ``Best of Breed'' aircraft recapitalized from divestment
    will be reallocated based on priority: 1. operational USMC squadrons,
    2. NAWDC, 3. Reserves. More F/A-18A-D aircraft will be added to strike
    lists until USMC is complete with the F/A-18 to F-35 transition in
    2030.
                         f/a-18 service life extension
        17. Senator Wicker. Vice Admiral Grosklags, please describe what
    the Navy is doing to improve depot throughput for Legacy Hornets and to
    apply lessons learned to the looming service life extension program for
    the Super Hornet.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The Navy's initiative to restore capacity
    and throughput at the Navy's aviation depots has yielded improvements
    in capacity which now meets the F/A-18A-D PMI requirements. The Navy
    increased artisan and engineering manpower on the F-18 lines and has
    ongoing efforts to address throughput constraints associated with
    material and analysis delays. The Navy continues to maximize the F/A-
    18A/B/C/D/E/F workload at the depots through the use of Critical Chain
    Project Management (CCPM); improved Bill of Materials and Workload
    Standards; and Planned Maintenance Interval-X (``PMI-X'') which reduces
    requirements by combining depot events which results in significantly
    lower forecasted depot inductions. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)
    Engineering has implemented improvements in the speed of engineering
    dispositions, the priorities assigned to disposition requests, and the
    amount of engineering resources available.
        Lessons learned from legacy Hornet have resulted in a significantly
    different approach for Super Hornet service life extension program.
    Material supply challenges and non-standardized repair requirements
    driven by material condition challenges have hampered legacy Hornet
    life extension efforts. The Super Hornet Service Life Modification
    (SLM) program will be accomplished at a Boeing commercial depot rather
    than using organic depot facilities. This approach will leverage the
    supply chain and technology of the currently active F/A-18E/F Super
    Hornet production line while incorporating the latest industry best
    practices to standardize production flow and speed delivery of extended
    life aircraft. In addition, protocols have been established to ensure
    knowledge gained from material condition findings during SLM are
    incorporated into fleet preventative maintenance practices resulting in
    better aircraft material condition at induction. Taken in the
    aggregate, these efforts are expected to minimize material issues,
    enhance service life extension predictability and reduce SLM cycle
    time, thus returning aircraft to fleet customers in less time than
    under previous efforts.
                         f/a-18 super hornet block iii
        18. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn, can you please describe the
    Navy's plan and timeline for upgrading its Super Hornet fleet? What
    capabilities are being added to maintain the Super Hornet's relevancy
    in the high end fight?
        Rear Admiral Conn. The F/A-18E/F will be the Navy's predominant
    strike fighter platform into mid-2030s. President's Budget 2019
    requests procurement of 24 F/A-18E/F aircraft in fiscal year 2019
    (FY19) and an additional 86 aircraft across the Future Years Defense
    Plan, with upgrades to Block III configuration starting in fiscal year
    2019. Block III is designed to be complementary to the capability
    delivered in F-35 and E-2D.
        F/A-18E/F Block III capability upgrades consist of five Engineering
    Change Proposals (ECPs):
          Advance Cockpit System (ACS) for improved situational
    awareness and obsolescence fixes
          Digital Networking Infrastructure for advanced targeting
    and growth
          Low Observable (LO) signature enhancement for improved
    survivability
          Conformal Fuel Tanks for increased range and on station
    time
          9,000+ flight hour service life to sustain capacity and
    lower lifecycle costs.
        Block III capability will be incorporated into production aircraft
    starting in fiscal year 2019 (for fiscal year 2021 delivery). Starting
    in fiscal year 2023, F/A-18E/F Block II aircraft will be inducted into
    Boeing facilities for Service Life Modification (SLM) to increase
    service life to 9,000+ flight hours and incorporate the Block III
    capabilities. Block II aircraft inducted for the structural portions of
    SLM prior to fiscal year 2023 will receive the remainder of the Block
    III upgrade at a later time.
                             e-2d advanced hawkeye
        19. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn, given the new capabilities
    the E-2D is, and will be, fielding and the new tactics and concepts of
    operations they are enabling, what, in your view, is the appropriate
    number of E-2Ds that should be allocated to each carrier air wing?
        Rear Admiral Conn. Current program of record is 5 E-2Ds per
    squadron. The Navy periodically analyzes the right mix of aircraft to
    maximize Strike Group weapons system capabilities. This analysis along
    with deck space and budgetary implications will need to be studied
    further.

        20. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn, given the new capabilities
    the E-2D is, and will be, fielding and the new tactics and concepts of
    operations they are enabling, is there a need for expeditionary
    squadrons of E-2Ds? Why or why not? What would be some of the benefits
    and/or drawbacks of establishing expeditionary E-2D squadrons, such as
    we have for EA-18G Growlers?
        Rear Admiral Conn. If required, E-2Ds could potentially support
    expeditionary operations, as well as augment a Marine Expeditionary
    Unit's composite air wing. The extent of additional capability they
    would bring would depend upon the specific mission requirements and
    would also be impacted by availability of suitable airfields. The
    current program of record does not support expeditionary operations
    (only enough aircraft to support CVW operations) and would require
    additional costs to stand-up the capability.
                           airborne battle management
        21. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn, the Air Force has opted to
    cancel its JSTARS recapitalization plan, arguing that the proposed
    replacement was not survivable in the high-end fight. The Navy, on the
    other hand, is investing heavily in the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and P-8
    PoseiDON, which both have similar vulnerability concerns as the
    proposed JSTARS recap program. Please explain the Navy's approach to
    airborne battle management and how the Navy and Air Force intend to
    jointly execute airborne battle management in a high-end fight.
        Rear Admiral Conn. The Navy intends to use its most survivable
    manned and unmanned platforms in the high end airborne fight and will
    perform battlespace management of airborne platforms, netted sensors,
    net-enabled weapons using and advanced Concept of Operations (CONOPS)
    that will extend the reach and survivability of these netted airborne
    platforms. The E-2D was built for this reason.
        The E-2D APY-9 radar is a two-generation leap in detection and
    tracking capability over the E-2C. Improved detection and tracking
    allows E-2D to operate forward in any environment providing enhanced
    situational awareness, expanded reach and improved effectiveness across
    the kill chain. The E-2D is a critical enabler of the Carrier Strike
    Group (CSG) air and surface warfare missions, including power
    projection, theater air and missile defense (TAMD) and cruise missile
    defense (CMD) in an anti-access/area denial (A2AD) environment. As a
    core pillar of the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA)
    construct, the E-2D extends organic AEGIS and fighter missile kill
    chains by providing long-range weapons quality surveillance data via
    Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and Link-16. Increased capacity
    of E-2D significantly increases effectiveness of the entire CSG.
        The P-8A performs an entirely different mission set than the E-2D
    or JSTARS or AWACS platforms. The P-8A is primarily an ASW and ASuW
    system dedicated to preserving the safe haven and Strategic Lines of
    Communication in the high end fight. It is not designated to perform
    airborne battle management missions or participate in the high end air
    to air battle. Through incorporation of its Increment 3 sensors and
    systems, it will be a full participant/node in the Navy's future
    battlespace awareness CONOPS. Incorporating advanced sensors with
    greater reach such as the Advanced Airborne Sensor (AAS), coupled with
    its advanced track management system (Minotaur), the P-8 Inc-3 brings a
    generational leap in battle space awareness over the P-3C. P-8 will
    conduct the majority of its strategic and operational ASW, ASuW and ISR
    warfighting objectives outside the major threat ranges of our
    adversaries. Through the use of advanced sensors and netted C4I systems
    and prudent Battle Group CONOPS, the P-8 will remain away from the high
    end airborne fight.
                        joint strike fighter operations
        22. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, please provide an
    update on F-35B operations since VMFA-121 moved to Japan?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The Marine Corps permanently stationed
    an F-35B squadron in Japan in 2017, and the first two F-35B MEU
    deployments will occur in 2018. F-35Bs on the 31st MEU just landed on
    the amphib today (Planned 121 fly-on date is, 5 March 2018). This
    summer, we will have two MEUs simultaneously deployed with F-35Bs.
        In August last year, to demonstrate solidarity with our allies in
    northeast Asia, four F-35Bs from Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni in
    Japan, two B 1Bs from Andersen Air Force Base in Guam, two Japan Air
    Self-Defense Force F-15Js, and four Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF)
    F-15Ks flew together over the waters near Kyushu, Japan, and the United
    States and ROKAF aircraft continued on and few across the Korean
    Peninsula.
        Last October, the U.S. Marine Corps participated in Exercise Dawn
    Blitz where U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II, assigned to Marine
    Fighter Attack Squadron 211 conducted operations aboard the USS Essex
    (LHD-2) to test the ability to conduct amphibious operations and
    completing thirteen (13) carrier qualifications.
        The Marine Corps' transition plan is on track. VMFA-314, the UCMS's
    first F-35C squadron, transitions to the F-35C in 2019--ready for
    expeditionary operations in 2021 and deployment on a carrier in 2022.

        23. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, the F-35B brings new
    capabilities and operational possibilities to the Marine Expeditionary
    Unit and you have discussed the vision of linking Marine Expeditionary
    Units (MEUs) more closely into the joint force. However, those new
    capabilities and operating concepts require investment in shipboard
    infrastructure to include upgraded data links. Please discuss your
    vision for L-class ship connectivity and current plans to achieve that
    vision.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. Our L-Class ships are behind where we
    would like to be, but the Navy is in full support and we are improving
    those ships as fast as possible. Three of our L-Class big decks now
    have the new Capstone Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) which brings the
    Cooperative Engagement Capability and Link 16 to the platform. There
    are 5 LHD's which are scheduled to be upgraded over the next 5 years.
    This system provides a critical combat capability which will integrated
    with F-35 over Link 16.
        The Navy just installed a system called Radiant Mercury on the USS
    Wasp, which enables post flight data from the F-35 to be sanitized and
    convert data to a generic secret level. This will lead to a much
    smoother dissemination of information to battle field commanders and
    leadership for expeditious debrief, validation, or follow on
    operations.
        We also plan on operating the Marine Corps Common Aviation Command
    and Control System (CAC2S) on the Essex. This is a new capability being
    used by USMC tactical air defense controllers and air control
    electronics operators. It integrates information from various aerial
    and ground-based radar systems and sensors to enable a common, real-
    time tactical picture. This system will bring a Marine Corps Command
    and Control capability to the ship that can seamlessly integrate with
    the F-35, allowing the F-35 to transfer real time data from onboard
    systems and data links back to the ship. Effectively the aircraft now
    becomes a forward sensor for the command elements embarked on MEU/ARGs
    bringing greater situational awareness and faster decision making.
        With the embarkation of F-35s on L-Class ships, one major change to
    the ships were the designation of special access program facilities
    (SAP-Fs). These rooms of elevated classification allow for F-35
    operational planning on classified F-35 systems. The SAP-F spaces
    modernize facilities on the ship, elevate the classification and
    capability of rooms for F-35 planning or other Special Access Program
    enablers, and introduce new connectivity in spaces where that ATO did
    not exist before, overall enabling warfighter operations overall.

        24. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn, what do you view as the
    biggest challenges to successful integration of the F-35 into the
    carrier air wing?
        Rear Admiral Conn. One of the largest challenges to F-35C Carrier
    Strike Group (CSG) integration is aligning F-35C capability procurement
    with investments in other current and future CSG platforms. Fully
    integrated F-35C ensures critical battlespace awareness and dominance
    across all spectrums of naval operations. Not only do we want to
    integrate the F-35C with 4th generation aircraft in the carrier air
    wing (CVW), but the other platforms in the CSG as well. The biggest
    challenge is effectively and efficiently sharing the information
    gathered by the F-35C across various secure warfighting networks. The
    Navy needs these capabilities to fight and win against a near peer
    threat.

        25. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn and Lieutenant General
    Rudder, Navy leaders have testified regarding their concerns about the
    sustainment model and costs for F-35. What recommendations do you have
    to increase the affordability and transparency of F-35 sustainment?
        Rear Admiral Conn. Increasing the affordability and transparency of
    F-35 sustainment remains a top priority for the Department of Defense.
    The Joint Program Office (JPO), the Services and Industry partners have
    committed to reduce overall F-35 operating and sustainment cost over
    the life of the system.
        The joint program is funding the stand up of organic depot
    capabilities to provide cost-effective aircraft support by augmenting
    the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) repair capacity. While OEM
    production requirements remain high, acceleration of depot capabilities
    will ensure efficient production and maintenance of aircraft. In
    addition, funding has been allocated for Intermediate Level maintenance
    facilities aboard our aircraft carriers first and then at shore fleet
    concentration areas to more rapidly analyze and repair 29 key air
    vehicle components at a reduced cost.
        Efforts within the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office, Hybrid
    Product Support Integrator (HPSI) and the Marine Corps Pathfinders
    Campaign, evaluate operational/sustainment costs and aggressively
    pursues cost reduction initiatives. Additionally, with a shared vision,
    mission and objectives, the Services, industry and international
    partners plan to deliver Global Sustainment Support framework, coupled
    with maturing HPSI in order to increase F-35 sustainment affordability
    and transparency.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. In President's Budget 2019, the Navy and
    Marine Corps programmed money to begin standing up our own Intermediate
    Level maintenance capability. The Marine Corps is currently working
    with the Program Office to develop a right-sized I-Level capability for
    F-35 which will enable us to test parts on station and fix complex
    components--improving readiness and driving down the cost of the supply
    chain.
        We are leaning forward on procuring the right level of spares, but
    it will take time to get up to speed--there is a delay between our
    investment and the return. In the meantime, we continue to work through
    a prioritized list of parts reliability in order to identify and
    improve parts which have the greatest impact on readiness. We have
    found that the mission systems are creating the biggest hit to
    readiness, so we have scrubbed everything in that area to include
    improving the fiber optics backbone and the system that tests and
    repairs it.
        The new sustainment contract that the Program Office is helping us
    negotiate with the prime contractor target specific performance metrics
    such as Supply Chain Response Time in order to incentivize improvements
    to specific readiness drivers.

        26. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, is the current
    projected mix of Marine F-35B and F-35C aircraft optimal to support
    achieving the goals of the National Defense Strategy?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The current F-35C procurement plan
    allows the USMC to sustain four F-35C squadrons that meet the Tactical
    Air Integration (TAI) commitment the USMC has with the USN to include
    the Navy Master Aviation Plan (MAP) deployment requirements on CVN
    Carrier Strike Groups. Due to the extensive pre-deployment training
    regimen or USN Fleet Readiness Training Plan (FRTP) for carrier strike
    groups, and multiple enduring deployment commitments from the same
    squadrons to the same Command Air Groups (CAGs), an overall commitment
    from a USMC TACAIR squadron to TAI or a CVN deployment can span nearly
    three years when accounting for the work-up/training period and back to
    back deployments. The USMC has planned for the requisite amount of F-
    35Cs and F-35C squadrons that continue the USMC requirement to the USN
    and TAI as well as mitigate and help manage the overall force (USMC and
    USN) deployment to dwell goal. Should the TAI
        The F-35C also brings other unique warfighting capabilities to the
    USMC and the MAGTF. Simple fact being the F-35C is larger than the F-
    35B allowing for more fuel, longer legs or flight time, and the
    capability to carrier a larger class of weapon (500-1,000 pounds larger
    than weapons on the F-35B), along with other organic unique
    capabilities in this series of aircraft. Even without an enduring TAI
    commitment the F-35C can integrate and deploy for all USMC global force
    commitments except Marine Expeditionary Unit deployments which require
    vertical landing capability aboard L-Class ships.
        The current POR for F-35 overall allows for the appropriate number
    of aircraft in the case there is attrition of aircraft within the fleet
    inventory, ensures there is iron on the flightline to fly and fight
    during periods of planned modifications and aircraft system upgrades,
    and cover all USMC enduring global force commitments.
                          f-35 follow-on modernization
        27. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn and Lieutenant General
    Rudder, the follow-on modernization for the F-35 is scheduled to bring
    key warfighting capabilities to the fleet, but the schedule and budget
    remain in flux. Are you concerned about the affordability and
    executability of the Department's plan for Block 4 Continuous
    Capability Development and Delivery (C2D2)?
        Rear Admiral Conn. The Navy is constantly concerned with the costs
    associated with modernizing any of our warfighting platforms. As we
    modernize the F-35C through the C2D2 process we will continuously work
    through the JPO and with industry to deliver the required capabilities
    to maximize the combat effectiveness of the Carrier Air Wing at the
    most affordable cost possible. The C2D2 plan is aggressive and will
    require constant oversight and communication to be successful. It needs
    to be in order to meet the aggressive capability developments of our
    adversaries. Budget delays and multiple marks against the F-35
    Modernization Program Element have delayed necessary pre-engineering
    contract work which continues to delay capability delivery to the
    warfighter. This adversely impacts our ability to adequately pace the
    threat resulting in increased warfighting risk.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The F-35 partnership, through the
    leadership at the Joint Program Office, recently re-structured the
    original Block 4 Follow-on Modernization (FOM) strategy into a more
    agile Continuous Capability Development and Delivery (C2D2) program.
    This approach leverages existing commercial practices and develops
    capabilities in smaller, more managed increments which will accelerate
    the delivery of warfighting capability.
        While this strategy delivers the capabilities required to fight and
    win against emerging threats, it necessarily includes emergent
    expenses. A series of requirements decomposition efforts have validated
    the current C2D2 plan and identified areas in which costs can be
    reduced. This work indicates that C2D2 has accurately captured the
    requirements needed to keep the F-35 on the tactical and operational
    edge; however, accurate capability requirements must be balanced with
    budget realities. There are ongoing efforts that are attempting to find
    efficiencies across the C2D2 enterprise to reduce overall costs.
                            f-35 program management
        28. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn and Lieutenant General
    Rudder, does the Joint Program Office management structure properly
    align responsibility and accountability? What are your views on
    alternative management structures for the F-35 program, such as
    establishing separate service or variant program offices rather than
    maintaining a joint program office?
        Rear Admiral Conn. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
    Acquisition and Sustainment is in the process of coordinating with the
    Services to staff, research and institute a more efficient and
    responsive alternate management structure to coordinate activities
    through the Joint Program Office. The United States Navy will fully
    support those efforts.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The Marine Corps needs to see a
    reduction in the cost-to-own and operate the F-35 and we are working
    with the Joint Program Office and industry to drive down those costs.
    The Department is currently reviewing a re-structuring of the Program
    Office. This initiative is in response to an OSD AT&L review of
    established management structure. The review specifically focuses on
    how we can make efficiencies within the existing structure of the
    organization through a re-design of the current management structure.
    We are still a long way from implementation, but all of the Services
    are actively reviewing this with the intent to drive down the cost of
    the program.
                           ea-18g growler requirement
        29. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn, the Navy has completed its
    planned procurement of 160 EA-18G Growlers. Navy leadership has
    testified to Congress that 160 fulfills the Navy requirement for
    Growlers, but the number needed to fulfill the joint requirement is
    still being evaluated.
        Given the new Growler tactics and concept of operations being
    developed, what is the optimal number of Growlers assigned to an air
    wing? Why?
        Do you believe the Navy requires more Growlers to fulfill the needs
    of the joint force?
        Rear Admiral Conn. The Navy has a sufficient number of EA-18G
    Growlers to support current joint force requirements. The current
    planned inventory supports seven aircraft per carrier air wing for nine
    air wings. Additionally, it supports six aircraft for each of the five
    expeditionary squadrons and five aircraft for the reserve squadron. The
    above distribution represents the best balance of capability for air
    wing and expeditionary operations and provides flexibility to augment
    with additional aircraft from within current inventory if needed. At
    this time, the Joint Staff has not identified a need for additional
    aircraft.
                   electronic warfare--next generation jammer
        30. Senator Wicker. , Rear Admiral Conn, the Navy is currently
    developing an advanced electronic warfare system, the Next Generation
    Jammer (NGJ), currently planned to only be carried by the EA-18G
    Growler. How does the Navy envision operating these Jammers? Given the
    rapid rise in the number and capability of threat radars, is the
    currently planned number of Growlers sufficient to effectively employ
    the NGJ?
        Rear Admiral Conn. The Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) will be an
    advanced modern state-of-the-art computerized electronic warfare
    technology designed to provide full-spectrum dominance with the ability
    to jam multiple frequencies with higher radiated power and precision,
    at greater stand-off ranges against surface-to-air missile systems. NGJ
    will provide significantly increased protection to our fighter, strike
    and stealth forces and weapons enabling closer penetration to the
    intended targets while increasing the probability of mission success.
        The Navy has a sufficient number of EA-18G Growlers to support
    current joint force requirements. At this time, the Joint Staff has not
    identified a need for additional aircraft.
           marine air ground task force electronic warfare (magtf ew)
        31. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, when the last EA-6B
    Prowler squadron sundowns in 2019, the Marine Corps will no longer have
    a dedicated airborne electronic attack aircraft.
        How will the Marine Corps through the MAGTF (MAG-TAFF) EW systems
    of systems replace the electronic surveillance and electronic attack
    capabilities of the Prowler?
        Will the lack of a dedicated airborne electronic attack aircraft
    community create a capability and planning gap for the Marines,
    particularly in light of the renewed focus on the high end fight?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The MAGTF never possessed a
    ``dedicated'' Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) capability. While the
    Marine Corps owned and operated EA-6B Prowlers, these assets were not
    organic to the MAGTF--they provided a capability to the joint force.
    The Marine Corps currently has one operational EA-6B squadron of six
    aircraft which will support joint AEA operational requirements through
    fiscal year 2018. Navy EA-18G expeditionary squadron capacity, which
    has replaced Marine Corps EA-6B squadron capacity for the joint force,
    will continue to serve as the Department of Defense's sole joint
    tactical AEA platform.
        Marine Corps aviation EW capabilities include the Intrepid Tiger II
    EW pod, the EW capabilities inherent to F-35B, the AGM-88 High-Speed
    Anti-Radiation Missile/Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (HARM/
    AARGM) for the F/A-18, and the AARGM in future F-35B blocks. The F-35B
    brings a powerful combination of EW, weapons, sensors, and reduced
    signature to the MAGTF. F-35B electronic warfare support (ES)
    capabilities include emitter geolocation, identification, and
    parametric data sharing via Link16. F-35 electronic attack (EA) is
    provided by the Multi-function Array. Intrepid Tiger II is an EW pod
    providing organic communications EA and ES for the MAGTF. Intrepid
    Tiger II deploys with each AV-8B MEU detachment and has also completed
    three MEU deployments with UH-1Y detachments. Future aviation platforms
    prioritized for Intrepid Tiger II integration include the MV-22B and
    KC-130J. Development of an Intrepid Tiger II counter-radar capability
    began in fiscal year 2016 and is planned for fielding on the MV-22B
    beginning in fiscal year 2021. The lack of dedicated AEA aircraft
    community will not create a capability or planning gap for the Marine
    Corps.
                            airborne data link plan
        32. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn and Lieutenant General
    Rudder, you both have talked about the importance of networks to your
    visions of Naval and Marine aviation. The committee is concerned that
    the Department of Defense's ideas for airborne data links have lacked
    vision and been disjointed. Please discuss your efforts in this area
    and how you are ensuring that the Navy and Marine Corps are
    interoperable not only with each other, but with the Air Force and Army
    as well.
        Rear Admiral Conn. The Navy is the lead service for the Link 16
    network and coordinates with other services, Department of Defense
    (DOD) agencies and foreign partners to ensure interoperability of this
    network. The Link 16 network remains the foundation for Joint Tactical
    Data Links (TDL) for the foreseeable future.
        Ten thousand Link 16 terminals are integrated in the Navy, the
    Marine Corps, the Army, the Air Force, and 47 partner nation's combat
    systems. Seamless network integration in a combat environment is
    achieved through a common configuration for all Link 16 end users. All
    Navy and Air Force tactical aircraft either have Link 16 or are in the
    process of being upgraded to this capability. For combat systems that
    do not operate Link 16, the Navy ensures backward compatibility between
    current systems, embedded systems and non-program of record terminals
    that utilize the Link 16 waveform. Link 16 can be data forwarded to any
    classified Internet Protocol (IP) network by adding an IP ``wrapper''
    around the Link 16 message. This capability is called Link 16 Joint
    Range Extension Application Protocol-C (JREAP-C).
        The Navy uses a number of TDLs that fulfill requirements different
    from Link 16 attributes and capabilities. Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum
    diversity, higher throughput, lower latency, and different mission
    requirements from the Link 16 specification are some of the reasons
    other TDLs are required. Some alternative TDLs that the Navy uses for
    tactical communications are Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC),
    Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) and Tactical Targeting Network
    Technology (TTNT).
        CEC uses a common architecture and uses the exact same hardware,
    software, messages and algorithms amongst the participants to achieve
    interoperability.
        MADL exists only on the Joint Strike Fighter and similarly achieves
    network interoperability by using a common architecture including
    hardware, software, messages and algorithms amongst the participants to
    achieve interoperability. MADL is common among all variants of F-35 to
    include the F-35 sold to partner nations.
        TTNT is on DON platforms only, but could be integrated on other
    services' platforms. TTNT is a low latency, high bandwidth tactical
    data link that integrates commercial industry standards such as
    Internet Protocol (IPv4) for its transport mechanism and uses
    commercial industry message formats such as JPEG, HTML and XML. Common
    applications and common messages among TTNT platforms ensure
    interoperability.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The United States Marine Corps is
    leveraging the capabilities of industry and DOD agencies to integrate
    our networks and connectivity. Everything from programmable radios to
    hosting multiple waveforms capable of translation between networks.
        We are also maturing a ``gateway'' technology that enables our
    service to exchange data between dissimilar networks, analogous to how
    we can all access the internet via different equipment--For example,
    Windows computers, Apple Computers, Android devices, all types of
    cellular communications devices but only on a tactical network
    framework.
        Finally, Marine Aviation is working closely with NSA to overcome
    the challenges of handling the multi-level security challenges that
    this approach levies. Our efforts to date have been promising and we've
    taken significant steps forward toward that goal.
                            usmc aviation readiness
        33. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, Marine Corps
    aviation readiness appears to still be in a crisis. How did we get
    here, what are you doing to improve readiness, and what are the biggest
    challenges to overcome?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. Aviation's readiness crisis is on the
    mend. Sequestration, under-resourced readiness enabler accounts, and an
    uncertain fiscal environment combined with an aging legacy fleet forced
    the Marine Corps to balance current readiness with procurement (future
    readiness). These under-resourced accounts degraded legacy fleet
    readiness and resulted in lower aircrew flight hours. The enacted
    fiscal year 2017 budget, President's Budget 2018 and President's Budget
    2019 submissions fully fund these enabler accounts to their maximum
    executable requirement. As there was a delay from sequester to a
    decline readiness, there is a delay from increased funding to a return
    on investment. Right now, our flight lines are healthier in the
    aggregate. Some specific aircraft are still challenged. We are
    increasing flight hours for our aircrew compared to previous years. Our
    recovery plan is working and we still anticipate a recovery to T2.0
    training standards in fiscal year 2020 and a Ready Bench in fiscal year
    2022 provided the service receives stable, predictable and timely
    funding.
                              ch-53k king stallion
        34. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, please provide an
    update on the progress of CH-53K testing.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. We are making good progress on CH-53K
    testing. To date we have 8800 flight test hours on our (4)
    Developmental Test aircraft and another 800 on our ground test vehicle.
    We are continuing envelope expansion and system qualification testing.
    We have performed our KPP mission of 27,000 pounds for 110nm and lifted
    a 36,000 pound load (heaviest load this aircraft will lift). We have
    also lifted a 819,000 pound JLTV. This is the most powerful helicopter
    this country has ever built.

        35. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, what is the Marine
    Corps doing to ensure the CH-53K is affordable?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The Cost of the CH-53K is within the
    Marine Corps TOA and well within our affordability caps. With that
    being said we have a multi-pronged approach to target cost reduction.
        1)  Targeting production cost through continuous senior leader
    engagement with OEM on labor rates while leveraging a proven Program
    Cost Affordability Team (PCAT).
        2)  Seventy percent of the lifecycle cost of the CH-53K is in O&S.
    We are targeting O&S cost by attacking reliability issues early,
    driving repair capability to the lowest possible level of maintenance,
    establishing phased organic depot capability, and proactively ensuring
    data accessibility for organic capability.

        36. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, could you describe
    Marine Corps input to the Future Vertical Lift program? Is it possible
    that heavy lift solutions developed in the FVL program might solve
    capability gaps the CH-53K is meant to address? If so what might be the
    impacts to the CH-53K program?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The Marine Corps has a heavy lift
    requirement that only the CH-53K can provide. FVL Capability Set 3
    can't even begin to address the lift requirement for the CH-53K. There
    are simply no similarities of requirements between the Ch-53K and FVL
    Capability Set 3 other than both can transport troops.
        Regarding FVL, the Marine Corps teamed with the U.S. Army on Future
    Vertical Lift Capability Set 3 (CS3) in fiscal year 2016. The Army
    kicked off the CS3 Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) in fiscal year 2017
    (New Start) after the MDD. Currently, we are working with the Army on
    collaboration model building for scenarios population. U.S. Army
    Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Analysis Center (TRAC) and HQMC
    CD&I are the source of analysis for this effort. HQMC Aviation has
    completed the CONOPS and has begun working vignettes for CD&I modeling
    efforts. Fiscal year 2018 was the earliest HQMC could influence the POM
    funding process towards CS3. This program is considered a ``New Start''
    for the USMC, therefore certain elements of the AOA are on hold due to
    the current Continuing Resolution. Our efforts are currently on track;
    NAVAIR Engineering efforts will begin as soon as the budget has been
    approved and funding received.

        37. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, using organic, over-
    the-horizon C2 and ISR platforms, how does an Expeditionary Strike
    Group (ESG) conduct early warning? Does the Marine Corps currently, or
    have plans to, incorporate any airborne early warning (AEW) platforms
    into the ESG construct (i.e., E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, MH-60R employing
    the British model of AEW)?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The ESG is capable of conducting early
    warning via TACAIR. Other aircraft with a limited ability include H-
    60S, the MQ-8C Firescout, and RQ-21 Blackjack. Future systems include
    MAGTF Unmanned Aircraft System Expeditionary (MUX), which has early
    warning as its top capability requirement. A sea-based platform, MUX
    will be networked and support over-the-horizon early-warning,
    identification, cueing, and defense against enemy air (fixed-wing,
    rotary-wing and UAS), cruise missile, low radar cross section threats
    and indirect fires systems at maximum range in support of the MAGTF.
        Use of CAC2S in the MAGTF and on amphibious shipping to share a
    common data picture. Using the TPS-80 G/ATOR as a contributor to the
    shared operational picture.

        38. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, do you believe that
    Marine Expeditionary Units would benefit from organic airborne
    electronic warfare and elevated sensor capabilities? If so, what
    efforts are being made to accomplish their introduction? If not, why
    not?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. Yes, MEUs would benefit from organic
    airborne EW capabilities. The primary organic EW capability for MEUs
    will be the F-35B. Initial MEU F-35B support will be sourced from VMFA-
    121 for the 31st MEU and in the summer of 2018 VMFA-211 will support a
    West Coast MEU. The F-35B brings a powerful combination of EW, weapons,
    sensors, and reduced signature to the MAGTF. F-35B electronic warfare
    support (ES) capabilities include emitter geolocation, identification,
    and parametric data sharing via Link16. F-35 electronic attack (EA) is
    provided by the Multi-function Array and by the AGM-88 Advanced Anti-
    Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) in future F-35B blocks. Additional
    organic EW capability for MEUs includes the Intrepid Tiger II EW pod.
    Intrepid Tiger II is an EW pod providing organic communications EA and
    ES for the MAGTF. Intrepid Tiger II employs with each AV-8B MEU
    detachment and to date has completed three MEU deployments with UH-1Y
    detachments.

        39. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, the Marine Corps has
    made an effort to integrate command and control (C2) and intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities to the squad level,
    while enhancing C2 and ISR at the battalion/squadron level and above.
    With the National Defense Strategy (NDS) shift in focus towards near-
    peer competition how must Marine Corps' aviation C2 and ISR
    capabilities, currently predicated on uncontested environments, adapt
    to facilitate power projection and theater asset-integration against
    Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) threats?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The Marine Corps is focused on denied,
    degraded, and contested environments where use of any domain (land,
    sea, air, space, and cyber) is not assumed in accordance with the NDS.
    For the past several years, the Marine Corps has been conducting
    experimentation in these environments both in training and
    operationally. MEU deployments, LSEs, and Tactical Demonstrations have
    focused on innovative and iterative approaches to improving the
    capability of existing systems and leveraging the latest in commercial
    technology. The Marine Corps recognizes the key and critical
    differences between tactical-type networks that are characterized by
    dynamic access points, low bandwidth, and unassured connectivity and
    enterprise-type networks that are characterized by static access
    points, high bandwidth, and assured connectivity. In addition, the
    Marine Corps' ongoing MAGTF digital interoperability effort identified
    a requirement for either standardizing or translating the way digital
    data is handled to ensure that our connections are truly interoperable
    not only within the MAGTF, but also within the Naval Service and the
    Joint Force.
        With these critical understandings, the Marine Corps continues to
    build resiliency through mesh networking and new capabilities that are
    focused on the latest cyber security risk mitigations developed in
    conjunction with industry and NSA. Concepts in development include
    Minotaur and Maven to meld big data from operational and strategic
    platforms; integrated ASE to provide data from existing self-protect
    sensors on board our aircraft; MAGTF Agile Network Gateway Link (MANGL)
    that provides network management, aircraft sensor integration, data
    services, gateway services, and network and spectrum agility.

        40. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, what organic
    aviation capabilities are necessary for an ESG to successfully operate
    in contested environments?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The ESG requires 5th generation
    platforms like the F-35B/C as well as relevant legacy aircraft such as
    F/A-18 A-D and AV-8B until the transition to the F-35 is complete. The
    ESG also requires H-1s, MV-22s, CH-53K, H-60S, our UAS and CUAS
    systems, and expeditionary enablers such as aviation electronic
    warfare, Expeditionary Air Basing Operations, Low Altitude Air Defense,
    and Tactical Air Control Elements. By fiscal year 2023 every Marine
    Corps platform will have multiple standardized links available that can
    be used to flexibly meet IERs across all MAGTF mission threads. Every
    platform will be a sensor, shooter, EW node, and sharer through digital
    interoperability. Digital interoperability is the seamless integration
    of systems and exchange of data, across all domains and networks
    throughout the MAGTF, naval, joint, and coalition forces, to include
    communication in degraded or denied environments, to rapidly share
    accurate information, provide greater situational awareness, accelerate
    the kill chain, and enhance survivability in order to outmaneuver and
    defeat the threat across the ROMO.

        41. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, the Air Force
    appears to be on the cusp of procuring a fleet of light attack aircraft
    to conduct operations against violent extremist organizations in a more
    fiscally sustainable way and to free up their fighter aircraft to focus
    on training for the high end fight. Such a capability seems ideally
    suited to the Marine Corps. Has the Marine Corps considered pursuing a
    light attack aircraft of its own? Please explain why or why not.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. USMC has a ship-based, expeditionary,
    level-of-effort light attack capability with the HMLA. Investments in
    FW LA assets would require additional funding or offsets from current
    acquisition programs and any offsets would negatively impact AVPLAN
    initiatives to include: legacy to F-35 transition, H-1 upgrade and
    transition to Future Vertical Lift, and the MAGTF Unmanned
    Expeditionary program.
                             usmc unmanned roadmap
        42. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, discuss the roadmap
    for Marine Corps unmanned systems, and in particular L-class ship-based
    unmanned systems, including the Marine Unmanned eXpeditionary (MUX)
    program.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The RQ-21A Blackjack has deployed in
    support of Marine Expeditionary Units aboard L-Class ships since 2016.
    Both east and west coast MEUs are supported by an RQ-21 systems
    consisting of 5 air vehicles, a GCS integrated with the ships systems
    and a launch and recovery system. The Blackjack provides over 10hrs of
    day / night FMV, with a laser pointer and comm-relay capabilities for
    the MEU & ARG out to 50 nm.
        The MUX requirement will address capability gaps particular to
    Marine aviation's inability to provide organic persistent multi-role
    mission coverage out to 350 nautical miles and beyond from sea-based
    and expeditionary airfields.

        43. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, the discussions
    about requirements for MUX seem to indicate a desire for it to conduct
    a wide variety of missions, endangering the executability of the
    program and its ultimate combat effectiveness. In your view, what are
    the key capabilities that MUX needs to provide?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The following capability requirements
    point to solutions needed to fill capability gaps particularly USMC
    aviation's inability to provide organic, persistent multi-role mission
    coverage to 350 nautical miles and beyond. These are listed in
    priority:
    Tier 1
        1. Early Warning. Support over-the-horizon, networked, early
    warning, identification, cueing and defense against enemy air (fixed
    wing, rotary wing, and UAS), cruise missile, low radar cross section
    threats and indirect fires systems at maximum range in support of the
    MAGTF.
        2. Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance. Conduct long range,
    wide-area, persistent air reconnaissance and surveillance, capable of
    providing overlapping and cross-cued data from multiple sensors
    directly to operations and intelligence functions and networks.
        3. Electronic Warfare. Conduct long range, persistent, penetrating,
    responsive, airborne electro-magnetic spectrum operations against
    threats in the air, land, maritime and cyberspace domains.
        4. Communications Relay. Provide a long range, survivable, airborne
    digitally-interoperable secure communications Network Bridge between
    MAGTF elements, joint forces and coalition partners. This capability
    seamlessly connects multiple air, sea, and ground networks for command
    and control, communications, target detection, cueing, tracking, and
    engagement.
    Tier 3
        5. Offensive Air Support. Conduct long range, day, night and all-
    weather, persistent, time sensitive targeting and strike, high value
    target attack, fires coordination, battle damage assessment, and
    kinetic lethal offensive air support.

        The following capabilities are important but may be allocated to
    other systems:
        6. Aerial Escort. Provide long range armed aerial escort to assault
    support missions during infiltration, execution, and exfiltration of
    ground forces, tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel (TRAP),
    maritime interdiction operations, visit board search and seizure,
    emergency extract, airfield seizure, landing zone / route inspection,
    amphibious landings and raids, and ground convoy operations. (This may
    be performed by the Future Vertical Lift program)
        7. Cargo. Reduce tactical transportation risk for small unit
    sustainment. Risk reducing, responsive, logistics transportation system
    for delivery to (and retrograde from) distributed tactical level units
    (battalion, squadron and below sized elements) into small, disbursed
    delivery zones. This includes distribution of ammunition, water,
    rations, repair parts, fuel, medical supplies, mail, and other
    commodities. (Manned aviation, Joint Precision Air Drop, or cargo
    specific UAS).
                    mq-25 carrier based unmanned air system
        44. Senator Wicker. Vice Admiral Grosklags, the Navy has designated
    the MQ-25 one of the first Maritime Accelerated Capabilities Office
    (MACO) programs. Please describe the specific steps NAVAIR is taking to
    ensure this is in fact a rapid program.
        Vice Admiral Grosklags.

          NAVAIR has taken the following steps to ensure MQ-25 is
    in fact a rapid program:

          o  In August 2017, the MACO Business Rules for the MQ-25 Unmanned
    Carrier-Based Capability were approved and signed by PEO(U&W), PMA-268,
    and NAVAIR Leadership. The MACO Business Rules define the framework,
    procedures, and set a common understanding between PEO(U&W), the
    Program Manager, (PMA-268) and NAVAIR to ensure accelerated acquisition
    of MQ-25, through the following:

              A short, empowered, chain of command with approval
    authorities delegated to the lowest possible level: MQ-25 government
    staff is lean, empowered, and adheres to an agile staffing concept.
    Members of our program are empowered by their competency and program
    leadership to make decisions at the lowest levels. The program's
    industry and external government partners are expected to take a
    similar approach.

              The empowered program team will seek waivers and
    deviations from any encumbering practices, procedures, policies,
    directives, regulations or requirements in order to execute rapidly and
    affordably.

              NAVAIR leadership acknowledges and accepts that MQ-25
    is high priority within NAVAIR for resource allocation, to include
    reach back personnel, which will result in quicker surge capability
    when warranted.

              Reliance upon industry processes and procedures to
    the maximum extent possible to achieve and meet the intent of the
    Government's goals without adding schedule or undue costs.

              Leverage maximum existing Department of Navy programs
    of record for existing capability to expedite schedule and reduce
    technical risk.

              A small, empowered, government team in place at the
    Contractor facility: The intent of the Government Embedded MACO
    Acceleration Team (GEMAT) is to provide overall insight, not oversight,
    and involvement/participation in daily Contractor engineering, test,
    logistics, and programmatic decisions and activities to achieve
    accelerated capability delivery. The GEMAT will be staffed by personnel
    empowered by leadership with decision authority.

              Real-time collaboration through a Common Digital
    Environment (CDE): The CDE enables both Government and Contractor to
    see information in real-time and allows for a single authoritative
    source of data. The CDE allows for transfer of data between the
    Government and Contractor and ensures accurate configuration management
    is maintained while eliminating the need for duplicative licensing
    between the Government and Contractor.

              A test strategy leveraging Capabilities Based Test &
    Evaluation (CBT&E), Modeling and Simulation, and integrated contractor,
    developmental and operational test operations from day one. The MQ-25
    Integrated Test Team will use derived requirements from the MQ-25
    System Design Specification (SDS) and apply CBT&E methodologies to
    evaluate testable capabilities and requirements. Additionally,
    operational test requirements will be interwoven into campaign/mission
    test requirements to provide a comprehensive CBT&E test plan.
    Developmental and Operational testers will be part of the GEMAT at the
    contractor's facility.

              Reduced requirements: In support of accelerated
    acquisition, the MQ-25 SDS requirements have been derived at a
    performance level to focus on a minimum set of ``shall'' statements and
    verification requirements to support airworthiness, CVN suitability,
    interfaces with Government Systems and mission execution.
                  navy and marine corps air-launched munitions
        45. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn and Lieutenant General
    Rudder, in your judgment, are your air-launched munitions inventories
    sufficient to support current operations and the Defense Strategic
    Guidance writ large? Are there individual air-launched munitions whose
    inventories, either present or projected, are insufficient to meet
    requirements? If so, what are they and what is being DONe to address
    the shortfalls?
        Rear Admiral Conn. The Navy's President's Budget 2019 budget
    represents the best balance of investments in capacity (quantity) and
    capability (modernization and future upgrades). This also applies to
    the Navy's approach to procurement of munitions. In President's Budget
    2019, all major weapons acquisition programs remain consistent or
    increase from fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2019 and support the
    Department's goal of increased capacity and capability. The procurement
    of some munitions are limited by industrial capacity and capability,
    multi-year procurement contracts and parts obsolescence. For example,
    AIM-120 AMRAAM production is at capacity due to parts obsolescence.
    Where there are capacity shortfalls, the DON relies on legacy weapon
    variants and conducts yearly inventory analysis and establishes risk
    mitigation strategies to support Combatant Commander operational
    requirements. While carefully managing current inventories to support
    warfighting requirements, President's Budget 2019 invests heavily in
    new capabilities. Fiscal year 2019 provides $32.5 million in RDT&E
    funding for continued AIM-120D software capability enhancements and
    $212 million to procure 141 missiles to support warfighter
    requirements. Similarly, President's Budget 2019 provides funding to
    procure the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) Low Rate Initial
    Production of 75 missiles. JAGM, the replacement for Hellfire, utilizes
    multi-mode seeker technology providing advanced line-of sight and
    beyond-line-of-sight capabilities. The Long Range Anti-Ship Missile
    (LRASM), the next generation anti-surface warfare missile, will provide
    precise, discriminating, and lethal long-range air-launched
    capabilities. Fiscal year 2019 invests $143 million in RDT&E for LRASM
    improvements and $81 million to procure 25 LRASM All-Up-Round weapons.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. Current air-launched munitions
    inventories are sufficient to support Defense Strategic Guidance,
    however, the munitions expended in support of Operation Inherent
    Resolve (OIR) significantly strained global inventory levels.
        The Marine Corps and the other services with similar inventory
    issues, are increasing procurement of PGMs through baseline and OCO
    funding. In addition, CENTCOM has been directed to use their best
    judgment in an effort to manage expenditure rates without losing focus
    on providing the maximum support to the warfighter.
        Both training (readiness) and contingency operations require live
    expenditures that cannot be replaced using baseline funding alone. USMC
    Aviation is relying on OCO funding to replace the high rate of
    expenditures in the current fight while simultaneously investing
    baseline funding in critical precision strike capabilities to win the
    future fight.
                          long range anti-ship missile
        46. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn, now that the Offensive Anti-
    Surface Warfare Increment 2 has been terminated, what is the long-term
    plan for the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile? Does the current program of
    record provide sufficient capability and capacity to support the NDS
    priority of China and Russia?
        Rear Admiral Conn. The DON accepts the intent of Congress to delay
    development of an OASuW Increment 2 material solution as demonstrated
    by lack of Congressional support in multiple prior year budget
    submissions (via formal budget marks). As a result, we are adjusting
    our mid- and long-term OASuW strategy.
        The Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) is the OASuW Increment 1
    material solution to address near-term capability gaps as delineated in
    a PACOM Urgent Operational Need Statement. To address the mid-term
    OASuW capability gaps brought about with OASuW Increment 2's delay, our
    fiscal year 2019 budget request includes an increase in LRASM program
    procurement for an additional 25 missiles across the FYDP; and an
    increase in RDT&E funding to support LRASM capability improvements.
    This RDT&E funding provides for the development, integration and test
    of classified LRASM improvements, beyond line-of-sight communications,
    integration of baseline JASSM-ER capabilities, obsolescence correction
    and implementation of cost reduction initiatives. All LRASM capability
    improvements directly support the SECDEF approved National Defense
    Strategy (NDS) prioritizing efforts that address a resurgence of long-
    term strategic competition between nations (China and Russia).
        Even with the planned LRASM capability improvements and increased
    missile procurement quantities, the DON needs to reassess the need for
    a long-term air-launched OASuW Increment 2 program of record. Our plan
    is to leverage the ongoing Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW)
    Analysis of Alternatives (AOA). The NGLAW AOA is investigating a long-
    range surface and submarine-launched strike weapon that addresses both
    the land attack and ASuW mission areas. Our plan is to leverage NGLAW
    AOA analysis (gaps, technology readiness, etc.) to determine what, if
    anything, should be pursued for long-term Naval Aviation ASuW. The
    NGLAW AOA is scheduled to out-brief no later than the 4th quarter of
    fiscal year 2018.
                     advanced anti-radiation guided missile
        47. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn, the recent DOT&E report for
    the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) Program stated that
    the missile was ``not operationally suitable,'' and that ``AARGM will
    likely be ineffective against advanced surface-to-air missile threat
    systems, particularly in an Anti-Access and Area Denial (A2AD)
    environment.'' Given that the NDS emphasizes the Services prioritize
    capabilities suitable against China and Russia, why is the Navy
    deciding to increase funding to the program when DOT&E has found it not
    operationally effective for those scenarios?
        Rear Admiral Conn. The Department of the Navy (DON) is procuring
    AARGM because the weapon system meets all Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)
    approved/validated Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). The DOT&E
    concerns were with AARGM software stability and Non-Key Performance
    Parameters (Non-KPP) attributes. The DON and DOT&E agree that follow-on
    testing completed under an AARGM/BLK 1 test program meets all JCS
    validated KPPs and makes improvements to the baseline AARGM (BLK 0)
    performance.
        The DON's request for increased RDT&E funding supports development
    of AARGM/BLK 1 software updates to address evolving Red Force time-
    critical strike threats and high-value targets as delineated in the
    SECDEF approved National Defense Strategy.
                                advanced weapons
        48. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn and Lieutenant General
    Rudder, what steps are the Navy and Marine Corps taking to ensure they
    have munitions that are relevant and effective against the increasingly
    difficult defenses our potential adversaries are developing and
    fielding? Please provide specific examples, including research and
    development efforts.
        Rear Admiral Conn. To ensure that we have relevant and effective
    munitions, the DON has increased our weapons RDT&E funding compared to
    President's Budget 2018. The Department is working aggressively to
    field next-generation weapons technologies; using Accelerated DOD and
    Navy Acquisition policies to rapidly migrate DARPA and Navy S&T efforts
    to programs of record. Examples include improvements to the DARPA
    developed Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) program, and transition
    of the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) Miniature Air Launched Decoy
    demonstration (MALD-X). The DON has also accelerated other Navy weapons
    programs like: improvements to AIM-120D missiles that increase their
    combat effectiveness and counter advanced threats and Electronic Attack
    (EA) techniques through 2027 and expanding the Advanced Anti-Radiation
    Guided Missile (AARGM) and AARGM-Extended Range (AARGM-ER) capability
    against time sensitive high value targets in fiscal year 2019.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. The Department of the Navy (DON) is
    committed to maintaining a force with the capability and capacity to
    fight and win. Investments in advanced weapon systems increase
    lethality for both the current and future force. Providing needed
    warfighter capabilities, when needed, and in an affordable manner, is
    often challenged by fiscal limitations and budget instability.
        The Department's strategy focuses on transition and modernization
    of needed capabilities for the Carrier Air Wing, Expeditionary Strike
    Group and land-based aviation squadrons of the future. This effort
    includes advancements in manned and unmanned aviation system teams;
    maximization of sensor, payload and platform capability integration;
    and advanced computing. Commercially driven technology should provide a
    technological advantage over adversaries.
        In the near-term, DON has invested in modernization programs to
    legacy weapon systems that includes technological upgrades to Tactical
    Tomahawk, Harpoon Block II and AIM-9X Sidewinder Block II.
        In the mid-term, DON plans investments in new development programs
    such as the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile and Small Diameter Bomb II.
        In the long-term, DON's Cruise Missile Strategy focuses on the next
    generation of long-range strike weapons that will enable the Carrier
    Strike Groups, Amphibious Strike Groups, Surface Action Groups and
    individual firing units of the future to project power across the
    global commons against near-peer threat nations and non-state actors.
                               th-57 replacement
        49. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn, please provide the committee
    an update on efforts to replace the Navy's TH-57 training helicopters.
        Rear Admiral Conn. The Navy has initiated an effort to replace its
    legacy TH-57 training helicopters. The plans consist of a procuring a
    commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) helicopter through an open competition
    starting in fiscal year 2020. The COTS acquisition will allow the Navy
    to obtain a suitable replacement trainer, free of development costs, at
    the best value to the Navy. We have conducted extensive market
    research, and we are now in the process of understanding what industry
    has to offer. This information will be used to help us draft a Request
    for Proposal (RFP) which we expect to release early next year. The goal
    of this program is to rapidly and efficiently replace the TH-57 with a
    better, more modern helicopter by leveraging the capabilities and
    capacity of industry.
                            training infrastructure
        50. Senator Wicker. Rear Admiral Conn and Lieutenant General
    Rudder, as the Department focuses increasingly on the high end fight,
    how important are adequate training ranges and supporting equipment to
    ensuring our aviation forces are adequately prepared?
        Are there areas where our training infrastructure needs to be
    improved, in terms of airspace, equipment or other elements? Please
    provide specific examples.
        Please describe efforts the Navy and Marine Corps are making to
    increase and improve the use of Live, Virtual and Constructive (LVC)
    training, and how those efforts are interoperable, within and among all
    the services.
        Rear Admiral Conn. Replicating a realistic and stressful combat
    environment at the advanced level requires investment in training range
    systems and infrastructure to ensure blue force, opposition force
    (OPFOR), and instrumentation systems deliver a relevant, modern, and
    recordable training environment. For example, a robust electronic
    warfare atmosphere saturated with offensive and defensive weapon
    systems poses unique de-confliction challenges similar to what is
    experienced in modern conflicts. For naval aviation, the Fallon Range
    Training Complex (FRTC) in Nevada must be preserved to allow for such
    combat systems to assess unit training shortfalls and assign mitigation
    measures before deployment. Naval aviation strike tactics and
    capabilities have outpaced the constraints of the FRTC as it has
    remained relatively static since the 1970's. Despite these challenges,
    naval aviation is working to achieve a mitigated solution that
    preserves security of operations and training competencies, but will
    not compromise the ability to survive and prevail in combat. Live,
    Virtual, Constructive (LVC) training offers a robust environment to
    integrate live aircraft, simulators, and constructive threats for
    modern, realistic training. For LVC design to be effective, high
    fidelity simulators and models are required in addition to an
    architecture that can integrate and distribute live and synthetic
    systems. Nevertheless, live training on contemporary, accessible ranges
    for validation remains critical to confirm our ability to defeat a
    modern adversary in the high end fight. LVC training is not a separate,
    standalone program, but the compilation of capabilities and investment
    across the training enterprise to create a ``training environment.''
    The Navy Continuous Training Environment (NCTE), or tactical training
    network, forms the ``backbone'' to connect LVC entities among disparate
    ranges, simulators, and platforms. While initial Navy LVC efforts focus
    on providing improved USN training capabilities and system
    interoperability, the NCTE allows access to the Joint Training
    Environment, the Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) as well as
    to USA, USAF, and combatant commander training infrastructures. The
    Navy understands to execute effectively and swiftly with the other
    services is one of the U.S. military's strategic advantages. In support
    of a LVC event during exercise Northern Edge 2017, the USN and USAF
    directly integrated our two tactical training networks, the NCTE and
    the Distributed Missions Operations Network (DMON), allowing USN F/A-18
    training devices to interact with USAF simulators in real time with
    live aircraft and ships operating in Alaska Commands area of
    responsibility.
        Lieutenant General Rudder. Of course, they are critically
    important. We have to train like we fight. The only place and manner in
    which we can prepare to face a near-peer competitor at the high end
    fight, fully integrated as a MAGTF, is in a properly instrumented range
    with the space to operate at the edge of our envelope and go full speed
    in the air and on the ground. It must be properly instrumented so we
    can gain the most learning from our training and fully explore the
    effectiveness of our systems and our tactics. In fact, adequate and
    properly instrumented ranges are absolutely required, or we aren't
    preparing for the high end fight.
        The areas of improvement should focus on newer threats and emitters
    representative of current nation/ non-nation state weapons capabilities
    and accurate aircraft tracking weapons solutions along with battle
    damage assessment. The end state desire would also include score-able
    targets to assist in weaponeering, integrated calls for fire, and
    weapons performance analytics to support RDT&E.
        Marine aviation is moving forward to expand Aviation Distributed
    Virtual Environment (ADVTE) to 1st and 4th MAW and enhance 2nd and 3rd
    MAW ADVTE capabilities to have a full ACE virtual training environment.
    Marine Aviation is also working with NAVAIR/PMA-205 on aircraft LVC
    integration of live training combined with virtual (i.e. simulator
    training). In addition, Aviation is working with TECOM for LVC
    integration training with GCE and LCE as part of USMC LVC-TE (Live,
    Virtual, Constructive Training Environment). Once ADVTE is fully
    operational it will provide connectivity to the other services
    simulation training.
                                   __________
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Mike Rounds
                                     f-35c
        51. Senator Rounds. Vice Admiral Grosklags, during the 6 March
    hearing, Rear Admiral Conn described how the transition of a squadron
    to the F-35C would take up to a year, due to Fleet Replacement Squadron
    training and maintenance constraints. Has the Navy examined courses of
    action to increase transition throughput in order to accelerate F-35C
    fielding? If so, are any of the courses of action viable, given current
    resource allocations? If not, what can the Congress do to help the Navy
    accelerate F-35C fielding?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. From start to finish, a year is not an
    unusual amount of time for a squadron to transition to a new aircraft.
    The limiting factor is generally the time it takes for maintenance
    personnel to develop enough experience with the new aircraft to
    independently conduct maintenance operations. This timeline fits well
    within the normal Navy training cycle between deployments.
                           airborne battle management
        52. Senator Rounds. Rear Admiral Conn, the Air Force is walking
    away from recapping the JSTARS and AWACS because they are not
    survivable in the mid or long term--are there similar survivability
    issues for P-8 and E-2D--if not why not?
        Rear Admiral Conn. The Navy used the most relevant and in-depth
    threat analysis provided by our national Intel communities when they
    instituted the P-8A and E-2D programs. These deliberations were fully
    informed and encompassed all known and anticipated threats for each
    platform within their Concept of Operations (CONOPS).
        The Navy intends to use its most survivable manned and unmanned
    platforms in the high end airborne fight and will control the
    battlespace management of these airborne platforms via national and
    battle group netted sensors, net enabled weapons and advance CONOPS
    that extends the reach and survivability of these platforms.
        As a core pillar of the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air
    (NIFC-CA) construct, the E-2D extends organic AEGIS and fighter missile
    kill chains by providing long-range weapons quality surveillance data
    via Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and Link-16. The E-2D will
    leverage the capability of other pillar platforms/programs through
    concept of employment options and also employ additional onboard/
    offboard capabilities to ensure mid and long-term survivability. The
    Navy is also continuing to evaluate future E-2D capabilities to stay
    ahead of advanced threats.
        The P-8A performs an entirely different mission set than the E-2D
    or JSTARS or AWACS platforms. The P-8's primary missions are ASW and
    ASuW, dedicated to preserving the safe haven and Strategic Lines of
    Communication in the high end fight. It is not designated to perform
    airborne battle management missions or participate in the high end air
    to air battle. The P-8A will leverage both concept of employment
    options and onboard/offboard capabilities to ensure its mid and long-
    term survivability. Through incorporation of its Increment 3 advanced
    sensors and systems it will be a full participant/ node in the Navy's
    future battlespace awareness Concept of Operations (CONOPS).
    Incorporating advanced Sensors with greater reach such as the Advanced
    Airborne Sensor (AAS), coupled with its advanced track management
    system (Minotaur), the P-8 brings a generational leap in battle space
    awareness over the P-3C. P-8 will conduct the majority of its strategic
    and operational ASW, ASuW and ISR warfighting objectives outside the
    major threat ranges of our adversaries. Through use of advanced sensors
    and netted C4I systems and prudent Battle Group CONOPS, the P-8 will
    remain away from the high end airborne fight.
                        infrared search and track (irst)
        53. Senator Rounds. Rear Admiral Conn, is your IRST program linked
    to USAF IRST program? When will IRST be available for Super Hornets?
    How can we move the IOC/FOC date to the left?
        Rear Admiral Conn. Although not a joint effort, the Navy and Air
    Force IRST programs have synergies and inform one another to enhance
    the design and development of each service's independent sensor
    program.
        President's Budget 2019 supports a 4th quarter fiscal year 2021 IOC
    for IRST Block II.
        Pulling IRST Block II IOC further left is difficult as the schedule
    for release is aligned with the release of F/A-18 Software
    Configuration Set (SCS) H16. Critical Block II risk reduction efforts
    are underway using IRST Block I systems with F/A-18 SCS H14.
        Accelerating IRST FOC is possible through changes to the currently
    approved Block II LRIP ramp up and by increasing FRP rates. This would
    require additional APN-5 investments in fiscal year 2019 through fiscal
    year 2024.
                                   __________
               Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
                          u.s. navy helicopter report
        54. Senator Blumenthal. Vice Admiral Grosklags and Rear Admiral
    Conn, in last year's NDAA, this Committee endorsed the Navy's Force
    Structure Assessment seeking a 355-ship Navy. With this increase in
    shipbuilding, we also need to consider what demands this places on the
    size of our rotary wing aircraft to support new ships. That is why this
    Committee included a reporting requirement in last year's NDAA that
    required the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report by March 30, 2018
    that describes and assesses the capacity of the Navy to increase
    production of anti-submarine warfare and search and rescue helicopters.
    Do I have your commitment that this helicopter force structure
    assessment report will be delivered to Congress on time at the end of
    the month?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags and Rear Admiral Conn. The rotary-wing
    Report to Congress was signed by the Secretary of the Navy on March 28,
    2018, and delivered to the congressional defense committees.
                                     ch-53k
        55. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Rudder, replacing the
    legacy CH-53E remains crucial as low numbers of flyable aircraft is
    impacting the current state of Marine Corps aviation readiness. In
    addition to bringing the cost down quicker, what are the other benefits
    of increasing the current production ramp rate for Marine Aviation?
        Lieutenant General Rudder. Increasing the CH-53K ramp rate will
    allow the Marine Corps to transition its HMH squadrons to the CH-53K
    faster, but only up to a certain rate. The Marine Corps--and Sikorsky--
    could support two additional CH-53Ks (10 total) if they were included
    in the fiscal year 2019 budget. In 19, 20 and 21 industry can support
    production of 10, 18 and 24 aircraft, respectively.
        There could be additional cost savings through increased
    procurement beginning in fiscal year 2021 when industry can support
    full rate production. Currently, the Marine Corps' POR is 200 CH-53K
    aircraft, and the average recurring flyaway cost of the aircraft is
    $87.6 million over the life of the program. The Cost of the CH-53K is
    within the Marine Corps TOA and well within our affordability caps.
    With that being said we have a multi-pronged approach to target cost
    reduction.
        1) Targeting production cost through continuous senior leader
    engagement with OEM on labor rates while leveraging a proven Program
    Cost Affordability Team (PCAT).
        2) Seventy percent of the lifecycle cost of the CH-53K is in O&S.
    We are targeting O&S cost by attacking reliability issues early,
    driving repair capability to the lowest possible level of maintenance,
    establishing phased organic depot capability, and proactively ensuring
    data accessibility for organic capability.
                                      f-35
        56. Senator Blumenthal. Vice Admiral Grosklags, what is your plan
    for increasing F-35C procurement to close the Navy's gap with its
    tactical aircraft shortfalls, and get fifth generation capabilities to
    carrier air wings as quickly as possible?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The Navy's F-35 procurement ramp as
    submitted in President's Budget 2019 is adequate to meet the planned
    transition schedule for the first 4 Navy F-35C squadrons. The Navy is
    investigating the costs associated with accelerating the ramp and the
    transition of additional squadrons. Consideration to the global demand
    for forward deployed Naval Aviation combat capability and the
    availability of fleet squadrons to execute a nearly 12 month transition
    process weigh heavily in any procurement ramp discussion. The Navy will
    continuously evaluate these and other relevant factors to refine the
    procurement ramp to optimize efficiency, maximize cost savings, and
    accelerate 5th generation capability to the fleet when possible.

        57. Senator Blumenthal. Vice Admiral Grosklags, on 12 January,
    Secretary Lord provided this committee with the F-35 Modernization
    Continuous Capability Development and Delivery (C2D2) report to meet
    fiscal year 2017 Congressional Reporting Requirements. The report
    stated, ``The services have not made a decision on what Lot 2 and
    beyond aircraft will be brought up to a block 4 configuration.'' Can
    you provide an estimate on when the Department of the Navy will come to
    a decision with retrofitting its LRIP lot 2-10 F-35B and F-35C aircraft
    to a Block 4 configuration?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The United States Navy will continue to
    assess mission assignments, sustainment costs, training requirements
    and return on investment based on remaining airframe life when
    evaluating the decision to retrofit LRIP lot 2-10 aircraft to a Block 4
    configuration. Currently RDT&E funding is focused on bringing the Block
    4 capabilities required to meet a near peer threat to the production
    line. Once the Navy has begun to field Block 4 aircraft in our fleet
    squadrons the determination will be made concerning retrofits of the
    older airframes.
                       navy's cyber unfunded requirements
        58. Senator Blumenthal. Vice Admiral Grosklags, according to the
    Navy's fiscal year 2019 unfunded requirements list, several cyber
    initiatives totaling nearly $100 million are listed? Why are so many
    cyber defense programs listed on the Navy's Unfunded Requirements
    list--some of which affect naval aviation--instead of being on the
    Navy's fiscal year 2019 budget request?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. The Navy's fiscal year 2019 budget
    submission represents the best balance for Navy requirements.
    Cybersecurity is a top priority. Our President's Budget 2019 request
    includes $352 million in fiscal year 2019 and $2.1 billion across the
    FYDP for cybersecurity to improve our operational defense-in-depth
    capabilities across the Navy enterprise and invests substantially in
    the resiliency of our networks. President's Budget 2019 added $30
    million in fiscal year 2019 and $448 million across the FYDP for cyber
    resiliency efforts and there is an additional $49 million in fiscal
    year 2019 for cyber vulnerability assessments.
        President's Budget 2019 funds the Navy's highest cybersecurity
    priorities in fiscal year 2019 and has programmed funds in the Future
    Years Defense Plan for cybersecurity programs. Should additional
    funding become available in fiscal year 2019, the Navy would accelerate
    these activities to enhance our ability to counter network threats and
    increase cyber resiliency.

        59. Senator Blumenthal. Vice Admiral Grosklags, should additional
    funding become available, what additional capabilities will naval
    aviation gain from an increase in dollars for these cyber defense
    programs?
        Vice Admiral Grosklags. Naval aviation will be able reduce the
    adversary's attack surfaces by accelerating cyber-resiliency
    investments into fiscal year 2019 and through the FYDP. These include
    the segmentation of the Aviation Land and Launch Enclave (ALLE),
    remediation of assessed issues on the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and
    Portable Electronic Maintenance Aides (PEMA), and cyber resiliency and
    integration of Common Control Station (CCS).
        The Aviation Land and Launch Enclave incorporates several ALRE and
    ATC CVN systems into a centrally managed enclave environment to enhance
    network segmentation, device hardening, increased cyber situational
    awareness and cyber incident response within the enclave.
        ALLE implements boundary defense and cyber resiliency as well as
    re-architecting some network foundations to allow effective follow-on
    patches for changing threats.
        E-2D cyber remediations and protections include fixes to
    Vulnerability Assessment Report (VAR) outcomes; supply chain risk
    mitigations, including efforts related to the 1553 bus; Avionics Flight
    Management Computer (AFMC) and Network File System (NFS) cyber
    resiliency efforts; and patch management improvements to enable a more
    responsive identification and deployment process.
        The Portable Electronic Maintenance Aides (PEMA) remediations
    address enterprise-wide solutions for standardized software and address
    cyber deficiencies identified during cyber risk analysis. These are
    also tied to a broader investment plan to increase the number of PEMAs
    across the Naval Aviation enterprise, as part of Sustainment Vision
    2020.
        Common Control Station (CCS) efforts include cybersecurity
    certification requirements.

     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
                   2019 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2018

                          United States Senate,
                              Subcommittee on Seapower,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                                                        Washington, DC.

                       MARINE CORPS GROUND MODERNIZATION

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m. in
    Room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Roger F.
    Wicker (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Subcommittee Members present: Senators Wicker, Rounds,
    Sullivan, Hirono, Kaine, and King.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROGER F. WICKER

        Senator Wicker. Good afternoon. The Senate Armed Services
    Subcommittee on Seapower convenes this afternoon to examine
    Marine Corps ground modernization initiatives.
        This afternoon, our Subcommittee welcomes two distinguished
    witnesses: Mr. Jimmy Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
    Navy for Expeditionary Programs and Logistics Management, and
    Lieutenant General Robert Walsh, Deputy Commandant for Combat
    Development and Integration.
        Gentlemen, thank you very much for your attendance today,
    and for your decades of service.
        Mr. Smith, I understand you are testifying before this
    Subcommittee for the first time. Is that correct?
        Mr. Smith. That is absolutely correct, Senator.
        Senator Wicker. Well, we welcome you all the more, and we
    are eager to hear what you have to say.
        As the military's force in readiness, the Marine Corps has
    unique crisis response roles and missions. According to the new
    National Defense Strategy, globally deployed marine units will
    continue to serve as front-line forces postured against
    potential adversaries. Although the NDS [National Defense
    Strategy] sets new priorities, it does not change the Marine
    Corps' role as the military's tip of the spear. Today, this
    Subcommittee will learn about the state of marine ground forces
    and the efforts underway to restore readiness and modernize
    these forces. I look forward to hearing how the National
    Defense Strategy is shaping the Marine Corps' perspective on
    readiness, operations, and modernization for ground forces.
        Since the NDS release, Marine Corps leadership has
    discussed the current and future challenges faced by amphibious
    forces. Sophisticated sensor arrays, space and cyber weapons,
    drones, electronic warfare, mines, and highly capable air and
    missile threats all greatly complicate amphibious operations
    and power projection from the sea. The Marine Operating Concept
    2025 offers warfighting concepts such as sea control, littoral
    operations on a contested--in a contested environment, and
    expeditionary advanced base operations to help the marines meet
    many of these challenges.
        I hope our witnesses will explain how the fiscal year 2019
    budget request translates strategic direction and operational
    concepts into the rapid development and acquisition of
    capabilities.
        Many Marine Corps modernization programs have suffered from
    a drawn-out--from drawn-out development timelines, shifting and
    unrealistic requirements, and cost overruns. These factors have
    frequently conspired to prevent the fielding of replacements
    for aging systems, leaving our marines short of critical
    capabilities. Years of budget instability have increased the
    damage, and that's on us, sitting around this table. However,
    the recently passed 2-year budget agreement provides a window
    of stability and operation for the Marine Corps. This
    Subcommittee is confident that the Marine Corps can develop and
    field more lethal and agile ground forces to prevail in the
    high-end fight.
        This afternoon, our Subcommittee will examine five key
    areas relating to Marine Corps ground programs:
        First, long-range precision fires. The Subcommittee is
    eager to hear about efforts to field longer-range rocket
    artillery and missile systems and--that can do a better job of
    targeting adversary combat formations and supporting naval
    maneuvers. In support of this effort, the Marine Corps will
    activate a second High Mobility Artillery Rocket System,
    HIMARS, Battalion at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, this year.
    The Army faces similar lethality and range gaps. We've got some
    Army people in the room today, and we appreciate their service
    also. We expect both services to work collaboratively to
    address shortfalls in their tube and rocket artillery and
    surface-to-surface missile systems.
        Secondly, mobile short-range air defense. United States
    ground forces have not experienced enemy attacks since the
    Korean War. However, I am concerned that manned and unmanned
    aircraft, rockets, artillery, and missiles pose an increasing
    danger to marine units and installations worldwide. The Marine
    Corps has not updated its air defense capability since the
    early 1990s. Our witnesses should explain ongoing efforts to
    rectify this shortfall. I understand that the Army also faces
    many of the same challenges.
        As with long-range precision fires, this Subcommittee
    believes that the two services should work together to meet
    similar requirements. Although the Army and Marines seem to be
    collaborating on short-range systems, fielding a medium-range
    system is a more challenging issue. So, we might want to ask
    why that is. The Subcommittee would like a better understanding
    of the Marine Corps' requirements and plans to deploy longer-
    range air defense capabilities.
        Next, close combat lethality. Secretary Mattis recently
    established a Pentagonwide task force to improve the lethality,
    survivability, and resiliency of close combat formations. I've
    heard concerns that the Marine Corps may have prioritized
    readiness recovery efforts on aviation units, to the relative
    detriment of close-combat units. So, we'll ask about that.
        The Subcommittee believes that the Marine Corps must make a
    balanced readiness and modernization effort across aviation and
    ground programs. We look forward to hearing from today's
    witnesses about Marine investments in its core infantry
    formations.
        Next, very shallow water mine countermeasures.
    Historically, mines have created serious difficulties for
    maritime forces, particularly amphibious units. Potential
    adversaries, such as North Korea and Iran, may employ large
    numbers of mines to deny access to strategic waterways and
    approaches. The Navy's littoral combat ship and several
    airborne platforms have countermine capabilities, but they are
    focused on operations in deeper water, away from shore. The
    Marine Corps needs to counter--needs countermine capability
    from ship to shore, including in very shallow water and on the
    shore. Given that the Navy and Marine Corps recently agreed to
    produce joint countermine doctrine, our witnesses should
    address how the Marines will deal with mine threats on shore
    and in regions with very shallow water.
        Finally, combat vehicle obsolescence. Our Subcommittee
    would like to discuss the state of major Marine Corps ground
    combat vehicles. The light armored vehicle first entered
    service in the mid-1980s; the amphibious assault vehicle, in
    the late 1970s; and the Abrams tank entered service in the
    early 1990s. The Marines clearly need more modern combat
    vehicles.
        The Subcommittee is interested in the Marine Corps' plan to
    modernize, replace, and upgrade its legacy ground platforms.
    The recently released National Defense Strategy requires all of
    the services to adjust to revised security priorities. The
    Marine Corps is no exception. The new guidance will require the
    Marines to make difficult decision, especially concerning
    ground programs.
        The emerging security environment presents significant
    challenges to the ways in which the Marine Corps has
    traditionally operated. It is imperative that the Subcommittee
    and the Marine Corps continue to work closely together to
    ensure the success of its ground program modernization
    initiatives.
        I, once again, thank you for your service to the country
    and for appearing today.
        I'm delighted to recognize my teammate and Ranking Member,
    Senator Hirono.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAZIE K. HIRONO

        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I join you in welcoming General Walsh and Mr. Smith to
    testify today on the fiscal year 2019 budget request for Marine
    Corps ground modernization programs. We thank you for your
    testimony and for your service to our country.
        The 2018 National Defense Strategy, NDS, states that the
    primary challenge facing our Nation is the reemergence of long-
    term strategic competition with Russia and China, near-peer
    competitors. The men and women who serve in Marine Corps Base
    Hawaii and marines serving throughout the PACOM area of
    responsibility are vital to protecting our strategic interests
    in the Asia-Pacific regions and--region--and our national
    defense. Our marines support military operations around the
    globe, and we must ensure that they remain ready and capable to
    address contingencies at a moment's notice.
        A vital part of supporting readiness capability is ensuring
    that our marines have access to combat equipment that will
    support them in this mission. To achieve this goal, the fiscal
    year 2019 budget request makes targeted investments in the
    ground combat and tactical vehicle portfolio of the Marine
    Corps. It includes a total of 2.9 billion for Marine Corps
    procurement and 850 million for research, development, test,
    and evaluation.
        One of the most important Marine Corps ground modernization
    programs is the amphibious combat vehicle, ACV [Amphibious
    Combat Vehicle]. The ACV program will replace the assault
    amphibious vehicle, AAV [Amphibious Assault Vehicle], which has
    been in operation for over 40 years. As the Chairman has noted,
    we need to modernize your combat vehicles.
        As part of the ACV acquisition strategy, the Marine Corps
    has awarded contracts to two vendors, each tasked with building
    prototypes for testing and evaluation. This summer, the Marine
    Corps will select one of these vendors to be the prime
    contractor for the program. The fiscal year 2019 budget request
    includes 167 million for the prime contractor to build 30
    vehicles for the ACV 1.1 program. In addition, the Marine Corps
    will begin designing and developing the ACV 1.2 variant. Unlike
    the ACV 1.1 program, which has limited amphibious capability,
    the ACV 1.2 will be a fully amphibious vehicle. The fiscal year
    2019 budget request includes 55.8 million in research,
    development, test, and evaluation funding for the new ACV 1.2
    program. I welcome an update from our witnesses on the status
    of the ACV program.
        As the ACV program moves forward, the Marine Corps
    continues to upgrade assault amphibious vehicles, AAV. The
    Marine Corps first fielded the AAV more than four decades ago,
    and marines will continue to rely on these vehicles until they
    are replaced by new ACV vehicles. In order to protect our men
    and women who rely on the AAV, the Marine Corps is modernizing
    a portion of AAVs with survivability upgrades.
        The final Marine Corps vehicle program I want to highlight
    is the joint light tactical vehicle, JLTV [Joint Light Tactical
    Vehicle]. JLTV is a joint Army and Marine Corps program that
    will replace the high mobility multi-wheeled vehicle, better
    known as the Humvee. The fiscal year 2019 budget includes 607
    million to procure 1,642 JLTV vehicles. Over the course of the
    program, the Marines intend to replace roughly one-third of
    their legacy Humvee fleet.
        In addition to the major vehicle modernization programs,
    the Marine Corps has prioritized two other programs in the
    fiscal year 2019 budget to support our marine forces:
        The first is the ground-air task-oriented radar, or GATOR
    [Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar]. The GATOR is an expeditionary
    radar system that will replace legacy radar systems currently
    fielded by the Marine Air-Ground Task Force. The Marine Corps
    plans to procure six systems in fiscal year 2019.
        The second program is the high-mobility artillery rocket
    system. Like the Army, the Marine Corps has capability gaps in
    long-range artillery and rocket systems. To address these
    shortfalls, the budget request includes 134 million to acquire
    new high-mobility artillery rocket systems for the 5th
    battalion 10th marines, which is being reactivated.
        Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I
    look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Senator Hirono.
        Gentlemen, you submitted a joint written statement. Who
    would like to summarize that, in about 5 minutes?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I think I can do it in less than
    that, Senator Wicker.
        Senator Wicker. We're delighted to have you----
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I'll take that.
        Senator Wicker.--General Walsh.

     STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT S. WALSH, USMC, DEPUTY
     COMMANDANT FOR COMBAT DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION; COMMANDING
         GENERAL, MARINE CORPS COMBAT DEVELOPMENT COMMAND; AND
        COMMANDER, UNITED STATES MARINE FORCES STRATEGIC COMMAND

        Lieutenant General Walsh. Thank you, Chairman Wicker,
    Ranking Member Hirono, and Senator King and Kaine. Thank you
    for the opportunity to testify.
        The Marine Corps ability to serve as our Nation's crisis
    response force is largely due to this committee's support, and
    we thank you for that strong support, on behalf of all our
    marines. A fully resourced defense budget, in conjunction with
    the long-term budget stability that we're getting through the
    Bipartisan Budget Act, will send a strong signal to our allies,
    partners, and all potential adversaries, that the U.S. is fully
    committed to preserving a free and open world.
        As the Commanding General of the Marine Corps Combat
    Development Command, I have the tremendous honor of leading
    over 18,000 marines, sailors, and civilians spread over
    commands across the country. We are the Marine Air-Ground Task
    Force's capability developers and integrators, which means our
    job comes down to one sentence, getting the right capabilities
    at the right time to the warfighter as the best that the Nation
    can provide.
        I'm honored to serve daily with these men and women. Over
    the last year, the Marine Corps has been focused around the
    globe, providing combined armed teams to crisises or places
    where crisises may occur to meet the Congress's mandate to be
    ready to suppress or contain international disturbances, short
    of war. You mentioned the National Defense Strategy. We believe
    that we're key players in the contact, blunt, and surge forces.
    So, out of the four layers that are in that, we see ourselves
    as players in that.
        But, as you said earlier, as we look at today's situation,
    the threats that are out there, looking to compete
    strategically, as we look at our marines that are out there,
    and sailors operating every day as--in part of those contact-
    and-blunt forces, those forces must be a lethal combat-credible
    force oriented on warfighting to be able to provide that
    credible deterrence.
        During the last several budget cycles, we've been focused
    heavily on improving readiness of the force. The increase in
    defense spending and improved budget stability provided by
    Congress today allows us to place greater emphasis on
    modernization. Specifically, within our total obligated
    authority, we've increased, in 2019, by 7 percent. To show you
    that--the step that we're making towards modernization with
    that 7-percent increase, we're increasing our modernization
    accounts by 32 percent. This increased signal in modernization
    shows our sense of urgency and the threats that we face via the
    National Defense Strategy.
        The Marine Corps fiscal year 2019 budget aligns five budget
    priorities of information warfare, long-range precision fires,
    air defense, command and control in a degraded environment,
    protected mobility, and enhanced maneuver with the Secretary of
    Defense's direction to increase lethality, resilience, agility,
    and build a flexible and dynamic force.
        Additionally, I want to emphasize our close coordination
    with the Army. You mentioned that earlier. I think we've got
    close coordination in full alignment, in many case. In fact,
    the Commandant's direction to me is to align them in every
    single case that we can. I think you'll see, over today's
    hearing, that we're trying our best to do that.
        My prepared statement contains greater detail on each of
    these five priorities, but I thank you for the opportunity, and
    with--along with my partner, Mr. Smith, to testify before you
    today.
        Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, General.
        Mr. Smith, do you wish to make an opening statement?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, Senator. I'll make a brief opening
    statement.
        Senator Wicker. Wonderful. You're recognized.

      JIMMY D. SMITH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR
            EXPEDITIONARY PROGRAMS AND LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT

        Mr. Smith. Senators, I appreciate the opportunity to be
    here before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Seapower and
    U.S. Marine Corps ground programs.
        I've been in the role as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
    the Navy for Expeditionary Programs and Logistics Management
    for just about a year now, and I can tell you, I am very
    impressed with the capability that I see coming forward through
    the Marine Corps with our industry partners until--and research
    and development efforts paying off in the future. I look
    forward to your questions and hopefully returning next year to
    promote more transparency and show what we're doing in support
    of this Nation's National Defense Strategy.
        Thank you, Senator.
        [The joint prepared statement of Lieutenant General Walsh
    and Mr. Smith follows:]

    Joint Prepared Statement by Lieutenant General Robert S. Walsh and Mr.
                                 Jimmy D. Smith
                   marines--contribution to national defense
    Introduction
        As set forth by the 82nd Congress and reaffirmed by the 114th, the
    purpose of our Corps is to provide maritime expeditionary combined arms
    air-ground task forces that are ``most ready, when the Nation is least
    ready.'' We are a naval force whose mission requires us to be ready--a
    fight-tonight, forward deployed, Next Generation force--able to respond
    immediately to emergent crises around the globe either from the sea,
    forward bases, or home station. The new National Defense Strategy (NDS)
    has further prioritized major power competition, in particular
    reversing the erosion of the United States military advantage in
    relation to China and Russia. Amphibious forces, in competition against
    the full range of potential adversaries, have significant roles in
    three of the four layers of the global operating model (contact, blunt
    and surge layers). While our organization, training, and equipment must
    continually adapt to meet changes in the operational environment, our
    fundamental purpose remains unchanged.
    Globally Engaged, Force in Readiness
        Combatant commander (CCDR) demand for marines and tailored Marine
    Air-Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs) continues to drive an aggressive
    operational tempo. We consistently maintain about 35,000 marines, or
    one-third, of our operating forces forward deployed across the globe.
    Our current posture encompasses several global tasks: Marines
    supporting multiple CCDRs with offensive air support and strikes from
    our Amphibious Ready Groups / Marine Expeditionary Units (ARG/MEU)
    afloat; building partner capacity in both Iraqi and Afghan Armies
    confronting Islamic State and Taliban fighters; providing critical
    fixed-wing and artillery fire support to coalition-enabled Syrian
    Democratic Forces as they fought to clear the Islamic State from Raqqa,
    Syria; providing tailored military combat-skills training and advisor
    support to foreign forces as part of Marine Corps Forces Special
    Operation Command (MARSOC); deterring provocations in the East and
    South China Seas through the forward posturing of 5th Generation
    aircraft within the Pacific; providing immediate disaster response from
    our ARG/MEU and Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force (SPMAGTF)
    to Americans in the wake of four hurricanes; supporting continued
    efforts to ensure freedom of navigation through the Bab al-Mandab
    strait; and enabling full spectrum cyberspace operations while
    supporting Joint and Coalition Forces as part of Marine Forces Cyber
    Command (MARFORCYBER). Marines are continuing to evolve as an inside
    force by fostering and strengthening relationships with our allies and
    partners, demonstrated by executing 62 joint, bilateral, and
    multinational exercises last year.
    A Strategy Driven Budget
        The National Defense Strategy (NDS) prioritizes major power
    competition, and in particular, reversing the erosion of the United
    States military advantage in relation to China and Russia. The Marine
    Corps' fiscal year 2019 budget aligns budget priorities with strategy
    and guidance enabling the Corps to compete, deter, and win in the
    future operating environment. The request fulfills DoD and DON
    objectives by addressing Secretary of Defense direction to increase
    lethality; resilience; agility; and the building of a flexible and
    dynamic force. Guided by the NSS and NDS, the Marine Corps made
    specific decisions about the fiscal year 2019 budget that support a
    more capable, ready, and efficient force.
        The surest way to prevent war is to be prepared to win one under
    the most difficult of circumstances. Doing so requires new operational
    concepts, an aggressive approach to force development and a consistent,
    multiyear investment to restore warfighting readiness. The goal is to
    field a more lethal, resilient, and agile force. We have focused on
    preventing and deterring conflict by providing combined-arms task
    forces to theaters either already in crisis or at the risk of crisis to
    meet the Congress' mandate to be `` . . . ready to suppress or contain
    international disturbances short of large-scale war.''
        As stated, your Marine Corps already provides key elements within
    three of the four layers of the global operating model described in the
    NDS--contact, blunt, and surge. Our forward deployed forces are part of
    the Nation's contact and blunt Layers--that competitive space where the
    military element of national power preserves the alignment of shared
    interests with our partners and allies--while the balance of Marine
    Corps forces are prepared to rapidly deploy as part of the Surge Layer,
    as one would expect given our role as an expeditionary-force-in-
    readiness. Our competitors, however, are continuously seeking to
    challenge us in new ways within the littorals, advancing their ability
    to locate, track, and attack the naval fleet and associated amphibious
    forces. Thus, future amphibious contact, blunt and surge layer
    operations will require many capabilities to allow us to be effective
    within the most likely future operating environment. Our wargames and
    experiments indicate that the current gap in requirements between
    today's forceenvironment. Our wargames and experiments indicate that
    the current gap in requirements between today's forceenvironment. Our
    wargames and experiments indicate that the current gap in requirements
    between today's force
        This statement aims to do two things: 1) Broadly describe how your
    Marine Corps is adapting to increase its competitive advantage and
    reduce the vulnerability against pacing threats ; 2) Explain how our
    ground programs budget priorities for the President's Budget Fiscal
    Year 2019 submission will result in a more lethal force that is better
    postured to deter conflict, while remaining ready to prevail if one
    ensues.
                 adapting to increase our competitive advantage
        Unlike experiences following past major U.S. military campaigns,
    where the world was generally stable enough that our Corps' overseas
    commitments decreased in quantity, today's Marines are employed more
    frequently, more widely, in more complex missions, and in smaller units
    than ever before. In recent years ARG/MEUs have been forced to operate
    in an increasingly disaggregated fashion, often times spread out over
    thousands of nautical miles in order to prosecute varied missions in
    littoral regions. This disaggregation strains the traditional
    capabilities of these units as currently organized and forces us to
    consider a wide variety of future ship mix and type options.
    Additionally, the proliferation of advanced weapons technologies, mass
    urbanization and migration, regional conflict and the challenges of the
    information age all combine to further drive the need for a properly
    manned, trained and equipped next generation Marine Corps.
        Your Marines continue to innovate and build this next generation
    Marine Corps--a lethal, adaptive, and resilient Corps that implements
    combined arms and conducts maneuver warfare across all domains,. This
    transformation began in 2016 with the implementation of the Marine
    Corps Operating Concept (MOC). The MOC represents our institutional
    vision for how the Marine Corps will operate, fight, and win despite
    the challenges described above. While the Corps' fundamental purpose
    does not change, our concepts--and the organization, training, and
    equipment changes they drive--must adapt to effectively accomplish it.
    The MOC provides the foundation and context for subordinate operating
    and functional concepts--like Littoral Operations in a Contested
    Environment (LOCE) and Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO)--
    and it guides our analysis, wargaming, and experimentation. Further,
    the MOC drives the evolution of our Service doctrine, organization,
    training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities
    (DOTMLPF) through a detailed and thorough Concepts Based Requirements
    System.
        The development and acquisition of long-range precision weapons by
    our Nation's chief rivals--China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and
    Violent Extremist Organizations (VEO)--have placed many of our forward
    deployed forces within the effective range of their weapons systems, or
    ``threat rings.'' Forward deployed and stationed Marines are now
    vulnerable to attacks in ways we have not considered for decades.
    Forward positioned forces require a resilient, dispersed basing posture
    with sufficient forward stockpiles of logistics and a reliable command
    and control (C2) networks. Conversely, most of our forward bases and
    stations lack sufficient resilience against long-range kinetic and non-
    kinetic attacks; thus, jeopardizing our ability to prepare, project,
    and sustain combat power. Efficiencies in the construction and
    configuration of these bases, made possible by a previously existing
    security environment have now created risks to forward deployed forces.
    The President's Budget 2019 begins to remedy these problems.
    Remediation efforts include increased dispersion of our forward
    elements, additional hardening of our existing facilities, to include
    aircraft hangars and command posts, the capability to rapidly repair
    damage to our air stations, effective counters to precision guided
    munitions and advanced integrated mobile air-defense capabilities. Many
    of these remedies will also prove effective to sea-based forces and to
    forces positions on expeditionary advanced bases.
    Increasing the Lethality of Our Corps
        In addition to increasing the survivability and resilience of our
    forward forces, we must also strive to make all forces more lethal.
    Building a more lethal force is not defined solely by hardware; it
    requires change in the ways the Marine Corps readies, postures,
    employs, and develops the force. The rapid changes in the character of
    warfare and the problems presented by current and future pacing
    competitors create fundamental challenges to ground programs, the
    associated concepts of employment, and the personnel that will operate
    the systems. We have discovered that key enablers such as unmanned
    systems, Manned/Unmanned Teaming, networked sensors/weapons and C2, and
    AI-enabled systems will all shape the next generation force's
    lethality. Some or all of these elements will appear in all future
    ground systems. We must prioritize modernization of ground programs to
    support our new operating concepts, regain lost competitive space and
    fully leverage capabilities that other elements of the MAGTF and the
    Joint Force are fielding.
                       ground programs budget priorities
    Modernizing--The Foundation of Our Future Readiness
        What we desire to achieve is a Corps capable of exploiting,
    penetrating, and destroying advanced adversary defenses in all domains
    in support of naval or Joint Force operations. To do that, we must be
    afforded the flexibility to experiment with new technologies available
    on the market, determining what will work best in the future operating
    environment, and then delivering those capabilities to the force
    quickly to mitigate the rapid rate of technological change. Our newly
    chartered Marine Corps Rapid Capabilities Office (MCRCO) accomplishes
    that end, seeking emergent and disruptive technologies to increase our
    lethality and resiliency. The MCRCO leverages fiscal year 2016 and
    fiscal year 2017 NDAA provisions and partnerships to accelerate the
    acquisition process--with the consistent and steadfast support of
    Congress--we will continue to fund this office. Accelerated
    modernization is the most effective remedy to our long-term readiness
    problems and we must abstain from burying our modernization efforts
    under cumbersome acquisition processes--we have to get this right.
        The President's Budget 2019 investment approach is synched with the
    implementation of Marine Corps Force 2025, specifically investing in
    ground systems that enhance our capabilities in areas such as:
    Information Warfare (IW), Long Range/Precision Fires, Air Defense,
    Command and Control in a Degraded Environment, and Protected Mobility/
    Enhanced Maneuver. These capability areas support building a Next
    Generation Marine Corps across the Active and Reserve components of the
    force. Additionally we have foundational efforts which are critical to
    modernization efforts (such as infrastructure, training sustainment,
    and manpower) that enable that enable our warfighting capabilities.
    This approach includes changes to the structure of our into equipment
    sets that balance affordability with the need for a networked, mobile,
    and expeditionary force.
    Information Warfare (IW)
        We continue to prioritize the integration of information
    capabilities throughout the MAGTF. Within the Command Element,
    investments in the Marine Intelligence Program allowed the formation of
    the MEF Information Group (MIG). The MIG establishes IW coordination
    centers for MAGTF commanders, filling the IW gap at the operational
    level. Additionally, we have increased funding to MARFORCYBER to man,
    train, and equip cyber forces and conduct full-spectrum cyberspace
    operations. The coordination, integration, and employment of
    information and cyber capabilities will enable the MAGTF commander to
    facilitate friendly force maneuver and deny the enemy freedom of action
    in the information environment.
        The Marine Corps is making rapid progress in the use Small Unmanned
    Aerial Systems (SUAS). We are currently fielding to every infantry
    battalion in the Marine Corps SUAS platforms for conducting
    Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance
    (ISR), enhancing the reach of current communications equipment, and for
    use in training for countering enemy UAS platforms. The Marine Corps is
    using some commercial off-the-shelf systems as well as systems produced
    through the use of additive manufacturing. Simultaneously, the Marine
    Corps is advancing the digital interoperability between these systems
    and digital communications systems in order to synchronize as well as
    control SUAS platforms.
    Long Range/Precision Fires
        The Marine Corps must advance its long range and precision fires
    capabilities. In support of this requirement, we have prioritized the
    reactivating 5th Battalion, 10th Marines as a High Mobility Artillery
    Rocket System (HIMARS) unit. Due to reach IOC in fiscal year 2021, this
    battalion will expand long range fires capability to II Marine
    Expeditionary Force based in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In addition,
    we are exploring with the Army the ability to modify Guided MLRS
    rockets from aboard ships and modifications to the rockets to enable
    engagement of moving targets.
        Technological advancements have also made it possible to operate
    precision guided munitions at lower echelon units. In this area, the
    Marine Corps has fielded Loitering Miniature Aerial Munitions (LMAM) as
    part of an urgent requirement to operating forces for use on the
    battlefield. Also, in conjunction with ONR is working on the Advanced
    Capability Extended Range Mortar (ACERM) Future Naval Capabilities
    (FNC) program. This partnership looks to utilize the existing 81mm
    mortar tubes to increase range of the system through the development of
    a precision guided gliding munition. Considering the changes in the
    complexity of the battle space and increased congestion due to the
    increase prevalence of SUAS and LMAMS, the Warfighting Laboratory is
    experimenting with various air space planning tools and procedures to
    assist operators in planning and executing of fire missions. They are
    also exploring the use of SUAS and Radio Frequency geolocation to cue
    and target threats at increased ranges.
    Air Defense
        To modernize our air defense systems and capitalize on our current
    investments in the Ground Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) and Common
    Aviation Command and Control System (CAC2S), the Marine Corps is
    pursuing a Ground Based Air Defense (GBAD) kinetic means to defeat the
    latest threat. The rapid rise in threat air platforms requires the
    Marine Corps to rapidly modernize its GBAD capabilities in both Short
    Range Air Defense (SHORAD) and Beyond Visual Range (BVR). These
    modernization efforts began in 2017, and will protect our forces from
    an array of emerging air threats including: unmanned aerial systems
    (UAS); aircraft; and cruise missiles.
        The first of these initiatives is the Marine Air Defense Integrated
    System (MADIS). MADIS is a maneuverable JLTV mounted short range air
    defense capability that is being designed to detect, track, identify
    and defeat emerging threat UAS, as well as Fixed Wing (FW)/Rotary Wing
    (RW) capabilities. The MADIS program is directly leveraging the Army's
    Program Director Counter Rockets, Artillery, Mortar (PD CRAM)
    developmental efforts. MADIS is designed to protect both ground
    maneuver forces and fixed sites. Future modernization efforts will
    include integration with G/ATOR and CAC2S as well as beyond visual
    range systems.
    Command and Control (C2) in a Degraded Environment
        President's Budget 2019 invests in our C2 capabilities needed to
    build the Next Generation Marine Corps that will dominate the
    information domain.
        Critical to the success of the MAGTF ashore is our ability to
    coordinate and synchronize our distributed C2 sensors and systems. Our
    modernization priorities in this area are the Ground/Air Task Oriented
    Radar (G/ATOR) and the Common Aviation Command and Control System
    (CAC2S). These systems will provide modern, interoperable technologies
    to support real-time surveillance, detection and targeting and common
    C2 suite to enable the effective employment of that and other sensors
    and C2 suites across the MAGTF.
        G/ATOR ensures no other service is more capable than the Marine
    Corps for controlling MAGTF airspace. It serves as the foundation for
    Commander, Joint Force Air Component delegation of airspace control to
    the future MAGTF, and provides MAGTF commanders the freedom of action
    to employ organic surface and air fires.
        CAC2S provides the tactical situational display, information
    management, sensor and data link interface, and operational facilities
    for planning and execution of Marine Aviation missions within the
    MAGTF. CAC2S will eliminate the current stove-piped, dissimilar legacy
    systems and will add capability for aviation combat direction and air
    defense functions by providing a single networked system. CAC2S will be
    the primary C2 system that integrates MAGTF aviation operations with
    Joint, combined, and coalition aviation C2 agencies.
        The MAGTF of 2025 must also improve the networking capability of
    ground systems. Networking on the Move (NOTM) is being procured to
    enhance networking among both ground vehicles and aviation platforms.
    NOTM provides the MAGTF with robust beyond-line-of-sight command,
    control and communication capabilities while on the move or stationary.
    Using existing commercial or military broadband SATCOM, this system
    extends the digital network to Marines at the furthest reaches of the
    battlefield. This system will enable the distributed Marine forces of
    2025.
    Protected Mobility/Enhanced Maneuver
        Our Ground Combat and Tactical Vehicle Strategy (GCTVS) provides a
    framework for portfolio management and enterprise decision support. The
    Marine Corps is investing approximately 29 percent of its modernization
    resources into GCTV systems within the FYDP [Future Year Defense
    Program]. The overarching combat and tactical vehicle investment
    priority is the modernization of Assault Amphibian capability through
    the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) program as the means to
    incrementally replace the legacy AAV.
        The first phase and increment of the ACV program (ACV 1.1) is on
    schedule for Milestone C decision and down-select to a single
    contractor in June of 2018. It is successfully performing at or above
    the required performance parameters with both vendors demonstrating the
    capacity to meet objective requirements for ship-to-shore water
    mobility. Both manufacturers have delivered their required number of
    vehicles and are currently undergoing rigorous developmental testing
    including water mobility and under-vehicle blast protection tests as
    well as operational testing with the user community. ACV 1.1 is on
    track to meet an fiscal year 2020 initial operation capability target
    and has set the conditions for a seamless transition in the production
    of second increment (ACV 1.2) personnel carriers and supporting mission
    role variants for command & control and maintenance & recovery.
    Finally, ACV 1.2 is resourced to also deliver an initial active
    protection system capability and a lethality upgrade to improve support
    by fire to the infantry.
        The second highest priority for combat and tactical vehicle
    investment remains the replacement of the legacy high mobility, multi-
    purpose, wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) fleet beginning with that portion
    which is most at risk; those trucks that perform a combat function and
    are typically exposed to enemy fires. In partnership with the Army, the
    Marine Corps has sequenced the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV)
    program to ensure affordability in conjunction with the execution of
    the ACV program. This approach enables an affordable, incremental, and
    simultaneous modernization of the two most stressing gaps within the
    GCTV portfolio.
        In this budget year, we are also beginning to look at a replacement
    for our legacy Light Armored Vehicles (LAV), the Marine Corps' current
    light armored reconnaissance platform. The Office of Naval Research
    (ONR) is leading the effort develop revolutionary technologies that
    will inform requirements development for what we are calling the
    Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle (ARV). This effort will identify the
    ``realm of the possible'' for the LAV replacement and will help
    accelerate movement to the acquisition phase within the next four to
    five years. The research will explore advanced technologies within
    size, weight, time and price point limitations, as well as generation-
    after-next-technologies using size and weight constraints only.
        A subset inherent to our Protected Mobility/Enhanced Maneuver
    efforts is the requirement to increase Close Combat Lethality. We have
    made great strides in several areas such as; enhancing small arms and
    ammunition; virtual training tactical decision kits; sensing Unmanned
    Air Systems (UAS) and Unmanned Ground Systems (UGS); small situational
    awareness devices for Distributed Operations and decentralized decision
    making; loitering munitions; lightening the individual Marine's load
    and addressing power needs; Electronic Spectrum and Signature
    Management; and Active Protection Systems.
        The Marine Corps rifle squad currently possesses a tactical
    advantage with its small arms overmatch capabilities for ranges up to
    500 meters. To maintain relevance against recent small arms capability
    advancements made by potential adversaries, significant modernization
    efforts are planned within the next decade.
        The Marine Corps is pursuing capability improvements to small arms
    with the goals of increased lethality and improved mobility. For
    lethality, the Marine Rifle Squad requires the ability to accurately
    engage and neutralize threats out to 600 meters. For mobility, Marines
    require the ability to move efficiently and effectively while carrying
    a standard combat load and weapon in order to accomplish combat related
    tasks.
        The Marine Corps has also been supporting DARPA's Squad X program
    by providing personnel for testing. Squad X is maturing key
    technologies, developing system prototypes, and refining the prototypes
    to maximize the squad's performance against emerging threats. Squad X
    looks to develop a multi-domain combined arms squad through the
    integration of shared situational understanding, optimized resource
    management, synchronized action and increased lethality.
        Further, the Marine Corps is working with the Army in regards to
    ground robotics with the future CRS-I program. It is also expects to
    participate more significantly in the Army's Leader Follower, Robotic
    wingman and Squad Multi-purpose Equipment Transport efforts to develop
    CONOPS, interface standards, open software architectures, and better
    define capability requirements. We are looking at its applicability
    with our EOD and engineer functions.
    Modernization Foundational Effort--Training
        As our capabilities continue to expand and the threat continues to
    adapt, our ability to train the MAGTF is challenged. As we implement
    the Marine Corps Operating Concept, we must modernize our synthetic
    training environment, making it more integrated and adaptable. Our
    units must be able to conduct collective training and mission
    rehearsals wherever they are; not only in training areas and simulation
    centers, but in barracks, in headquarters, at service-level training
    centers and while forward deployed on ships or in country. Our Live,
    Virtual and Constructive Training Environment Program will improve our
    ability to exercise multiple elements of the MAGTF from disparate
    locations as if they were collocated on the same battlefield. Neither
    live training nor synthetic training alone is sufficient. The strategy
    that will offset our readiness beyond that of our opponents involves
    multiple synthetic repetitions leading to highly effective live
    training exercises and evaluations, followed by continual live,
    virtual, and constructive sustainment events.
        Weapons proficiency, weapons employment, and the integration of
    combined arms and maneuver through live-fire training remain core
    components of our combat readiness. To meet these demands, our
    operating forces must rely on access to safe, modernized, and well
    maintained training ranges. The Marine Corps' range modernization
    efforts are designed to provide realistic training environments that
    simulate contemporary and future operating environments. Ongoing
    modernization efforts include a new generation of interactive targets
    that move autonomously, expanded military operations in urban terrain
    capabilities, improved instrumentation technologies, realistic threat
    representations, and scoring systems.
        The Marine Corps' current and future immersive training
    environments are designed to enhance our Marines' abilities to make
    sound tactical and ethical decisions in chaotic, stressful and complex
    environments. These venues are equipped with contracted role players,
    the Tactical Video Capture System, battlefield effects simulators,
    special effects, and range instrumentation equipment that facilitates
    detailed after-action reviews. These training capabilities enable unit
    commanders to assess tactics, techniques and procedures in real time
    and to provide learning points for follow-on training. The expanded
    procurement and utilization of advanced force-on-force training will
    further allow Marines to improve their decision making abilities
    through engagement against a thinking, adaptive enemy.
                               summary/conclusion
        The Marine Corps' Ground programs Modernization strategy will
    ensure the individual Marine enjoys a qualitative military edge over
    any adversary. Our goal is not to man the gear, but to adequately equip
    the Marine to ensure we can provide combat formations capable of
    closing with and destroying the enemy. In the near-term, our first
    priority is to increase capability and competency within the
    information environment, while concurrently actualizing structure
    design, leader development and training with corresponding updates to
    doctrine and policy. Equipment enhancement in the near-term will
    consist of balanced investment in existing capabilities while
    exploiting technological advances. In the mid-term, Marine Corps
    modernization targets increasing naval integration, expeditionary power
    projection, lethality, and protection; the results of which will
    address restoration of multi-domain combined arms overmatch against
    peer and near-peer adversaries. In the long-term, the Marine Corps
    seeks new capability development and investment to enhance the next
    generation MAGTF, exploiting Science and Technology and applied
    research to attain significant improvements in capabilities, addressing
    identified warfighting challenges, capability gaps, and requirements to
    achieve asymmetrical advantages.
        In future competition for international stability and security, the
    Marine Corps will provide a globally responsive expeditionary force
    that includes forward deployed, rapid response, and surge force
    elements. This expeditionary force is designed to maintain contact,
    blunt emergent aggression, and surge to prosecute a major campaign,
    thereby providing a wide range of options to command authorities to
    message, deter, combat, or defeat those that would attack the global
    order or threaten the global commons. As Marines have always done, when
    our Nation calls upon us, we will fight and win regardless of the
    dimension or domain.

        Senator Wicker. Thank you very, very much.
        Okay, well, let's start off, then, with a few things that
    you touched on, General Walsh, but I'll let you elaborate.
        With regard to the increasing danger and the need for
    updated air defense capability, I assume you agree with my
    statement that it's been since the early 1990s when--since we
    really took a look at changing this capability. You said, in
    your oral statement, that you're working with the Army. My
    statement said that the two services should work together, and
    that it seemed that short-range systems collaboration was a
    matter where there was a little more progress than medium-range
    systems. So, if you could comment on that, and help us
    understand.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I think close coordination with
    this--you know, as we moved out of Iraq and Afghanistan, a lot
    of our focus had been on the ground side, but we started to
    look at this counter-UAS [unmanned aerial system] threat. And
    so, I think we've been focused on the counter-UAS threat, and
    now, as we get the new defense strategy, we're starting to
    see--looking at aircraft and going against cruise missiles.
        So, the program that we've really got is our ground-based
    air-defense future weapon system. In that, that's based around
    a JLTV concept. We've got several vehicles with a radar, which
    is the radar that the Army uses, integrating that same radar
    that you're using with Maneuver SHORAD, their short-range air
    defense, using a Stinger missile that we currently have in our
    LAAD battalions, integrating that Stinger missile with the
    radar. We're also putting on a EW capability onto that vehicle,
    along with the kinetic kill capability.
        Senator Wicker. For those people listening in, what does
    that mean?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Electronic warfare. I'm sorry.
    Electronic warfare. So, it's a capability----
        Senator Wicker. Senator Hirono and I fully understand----
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Right, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
        So, electronic warfare. We're also trying to integrate--
    we've got a developmental program on a laser, to be able to put
    a laser on that. We're currently testing that with the
    opportunity to rapidly deploy that and demonstrate that
    capability.
        So, those are, kind of, the things that we've got in there
    in this program. I see the way that, this all moving very
    quickly, that we would continue to bring on, in an incremental
    fashion, more capabilities into that ground-based air defense,
    which is more in that maneuverable, shorter-range capability.
        In the near term, though, we see that the--the shortness
    we've got, or the area of significant lack of capability in--
    more against going to cruise missile capability. So, what we're
    looking at right now is research and development, working with
    the Army in that area to be able to get a capability integrated
    onto our systems much quicker, demonstrate a capability--it
    could be a commercial off-the-shelf capability--try to
    integrate that in while we continue to work the--with the Army
    on the long-range--excuse me--the IFPC2 [Integrated Fire
    Protection Capability] program, which is the Army's long-range
    program that we're integrated with them with research and
    develop into that, into the midterm year.
        So, I think, between the short-range program that we've
    got, the near term to do some demonstration here in the very
    quick term--near-term year to two, on a ground-based air
    defense, along with the IFPC Block 2 program that we're working
    in 2021 and 2022 with the research-and-develop money with the
    Army, I see us coming together long term on that IFPC air
    defense program with the Army.
        Senator Wicker. When do you think you might be making an
    announcement about your decision there?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. On the near-term piece or the
    long-term----
        Senator Wicker. Well, how about both?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. On the long-term, we've got the
    money into the research and development with the Army on the
    IFPC program. So, that part, we're long-term with them. On the
    near-term capability, we're looking at, right now, besides the
    capability that we've got in that GBAD, how we could get a
    program quicker. And so, we're looking at----
        Senator Wicker. And so, you're looking at----
        General Walsh.--that right now.
        Senator Wicker.--at possibly off-the-shelf.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. We're looking at----
        Senator Wicker. And so, when would you let us know that?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. We're looking at it right now,
    and, in the--I would say, in the next year, as we look at
    what's out other, to be able to try to see how we can
    demonstrate something quickly. One of the significant things
    is, is trying to move the community that really has doing--been
    doing security force operations for many years, that have just
    been using shoulder-held surface-to-air missiles. We used to
    have Hawk batteries that had this longer-range missile
    capability that we don't have. So, getting something now,
    early, and demonstrating that, would get the community of air
    defense moving towards that higher-end capability quicker.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, General.
        Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Over the course of the past several months, our committee
    has heard testimony and received briefings detailing the
    increasing lethality gaps between the U.S. military and our
    near-peer competitors. In fact, the recently released National
    Defense Strategy highlights this disparity and makes addressing
    the lethality of our forces a priority.
        Can you identify or detail the investments that the Marine
    Corps made in the fiscal year 2019 budget request that will
    allow the Corps to address the gaps in lethality and allow us
    to compete with a near-peer competitor?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I think the--you know, the areas
    for lethality crosses a lot of areas across the Marine Air-
    Ground Task Force. I think, you know, probably starting with
    things like the F-35 and bringing that aircraft online that's
    currently deployed in the western Pacific. Our HIMARs are our
    long-range rocket systems that we've got with the Army, putting
    research and development money into that, along with the Army,
    to be able to increase the long--to get the longer ranges that
    we need, along to--along with trying to hit targets--moving
    targets. We've also developed programs and fielded programs
    with airborne loitering munitions, and continuing to put money
    in, working with the Army, on research and development for a
    naval strike missile, which would allow our marines to be able
    to contribute more effectively with the Navy and the sea
    control mission, according to the National Defense Strategy.
        Then continuing to work with the Army on their long-range
    precision fires capability. So, we're partnered with them on
    LR---their LRPF [Long Range Precision Fires] program, which
    would increase their capability beyond what we have with the
    TACMS [Tactile Missile Systems] program that the Army currently
    has. Then also R&D [Research & Development] efforts with the
    Army on the high-velocity projectile program.
        Senator Hirono. So, General, there's no question that
    China, for example, is very much modernizing their military
    assets as well as--just by sheer numbers. So, by the listing
    that you gave, are you doing enough to address the lethality
    gap?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I think, Senator, as we've talked
    to you be--in the past, you know, 16 years of combat in Iraq
    and Afghanistan, we kind of had our heads down against this
    kind of threat. So, what we're looking at is, as we start to
    look at the new National Security Strategy and the National
    Defense Strategy, is looking at that strategic competition,
    which, really, competing in that strategic area will hopefully
    be the deterrent effect that we need. But, as we look at that--
    you know, we're well behind in a lot of areas, as the threat
    has watched us very closely over the last few years, what our
    advantages are and where our weaknesses are. They've invested
    in areas, like long-range precision fires, that we have not.
    So, as we come out of that, the first thing, I think, that
    we're looking to do is, How can we repurpose the current
    capabilities that we have? How can we make them more effective?
    Like the HIMARS [High Mobility Tactile Rocket System] rockets,
    how can we get them longer-range while we work together closely
    with the Army to develop a developmental program, a longer-
    range program, like the long-range precision fires program that
    we're working with the Army? So, near-term----
        Senator Wicker. What's their range now?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. What's that?
        Senator Wicker. What's their range?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. The HIMARS capability we've got
    is about 70 kilometers. We'd like to get that well out, way
    past that range, probably triple, four times that range.
        In fact, the goal with the LRPF program is really 499
    kilometers, which is really based on treaty that allows us, on
    land-based, to only stay below 500 kilometers.
        Senator Hirono. General, as you noted that you spent almost
    17 years doing the counterterrorism fight, so do you still see
    a need for us to keep those kinds of warfighting skills up to
    date? So, as you turn toward the--addressing the near-peer
    competition that we now face, how will you ensure that the
    counterinsurgency warfighting skills that you have honed during
    the nearly 17 years do not atrophy as our strategy shifts to a
    high-end fight with near-peer competitors?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. The marines that are out there
    today--I mean, they're combat veterans. Our young marines,
    NCOs, and young officers, they've had a lot of combat time. So,
    as you said, How do we keep those capabilities and those
    skills? So, they're combat vets, they're very good at what they
    do. So, I think that the thought we have is to keep our eye on
    that, but we've developed very great, good capabilities across
    for that skillset. What we believe is, is the higher end,
    though, that we don't have----
        Senator Hirono. Yes.
        General Walsh.--that we've got to develop that. We think a
    lot of those capabilities that we developed for the higher end
    can also be applied to the lower end. But, I think we're out of
    balance right now, because, over the years, we've focused on
    the lower end. Very good at that. Now we've got to shift to the
    higher end. We think, in a lot of those cases, they can be very
    applicable to the lower end. But, the lower end was not
    applicable to the high end.
        Senator Hirono. Okay.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. In most cases.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
        Senator Sullivan.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Gentlemen, thank you. Good to see you. Thanks for
    testifying today.
        General, I wanted to just talk a little bit--you know, we--
    you talk a lot about the focus, in the last several years, in
    Iraq, in Afghanistan. Also, you know, we did cut defense
    spending, unfortunately, I think, pretty dramatically. As you
    know, in the Army, in the Marine Corps, I think a lot of the
    members of the infantry are still handed the book ``This Kind
    of War'' by T.R. Fehrenbach, and talks about Task Force Smith
    and other units in the United States military that were
    decimated during the Korean War because we did not have a
    military that was ready.
        Are we ready for some kind of, you know, fight like that,
    where it would be high intensity as--we're talking about--it's
    a pretty sobering look at a--an army that--in a, you know,
    military that, in 1945, was the most fearsome one in the
    history of the world, and, 5 years later, couldn't stop a
    Third-World peasant army. What's your sense on that, General?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Senator, I think that if you look
    across our portfolios--you know, one of the things the
    Commandant wants us to do is to develop a next-generation
    Marine Corps. As we look at what is that next-generation, we've
    come across our portfolios. There are certain areas that we've
    invested very well in that we think, you know, are--would
    operate in that environment very well--F-35, our GATOR radars,
    some of our signals intelligence capabilities. There's areas
    there where, if you look--like a scenario, like, say, if you
    take Ukraine, and how would marines today operate in that
    environment today, I think there's areas where we've got the
    weakness where I've--weakness areas where I've talked about as
    we need to engage more in information warfare. We talked about
    long-range precision fires, air defense, which we've not had,
    really, to deal with in many, many years, communications and
    command and control in a degraded environment. As you take a
    look at what the Russians and what the Chinese have invested on
    when it comes to cyber warfare, electronic warfare, those
    areas. Along with protected mobility. Our ground vehicles are
    something we've not invested in, in a long time, along with
    some of our heavy-lift aircraft, like the CH-53K program. So, I
    think that focus--if you took us right now in that environment,
    there's a lot of areas I would say we're behind in.
        Senator Sullivan. Okay.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. But, the money that the Congress
    has given us, I think we're investing to be able to move very
    quickly in that direction to be able to be a--more of a
    competitive force and deter aggression.
        Senator Sullivan. What about just the issue--you know,
    again, in that book, it was also a lack of training, a lack of
    hard training, a lack of difficult training. Are there concerns
    right now that we're not meeting--you know, I think all of us
    want what's best for our forces, but, to be realistic, we need
    to make sure they have the hardest, most difficult, most
    challenging training in the world. Are you confident that
    that's what our Marines and Army are getting now?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Senator, I think we're in a big
    shift to move in that direction. As Ranking Member Hirono
    looked at that piece on--as we look at that, as we shift
    towards this higher end--we're a very good combat-proven force
    at the lower end. So, when it comes to the training, not only
    is it part of getting the right equipment as you're hitting on
    the training, when we look at our training and readiness
    syllabuses, what we train a unit to, what we train individuals
    to, a lot of these areas, we haven't focused on in a long time.
        Senator Sullivan. Yeah.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. A key focus area is out at 29
    Palms for MAGTF Training Center, where all our units go through
    to get certified before we deploy. Out there, Major General
    Mullen, who's out there, is upping the game, really, against
    what the Red Force does and what our Blue Forces are
    encountered in. We start looking at electronic warfare, long-
    range precision fires, counter-air. We have not done that in
    many years. So, the focus is moving in that area. It's going to
    take a long time, just like it did back in the----
        Senator Sullivan. You mentioned----
        General Walsh.--Korean War.
        Senator Sullivan.--29 Palms. Let me ask another--you know,
    when you talk about the high-end fight and the National Defense
    Strategy and the focus on China and Russia and North Korea,
    near peers, a lot of those places have in common difficult
    terrain, mountainous terrain, cold-weather terrain, large-scale
    ops, not just kind of small, you know, squad-size or company-
    size. I notice that there's a good number of marines right now
    up at Arctic Edge, in a State that I happen to care a lot
    about--that's Alaska--that also has probably--well, certainly
    some of the best training--cold weather, mountain. JPARC [Joint
    Pacific Alaska Range Complex] is the biggest training area in
    the country, by far, probably the best training in the world.
        I've talked to the Commandant a lot about this. Forces that
    are in Alaska, already forward-deployed, they're, you know,
    ready to go in--to Korea or any other place. Can you tell me a
    little bit about what the Marines' future is with regard to,
    not just Arctic Edge, but looking at Alaska as a place where
    you can get very realistic training--cold weather, mountain--
    forward-deployed to go in the fight tonight if you had to, and
    combined arms capability--you know, the JPARC, the airspace
    there is bigger than Florida. With the fifth-gen aircraft,
    that's going to be needed. Can you talk a little bit about
    that, and future focus there?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Senator, like you said, we have
    not focused on that area for a long time. We used to train to
    cold weather all the time, in the cold war days. The Commandant
    has set--sent up teams up to Alaska to look at the training
    areas up there. They're phenomenal. They're great size, both
    air and ground integration. As we know, on the air side, we've
    been training up there an awful lot with, you know, our F-35
    and with the Air Force, and certainly our F-18 aircraft. But,
    what we're also seeing is, on the ground side, as we now
    refocus down on the ground, and this cold-weather area that we
    haven't trained. We're buying a lot more equipment, but the
    training piece is key. Like you said, there's a lot of places
    we can go and train at the company level. This is an area we
    can go and train at a much higher level.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
        Senator Sullivan, I wonder, when you were in basic
    training, if there some gray-headed guy sitting around a
    conference table asking if training was hard enough.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Sullivan. I believe in hard training----
        Senator Wicker. Well, I'm sure you----
        Senator Sullivan.--Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. I appreciate----
        Senator Sullivan. Go to the Marines----
        Senator Wicker. I appreciate your service.
        Senator Sullivan.--and the Army. I think so. But, if you
    haven't read the book ``This Kind of War,'' I'll make sure you
    get a copy.
        Senator Wicker. Yeah, we've got--well, I would be glad to
    do it.
        Senator King.
        Senator King. What State were those big training areas in
    again? I didn't catch that.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Sullivan. Those would be in the biggest State in
    the Union.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator King. General, a much more general question. Are
    amphibious assaults feasible in today's combat environment, or
    do we need to think in a whole new way about storming a beach?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. That's a great question. When you
    look at this contested environment, new weapons, new threats,
    new capabilities that we've not had to look at in a long time,
    I think you're right, we have to look at it in a completely
    different way. In fact, really over the last year, I think,
    really, with Mr. Smith's team, we've worked a lot of, What is
    the problem statement? How are we going to operate in a
    different way? One thing I would say is, the Marines are
    focused--first, as the Commandant says, we're going to have to
    fight to get to the fight. How can we support, work with the
    Navy when it comes to that sea control mission to be able to
    get to the point where we get to power----
        Senator King. Particularly if it's a peer adversary.
    They're going to have missiles that can hit you 100 miles at
    sea.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Right. So, we're working a lot
    of--a lot of concepts, a lot of our exercises, a lot of our war
    games are focused exactly on this problem.
        But, one thing we really did last year, we did an advanced
    naval technology experiment. It was a weeklong experiment out
    of Camp Pendleton that really led up, over a year's time
    period, working with industry, academia, our warfare centers,
    on, How are we going to conduct operations in the future? Just
    as you say, it's not going to be storming the beach, just as
    you see a--pictures of Iwo Jima or Inchon. What we saw when we
    got done of taking all that industry work together, we
    demonstrated over 100 different types of technologies. I think
    the thing that amazed me was, when we looked out at that
    amphibious assault as we were conducting, really, probably the
    first 15 minutes of it or so was completely unmanned. We had
    unmanned surface vehicles--surface vehicles that were unmanned,
    in the air, sensing, trying to figure out where the enemy may
    be, where the enemy is not, deception capability. Through that,
    we took a lot of these capabilities and moved them forward into
    demonstrations into fleet exercises on both the East and West
    Coasts, and put it in the hands of our sailors and marines. We
    learned a lot through that, and we're continuing to work with
    that, with the Navy in littoral operations in the contested
    environment. We're seeing it's not going to look like it does
    in the past, it's going to look completely different. A lot of
    technology in the unmanned systems allow us to do that.
        I don't know if Mr. Smith has anything to add to that.
        Senator King. Your thoughts, sir.
        Mr. Smith. Actually, I was there at the exercise that
    General Walsh spoke about, where we're--have unmanned vehicles
    coming ashore. I'm actually standing on the cliff at Camp
    Pendleton, standing next to the Commandant, and I'm watching
    this assault force come in from the ocean. I looked at the
    Commandant, and I said, ``Are we really going to do this again?
    Is this, like, a flashback to 1940?'' But, to my surprise,
    those were unmanned vehicles coming ashore. An unmanned vehicle
    actually popped out a UAV, established a network so that the
    computers, sensors, and all things can tie into it. I had to
    take a step back, because that wasn't the old fight. This was
    using capability we have today, augmenting it so that we can
    get down and get at the next fight.
        So, making best use of what we have today, the Marines are
    experts at that. Tailoring it with our industry partners and
    warfare centers to get extra capability from what we're
    accustomed to having just brings a different fight to this
    capability.
        Senator King. Well, that's exactly the answer I was hoping
    for, and I appreciate that.
        I know you're talking about replacing the light-armored
    vehicle and are looking at alternatives. Mr. Smith, I hope
    you're starting with off-the-shelf alternatives, like the
    Stryker or other weapon systems around the world, and not
    designing a new system from the ground up.
        Mr. Smith. That's absolutely correct, Senator. We're
    starting with off-the-shelf technology. But, the U.S. Marine
    Corps has its specific needs, and we need to make sure that our
    requirements are going to be met. We have a couple of industry
    partners going through a competition right now to give us
    capability we need. They're meeting their key performance
    parameters. Testing is going well. Schedules are intact. So, I
    think we can provide that----
        Senator King. But, you----
        Mr. Smith.--foot forward.
        Senator King.--know the history, for example, in the Army,
    of the Future Combat System. I mean, I'd rather see an 80-
    percent solution that was timely, cost-effective, and
    effective, rather than a 100-percent solution that failed, in
    the end. I hope that's the attitude, because we've gotten in
    trouble designing things from the ground up and imposing more
    and more requirements. For example, I understand, in the new
    ARV [Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle], we're talking about
    unmanned vehicles, sensors, renaissance network. Again, we want
    to get the 80-percent solution. I--you're nodding, General. I
    hope you agree.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I agree, Senator, but I'll just--
    I guess I look at it this perspective is--there are certain
    areas where we look at a problem and go, Is the technology that
    we have there today going to fulfill the need? So, when it
    comes to reconnaissance--and we're studying this real hard--
    what is reconnaissance today, and counter-reconnaissance? It's
    hugely different than what it's been over history. I would
    argue, over history, our Army's calvary or our light-armored
    reconnaissance (LAR), battalions have operated many, many ways
    the same way calvary or reconnaissance have operated over, you
    know, not centuries, but over the last 100 years. The
    technologies that we're seeing, though, is--we're trying to
    figure out, What is reconnaissance? What Mr. Smith talked about
    is, What is reconnaissance going from ship to shore? We see
    that, really, a wide-open area. So, when we took a look at,
    What is out there today in industry that can give us a vehicle
    that would give us the 80-percent solution with the technology
    on it? We really aren't seeing that from industry today. I see
    it on the aviation side. When I go to look at Skunk Works and
    Phantom Works and stuff like that on the aviation side, there's
    a lot of industry R&D that's going into those programs, and we
    see what they're doing to be able to move in that direction.
    I'm not seeing the same thing on the ground side.
        So, what we've really done is, we've partnered with the
    Office of Naval Research, we really had a--to work with them
    on, What type of--looking at that problem statement again--What
    is reconnaissance in the future, and what technologies are
    going to be available in the future? So, ONR, working with our
    warfare centers, research labs, and industry. What type of
    capabilities would be able to go onto a vehicle--the truck, the
    platform--that would be able to do this? But, we certainly see
    a vehicle today--we've got squads of marines launching their
    own hand-held UAVs. Why wouldn't we be able to launch that same
    type of thing off of a vehicle, you know, into the future?
        So, I think it's kind of both ways, that we have to go
    slow, but we--we would rather have the 80-percent solution
    that's available today, but, in a lot of--in some cases, it's
    not.
        Senator King. I'm out of time, but one way to deal with
    that issue is modularization so that you can easily upgrade on
    the platform. You don't have to start all over again with new,
    just because your--a new technology is developed.
        Thank you very much, gentlemen, I appreciate it.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator King.
        Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, gentlemen, thank you for your service to our
    country.
        I'd like to follow up in a little bit different format, but
    along the same lines as Senator King has started with.
        General Walsh, on February 8th, Secretary Mattis sent a
    memorandum establishing a Close Combat Lethality Task Force to
    senior leaders across DOD, the joint force, and the Military
    Departments. The stated goal of this task force is to improve
    the preparedness, lethality, survivability, and the resiliency
    of our close combat ground forces, which have historically
    received about 90 percent of our casualties. What are your
    thoughts on the changes in personnel policies, training
    methods, and equipping strategies that you believe that this
    task force should be looking at? I think it goes along similar
    lines as what Senator King was talking about. But, I'd like to
    have you expand on that a little bit, please.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
        One thing I would say that we've been involved in is our
    Sea Dragon experiments over the last, really, year and a half.
    We took 3rd Battalion 5th Marines, an infantry battalion, and
    we took that organization and reorganized them completely
    different. They're three line companies, organized them
    completely in a different--each one differently, gave them
    completely different equipment, gave them unmanned systems--
    unmanned ground, unmanned air--trying to do exactly what the
    task force really is after. How do we up that game?
        We looked at a lot of cases as what our special operators
    do, and we've learned a lot from Marine Corps Special
    Operations Commands, and we've gotten much more developed in
    that area, on, How do we raise the game up to a higher level?
        I think you're exactly right, the casualties that our close
    combat forces take. So, that program took about a year and a
    half. We took that back to the Commandant, and I think, out of
    probably the 40 different recommendations they made, we've
    probably already now programmed probably 20 of those
    recommendations. In fact, we met with the Commandant this
    morning for about 2 hours to go over a lot of them.
        How does that tie in to the task force? All of those
    members that are down at the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab have
    been involved with the Close Combat Strategic Portfolio Review
    done by Secretary of Defense that's now turned into this Close
    Combat Task Force. In fact, our experiment lead who was leading
    our experiment division, we gave up to go work for the
    Secretary of Defense on this, to help continue to move our
    things forward.
        But, a lot of those things that you--you know, you're
    exactly talking about, that we put into that area of, you know,
    improving their fires, improving their communications,
    improving their protection, lots of different systems--UAS--out
    of the experiment, we've now fielded over half of the squads in
    the Marine Corps with unmanned aerial systems. Unheard of
    before that we would give a unmanned aerial system to a squad.
    Now, in a matter of 4 or 5 months, every squad in the Marine
    Corps will have that. So, that's just an example.
        You're exactly right, that's where we need to put the
    focus. The Commandant's an infantryman. That's where he's got
    the focus. I think we're completely aligned with where the
    Secretary of Defense has taken us.
        Senator Rounds. Well, let's take one more step, then, and
    let's talk a little bit about--Major General Reynolds reported
    that, as of January 2018, and ahead of the 30th of September
    mandate, all l3 U.S. Marine Corps Cyber Mission Force Teams
    reached full operational capability. Were there lessons
    learned? If so, how would the Marine Corps Combat Development
    Command learn from this effort? How will the Marine Corps
    incorporate these lessons learned into the training and
    doctrine?
        The reason why I ask is, the Army's been placing offensive
    and defensive cyber capabilities down to the Brigade Combat
    Team level. What's the Marine Corps' view on the proper
    echelons to deploy offensive and defensive cyber capabilities?
    Does the current force structure accommodate this view? It
    sounds like you're moving in that direction. You've done a
    little bit of it. Can you talk a little bit about where you see
    that at and where the cyber component should be incorporated,
    as well?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. If I could, Senator Rounds, in--
    look at it just a little bit outside of just cyber, but what we
    call information warfare. So, expand outside of that to signals
    intelligence, our sensor capabilities that we've got in the air
    and on the ground. What we really looked at through--we started
    with our operating concept, and then moved into Marine Corps
    Force 2025, which is our way to experiment and figure out what
    we really need.
        The big thing that we saw was, this whole area was the area
    that we were behind the threat in. So, what we decided to do
    after the experimentation that we did was to move structure
    first. So, we moved structure and manpower into our MEFs
    [Marine Expeditionary Force], which are our large warfighting
    headquarters, and we stood up what we call our MEF Information
    Warfare Groups, or MIGs. One is in each MEF headquarters we've
    got now. The structure, we moved all in there, and now we're
    moving in the capabilities, which are unmanned systems,
    intelligence systems, signals intelligence. Electronic warfare
    is a big area in there, along with the cyber. So, what we're
    doing is bringing that all into the MEF Information Groups, and
    then we're pushing those teams down, structure down, all the
    way down into the company level. So, well down below--you know,
    down division, but all the way down, regiment, battalion, into
    the company level. We kind of view it as the way we've got--
    we've done a very good job over the years with our air-ground
    integration, where we've got air officers that are planners and
    executors that are down at the company level, that can plan,
    reach back for support, and bring capabilities down, and help
    that infantry commander plan down at that lower level. We're
    now bringing that entire information warfare area down to the
    lowest level. One of the things the Commandant also did is, he
    stood up a Deputy Commandant for Information just to focus on
    this problem set.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you. Thank you. My time is expired,
    but I most certainly appreciate the comments that you've made
    here today.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator----
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker.--Rounds.
        Senator Kaine.
        Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thanks, to our witnesses.
        Three questions about, sort of, future--looking ahead. The
    Chair and I and others have really focused on the 355-ship Navy
    requested by the Navy. It became part of the NDA last year,
    but, given that the Marines are an expeditionary force that are
    often shipbound, as we're trying to decide what the 3---with
    the right mix of the 355 is--surface and sub and, you know,
    manned and unmanned--it has effects on marine personnel
    organization, too. So, how close are you having that discussion
    with the Navy as they're doing their planning about 355,
    because it affects the ground side of the Marine operation, as
    well?
        Mr. Smith. Well, as you know, Senator, the auxiliary fleet,
    the amphibious fleet that the Navy has, the Marine Corps
    basically needs a ride to the fight. Thirty-eight ships would
    be optimum, and we have, I believe, 31, 32 in the--32 in the
    budget. We're going to make best use of that capability.
    Getting to the fight, we're working together.
        I'm actually a Navy employee, as the DASN to the Marine
    Corps, so I'm closely tied to big Navy, and I'm working on the
    green side to make sure the capability comes forward to unify
    both forces together. Because we are one Navy, one force--one
    naval force.
        Thank you, sir.
        Senator Kaine. Please, General.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. If I could, your--over the last
    few years, I think we've focused really on readiness,
    maintenance--is really that focus. The Navy fleets have been
    run really hard. OPTEMPO has been high. There hasn't----
        Senator Kaine. Yeah.
        General Walsh.--been a lot of stability and predictability,
    so we've focused on maintenance and readiness.
        The next piece, I think, that we've been focused on is
    capacity. I think right now, with the shipbuilding plan, we're
    moving in the right direction. Obviously, the CNO's got to plan
    if we could increase that. You know, we've got--know what the
    yards can do, the availabilities, how we can increase that. So,
    that's part of that surge force, if we can increase that
    capacity.
        The one thing I will say, though, is, what we really are
    looking at, too, is readiness, capacity, but the capability of
    the ships. When you go back to operate against this high-end
    threat, do the ships have the right capabilities? So, not only
    the--you know, the ships that are out there as part of the
    carrier strike groups, but also our cruisers, destroyers. When
    you start putting F-35s out on amphibious ships, that's a
    tremendous capability to the battle force. How do we use that
    capability? What the sensors and weapons capabilities on the
    amphib ships to be able to contribute to that littoral ops in a
    contested environment?
        Senator Kaine. Another sort of future issue that my staff
    brought to my attention is, there is a Marine Corps Times
    article last month about thinking about the size of the marine
    rifle squads. So, traditionally, it's been 13. Could it be 11?
    Could it be 12? Could it be 14? Then that has downstream
    consequences, too. You know, the size of a helo that you use to
    take a squad from here to there would change if it were 14 over
    13. So, talk a little bit about that thought process and what's
    the status of it right now. Is it factoring in to, sort of,
    acquisitions thought, as well?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. It is. It's--you know, so it's
    one of those things is--we experiment. Things go fast. Things
    change quickly. So, we did a lot of experimentation with the
    ground force and what should be the right size of that squad.
    So, the Commandant right now--in fact, we spent this morning--I
    was kind of smiling because we spent this morning with him for
    about 2 hours on this, in an area that he's an expert on, and
    really drilling in that. I think the part that changes is, when
    you bring in all this technology, in the experiments that we've
    been using, in some ways it puts almost an increased burden on
    the squad, because now they have more capabilities. So, I'm
    trying to get it to where you can integrate these capabilities,
    like you do, say, in an F-35, and you're using the sensors----
        Senator Kaine. Right.
        General Walsh.--it's making it easier for the pilot. How
    are we, you know, able do that on the ground side? So, as we're
    changing looking at the different squad sizes, it does affect
    when you get into longer-term programs, like your amphibious
    combat vehicle. So, I think one of those things that's going to
    be ever changing. I think we have to be flexible with this. We
    can't lock ourselves down that, you know, if you have a larger-
    size squad or a smaller-size squad, you're going to have to
    kind of go and adapt with whatever capability you're already
    procuring.
        Senator Kaine. One other future capability issue that's an
    exciting one is--there's been a lot of stories recently about
    expected advances in battery technology, so batteries are
    really pushing ahead, and then that would give, you know,
    opportunities for a forward-deployed, you know, platoon or
    battalion to, maybe, stay out longer, less backing and
    forthing, you know, bringing energy to a forward-deployed unit.
    Talk a little bit about how you guys are using advances in
    battery technology to potentially augment your capability.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Yeah. Last year, we focused our
    whole experimentation effort in Sea Dragon, which is our
    experimentation effort on the infantry. This entire year, we're
    focused on the logistics combat element. So, a major part of
    that is reducing the load for the infantry, but it's how--what
    are we doing with hybrid electric capability, our ability to
    forage for power and use dirty power in different ways. So, a
    lot of effort is going on into that, and we're seeing the
    benefits of a lot of the capabilities that we're out there
    testing experimental. We think that we're going to be able to
    reduce a lot of the battery requirements in the future by
    significant amounts----
        Senator Kaine. Yeah.
        General Walsh.--by the technology that's out there, which
    is going to allow us to be much more maneuverable.
        Senator Kaine. Great. Thank you.
        Thanks, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Kaine.
        We're going to take another round. I'll go last. So,
    Senator Hirono, you're next.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        In November 2015, the Marine Corps awarded two contracts
    for the manufacture and test of 32 prototype ACV vehicles.
    Since that time, the vendors have each built 16 vehicles for
    testing, and the Marine Corps is on track to select a single
    vendor in June 2018. Given that the program remains on track
    for a vendor award, what lessons, if any, can the Marine Corps
    apply to future acquisition programs, based on the ACV
    acquisitions strategy?
        Mr. Smith. I'll take that one----
        Senator Hirono. Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith.--Senator.
        From an acquisition perspective--I'm the acquisition guy on
    the team--to get a good deal from our industry partners is key
    and foremost. Keeping the taxpayers' dollars down to minimum,
    but provide----
        Senator Hirono. We're all for that.
        Mr. Smith.--capability is what we strive for. Getting the
    good deal is my main objective. Providing the capability folks
    need in order to fight missions and do the things that the
    Marine Corps does, that's what we're here for. So, lessons
    learned, going forward: competition works. Competition drives
    industry partners to compete to--with one another, provide the
    capability we need. We're seeing and reaping great benefits
    from that competition alone.
        Senator Hirono. So----
        Mr. Smith. Things are on track.
        Senator Hirono. I assume that the two vendors that are in
    competition, though, while--as they develop their prototype
    vehicles, I mean, do we pay them for that----
        Mr. Smith. Absolutely.
        Senator Hirono.--development so that--they're not out of
    pocket, are they? So----
        Mr. Smith. Absolutely. The----
        Senator Hirono.--what you want to do is encourage this
    participation, their best efforts, and then they get the
    contract----
        Mr. Smith. Correct.
        Senator Hirono.--if they come up with a good vehicle. So,
    this is a--would you be following this kind of procurement
    method, going forward?
        Mr. Smith. Absolutely. This is how we should do business,
    going forward. Sole-source contracts--and I think we've proven,
    from the EFV [expeditionary fighting vehicle] vehicle that was
    before, they--they're very hard to control an industry partner
    with costs when they're a sole source. But, competition works,
    flying off to meet requirements are achieving the results that
    we're here to receive.
        Senator Hirono. On the other hand, do you think that this
    kind of competition is--it's very expensive. If we were to
    apply it to submarines or--you know, that gets a little
    trickier, doesn't it?
        Mr. Smith. Absolutely. Having grown up in the submarine
    acquisition world, 2 and a half billion, 3 billion a copy to
    pay for that twice, to----
        Senator Hirono. Yes.
        Mr. Smith.--run off 16 vehicles wouldn't be----
        Senator Hirono. Yeah. So, this kind of competition for
    the--is good in certain----
        Mr. Smith. For--from a unit-cost standpoint----
        Senator Hirono. Yeah.
        Mr. Smith.--I think it makes a great deal of sense for how
    we're operating the business. Absolutely.
        Senator Hirono. So, is that--if that works for the Marines,
    I hope that the other services are also learning from you guys
    to use that process.
        General, I was very curious. You used the term
    ``information warfare'' just now. How do you define that term?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. It's--we've kind of brought it
    in, in really all the different domains that had--have to do
    with information. So, when it could be psyops, psychological
    operations, getting information out there in that environment,
    electronic warfare, where we're sensing what's out in front of
    us. So, in some of the experiments, we put capabilities in the
    hands of our marines that we haven't used really since the
    1980s, early 1990s, where they could sense who was on a radio
    out in front of them, who is operating on what channel. If we
    located where they were at, we could jam them or attack them.
    Cyber warfare is in that area. So, all the intelligence we've
    grouped into that MEF information group, all those areas that
    have to do with that information, electronic warfare, signals
    intelligence, radio-frequency-type capabilities is what we've
    put into that area.
        Senator Hirono. So, are you saying that--for example, it is
    very clear that Russians engaged in information warfare in
    interfering with our elections. So, are you saying that the
    Marines are developing a capability to counter information
    warfare from near-peer competitors such as Russia and China?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. From the--you know, we've always
    had information capability. If you look at some of the things
    that we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of it's winning
    the hearts and minds, getting information out there, leaflet
    drops, those sort of things, that's all been part of it. But,
    now, taking it to that higher level--I go back to the next-
    generation capability. We've got capabilities that we can put
    out that'll push information out--radio, television,
    broadcasting--but it's going to go a lot higher-level
    capabilities that we've got, that we'd have to talk in a
    different forum. But, those exactly are the type of things that
    we'd be talking a lot--which kind of ties in also some of our
    cyber capabilities we're developing.
        Senator Hirono. So, the--so, you're developing, or you
    always had that capability in the kind of situation where--
    during World War II, for example. But, what happens in a
    civilian context, in a--in an election-year environment? Who's
    responsible for countering information warfare from Russia?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I--that's probably an area
    outside of my expertise, Senator. I probably would have to turn
    that over--you know, on--you know, in the combat environment--
    in fact, it's one of the areas that we're starting to have to
    deal with. You know, when you talk about long-range precision
    fires, some of those long-range precision fires are coming from
    the cyber area. As you know, we're trying to work into those
    areas. What is considered the battle space? How do we define
    that?
        Senator Hirono. Yes.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. You know, when you've got
    capabilities that are back in the continental United States,
    that we have reachback capability. You know, before, it was
    looking at UAS video feeds that we could look at back in
    continental United States and help offensive capability
    forward. We're seeing the same thing in some of these areas,
    where signals intelligence, information operations, or cyber,
    that we're having to kind of understand, in the future, how
    we're going to be able to use this.
        Senator Hirono. Yeah, I think you--you point out one of the
    reasons that I don't think we have a very cohesive strategy for
    countering the ongoing Russian efforts to interfere with our
    elections and our democracy.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
        Senator Sullivan.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Since you mentioned it, I thought I would go back to this
    issue of training, hard training. General, I was----
        Senator Wicker. You said it.
        Senator Sullivan.--I heard, recently, that the standard--
    and I don't know when this was dropped, but, as you know, the
    Marine Corps infantry battalions used to go through an annual
    training exercise, where one of the elements of what they had
    to complete was a 26-mile hump, force march. When you think
    back to, again, some of the high-end conflicts that our
    country's been in, and how we're starting to focus on that
    world again, are we going to start looking at--back at those
    kind of training standards that are, you know, long foot
    maneuvers that we used to do a lot of and now I guess we're not
    doing those at all?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Senator, I'd probably have to
    take that--let me take that for the record, exactly what are in
    our Marine Corps combat readiness evaluations, which are our
    certification exercises before units deploy forward.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Infantry battalions are evaluated, to standard, on the conduct of a
    forced march as a part of the Marine Corps Combat Readiness Evaluation.
        The standard is contained in Navy/Marine Corps publication 3500.44B
    Infantry Training and Readiness Manual, and is used to evaluate
    infantry battalion's ability to conduct a foot-mobile displacement
    without external support.
        The conditions under which infantry units must perform include
    marching a distance of 20km in a time limit of 5 hours, with 95 percent
    of the force remaining mission capable while carrying an approach march
    load of 90 pounds (+/- 10 percent) with additional organic weapons and
    mission essential equipment.

        Senator Sullivan. Right.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. As I think about this, a lot of
    the things that we were doing, in Afghanistan especially, was
    marines humping a long distance with heavy gear, carrying that.
    So, a lot of our standards were focused on hikes in what were
    in our training and readiness standards for hikes. So, I'll
    have to take that back and see--now, as we're now trying to
    look at higher-end conflict, how are our training and readiness
    and our certification exercises changing specifically in that
    hike area.
        Senator Sullivan. Okay.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. Back to your earlier piece, what
    I do know, though, we're doing is looking at our units where--
    is anybody emitting on frequency? Are they all silent? Are they
    able to operate in a mission control? What are they doing
    against air threats? We've got capabilities now, where we're
    using multiple UASs out there against the force. So, we're
    trying to up the game in that area. When it comes to the hike
    standard, I'll have to get back to you on that, specifically.
        Senator Sullivan. Okay, thank you.
        I also wanted to talk--just kind of broadening the aperture
    much further now. You know, I know the Commandant and the
    leadership of the Marine Corps has been looking at the issue
    with some of the other services, particularly the Air Force, on
    the force posture in the Asia-Pacific. If you look at, you
    know, where the Marine Corps is really postured, a lot of it--
    and the Army--a lot of it is actually, kind of, you know, if
    you take a snapshot at the end of World War II, and a snapshot
    at the end of the Korean War--and there hasn't been a lot of,
    kind of, redeployment and thinking of, you know, where our
    forces in the Asia-Pacific should be deployed. I know we've had
    this deployment to Darwin. My understanding is, you know, there
    are elements of that that may have had kind of a--an idea from
    the NSC [National Security Council], not driven by the Marine
    Corps or the DOD, but a, you know, more political idea during
    the Obama administration to do the Darwin deployment.
        I mean, how are we looking at the forces in Okinawa, forces
    in mainland Japan, forces on Guam, in terms of the next 50
    years? I mean, we need to get it right, and it does seem, to a
    number of us--and, you know, Senator McCain's taken a lot of
    interest in this issue, I have--that we haven't, kind of,
    looked at the future and said, ``Hey, where should we be?''
    Particularly given the new National Defense Strategy that has
    China as the facing threat with regard to the Asia-Pacific, in
    terms of our national security.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. That's probably fair to say, that
    the strategy is new. How does, say, the DPRI [Defense Policy
    Review Institute], the agreed-to Pacific laydown, how does that
    match up against that? I'd have to take that for the record to
    see how senior leadership is matching up the current agreed
    DPRI. I've not heard of any changes to the DPRI----
        Senator Sullivan. Right.
        General Walsh.--to match up against what the strategic new
    National Defense Strategy is. What it--so, I--I'll take that
    part for the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        With the publication of the new National Defense Strategy (NDS) the
    Marine Corps continues to refine how it intends to implement the new
    strategy. This will be a deliberative process as the Marine Corps
    strives to ensure it is postured in a manner to best respond to threats
    within the strategic environment. This posture includes forward
    stationed, forward deployed and CONUS based capabilities.
        In the broader Asia Pacific, consistent with the NDS, our forward
    deployed Marines, as part of the Navy-Marine Corps team, operate within
    the contact and blunt layer to compete more effectively below the level
    of armed conflict. Should hostilities ensue, combat credible contact
    forces will set the conditions for the naval forces deploying as part
    of the war-winning surge force.
        Additionally, the Marine Corps continues to further strengthen our
    alliances and attract new partners through our forward presence and
    readily available forces to engage with partners and allies.
        With regard to the Defense Policy Review Initiative, it is the
    largest on-going posture initiative. At the Security Consultative
    Committee (2+2) meeting in August 2017, Secretary Mattis and Secretary
    Tillerson, along with the Japanese Ministers of Defense and Foreign
    Affairs, reaffirmed our governments' mutual commitment to implement the
    realignment plan for United States Forces in Japan, including Okinawa.
    In noting the progress being made in implementing the Guam relocation,
    they confirmed our mutual determination to steadily implement the Guam
    International Agreement.
        It is natural to regularly review the progress of plan
    implementation and consider whether adjustments are necessary. Since
    the plan's inception in 2006, we have consistently worked with our
    Japanese partners to ensure we have the best operational laydown and
    make adjustments. At this time, there has been no determination to seek
    changes to the plan.

        Lieutenant General Walsh. What I would say, though, is,
    looking at the strategic competition with, say, China in the
    Pacific is--much of what we're doing now is focusing on allies,
    partners, working with them closely. A lot of it is in the
    higher-end combat area, building those capabilities as
    partnerships and alliances, differently than we probably would
    have before we had the National Defense Strategy.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Okay, thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
        Gentlemen, did it offend or surprise either of you to hear
    me say that I'd heard concerns that the Marines may have
    prioritized readiness recovery on aviation, to the detriment of
    combat?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I think, over the last, probably,
    couple of years, Senator, there's been a lot of metrics
    associated with our aviation readiness. So, the good thing I
    would say about aviation, it's a very technical area, and it's
    very easy--I shouldn't say easy, but it's an area where we have
    a lot of focused attention on readiness. We can grade that work
    very closely. A lot of it has to do with mishaps over the years
    that we've occurred--that have occurred, to not focusing on
    readiness and the right equipment at right place and time. So,
    I think looking at, over the last 2 years, how much we've
    ridden our aircraft so hard that we could see that the
    readiness had gone down, and a lot of our industrial capacity
    wasn't there. So, I think we've improved that over the last
    couple of years, and now, I think, as the focus goes from the
    readiness side, I think our reset on the ground side is going
    very well. It's almost complete. So, I would say our readiness
    on the ground side is not something that's as a high concern as
    much as the modernization capability of the equipment that we
    have not put a lot of money into ground future readiness versus
    current readiness.
        Senator Wicker. Okay. Then, let me ask you--I don't think
    we got around--back around to very shallow mine
    countermeasures. So--I mean, I brought that up in my opening
    statement--so, how are we doing on that? The situation is that
    we've done pretty well with our deep water, but not so good on
    the full ship-to-shore. So, who'd like to take that.
        Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, I'll take that one, Senator. Thank you.
        The Navy and Marine Corps continue to work together on
    their mine countermeasure doctrine. Very shallow water into the
    surf zone, into the--what's--what we're going to call the
    clearance coordination line, getting to that point, the
    clearance coordination line, that's the Navy's responsibility,
    to get the Marine Corps to that point and clear mines in that
    path. It's the Marine Corps' responsibility from the clearance
    coordination line on to that inward target, to clear mines from
    that standpoint, on--once they're on shore. The Navy and Marine
    Corps, as I said, are working very closely, jointly to make
    sure that that mission still concurs. But, the doctrine hasn't
    changed for decades. But----
        Senator Wicker. Well, do we have a deficiency, when it
    comes to shallow water countermeasures?
        Mr. Smith. We have challenges in that area, Senator. From a
    physics-based standpoint, there are certain things that you
    just can't do, and technology today may not get you there
    solely. Not yet.
        Senator Wicker. What about that, General?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. It's--I think, like Mr. Smith
    said, this is a hard problem. To try to find mines in surf in
    that beach zone, very shallow water, is a difficult, difficult
    problem. What I will say is--you talked about the littoral
    combat ship, and how that is focused on deeper water, but I
    wouldn't say deep water--I'd have to go back into what the Navy
    terminology is--very shallow water--but, where I would say the
    Navy has put a lot of effort on is getting capabilities in the
    hands of the Naval Expeditionary Combat Command, outside of the
    littoral combat ships. I know I--I talked to Admiral Merz about
    this--over the FYDP [Future Year Defense Program]--who's the N9
    over at OPNAV--the Navy's put over a billion dollars into mine
    countermeasures over the Fiscal Year Defense Plan. So, a lot of
    effort's going in there, because I think the technology is
    getting much better with unmanned systems that can cover much
    more of the water area--the water column.
        Still, the surf zone in that beach zone is a real difficult
    problem. One of the things the Commandant had me working with
    JIIEDO, who is focused on mines on land, what capabilities and
    technology do they have that can help us in that beach zone,
    surf zone? So, it's a tough problem, but I think technology's
    getting better, and certainly the Navy investment is increasing
    tremendously.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate your
    testimony, and we appreciate your service.
        This hearing is closed.
        [Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]

        [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

               Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
                         laser warning receiver system
        1. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Smith and Lieutenant General Walsh,
    since 1994, the Marine Corps has had a requirement to incorporate a
    laser warning receiver system to protect Marine Corps combat vehicles
    from threats. The requirement was part of a joint effort between the
    Marine Corps and the Army, and included the M1A1 Main Battle Tank, the
    Marine Corps' Light Armored Vehicle (LAV), and Assault Amphibious
    Vehicle (AAV). The requirement continues to be unfunded in the budget
    year after year--while Russian and Chinese ground vehicles already
    possess laser warning receiver systems. Why has this laser warning
    receiver system requirement not been fielded? Are you working toward
    fielding it in the near term? What are the obstacles?
        Mr. Smith and Lieutenant General Walsh. A Laser Warning Receiver
    System (LWRS) for the M1 Main Battle Tank (MBT) was tested in a
    developmental program in 2012. At that time, the system was found to be
    insufficiently mature for integration onto the M1. Specifically, the
    LWRS was not able to achieve the required accuracy needed to provide
    the crew with effective battlefield situational awareness. Given this
    limitation, other more operationally effective modernization projects
    were prioritized and resourced. The Marine Corps, in coordination with
    the U.S. Army's Vehicle Protection Suite (VPS) Office, will pursue the
    maturation of LWRS capability in the near-term with the intention to
    transition and integrate this capability onto several combat platforms,
    to include the M1 MBT. The Marine Corps, in close coordination with the
    U.S. Army, will continue to make best use of common M1-based subsystems
    to improve our combat vehicle capabilities.

        2. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Smith and Lieutenant General Walsh, what
    capability can a laser warning receiver system bring to Marine Corps
    ground systems?
        Mr. Smith and Lieutenant General Walsh. An effective LWRS
    integrated onto a combat vehicle system increases the situational
    awareness of the vehicle crew and improves system survivability. An
    LWRS provides the vehicle crew with a warning when they are lased by
    threat weapons that possess laser range finders such as main battle
    tanks, or laser guidance systems such as advanced anti-armor weapon
    systems. An LWRS is best exploited as part of an integrated vehicle
    protection suite that employs this sensor capability in conjunction
    with other system survivability technologies such as active protection
    and rapid obscuration systems.

     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
                   2019 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2018

                          United States Senate,
                              Subcommittee on Seapower,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                                                        Washington, DC.

                           NAVY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m. in
    Room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Roger F.
    Wicker (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Subcommittee Members present: Senators Wicker, Cotton,
    Scott, Hirono, Shaheen, Kaine, and King.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROGER F. WICKER

        Senator Wicker. Good afternoon. The Senate Armed Services
    Subcommittee on Seapower convenes this afternoon to examine
    Navy shipbuilding programs.
        We welcome our three distinguished witnesses: the Honorable
    James F. Geurts, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
    Development, and Acquisition; Vice Admiral William R. Merz,
    Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems; and
    Lieutenant General Robert S. Walsh, Deputy Commandant of the
    Marine Corps for Combat Development and Integration.
        Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. This is the
    first appearance of Secretary Geurts and Admiral Merz before
    this Subcommittee, so let me extend a special welcome and
    thanks for your decades of service to our Nation to all three
    of you.
        The Navy's fiscal year 2019 budget request includes 10 new
    construction ships, which is one more than the number requested
    last year. The 2019 request also details plans to build 11
    additional ships over the next 5 years, as compared to last
    year's request. The Navy battle fleet currently stands at 282
    ships.
        In 2016, the Navy increased its minimum requirement to 355
    ships. This Subcommittee took that requirement seriously. In
    fact, every Member of this Subcommittee cosponsored legislation
    that I introduced last year, the SHIPS [Servicing the Homeland
    by Increasing our Power on the Seas] Act, to make achieving 355
    ships the official policy of the United States. The SHIPS Act
    was included in the fiscal year 2018 National Defense
    Authorization Act.
        I want to give due credit to our colleagues at the other
    end of Capitol Hill. Members of the House Subcommittee and
    committee were also entirely supportive.
        This act was signed into law by President Donald Trump in
    December.
        A 355-ship fleet is not just a requirement. It is the law.
    We take it seriously, and we believe the Navy should take it
    seriously also.
        The Navy's long-awaited 30-year shipbuilding plan
    accompanied the fiscal year 2019 budget request. In its current
    form, the shipbuilding plan does not reach the 355-ship
    requirement in the next 30 years. In 2048, the last year of the
    plan, the fleet would have just 335 ships. This is
    unacceptable.
        My phone is talking to me, so I am trying to turn it off.
        This is unacceptable. In this light, though, we have good
    news. I am pleased that the Navy announced plans last week to
    extend the service lives of the entire class of Arleigh Burke-
    class destroyers.
        I understand that this move will accelerate the time to
    reach 355 ships from the 2050s to the mid-2030s. This is good
    news, and we look forward to seeing destroyer life extensions
    included in future budgets and shipbuilding plans.
        The current shipbuilding plan, as I said, increases the
    fleet size to 326. After the first 5 years, however, according
    to the plan, we see a dip in fleet size, where it declines
    before modestly increasing in the 2030s and 2040s. As
    mentioned, the Navy's recently announced plan to extend the
    Burke class destroyers should reduce or hopefully eliminate the
    dip and keep the fleet on an upward trajectory.
        More can be done, and this Subcommittee wants to be a
    partner with you, gentlemen, to move this as quickly as
    possible.
        The shipbuilding plan contains three assumptions that are
    central to the speed at which the Navy can reach 355 ships.
    Let's explore each of these assumptions.
        Assumption A, limited ship service life extensions planned
    after the first 5 years. Beyond the five Los Angeles-class
    submarines and the Burke-class, the Navy should identify future
    candidates for service life extensions. Amphibious ships and
    Nimitz-class aircraft carriers should be reviewed in detail.
        Assumption B, overall shipbuilding funding levels will
    decline significantly after 2035. The plan includes a sharp
    drop in projected shipbuilding funding from roughly $24 billion
    in 2035 to $16 billion in 2036, and it remains below $20
    billion per year until the mid-2040s. The drop in funding is
    related to the end of the Columbia-class procurement. However,
    the plan provides no justification for why the shipbuilding
    account should decline so significantly and never recover. How
    much faster could the Navy achieve the 355-ship requirement for
    our Nation's security if shipbuilding funding remained at
    roughly $24 billion per year?
        Assumption C, unspecified supplemental funding for
    Columbia-class submarines. The shipbuilding plan discusses the
    general need for supplemental funding related to the Columbia-
    class but does not provide specific dollar amounts. In 2013,
    the Navy told Congress it needed about $4 billion per year in
    supplemental funding over 15 years, totaling $60 billion for
    Columbia. Absent supplemental funding, Navy officials further
    stated that Columbia's pressure on the shipbuilding account
    would cause the elimination of about 32 other ships from its
    30-year shipbuilding plan. Congress needs clear and specific
    estimates of the supplemental funding needed to avoid drastic
    reductions to the rest of the shipbuilding portfolio.
        In addition to discussing A, B, and C of the shipbuilding
    plan and the above assumptions, the Subcommittee would like to
    hear our witnesses' views on four other key issues.
        First, industrial base vitality. Reaching the Navy's 355-
    ship objective is not possible without the unique skills,
    capabilities, and capacities inherent to our new construction
    shipyards, repair facilities, and dedicated suppliers. The
    witnesses should describe the budget request's effects on the
    shipbuilding industrial base.
        In this regard, I was pleased to see the Navy recently
    released a request for proposal that would enable a block buy
    or combined procurement of two aircraft carriers.
        Second, best use of taxpayer resources. This Subcommittee
    will continue to conduct oversight of shipbuilding programs to
    ensure the Navy is making the best use of taxpayer dollars.
    Congress expects Navy shipbuilding programs to deliver promised
    capability on time and on budget. Schedule delays and cost
    growth put additional strain on the legacy platforms that these
    new ships will replace.
        Third, building the future force. This Subcommittee also
    has a duty to shape the future of our Navy. Notably, each of
    our surface combatant ships, cruisers, destroyers, and littoral
    combat ships will begin retiring within the next 20 years. Now
    is the time to determine the requirements for our future
    surface combatants and their associated munitions.
        Fourth, amphibious ships. I am interested in the ways we
    can address the demand from our combatant commanders for
    amphibious ships. The combatant commanders need more than 50
    amphibious ships on a day-to-day operational basis, but the
    current inventory includes only 32 amphibious ships. The
    witnesses should discuss the Navy's ability to efficiently
    procure the next amphibious assault ship now called a Flight II
    LPD. Given the Flight II LPD is a close derivative of the
    Flight I LPD, I would like to know if the Navy believes Flight
    II LPDs are ready for so-called block buys or multiyear
    procurement.
        We are also interested in options to accelerate the next
    big deck amphibious ship, LHA-9.
        So there is a myriad of things to discuss.
        There is no time to waste. As the new National Defense
    Strategy states, we are engaged in a great power competition.
    This is serious business for the security of our Nation and its
    citizens. If we do not take action, the consequences will be
    dire. Our maritime warfighting edge is eroding. If we fail, I
    fear General Dunford's assessment will come to pass that,
    ``Within 5 years, we will lose our ability to project power,
    the basis for how we defend the Homeland, advance U.S.
    interests, and meet our alliance commitments.''
        So thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I now turn to my
    good friend and Ranking Member, Senator Hirono.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAZIE K. HIRONO

        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have certainly
    kept a laser-beam focus on getting to a 355-ship Navy.
        He is very persuasive. That is how he got all of us to sign
    on to the bill, which became law.
        So I certainly join you, Mr. Chairman, in welcoming all of
    our witnesses. We are grateful to each of you for your service
    to our country. We are also grateful for your families, because
    when you serve, your families also serve.
        Our witnesses face significant challenges as you strive to
    balance the need to support ongoing operations and sustained
    readiness with the need to modernize and maintain technological
    advantages that are critical to military successes, especially
    as we know what the Chinese and Russians are doing,
    particularly the Chinese, to modernize their military.
        These threats require us to consider how we can ensure that
    the Navy and Marine Corps have the resources they need.
    However, any increase in resources cannot come at the expense
    of important domestic programs that families, including our
    military families, rely on every day.
        Navy shipbuilding programs play a critical role in
    supporting and advancing our country's strategic interests in
    the Indo-Asia-Pacific region, including, of course, from bases
    in Hawaii. From where I sit, I think that America is basically
    a naval power, and we understand that very well at Pacific
    Command.
        With that in mind, this Subcommittee has focused on
    improving acquisition stewardship and ensuring that we are
    getting good value for every shipbuilding dollar that we spend.
    Last year, we were pleased with the Chief of Naval Operations'
    new force structure assessment, which recommended that we move
    toward a 355-ship Navy.
        While the new 30-year shipbuilding plan that the Navy
    submitted with the fiscal year 2019 budget request would lead
    to increasing the size of the fleet, it would not meet that
    355-ship goal, as noted by the chairman. This 30-year plan
    would meet the attack submarine force goal of 66 boats in 2048.
    However, in the same year, we would have a force of nine
    aircraft carriers compared to the goal of 12 carriers, and 92
    large surface combatants versus the goal of 104. We need to
    understand the steps that the Navy will be taking to address
    these shortfalls.
        A significant factor that bears on our discussions this
    year is that Secretary Mattis has published a new defense
    strategy that is intended to guide force structure development
    and modernization programs to increase capability. It is
    reasonable to speculate that the implications of this new
    defense strategy of the Department of the Navy could yield
    increased demand for naval forces and complicate the Navy's
    plans to achieve its force structure goal.
        Whatever the case, I am very encouraged that the Navy is
    focusing on a vital component of maintaining a ready and
    capable fleet, and that would be the Navy shipyards.
        The Navy is planning to establish a program of record for
    modernizing the shipyards; will name a full-fledged program
    manager to oversee the program; and, later this year, will
    publish a master plan to guide this modernization. For too
    long, the Navy has been ignoring the vital contribution of the
    public shipyards and its highly trained work force in places
    such as, of course, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard.
        I look forward to working with the Navy to ensure that the
    shipyard modernization program stays on track and to hearing
    your testimony this afternoon.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Senator Hirono.
        Now I am told that, Secretary Geurts, you will make a
    verbal statement, and that will stand for all three of our
    witnesses. Is that correct?
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. You are now recognized.

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES F. GEURTS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
        OF THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION;
    ACCOMPANIED BY VICE ADMIRAL WILLIAM R. MERZ, USN, DEPUTY CHIEF
    OF NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR WARFARE SYSTEMS (OPNAV N9); LIEUTENANT
      GENERAL ROBERT S. WALSH, USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR COMBAT
     DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION, COMMANDING GENERAL, MARINE CORPS
    COMBAT DEVELOPMENT COMMAND, AND COMMANDER, UNITED STATES MARINE
                        FORCES STRATEGIC COMMAND

        Secretary Geurts. Thank you, sir. Chairman Wicker, Ranking
    Member Hirono, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,
    thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today to
    address the Department of the Navy's shipbuilding plans.
        I am joined today by Vice Admiral Bill Merz, Deputy Chief
    of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems, and Lieutenant General
    Bob Walsh, Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and
    Integration.
        With your permission, I intend to provide brief opening
    remarks for the three of us and submit our formal statement for
    the record.
        Senator Wicker. Without objection.
        Secretary Geurts. As detailed in the 2018 National Security
    Strategy and the 2018 National Defense Strategy, it is
    imperative that we continuously adapt to the emerging security
    environment in order to retain and expand our competitive
    advantage, and to do so with a sense of urgency.
        This requires the right balance of naval readiness,
    capability, and capacity, as well as budget stability and
    predictability. It requires a Navy of at least 355 ships.
        The fiscal year 2018 Bipartisan Budget Act and the fiscal
    year 2019 President's budget chart a course to begin building
    this larger, more capable battle force the Navy and the Nation
    need.
        Strong congressional support in the 2018 Bipartisan Budget
    Act funded 14 ships in fiscal year 2018, an increase of five
    ships, including the lead Flight II LPD-17 class amphibious
    ship. It also includes strong support for the critical
    industrial base, a key element to our national security.
        Thank you for that unwavering support.
        The 2019 budget further builds this larger and more capable
    force and reflects the continued commitment to produce a 355-
    ship Navy. When compared with the 2018 President's budget, the
    2019 request adds 11 more battle force ships over the FYDP
    [Future Year Defense Program] for a total of 54 ships, with
    three additional ships in 2019, as well as advanced procurement
    for the Columbia SSBN.
        As stated up front in the shipbuilding plan, the Navy
    continues to aggressively pursue options to accelerate the
    achievement of the 355-ship Navy. Executing ship construction
    profiles in the FYDP coupled with extending the service life of
    the DDG-51 class and targeted service extensions of up to five
    SSNs provides an achievable strategy to reaching our goal of
    355 ships on the 2030s.
        As this service life analysis work continues across all
    classes of ships, you will see adjustments to our timelines in
    subsequent shipbuilding plans. As we accelerate growing our
    Navy to meet the 355-ship requirement, we will also be working
    to ensure we deliver the best mix of our overall naval
    capabilities to meet the National Defense Strategy, including
    additional focus on the logistics fleet and hospital ships.
        We look forward to continuing to work closely with this
    Subcommittee on the options and opportunities to achieve the
    Navy the Nation needs urgently and affordably. We thank you for
    the strong support this Subcommittee has provided to the
    Department of the Navy and the opportunity to appear before you
    today to discuss this important topic. We look forward to
    answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Geurts follows:]

         Joint Prepared Statement by The Honorable James F. Geurts and
      Lieutenant General Robert S. Walsh and Vice Admiral William R. Merz
        Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Hirono, and distinguished Members
    of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today to address the Department of Navy's seapower programs. First we
    would like to thank Congress for your support of the Bipartisan Budget
    Act of 2018. Enactment of this legislation will help provide the
    predictability and stability in funding that is critical to our success
    and will support building the Navy the Nation Needs, the maritime
    component of the National Defense Strategy.
        The strategic environment continues to become more sophisticated,
    uncertain, and technologically charged. The proliferation of modern
    conventional and cyber weapons to a broader range of state and non-
    state entities, along with the erosion of our competitive advantage in
    areas where we have long enjoyed relative superiority, is likely to
    continue as rival states attempt to contest our influence. Competition
    for natural resources, violent extremism, natural disasters, social
    unrest, cyber-attacks, regional conflict, and the increase of advanced
    weaponry create a range of challenges for a globally responsive force.
        As detailed in the 2018 National Security Strategy and the 2018
    National Defense Strategy, in order to retain and expand our
    competitive advantage, it is imperative that we continuously adapt to
    the emerging security environment--and do so with a sense of urgency.
    This requires the right balance of readiness, capability, and capacity,
    as well as budget stability and predictability. Together, we can ensure
    our military's capability, capacity, and readiness can continue to
    deliver superior naval power around the world, both today and tomorrow.
        As part of our enduring commitment to accelerating delivery of
    advanced capabilities to the warfighter, the Department continues its
    pursuits of accelerated acquisition and business process reforms. We
    are utilizing accelerated acquisition authorities Congress provided
    under the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act including
    implementation of accelerated acquisition policies for Rapid
    Prototyping. We are actively promoting innovation, government/academia
    partnerships, and the transition of key manufacturing technologies and
    processes with investments focused on affordability and capabilities
    most beneficial to the warfighter.
        As part of the Joint Force, the maritime dimension of the National
    Defense Strategy is to increase American naval power by building the
    Navy the Nation Needs (NNN). The Annual Long-Range Plan for
    Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2019 is the roadmap to
    attain a 355-ship fleet, prioritizing three elements that the Navy will
    pursue to grow the force: (1) Steady, sustainable growth and an
    establishment of minimum baseline acquisition profiles that grow the
    force at a stable, affordable rate. This includes the sustainment of
    the industrial base at a level that supports affordable acquisition,
    predictable and efficient maintenance and modernization, and an
    appropriately sized workforce for more aggressive growth if additional
    resources become available. (2) Aggressive growth that more rapidly
    attains the same warfighting requirements as increased resources and
    industrial capacity permit. (3) Service Life Extensions (SLEs) that
    evaluate the potential additional service life that can be gained
    through restoration and modernization based on capability improvement
    costs versus unit replacement criteria. By balancing long-term growth
    profiles with targeted SLEs and aggressive growth options, the Navy
    will be able to stabilize the industrial base and set the foundation
    for growing the force towards its warfighting requirement.
        Similarly, to increase its competitive advantage over pacing
    threats, the Marine Corps will rapidly adapt and modernize in an
    affordable way, which depends greatly on predictable funding. In
    anticipation of the changing threat, the Marine Corps began
    implementation of the Marine Operating Concept (MOC) in 2016, codifying
    the long-term vision for how the service will operate, fight, and win
    in the future. This concept identified the need for a more lethal,
    resilient force able to contribute to all domain access, sea control,
    power projection, maritime security and therefore deterrence in any
    threat environment. The MOC is directly in line with the recently
    published National Defense Strategy which highlights the requirement
    for increased strategic flexibility and freedom of action. The MOC and
    its implementation prepare the Marine Corps to operate as part of the
    Contact, Blunt, and Surge forces identified in the National Defense
    Strategy, specifically as part of the naval force. Marines operate
    regularly within these three layers today, making the modernization
    priorities highlighted in the Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget all
    the more critical.
        The Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget Request
        The Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget was informed by the 2018
    National Security Strategy and the 2018 National Defense Strategy and
    charts a course to building a larger, more capable battle force the
    nation needs.
        The 2018 National Defense Authorization Act supports Navy's
    validated NNN requirement for 355 Battle Force ships, which is based
    upon analysis and acceptable strategic and operational risk, to address
    the evolving and increasingly complex responsibilities. The Fiscal Year
    2019 President's Budget request builds towards this larger and more
    lethal force and reflects the continued commitment to produce a 355
    ship Navy with the correct mix of ships; a commitment that increasingly
    values speed, lethality, stealth, information, and design margin for
    modernization as key attributes for future platforms--providing
    warfighting commanders capabilities in increasingly contested
    environments across all phases of warfare.
        When compared to the Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget request,
    the Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget adds 11 more Battle Force ships
    over the Future Year Defense Program for a total of 54, with three
    additional ships in Fiscal Year 2019. The Fiscal Year 2019 request
    includes procurement of ten ships in Fiscal Year 2019: two SSN 774
    Virginia-class attack submarines; three DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class
    destroyers; one Littoral Combat Ship (LCS); one Expeditionary Sea Base
    (ESB); two John Lewis-class fleet oilers (T-AO); and one Towing,
    Salvage and Rescue ship (T-ATS). The Fiscal Year 2019 President's
    Budget provides for SLEs on 11 Battle Force ships including six
    Cruisers, four Mine Countermeasure ships, and one Improved Los Angeles-
    class SSN. The Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget request also
    includes funding for SLEs on 21 vessels in the Ready Reserve Force
    (RRF) and the Military Sealift Command surge fleet. The Fiscal Year
    2019 President's Budget request includes funding for procurement of two
    used commercial auxiliary vessels in fiscal year 2021 and 2022, as
    authorized in the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act.
        With sustained funding provided in a timely manner and the
    execution of qualifying SLEs, the Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget
    as described in the NNN shipbuilding plan puts the Navy on a path to
    326 ships by Fiscal Year 2023 and 355 ships by the early 2050s. The
    plan promotes a stable and efficient industrial base that encourages
    industry investment in capital improvements, capital expansion, and a
    properly sized world-class workforce. It is a realistic plan that
    reflects the imperative to remain balanced across investments in
    readiness and advanced capabilities in an era of unpredictable funding
    levels. By setting conditions for an enduring industrial base as a top
    priority, working together with Congress, the Navy is postured to
    aggressively respond to more investment in any year, which if received
    in all years, combined with SLEs and strong industry response, could
    attain the warfighting NNN target of 355 ships as early as the 2030s--
    balanced, credible and sustainable.
                                    summary
        The ascendant threats posed by revisionist powers and rogue states
    require change--we must become more lethal, resilient and as a
    consequence, a more capable deterrent. The Navy-Marine Corps team is
    re-evaluating our contributions to all domain access, sea control,
    power projection, maritime security, and deterrence knowing that we
    must consider the tactical and operational details of a contingency--
    and how our contributions could shape the strategic environment to
    prevent conflict. Modern sensors and precision weapons with expanding
    ranges and lethality are redefining how we assess our posture and
    relative combat power.
        The Department of the Navy continues to increase capacity,
    lethality, and availability with the shipbuilding, aviation, and
    expeditionary programs. New capabilities are continually being
    delivered to the fleet and retrofitted on existing platforms to provide
    enhanced lethality and survivability to the warfighter. In addition,
    the Department is aggressively pursuing efforts to accelerate
    acquisition timelines and schedules and further drive affordability
    into our programs, in order to deliver capability to our warfighters
    faster and be as effective as possible within our resources. Continued
    congressional support of the Department's plans and budgets will help
    sustain a viable industrial base, as will timely enactment of
    appropriations, avoiding costly Continuing Resolutions. This request
    lays the ground work for growing warfighting capabilities in the Fiscal
    Year 2020 President's Budget, as the Department also makes initial
    investments in a larger Navy and Marine Corps.
        We thank you for your continued support of the Navy and Marine
    Corps and request your support of the Fiscal Year 2019 President's
    Budget.
        Programmatic details regarding Navy and Marine Corps capabilities
    are summarized in the following section.
             u.s. navy and marine corps seapower capabilities ships
    Aircraft Carriers
        The aircraft carrier is the centerpiece of the Navy's Carrier
    Strike Groups and central to Navy core missions of sea control,
    maritime security, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
    Nimitz and Ford-class carriers will be the premier forward-deployed
    asset of choice for crisis response and early decisive striking power
    in major combat operations for the next half-century. The Department
    has established a steady state Ford-class procurement plan designed to
    deliver each new ship in close alignment with the Nimitz-class ship it
    replaces.
        We continue to see progress in the testing of new systems aboard
    USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). As of this January, CVN 78 has completed
    six underway events and conducted over 700 catapult launches and
    arrestments with Navy jets, including over a hundred launches and
    recoveries in one day on two separate occasions. These fixed wing
    operations were successfully supported by a number of aviation systems,
    while others will require continued refinement as they continue to
    support ongoing shipboard testing. The John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) is over
    40 percent complete with launch planned in late 2019 and delivery in
    the fall of 2024. The Navy is pursuing contracting actions necessary to
    continue fabrication of Enterprise (CVN 80) in Fiscal Year 2018 and
    preserve the delivery date to achieve significant cost reductions.
        The Nimitz-class Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH) is key to both
    the maintenance and modernization of each carrier in support of the
    second half of its service life. USS George Washington (CVN 73) began
    her mid-life recapitalization in August 2017 with re-delivery planned
    in summer 2021 to accomplish refueling of the ship's reactors,
    modernization, and repair of ship systems and infrastructure. The USS
    John C. Stennis (CVN 74) RCOH advance planning contract award is
    scheduled in summer 2018.
    Submarines
        Ballistic Missile Submarines, coupled with the Trident II D-5
    Strategic Weapons System, represent the most survivable leg of the
    Nation's strategic arsenal and provide the Nation's most assured
    nuclear response capability. The Columbia-class program is on track to
    start construction in October 2020 and deliver to pace the retirement
    of our current ballistic missile submarines, deploying for its first
    patrol in fiscal year 2031. Topline relief will be required for the
    Navy to fund serial production of the Columbia-class SSBN.
        The Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget supports the funding
    required to achieve a target of 83 percent design completion at
    construction start in Fiscal Year 2021. In September 2017, the Navy
    awarded General Dynamics Electric Boat a $5.1 billion contract for the
    design completion, technology development, and prototype manufacturing
    for the Columbia-class program. The contract leverages the authorities
    contained within the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund and
    incentivizes construction readiness, affordability and supplier base
    capability and capacity. The Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget
    request also funds Continuous Production of Missile Tubes and will
    support Advance Construction of long lead time material. Both efforts
    will improve manufacturing efficiencies and vendor learning, maintain
    critical production skills, and reduce costs by leveraging high-volume
    procurements.
        In addition to the Department of the Navy's budget request, the
    continued support of Congress for Naval Reactors' Department of Energy
    funding is vital to the Navy mission and ensuring the safe, reliable,
    and enduring operations of the nuclear-powered fleet. The President's
    Fiscal Year 2019 budget fully funds Naval Reactors' request for the
    Columbia-class SSBN. Recapitalizing this capability is critical to the
    Navy's readiness, specifically by ensuring adherence to the tight
    refueling and defueling schedule of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers
    and submarines.
        The long-term strategy for our attack submarines and future payload
    submarine is the Tactical Submarine Evolution Plan, or TESP, which
    features the Virginia-class SSN. The Virginia-class program is
    continuing to deliver submarines within budget and with increased
    capability in each block. The Navy will be building on past success by
    awarding a Block V Multiyear Procurement (MYP) contract for 10 ships in
    Fiscal Year 2019. Starting with the second ship in Fiscal Year 2019,
    these submarines will introduce the Virginia Payload Module and
    Acoustic Superiority.
        In 2016, the Navy established the Integrated Enterprise Plan to
    provide a framework for an integrated approach to support Columbia,
    Virginia, and Ford-class construction. This long-term government and
    contractor effort will guide the execution of these nuclear-powered
    platforms affordably, on time, to specifications, in the necessary
    quantities, and with acceptable risk.
    Large Surface Combatants
        The Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) program remains one of the Navy's
    most successful shipbuilding programs with 65 ships delivered to the
    Fleet. The Fiscal Year 2018 to 2022 MYP maximizes affordability,
    stabilizes the industrial base, and has the flexibility to add
    additional ships. All ships in this MYP will incorporate Integrated Air
    and Missile Defense and provide additional Ballistic Missile Defense
    capacity known as Flight III, which incorporates the Air and Missile
    Defense Radar (AMDR). AMDR meets the growing ballistic missile threat
    by improving radar sensitivity and enabling longer range detection of
    increasingly complex threats. The program demonstrated design maturity
    through its successful completion of several stages of developmental
    testing, its entry into the Production and Deployment phase, and Fiscal
    Year 2017 Flight III awards to both shipbuilders.
        Complementing the DDG 51, the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class guided missile
    destroyers are an optimally crewed, multi-mission surface combatant
    designed to provide long-range, precise, naval surface fire support.
    The DDG 1000 ship is nearing completion of industrial work in
    preparation to activate its combat systems in its homeport of San
    Diego. DDG 1001 has successfully completed acceptance trials and is
    scheduled for delivery from the building yard in spring 2018 and
    construction on DDG 1002 is over 70 percent complete. After a
    comprehensive review of Zumwalt-class requirements, the Navy decided in
    November 2017 to refocus the primary mission of the Zumwalt-class
    Destroyers to Offensive Surface Strike. This change in mission adds
    lethality and offensive capabilities by providing fires against targets
    afloat and ashore.
    Small Surface Combatants
        The 2016 Force Structure Assessment revalidated the warfighting
    requirement for a total of 52 small surface combatants, including the
    LCS and the future, more capable Guided Missile Frigate (FFG(X)). The
    Navy will continue to refine the FFG(X) Conceptual Design with industry
    through fiscal year 2019 to support a full and open competition with a
    single source award in fiscal year 2020. The Fiscal Year 2019
    President's Budget includes one LCS in fiscal year 2019 to sustain the
    viability of the industrial base until the FFG(X) award in fiscal year
    2020. The FFG(X) will expand the competitive field of our shipbuilding
    industrial base.
        The Program of Record (POR) requirements for LCS Mission Packages
    (MP) have been updated. The new MP POR requires 10 Surface Warfare
    (SUW), 24 Mine Countermeasures (MCM), and 10 Antisubmarine Warfare
    (ASW) for a total of 44 deployable MPs. Due to the expeditionary and
    modular nature of the MCM MP this capacity can be fielded by both LCS
    and other Vessels of Opportunity. The Navy plans to leverage the
    modularity and flexibility of elements of the ASW and SUW MPs for the
    FFG(X) design, however these elements will not be complete MPs nor will
    they be included in the LCS MM POR quantity of deployable MPs.
        The LCS MP program continues the development of the SUW, MCM, ASW
    capabilities, delivering individual mission systems incrementally as
    they become available. This past year LCS 4 deployed with the first
    installation of an over-the-horizon missile capability added to the SUW
    MP. The Surface-to-Surface Missile Module with Longbow Hellfire will
    add more lethality to the SUW MP. It is currently in testing with
    Initial Operational Capability (IOC) planned for fiscal year 2019.
        The ASW MP Escort Mission Module (EMM) uses a continuously active
    Variable Depth Sonar, integrated with a Multi-Function Towed Array to
    provide a revolutionary surface ship anti-submarine capability.
    Development and integration of the EMM, Light Weight Tow, and Torpedo
    Defense Module are ongoing. The ASW EMM and is on track to fully
    integrate with the LCS to support IOC with the ASW MP in fiscal year
    2019.
        The Navy has scheduled three MCM systems for developmental tests
    (DT) and two for operational assessments (OA) this year, with Milestone
    C production decisions of the first two expected before the end of
    fiscal year 2018. The MCM Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV) is the tow
    platform for minehunting operations, and is based on the USV already
    used in the Unmanned Influence Sweep System program. The Navy's plan is
    to conduct MCM MP DT/OA in fiscal year 2020 and achieve IOC in fiscal
    year 2021.
    Amphibious Ships
        Amphibious ships operate forward to support allies, rapidly and
    decisively respond to crises, deter potential adversaries, and provide
    the Nation's best means of projecting sustainable power ashore. They
    also provide the preponderance of our naval response in humanitarian
    assistance and disaster relief. The operationally available inventory
    of amphibious warships and connectors remains below the 38 ship force
    structure requirement. The Navy is exploring service life extensions of
    existing ships and the acceleration of the LX(R) program to mitigate
    this shortfall.
        LHA 6 America-class ships are flexible, multi-mission platforms
    with capabilities that span the range of military operations, from
    forward-deployed crisis response to forcible entry operations. These
    ships will provide the modern replacements for the LHA 1 Tarawa-class
    ships and the aging LHD 1 Wasp-class ships. USS America (LHA 6)
    deployed as the centerpiece of America Amphibious Readiness Group/
    Marine Expeditionary Unit, while USS Tripoli (LHA 7) is on schedule to
    deliver in December of 2018. The Detail Design and Construction
    contract was awarded in June 2017 for LHA 8 and delivery is planned for
    fiscal year 2024. LHA 8 will include a well deck to increase
    operational flexibility and includes a reduced island structure that
    increases flight deck space to enhance aviation capability.
        The San Antonio-class (LPD 17) provides the ability to embark,
    transport, and land elements of a landing force by helicopters, tilt
    rotor aircraft, landing craft, and amphibious vehicles. USS Portland
    (LPD 27) will commission in April 2018 and the USS Fort Lauderdale (LPD
    28) keel was laid in September 2017, with expected delivery in fiscal
    year 2021. LPD 28's design and construction features will leverage many
    of the ongoing LX(R) design innovations and cost reduction initiatives
    that are necessary for the program to achieve affordability goals while
    maintaining the high-level capabilities of the LPD 17 class. LPD 29 was
    awarded in February and will continue with the LPD 28 design, but add
    the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) among other improvements.
        LX(R) will be a flight upgrade to the LPD 17 class. Contract
    actions are in process for Detail Design and Construction award of the
    fiscal year 2018 ship.
    Combat Systems
        The Department continues to field the most capable and lethal
    surface and submarine combat systems in the world. The AEGIS Combat
    System Baseline 9 has been fielded on cruisers and destroyers and
    continues to deliver unprecedented offensive and defensive
    capabilities, including, offensive ASW and simultaneous air and
    ballistic missile defense on destroyers and Air Defense Commander
    capability on cruisers. AEGIS Baseline 10 will add the AN/SPY 6(V) AMDR
    providing significant performance improvements over the AN/SPY 1D(V)
    radar and expanding the sensor coverage and enhancing the Navy's
    ability to perform the Integrated Air and Missile Defense mission. The
    Navy is leveraging the investment in AMDR to produce the EASR that will
    become the primary Air Search Radar for large deck ships and the Guided
    Missile Frigate. By using a common design and support strategy, we are
    enabling significant life cycle cost reduction for the Navy's surface
    radars.
        The Ship Self-Defense System provides ships with greater capability
    to defend against anti-ship cruise missile attack and supports a myriad
    of mission areas on Carrier and large deck Amphibious Class Ships.
        The Department continues to aggressively pursue affordable systems
    that are employable from multiple platforms. Under the Surface
    Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP), the Navy is replacing
    aging analog electronic warfare systems first fielded in the early
    1970's with new, digital systems. SEWIP Block 1 and 2 systems are in
    Full Rate Production and continue to be installed across the fleet. The
    SEWIP Block 3 program completed its Critical Design Review in 2017 and
    is on track for Milestone C in fiscal year 2018. The Navy continues to
    deliver enhanced surface Undersea Warfare capability through the AN/
    SQQ-89A(V)15 aboard cruisers, destroyers, and LCS Mission Packages.
        The Submarine community continues to successfully deliver
    improvements in Anti-Submarine Warfare utilizing bi-annual hardware
    Technology Insertions on even years and software Advanced Processing
    Builds on odd years. Leveraging commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)
    technologies via the Acoustic Rapid COTS Insertion (A-RCI) program
    mitigates COTS obsolescence while providing more capability improvement
    at lower costs.
    Auxiliary Ships, Expeditionary, and Other Vessels
        Support vessels such as the ESB, Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD),
    and the Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF) provide additional
    flexibility to the combatant commanders. ESBs are flexible platforms
    capable of hosting multiple mission sets with airborne, surface, and
    subsurface assets. The USNS Lewis B Puller (ESB 3), the first Afloat
    Forward Staging Base variant of the ESD, joined the U.S. Fifth Fleet in
    the Persian Gulf in the Fall of 2017. ESB 4 delivered in February 2018
    and ESB 5 is scheduled for delivery in May 2019. The Navy accepted
    delivery of the 9th EPF this past December and EPF 12 will start
    fabrication this year.
        The Combat Logistics Force (CLF) consists of T-AOE fast combat
    support ships, T-AKE dry cargo and ammunition ships, and T-AO fleet
    replenishment oilers. CLF ships fulfill the vital role of providing
    underway replenishment of fuel, food, repair parts, ammunition and
    equipment to forward-deployed ships and embarked aircraft, to enable
    them to operate for extended periods of time at sea. The Kaiser-class
    (T-AO 187) fleet replenishment oilers will be replaced with the John
    Lewis-class fleet replenishment oilers, designated T-AO 205 class. The
    start of construction for the first T-AO 205 is scheduled for September
    2018.
        The Department has begun procurement of a combined towing, salvage,
    and rescue (T-ATS) ship to replace the four T-ATF 166 class fleet ocean
    tugs, which reach the end of their expected service lives starting in
    2021, and the four T-ARS 50 class salvage ships, which reach the end of
    their expected service lives starting in 2025. Fabrication is expected
    to begin in early fiscal year 2019.
        In 2016, the Navy and Coast Guard established an Integrated Program
    Office to rebuild the Nation's heavy icebreaking capability. The Navy
    is supporting the Coast Guard's efforts to responsibly and affordably
    recapitalize the heavy polar icebreaker fleet. The Coast Guard intends
    to leverage existing designs and mature technologies to mitigate
    schedule and cost risks using a strategy based on robust industry
    collaboration and competition. The detail Design and Construction
    Request for Proposal has been released with proposals due at the end of
    fiscal year 2018. Based on this effort, the Coast Guard expects
    delivery of the first icebreaker as early as 2023.
    Surface Ship Modernization and Service Life Extensions
        The fiscal realities facing the Navy make it imperative that we
    modernize our in-service ships to achieve their expected service lives
    and also to extend the service lives through modernization of our ships
    to achieve a 355 ship Navy. The Navy and industry are collaborating on
    innovative approaches to conducting modernization of Cruisers and Dock
    Landing Ships. The Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget includes funding
    for the modernization of five destroyers to sustain combat
    effectiveness, ensure mission relevancy, and achieve the full expected
    service lives of the AEGIS Fleet. The request also continues to execute
    over the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) for modernization of seven
    cruisers to ensure long-term capability and capacity for purpose-built
    Air Defense Commander platforms. The remaining four cruisers, which
    have Ballistic Missile Defense capability, will receive modernization
    to their hull, mechanical and electrical systems to support their
    operation through their engineered service life.
    Unmanned Undersea Vehicles
        The Navy is expanding its global reach through the development of
    unmanned capabilities to ensure maritime dominance and power
    projection. This requires persistent global presence in all maritime
    domains, the ability to deny our adversaries safe haven in the world's
    oceans, and the capability to generate kinetic and non-kinetic effects
    at the time and place of our choosing. The Navy executes multiple
    missions in and from the Undersea Domain including Strategic
    Deterrence; Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR); ASW;
    Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW); Strike; Naval Special Warfare; and Mine
    Warfare. The Navy is using a Family-of-Systems strategy to develop and
    employ unmanned undersea vehicles to conduct a spectrum of undersea
    missions that complement and relieve stress on the manned force. The
    Family leverages small and medium-sized commercial vehicles, and is
    developing large and extra-large vehicles.
        Snakehead is the Large Vehicle which is the most critical member of
    the family for overall family development and tactical operations. Orca
    is the Extra Large Vehicle that is being designed to launch from a pier
    or large surface ship and operate for weeks or months at a time.
    Ready Reserve Forces (RRF)
        The Navy has coordinated planning options with the Office of the
    Secretary of Defense, U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), and the
    Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration (MARAD) and
    developed a strategic sealift recapitalization strategy that includes a
    three-phased approach. The strategy includes the SLE of select Surge
    Sealift vessels, acquiring used vessels, and a new construction,
    common-hulled shipbuilding program. The Navy's long-term strategy
    advocates that new construction common hull vessels be assigned to the
    Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) as delivered, ensuring the Fleet
    has the latest capabilities to support employment across the full range
    of military operations. Existing MPF ships would rotate to surge,
    preserving capability and maintaining the requisite square footage to
    meet USTRANSCOM sealift capacity requirements.
    Weapons
        The Department continues to make significant strides in extending
    the fleet's layered defense battle-space while also improving the
    capabilities of the individual ship defense layers in order to pace the
    increasing anti-ship missile threat.
        Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) provides theater and high value target
    area defense for the Fleet, and with Integrated Fire Control, has more
    than doubled its range in the counter-air mission. SM-6 Block I
    declared Full Operational Capability in December 2017 and the Navy
    plans to award a MYP contract for up to 625 SM-6 missiles in fiscal
    year 2019. The MYP will span from fiscal year 2019 to fiscal year 2023,
    is projected to achieve over 10 percent savings vice annual
    procurement, and aligns with the potential SM-3 Block IB MYP in fiscal
    year 2019.
        The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) provides another layer to
    the Navy's defended battle-space. ESSM Block 2 is on track to achieve
    IOC for AEGIS platforms in fiscal year 2020 and Ship Self-Defense
    System platforms in the 2022 to 2023 timeframe.
        The inner layer of the Fleet's layered defense is the Rolling
    Airframe Missile (RAM) designed to pace the evolving anti-ship cruise
    missile threat and improve performance against complex stream raid
    engagement scenarios. The RAM Block 2 is on track to receive a Full
    Rate Production Decision in fiscal year 2018.
        The Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget includes funding to
    continue upgrades to the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) inventory with
    active guidance utilizing accelerated acquisition authorities. This
    investment provides an affordable, integrated fire control capable,
    area defense missile to counter stressing threats.
                united states marine corps expeditionary warfare
    Expeditionary Warfare
        The principle of Expeditionary Warfare is to operate forward, to
    exploit the seas as maneuver space as a base for global power
    projection, and to be ready to maneuver to shore when so ordered. Our
    ability to deploy from the sea in austere environments at a time and
    place of our choosing gives us significant tactical, operational and
    strategic advantages over potential adversaries. That ability is
    provided through the combination of connectors that move forces from
    the sea base to the objective sites and sustain the organic capability
    of those forces to maneuver and fight on the objective.
        The Navy/Marine Corps team provides the Combatant Commanders and
    our Nation the options needed to engage with our partners, to deter our
    adversaries and, when needed, to fight and win. That capability is
    underpinned by our disciplined, well-trained and motivated Sailors and
    Marines equipped with the ``right'' amphibious ships, aircraft and
    weapons in our arsenal. Unique to our expeditionary warfare
    capabilities is the ability to exploit the sea as maneuver space and
    conduct operations in international waters and airspace. Tactically,
    the ability to project multiple elements of a landing force ashore via
    multiple entry points using both vertical and surface means gives us
    greater flexibility in maneuvering into positions of advantage over an
    adversary. Our service capstone concept, the Marine Corps Operating
    Concept, envisions a future Marine force fighting at and from the sea
    to gain and maintain sea control and enable freedom of maneuver within
    an Advanced Naval or Joint Task Force as directed through the National
    Defense Strategy and Defense Planning Guidance.
    Connectors
        Ship-to-shore connectors move personnel, equipment and supplies,
    maneuvering from a sea base to the objective. These are critical
    enablers for any naval force by closing the last ``tactical mile'' with
    the adversary. Modern aerial connectors, such as the MV-22 Osprey and
    CH-53K King Stallion, extend operational reach and lift capacity,
    revolutionizing our ability to operate from the sea, austere locations,
    and previously damaged airfields within a contested environment. Aerial
    connectors alone do not suffice; the Navy is in the process of
    modernizing the surface connector fleet by replacing the aging Landing
    Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) and the 50-year-old fleet of Landing Craft
    Utility (LCU). This system of surface and aerial connectors will enable
    the Joint Force to establish a web of sensor, strike, decoy, and
    sustainment locations based on land and sea that complicates the
    strategic and operational decision-making of our most advanced rivals,
    thus attacking their Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2AD) strategies.
    Continued funding of the modernization, maintenance, and service life
    extension programs of our existing fleet of connectors is critical to
    enabling our success in future security environments.
        The Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget includes 37 LCAC 100 class
    air cushioned vehicles. The Ship to Shore Connector program will
    replace aging LCACs, which have undergone a Service Life Extension
    Program (SLEP) and a Post-SLEP Extension program. Additionally, the
    Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget includes the procurement of 18 LCU
    1700 class craft, which will recapitalize, in part, the aging LCU 1610
    class. Both variants still require additional funding for post-delivery
    and outfitting efforts to provide Fleet craft which are capable of
    supporting operational tasking.
        These platforms are essential in connecting the combat power and
    logistics sustainment the seabase provides to expeditionary forces
    operating in the littorals. The Department will continue to explore
    future connector options that will increase our ability to exploit the
    sea as maneuver space by increasing range, speed, capacity, and force
    interoperability.

        Senator Wicker. Thank you very, very much, Secretary
    Geurts. I will direct this question to you and Admiral Merz.
        Of course, you heard my opening statement expressing
    concern about the shipbuilding plan, but very, very positive
    about the recent announcement on the Burke class destroyers. I
    believe we can go faster.
        Can you address each of the points that I raised in my
    opening statement? I noticed you nodding your head a lot. So I
    will let you do that on the record. And how might changing
    these assumptions get us to a 355-ship Navy faster,
    specifically completing other ship service life extensions for
    years 6 through 30 of the plan, maintaining overall
    shipbuilding funding levels with inflation adjustments through
    the year 2048, and being specific about supplemental
    shipbuilding funding needed in fiscal years 2021 through 2035?
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I will start out, and then I
    will ask Admiral Merz to jump in with me.
        So again, in the shipbuilding plan upfront, when we built
    the first plan, we had some analysis complete and we had a lot
    of analysis ongoing, in terms of service life extensions and
    class extensions. In most interest to us, we are extending the
    class of the ship, because that not only benefits the ships you
    have but also the ships you build will then be able to extend
    out.
        So the DDG-51 was our first priority, and that is where we
    spent the most effort and just kind of worked through that
    analysis. As you heard last week, that has a profound impact on
    filling that hole we have in the mid-years of the 2030s
    timeframe.
        Senator Wicker. Very positive developments.
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir.
        On the submarines, it is not quite as easy. We have five
    reactor cores, so we think we can extend the service life of up
    to five submarines. That will still cause a dip, so we will
    have to continue to work the submarine force specifically.
        And then, as Admiral Merz will address for you, we need to
    look at the mix of ships to make sure not only do we have the
    ship count we need, but do we have the right mix. And for that,
    I look to him to help guide us in terms of what is the highest
    priority there as we go through.
        To your point on Columbia, we are going to be challenged in
    the year when we are producing the Columbia submarine. That
    will be our number one priority, so without supplemental
    funding, that will take a hit to our current shipbuilding plan.
    So we look forward to working closely with you on the specific
    numbers and how we might mitigate some of those impacts.
        But the shipbuilding account, as currently funded, will not
    be able to maintain pace with also producing Columbia
    simultaneously at the current funding level we have in the
    shipbuilding accounts.
        Senator Wicker. On that, let's keep our thinking caps and
    look for innovative approaches.
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Part of it is, where do we have
    opportunities to drive costs down? You mentioned block buys of
    the LPD-17 Flight II. We are looking at two carrier buys. How
    do we reduce or get more for the dollars we have in the
    shipbuilding account? Because there will be tremendous pressure
    as we go into the future with Columbia being produced along
    with us growing the 355-ship Navy.
        Senator Wicker. Admiral, he has tossed it to you.
        Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir.
        So the 355, first, just to set the bar on 355, it is a
    derived number. We start with the old plans. We work it all the
    way down to the specific types of ships, the capabilities on
    those ships, and then, of course, the numbers of ships for each
    class, add those all up, and that is how we got 355. So a very
    deliberate process to get to that number.
        I tee it up with that as I talk a little bit about the DDG-
    51. As Secretary Geurts mentioned, extending an entire class
    is, by far, the most beneficial way to approach a life
    extension, because that allows us to plan the maintenance, the
    modernization, really handle it within stride of what we are
    already doing with that class, as opposed to the alternative to
    taking individual ships, reviewing it, figuring out what
    maintenance has to be done, and then going ahead and completing
    that. So a much more efficient, much more affordable option is
    to extend the class.
        This is not without precedent. We did it with the Ohio
    class. There probably are not any other classes right now. They
    are all to new. Virginia may be a candidate, depending on her
    fuel usage over her life. Then, of course, the small surface
    combatants are all relatively new. That may be another
    candidate later on in the shipbuilding plan, as we get more
    data back on how the ship is performing.
        Arleigh Burkes, a very solid ship, we are a big fan of that
    ship. We went after that. We did not think this would be a big
    technological challenge, and we were able to complete it.
        That said, going back to my opening remarks on the correct
    mix, we do hit 355 much sooner, and we laid that out in the
    shipbuilding plan as a candidate option. We just had not
    finished the analysis yet. But it does not give us the correct
    mix.
        Senator Wicker. You had to read the footnotes.
        Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. So it does get us to the mid-
    2030s at 355, but not the correct mix, although not a bad mix.
    If you have to have extra ships, DDGs are good ones to have
    more than you need while you fill in the rest of the
    requirement underneath it.
        You mentioned the dip beyond the FYDP. We are scrubbing
    that hard. Where we sit today is we cannot build ships and
    deliver them in time to fill in that dip. However, extending
    the class of the DDG-51 is the only lever we pull so far. We
    are still looking at candidate years for a third SSN. And then
    all the other ship lines that we identified excess capacity,
    working with Congress, we may be able to continue to bolster
    those lines more rapidly. It will help recover from the dip,
    but there will still be a dip outside the FYDP, to a degree.
        Just the DDG-51s have accelerated the nadir of that dip by
    2 years, so that is already a good-news story. Then we will
    continue to look at individual ships that we may be able to
    extend as we go forward.
        SSNs are very difficult. We only have five cores, so that
    is how we capture the life extensions of those. We do not
    really hold a lot of hope for doing a class-wide extensions on
    the 688s. They are already pretty old. But we are going class-
    by-class, ship-by-ship, and every ship does get evaluated for a
    life extension.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you. Before I recognize Senator
    Hirono, thanks for pointing out that the requirement is not
    just something that was arrived at by the seat-of-the-pants.
    This came in as requirements from all of the admirals and
    generals who have responsibilities around the globe, what is
    the requirement for getting their mission done. So I appreciate
    you once again helping us to emphasize that.
        Senator Hirono?
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Admiral Merz, the CNO's unfunded priority list for fiscal
    year 2019 includes a request for an additional $176 million to
    accelerate shipyard investment. This could include
    modernization, other elements. This would be in addition to
    $197 million in the Navy's budget request, indicating that
    shipyard investment is a significant priority, since the CNO's
    list does not ask for additional funding for any shipbuilding
    programs.
        How would the Navy use the additional funds to modernize
    our public shipyards?
        Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, ma'am. I will give the OPNAV view,
    and then I will pass it over to Secretary Geurts. That really
    is more in his lane.
        So NAVSEA has put out a pretty detailed plan on the
    recovering of the maintenance capacity within the shipyards. It
    is a $21 billion plan over 20 years. It is very detailed. It
    includes dry docks, recapitalization, and refacilitizing of the
    yards.
        Regarding the unfunded priority list, coming out of the
    last 10 years of our readiness deficit, we have become very
    committed to a balanced budget of readiness capability and
    capacity. So we think we have put us on a trajectory to 355
    ships, particularly with the life extensions of the DDGs. There
    are still readiness challenges that we are trying to recover
    from, and there is also the capability focus where we can turn
    capability much quicker than we can turn the size of the fleet.
        So we are trying to balance investments in advanced
    development, hypersonics, directed energy, the unmanned vehicle
    systems, as we kludge all that together to make sure we have a
    balanced, capable Navy as we grow.
        With that, I will turn it over to Secretary Geurts.
        Senator Hirono. Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. That is to help us accelerate
    this $21 billion ship optimization plan. So as we grow the
    fleet, we have to be very cognizant that we are growing the
    maintenance capability of the fleet, because naval power is a
    combination of the number of ships you have, how capable the
    ships are, and how ready those ships are to fight.
        So the shipbuilding plan also helps us look very
    specifically at that public shipyard infrastructure, to make
    sure that we have that ready to work off backlog that we have
    had previously. We are in pretty good shape of working off
    existing backlog. Now we have to be ready for the growing
    fleet.
        Senator Hirono. I completely agree. As we look at
    modernizing our four public shipyards, and I have met with many
    of our workers in our shipyards, they want to have the modern
    tools. They want to have the capability to maintain the ships
    we already have, not to mention the new ones that are coming
    online.
        So they very much care about their own productivity. It is
    not just the training that we provide to these people but the
    equipment that they use.
        So how do you determine which shipyards would get what kind
    of modernization dollars?
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. You are absolutely right. I
    mean, when you walk the yard, they are a very proud work force.
    They are proud of what they are doing. They are proud of their
    contribution. We owe it to make sure they are in world-class
    facilities with world-class tools and equipment, and we are not
    at world-class across our public yards right now.
        So what we look at is we look at all four yards, and we
    look at this 20-year plan. So it is not just a year-by-year
    plan, but how do we optimize the flow? How do we look at what
    equipment we need? Are there new machines? How is the status of
    the machine? And then, how do we leverage the digital age to
    really allow us to not only give them modern equipment, give
    them modern tools that will, I think, allow them to do more and
    more?
        So we look at that across all four yards. We have a ship
    optimization plan that balances that for each yard, and then
    works the priority.
        So it is not going to be one yard and then another yard. It
    is going to be all four kind of in parallel.
        Senator Hirono. Right. I was going to ask whether you are
    going to make sure that there is a kind of fair distribution of
    the modernization dollars across all four shipyards, because
    while they support each other, there is a bit of competition
    going on.
        Secretary Geurts. Absolutely. We need them all to be
    productive and ready to roll.
        Senator Hirono. So they are not unfavorably compared to
    each other.
        In my opening statement, I referred to the Navy's new plan
    for modernizing the public shipyards, of course, after years of
    neglect. There have been military construction projects and
    various upgrades over the years, but the Navy has pursued these
    without a comprehensive plan. That is what we are moving toward
    with what we are talking about today, a comprehensive plan.
        Will the Navy be releasing additional details regarding the
    implementation of the shipyard optimization plan? If so, when
    can we expect to see them?
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. We will continue to refine
    that plan, so the first plan we give a report to Congress kind
    of lays the overall strategy out. Now we have to get to year-
    by-year, facility-by-facility planning, because the challenge
    will be, we cannot stop doing all the work we are doing now, so
    we will have to get very detailed in planning how we build a
    new facility as we are executing the existing work. You will
    see that continue to get refined over the coming year.
        Senator Hirono. So when will we get the next report on your
    shipyard optimization plan?
        Secretary Geurts. Ma'am, I do not know if there is a
    requirement for an annual report, but I am happy to give you
    updates on an annual basis or whenever you need, to show you
    where we have gone.
        So the first one was the plan. Now we should lay out how we
    are executing the plan, and then what the plan is going
    forward. So we are happy to give that to you.
        And we will give you an annual update or more often, as
    required.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Senator Hirono.
        Senator Scott?
        Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all for being here. Thank you for your service to
    the country as well.
        When I first got on the Armed Services Committee about a
    month or two ago, I sat down with Secretary Spencer. We had an
    interesting conversation about my time in business, which I
    suggested that certainty and predictability are always
    necessary tools. For any business to do what they do really
    well, they need a long-term plan. He suggested and then
    reinforced it with actual proof that continuing resolutions
    over the many years has cost the Navy at least, quantifiably,
    $9 billion.
        Would you talk about the importance of meeting our 355 goal
    as it relates to having certainty and predictability with a
    long-term view, from your perspective?
        Secretary Geurts. Absolutely, Senator. It goes back
    somewhat to the conversation we just had.
        It is hard to do facility planning when you have a plan and
    then you get to re-plan it five times during the year on the
    acquisition side. It is very challenging. We negotiate
    contracts, but then we cannot award them because we do not have
    all the money, so then we have to negotiate bridge contracts.
        So it just adds delay and nonvalue-added work in here.
        So the Bipartisan Budget Act is very useful, because now we
    can build a shipbuilding plan at least for the next 2 years.
    Getting certainty years out will really help us, then, avoid
    what has kind of been characterized as boom or bust cycles we
    have had in shipbuilding, which is both hard on the business
    side and very hard on the public shipyards side.
        Senator Wicker. And it has everything to do with national
    security.
        Secretary Geurts. Absolutely, sir.
        Senator Scott. Nine billion dollars, depending on the mix
    of ships, and he was talking about since 2011, I believe it
    was, helps us get to that goal a lot faster. Chairman Wicker
    suggested that you should be creative and do some things that
    will help us get there faster.
        I wanted to ask you this question. Based on your previous
    job as acquisition executive for Special Operations Command, I
    understand you oversaw innovative programs that brought unique,
    frequently off-the-shelf material solutions to our special
    operations forces in record time. As I understood it, your team
    had permission to fail in their search for a particular
    material solution, as long as it did it quickly and did not
    fail at the same task twice. The result has been a superbly
    quick force that America depends on every single day.
        I also understand you did this without any special
    exemption from the Federal Acquisition Regulations, the dreaded
    FAR. But it is safe to say that the scale and cost of programs
    like the Ford class aircraft carrier do not lend themselves to
    that fail quickly mentality.
        So my question for you, since you are now overseeing
    acquisition programs with timeliness measured in years,
    sometimes even decades, what lessons from your previous
    position at Special Operations Command are you able to leverage
    with the Navy? And are you finding the Navy receptive to that
    approach?
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Absolutely. I think a couple
    different things.
        One is, speed of decision-making and unity of command. So
    in that command, we were focused on outcomes and made rapid
    decisions. The 355-ship plan is a great outcome focus. We all
    have a target. We can all move toward that. That is a key.
        I think as I approach the Navy, I am looking to do what I
    call maybe the four Ds. One is decentralize, so empower folks
    to get the job done at the lowest capable level. Differentiate,
    so have lots of different ways--so how we acquire an aircraft
    carrier may not be the same way we acquire a piece of software
    or an algorithm or a quick off-the-shelf piece of equipment. So
    we have to be able to do all of those well. Digitize, so you
    are seeing the power of the digital age across the entire
    fleet, from shipbuilding to how we are doing our daily job. And
    then develop people, so how do we attract, recruit, train, and
    retain?
        All of that is within the authorities that Congress has
    given us. So I am actually very positive the way that the Navy
    and the Marine Corps are responding to that. Each have their
    own strengths and challenges, but with a portfolio approach, we
    can really, I think, get acceleration and innovation at scale.
        Senator Scott. When you think about the goal of getting the
    355 ships, you said by extending the Burke class destroyers,
    you can get there by mid-2030s. When you look at the current
    portfolio, where do you see the greatest risks?
        I know that one of the things I read was the importance of,
    by 2030, in the 2020s, having attack submarines that will be
    available for use in the Pacific theater. If you look at your
    current mix and where you think we are heading, where do you
    see the greatest vulnerability for that mix?
        Secretary Geurts. Sir, I will give you kind of a quick
    perspective, and then Admiral Merz from the OPNAV operational
    perspective.
        Where I see the risk is, if we do not figure out how to
    rapidly modernize this fleet and be able to rapidly put in new
    technology quickly into these 50-year ships, then we are going
    to be challenged, because then you are forced to try to pick
    now what is going to last forever.
        Where I think the Navy is doing an extraordinary job is on
    submarines. We can roll in new technology consistently into the
    submarines even though the design is pretty stable. You are
    starting to see that in our surface fleet now where we decouple
    the combat system from the ship. In that way, we can rapidly
    evolve the combat system on the ship as new needs or threats
    evolve, or technologies, but having a ship that we have
    strengthened.
        So, to me, the key is our ships with a lot of margin, a lot
    of power, a lot of weight. Then we can go from there.
        Bill, I do not know if you want to jump in?
        Vice Admiral Merz. Yes. Thank you, Secretary.
        Senator Wicker. Please, go ahead.
        Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir.
        So back to your certainty and predictability, I would tell
    you that probably the greatest risk is funding and continuing
    resolutions and the predictability of that funding. The BBA was
    a huge relief for us. It certainly gives us the opportunity, if
    nothing else, to roll over at a level that we can continue to
    execute the program.
        The 355 is not without risk. All plans have risk. The
    longer we go without the correct mix of the ships at the
    correct number, the longer we carry that risk as we push that
    ahead.
        The $9 billion is a nice round number. That is three
    submarines, and that is the class of ship that we are furthest
    away from our requirement. That is the last one to arrive on
    time, as far as the right mix of ships within that 355.
        So a very deliberate pick up a number that has real math
    behind it. It matters to us.
        Senator Scott. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Scott.
        Senator King?
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Geurts, in the National Defense Act of last year,
    the committee report talked about the force structure
    assessment of the 355 ships, and it included this language: The
    committee believes that the Navy should maintain the two proven
    shipbuilding sources of large surface combatants. The committee
    emphasizes that the acquisition strategy for the next multiyear
    procurement contract should help sustain the dual-source large
    surface combatant shipbuilding base.
        I think my question is, are you and Secretary Spencer
    committed to the DDG-51 multiyear, which I understand the bids
    have just been submitted, an outcome that will sustain both
    yards and the large surface combatant?
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, absolutely, sir. Our whole strategy
    was built around securing enough base in both shipyards, yet
    enabling competition, so that the taxpayer gets the most for
    the dollar.
        But I am convinced, in any outcome of that strategy, there
    is plenty of work to keep all those shipyards producing for the
    Navy.
        Senator King. And in the long run, it is certainly in the
    taxpayers' interests to have those two shipyards.
        Secretary Geurts. Absolutely. Having two yards for that
    fleet is critical.
        Senator King. Admiral Merz, I was very interested in the
    whole life extension issue. You probably saw the article in
    SEAPOWER.
        My question is, number one, what are we talking about here
    in the way of work? Are we talking about repainting, or are we
    talking about rebuilding? And how substantial? For example, how
    long would a DDG-51 be in the yard for its renovation?
        Vice Admiral Merz. Sir, that is another benefit of doing a
    class-wide extension. So based on their performance and their
    maintenance periods to date is what we base the class life
    extension on. So there are no specific yard periods required to
    extend these ships to their 45 year. Some are extended 5 years.
    Some are extended 10 years, depending on what flight they were
    built.
        All the DDGs are already planning to be modernized. We will
    see if that modernization is sufficient to get them to their 45
    years. We typically just pace the threat with our
    modernizations.
        Senator King. Where would the modernization be done? At the
    two shipyards that we have been talking about or at public
    yards? What is the thinking on that?
        Vice Admiral Merz. All the modernizations are already
    planned. The modernizations for the DDGs are done in private
    yards, not the public yards. Whether they require an additional
    yard period, additional modernization, we will have time to
    forecast that and to plan that.
        Quite frankly, the current modernization schedule may be
    sufficient. It really depends on how we pace the threat, what
    we want these ships to do, and how we foresee them holding up.
        Senator King. And I take it that this life extension
    program does not affect the schedule for new acquisitions?
        Your colleague just shook his head rather vigorously.
        Vice Admiral Merz. That is because achieving and sustaining
    355, it is absolutely fundamental that we sustain those
    shipbuilding profiles underneath the life extensions, or, when
    those ships go away, we will be worse off than when we started.
        Senator King. So, Mr. Geurts, you agree that this is a
    separate issue. We are not talking about replacing the new
    ships coming on?
        Secretary Geurts. No, sir. Again, in my opening statement,
    I want to be very frank, we have to both maintain the
    production profiles we have as well as do this class extension.
    Or as Admiral Merz says, we can delay the problem a little bit,
    and then you are going to have a much worse problem, because
    you will fall off a cliff. So it is really have the production
    growth profile we have in the shipbuilding plan, and then the
    service life extension helps us draw that 355 in as well as
    lessen that dip.
        Senator King. Turning to the frigate program, bearing in
    mind the language that I read from the committee report, do you
    anticipate the frigate program being a two yard acquisition?
        Secretary Geurts. Sir, our current plan for those 20 is to
    be a single downselect.
        Senator King. One yard for the new frigate. Would that be a
    multiyear? How many ships are we talking?
        Secretary Geurts. We are talking 20 ships, sir, right now
    in the current plan. Right now, we have five competitors that
    are in design study contracts. In 2019, we will do a
    competitive downselect, right now planning to one yard, to
    build those 20 ships under the current planning.
        Senator King. Whichever one of those five competitors. And
    they are all working--this is not a clean ship. We are working
    off existing design.
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. They have to have a parent
    ship, a proven parent ship design.
        Senator King. Admiral Merz, could you describe, in a few
    seconds, or maybe we can get back to it--my question is too
    broad for 20 seconds, so I think I will hold it for the next
    round, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        It will be about the re-missioning of the Zumwalt, so you
    can think about that.
        Senator Wicker. So you can study ahead.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator King.
        Senator Cotton?
        Senator Cotton. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony
    today. I want to tie a couple bows on issues that came up
    earlier.
        Secretary Geurts, you said that our submarine programs are
    better, are faster at integrating new technology right now than
    our surface ships are. Our surface ships are learning from
    that.
        Can you explain why you see that difference?
        Secretary Geurts. Sir, again, I am about 120 days now into
    the Navy, but in looking back in time, from my analysis, 10, 15
    years ago, there was a realization that the submarine fleet was
    not modernizing its combat systems at the pace of the threat.
    So it was a very deliberate action over a number of years to
    create the acquisition strategy where you can continually roll
    on new capabilities to the submarine while holding the design
    of the ship itself constant and improving.
        So I think that is a good model for these long-lasting
    structures. You want to have a good structure with a lot of
    margin that you have confidence that is reliable, but then have
    a way to roll on combat systems and new technologies and new
    algorithms as quickly as you can to pace with the threat.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you.
        Admiral Merz, you said that funding certainty is your
    biggest risk. You are grateful for the 2-year budget received
    earlier, but if you need funding certainty, I assume that you
    need a DOD appropriations bill passed this year.
        Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir, we do.
        Senator Cotton. Not filibustered this summer.
        Vice Admiral Merz. No, sir.
        Senator Cotton. And the Budget Control Act remains in
    effect for fiscal year 2020 and 2021. So if either that law is
    not repealed this year or the Congress does not pass a 2-year
    budget next year, as we have each of the last three 2-year
    cycles, you will once again face your biggest risk, which is
    funding uncertainty.
        Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you for that.
        Let's move on to a few other topics.
        Admiral Merz, we have 11 littoral combat ships. A story
    recently in Naval Institute said that zero of those will deploy
    this year in 2018.
        Could you talk about why that is the case?
        Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. So the total number is 32. We
    barely have a third of the class. The typical deployment model
    is 3 to 5 ships to 1, to keep one deployed. So this is really
    just math. There are going to be gaps that will fill in over
    time. We are not concerned about it.
        We are learning a lot about the maintenance of the ship. We
    are going to a dual-crew model over the next several years.
        So we feel like it is on track. We are not concerned about
    not deploying in 2018. That is going to catch up over time as
    we fill in the rest of the class.
        Senator Cotton. Was that anticipated for this year?
        Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir, absolutely.
        Senator Cotton. Let's turn to fast attack submarines.
    Admiral Harris of PAYCOM has testified that he gets half of his
    fast attack submarine requirements met. Over the next decade or
    so, we will reach the point where we are retiring fast attack
    submarines faster than we are building them.
        What is the Navy's plan to mitigate this issue? Because if
    it affects him, it likely affects General Scaparrotti in
    European Command as well.
        Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. Every combatant commander is
    at about that batting average for the attack submarines they
    would like to have in theater. The unfortunate reality is that
    there is not much we can do to recover that plan to get to 66,
    other than adding a third maybe SSN in candidate years. We are
    looking at that very hard, and we are working very closely with
    the shipbuilders on their ability to fill that in.
        Even 66 is probably going to leave some gaps. I would not
    be surprised to see that number go up over time as we do
    assessments in the future. But that will just add to the length
    of time it takes to get there.
        So that is the ship today that is furthest away from its
    requirement, and it is the last ship to achieve its requirement
    in the 30-year shipbuilding plan.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you. It is disappointing we have
    reached this position.
        Secretary Geurts. Sir, one thing we are going to add is we
    do have five cores available. So we have funded one this year.
    We have identified the ship. So we think we can extend the life
    of five of those.
        So that will not solve the problem. It will mitigate a
    little bit the worst part of the dip. So that is something we
    are studying closely, in addition to what Admiral Merz had
    mentioned.
        Senator Cotton. Okay. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. You are studying that, and you intend to
    make a report at what point?
        Secretary Geurts. Sir, we have the first one funded this
    year. I would expect you will see those come in, in the budget.
    I am fairly confident that we will add--again, given the
    criticality of that shortfall, that would be a very attractive
    way to at least add some service life through the worst part
    through that dip.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you, gentlemen.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Senator Cotton.
        Senator Kaine?
        Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you to our witnesses today. I want to begin by
    thanking both Mr. Geurts and Vice Admiral Merz for your help. I
    am pulling together a session in Hampton Roads, Virginia, on
    the 8th of June called the 355-Ship Navy. It is a discussion
    about work force, so it is all with the community colleges, the
    apprenticeship program, the local K-12 systems. The Navy has
    indicated that they will have a witness. It might be one of
    you. I am not sure yet that there has been a designee.
        But I appreciate your willingness to help on that, because
    I think we talk about what 355 means for budget, and there is a
    whole series of issues there, but there is a real work force
    need. That need is, folks who are going to be building these
    ships are in pre-K right now. We are going to have to make sure
    that they are getting the skills as they go through their
    educational lives that will equip them to do the work in all
    the centers of shipbuilding around the country.
        So I appreciate the Navy working with me on that.
        I wanted to ask you about a recent announcement. The Navy
    recently expressed interest in block buy of aircraft carriers--
    you talked about that briefly--made a request to Huntington
    Ingalls to give information so that they could potentially, I
    guess, decide on--or that would inform the potential decision.
        The authority to do a block buy would need to be included
    in an NDAA. We are working on the markup right now this month
    and next.
        When do you envision that the Navy will be making a
    decision about this? Because I want to make sure that your
    timetable and the committee's timetable, in terms of what we
    are working on with respect to the NDAA this year, match up.
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. So we have issued a formal
    request for proposal to the contractor, Huntington Ingalls. We
    expect that back here in the next couple weeks. So I would
    think by early summertime, we will have a good look at the
    numbers. We will have a good understanding of those numbers. We
    have asked the contractor to sharpen a pencil and really look
    at how we can be aggressive in thinking our way through this.
        So I think that would position us well early this summer to
    have that conversation, to look at the savings. It will take
    congressional authority to support it. I am happy to support
    that dialogue with you.
        So early summer, I think, we will be ready for that, and
    then we can make a decision on whether that is included in the
    2019 way ahead.
        Senator Kaine. I would love to maintain the dialogue,
    because it is likely, based on the timing, that you would not
    be ready to make an ask until the committee work is already
    done. The NDAA may not be done on the floor of the Senate. The
    conference may not be done. There may be an opportunity to
    reflect whatever your decision is in a later document, but the
    timing may be a little bit off with respect to at least the
    committee work on the NDAA.
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. And I think we will get an
    early look by the early part of May. We will at least have the
    initial look at it. We will have some follow-on analysis.
        So we will work closely with your staff on everything we
    have and support your process.
        Senator Wicker. Would the savings be in the nature of $1.7
    billion?
        Secretary Geurts. Sir, until I see the actual number back,
    I would hesitate to put a specific number. But in previous
    times when we have done this, we have seen large savings on the
    order of 10 percent.
        The other thing I would tell you is, we are in parallel
    looking--about a third of a carrier is government-furnished
    equipment, or not through the shipyard. There is also savings
    potential on that side. So we are completing that analysis in
    parallel.
        But there is large potential. We are a little late in the
    process, because CVN-80 is already under construction. But I
    think there is certainly a large potential of savings that
    warrant this very close look.
        Senator Wicker. It certainly has people's attention.
        Senator Kaine. Yes. I think Secretary Spencer once told us
    before the entire committee that: I will only do it if I think
    it will save me a whole lot of money. I will not do it if it
    just saves me a little bit of money.
        So I think that we have certainly seen that magnitude of
    savings in the past.
        Secretary Geurts. I would expect it will be a lot of money.
        Senator Kaine. Yes.
        Secretary Geurts. I just do not want to put a number yet
    until I have had a chance to work with the shipyard.
        Senator Kaine. The other thing I just wanted to mention, we
    have had a couple hearings about the shipyard infrastructure
    modernization plan. I am the Ranking Member on the Readiness
    Subcommittee. We talked about it in the Readiness hearing we
    had last week.
        But it was interesting that the material conditions of the
    four shipyards were all poor or failing. That just speaks to me
    of kind of long-deferred maintenance and a real catch-up
    obligation we have.
        So if we are going to get to 355, then we have to make
    those capital investments in the shipyards to get them from
    poor or failing to better. Then that will increase our ability
    to do the 355 in a more efficient way.
        I know you responded to Senator Hirono's question that it
    is not like there is a next report regularly scheduled, but I
    think all of the committee is going to be interested, because
    absent that modernization to improve the current status of the
    shipyards, we are not going to be able to hit the 355 number in
    a way that any of us want. So we will continue to dialogue
    about that as you are making the capital investment.
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Secretary Bayer on the
    installation side and I are working hand-in-hand. So we will
    bring that composite look to you of both the facility and all
    the machines and the work force. All three of those are
    critical components that we have to synchronize and bring up to
    the modern age.
        Senator Kaine. Great. Thank you so much.
        Thanks, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Wicker. Secretary Geurts, do you think the yards
    have a clear concept of what needs to happen at those yards?
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I mean, again, as Senator
    Hirono said, the yards know where there is opportunity. They
    are motivated to get there. We just need to help resource them
    and then, at the secretariat level, manage that work.
        So we are setting up a governance structure to make sure we
    have the right senior oversight to keep that effort on track.
    It is a collection of a multitude of small things, but if we
    can enable the work force with modern tools, put the
    development programs in there to have a sustainable work force,
    then I think we can see great improvement.
        We are going to need that improvement, if we are going to
    sustain this 355-ship Navy.
        Senator Wicker. There is plenty of capacity there, isn't
    there?
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir, but it is aged infrastructure.
    It is not the most modern tools. And we are growing the work
    force. It is a relatively young work force, to some degree. So
    we have to make sure we have the training pipelines.
        Again, back to the question, my biggest fear is boom or
    bust budget cycles, that really rings out--you cannot have a
    growth plan when you were starting and stopping all the time.
        Senator Wicker. You cannot say that often enough.
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Shaheen?
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say, I
    agree, certainly, with Senator Hirono and with Secretary
    Geurts. At least the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is very clear on
    what they need. Their question is whether Congress and the Navy
    is as clear on what they need. So I think saying it often is
    very important.
        I want to follow up on the work force issue that Senator
    Kaine raised, because as we add capacity, how is the Navy going
    to ensure that the work force is there to address what
    shipyards need? What we are seeing at least at the Portsmouth
    Naval Shipyard that Senator King and I are both interested in,
    where we have a very low unemployment rate in New Hampshire,
    one of the lowest in the country, finding the skilled STEM
    workers to fill those shipyard jobs is challenging. So how do
    you ensure that we have the workers that we need?
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. I think there is a whole
    multitude of ways to get there. One of them is having some
    certainty, or at least some confidence, that we have a long-
    term plan and we are going to execute to it, so that the work
    force does not feel like they are going to come, but they are
    not sure if the job is going to be there 6 months from now.
        So I think that is the single biggest one. And then, again,
    do we have a world-class facility that attracts world-class
    talent that we value, and we train and retain that world-class
    talent? So I think that is a challenge for us all to execute to
    get there. Otherwise, we are going to struggle with retention
    rates, with productivity, and with all the pieces that will not
    allow us to maintain the readiness.
        Senator Shaheen. I had the opportunity last week to visit
    something called the SeaPerch Challenge. Are you familiar with
    that? That is a wonderful underwater robotics competition. The
    Portsmouth Naval Shipyard sponsored it with the University of
    New Hampshire and a lot of volunteers.
        It was very impressive to watch the middle school and high
    school teams that were there manipulating the robots through a
    very challenging course underwater. I was interested to hear
    that, 2 years ago, the team that won was a team that got
    special dispensation to be able to join the competition. They
    were fourth-graders, and they beat not only the middle school
    but Phillips Exeter, which, as you know, is a prestigious
    private school, which came in third.
        So the talent is there among young people. We need to think
    about how we capture that, so that we get those kids excited to
    fill into those jobs as they are looking at what their futures
    might be.
        So I would encourage the Navy to continue to support those
    kinds of activities. I think they are really important.
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. Absolutely. There are so many
    tremendous jobs available to help defense out. We need to
    continue to do a great job to connect the population to those
    activities, and then leverage those ideas when we find them,
    have an acquisition system that can capture them.
        Senator Shaheen. Last year, Acting Secretary of the Navy
    Stackley testified to the importance of small businesses for
    the Department of the Navy. One of the things he talked about
    was not only their importance in providing innovation and being
    able to bring up, as he said, a very friendly cost structure,
    but he also pointed out that they have challenges working with
    the bureaucracy of our military.
        So can you talk about what more we can do to try to
    encourage small businesses and help them get into doing work
    for the Navy and for the military in general?
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. When I left SOCOM, I think we
    had over a third of our work that went directly to small
    business, so I am a huge fan of the agility and the robustness
    they bring.
        We have not talked much about supply base when we talk
    shipbuilders. The supply base is really the enabler for us, not
    just the shipyard, and most of that is driven by small
    business.
        Last week, I did a Facebook Live event with small business
    to try to communicate that the Navy is open for business with
    small business. We have assigned our deputy program managers
    for all our programs as a small business advocate to drive
    small business thinking even into larger programs. So it is
    certainly a focus area for me.
        I think the work to go is creating mechanisms where it is
    easy, if they have ideas, to get them into the Navy. And the
    bureaucratic friction to get them on contract and whatnot, we
    have to reduce all that, because the really capable ones are
    not going to stand for waiting. Their business will not survive
    if they have to wait 2 years to get on contract.
        Senator Shaheen. Absolutely. Most of them cannot afford it.
        The fact is, I visited a small business last week also that
    was doing work. One of the things that they complained about
    was virtually every agency they deal with has a different form
    that they have to fill out, and why can't we at least in the
    Navy, or across DOD in certain areas, have one form that, once
    they fill out and qualify, then they qualify for everything?
        Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. So as those come up, feel
    free to have them engage myself and the Navy small business. I
    need to know where those friction points are, and then we will
    tackle those friction points.
        Senator Shaheen. We will certainly get that to you. Thank
    you.
        Vice Admiral Merz. Ma'am, I would just add that the
    discussion we had with Senator Cotton on that submarine
    modernization program, that was a small business initiative. It
    continues to be a small business melting pot, to get those
    capabilities.
        Senator Shaheen. Great. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
        I am guessing that third-place entry by Phillips Exeter was
    not too shabby in and of itself.
        We are going to take a second round.
        Secretary Geurts, the Navy recently released a notice
    stating that the amphibious replacement ship requirement will
    be fulfilled by a San Antonio class Flight II with LPD-30 as
    the lead ship. Congress authorized and appropriated the Flight
    II lead ship in the fiscal year 2018 spending bill.
        Moving forward, Flight II will help remedy the shortfall of
    amphibious ships while leveraging a hot production line and
    supplier base.
        First, what is the Navy's acquisition strategy for the LPD
    Flight II program? And then, as you know, we use multiyear
    procurement authorities to achieve significant savings and
    predictability for the industrial base and programs, such as
    the Virginia class submarines and DDG-51 destroyers.
        With the design and requirements set, what is the most
    affordable way to contract for the next several LPD Flight II
    ships? Would it be helpful to procure long lead time material
    in a block buy in fiscal year 2019? And if so, do you believe
    the statutory requirements for a multiyear procurement contract
    could be met for LPD Flight II ships that would be procured
    beginning in fiscal year 2020?
        Secretary Geurts. Thanks, sir. So thank you very much
    Flight II ship in fiscal year 2018. That will be kind of the
    lead ship for that Flight II. But again, it is a derivative
    design, so that will be a high-confidence acquisition.
        Our current strategy is award that 2018 ship as quickly as
    we can to ensure we support General Walsh and the Marine Corps.
    Then I think we will look closely. It would appear to me that
    the serial production opportunities for the continuous
    production of that LPD-17 would be ripe for either a multiyear
    or a block buy. Currently, our next buy is in 2020. We did not
    request any money in 2019. At the time, the 2018 ship was
    coming in.
        If you were to add some economic order quantity or long-
    lead funding in 2019, that could accelerate delivery of those.
    If that is not available, we could do a block buy or in
    multiyear in fiscal year 2020. Putting some money in 2019 would
    help schedule a little bit, but we can execute in either
    manner.
        Senator Wicker. Very good.
        General Walsh, how important are training ranges for
    testing and integrating unmanned platforms? We included a
    provision in the fiscal year 2018 authorization act that
    requires the Navy to examine its current test and training
    range infrastructure. Can you give me an update on this issue?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. What I will say is that so much
    of what we are doing on the surface, in the air, and under the
    surface, so much is moving toward the unmanned. I mean, that
    area, as everybody knows, is just a booming industry, but
    certainly from a warfighting capacity. So our ranges are one of
    those things, too.
        I think one of the challenges we run into is manned
    capabilities, it is one thing on our ranges, but when we have
    to transition from, say, a base to a range with an unmanned
    capability, it is a different problem that we have not really
    had much in the past.
        So I think it is something that we are looking at in our
    ranges, but it is something we are going to have to tackle,
    because so much of our warfighting area is moving toward the
    unmanned area.
        Senator Wicker. Okay. Take a moment to discuss ship-to-
    shore connectors, General Walsh. There is a budget request for
    five. How do they fit into the Marine Corps concepts of
    amphibious operations?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. We appreciate the support we are
    getting on the ship-to-shore connector program, because our
    LCACs are getting so old. But the first LCAC 100 just this
    year, just recently in the last month or so, really just got
    flying, as we call them. They are very much like aircraft in a
    lot of ways, even though they go on the water. But it is
    critical to get the landing force from those ships to shore.
        Getting the critical capability to be able to get these new
    craft that can carry more weight and go longer distances is so
    important to our concept of operations, to be able to go ship
    to the objective. These are going to allow us to do that and
    rapidly grow the capability to meet the requirements we need in
    these new contested environments to go longer and faster.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you.
        Senator Hirono?
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        I am very intrigued by what you just said, General Walsh,
    that so much of our training is now in the unmanned capability
    area. So what does that do in terms of the number of people
    that you need to be in your service? What kind of impact does
    going toward an unmanned capability have on the Marine Corps,
    as well as on the Navy?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. One of the things we are looking
    at, working with Secretary Geurts' team, we learn a lot through
    our experimentation process. We do something with the
    Department of Navy called advanced naval technology
    experiments.
        Last year, we did one that was on ship-to-shore maneuvers,
    so it was looking at the area of how we get to shore
    differently. I think the thing that amazed us was, when we did
    this project, we had probably more than 100 industry
    technologies that were demonstrated at this weeklong event that
    we did at Camp Pendleton going from ship-to-shore. The amazing
    thing was probably the first 15 minutes of that evolution was
    all unmanned. It just shocked us with how technology is
    allowing us to operate completely differently.
        We just completed one 2 weeks ago where we did it in an
    urban environment. It was not at sea, but it was urban. I think
    if you are a Marine from Vietnam or World War II and you went
    into watching what the Marines were doing, you would have just
    been lost at what was going on with the amount of unmanned
    ground systems, vehicles that were in the air, and Marines now
    leveraging unmanned subsurface capabilities that we were
    learning from the submarine community to be able to allow us to
    do sensing, surveillance, and some weapons in cases, to be able
    to conduct unmanned operations.
        Senator Hirono. So what does that do to the need for
    training facilities? For example, on the Big Island, I think
    the Marines use it, we have Pohakuloa, and for the Army as
    well. What does that do, in terms of the kind of training
    facilities we need and what takes place at these facilities?
        Lieutenant General Walsh. I think, in a lot of ways, we are
    a little bit behind in trying to figure that out, because what
    we are running into is a lot of the restrictions or orders that
    we have are looking at how we would do it for manned systems.
    So in a lot of ways, when we try to integrate into with the
    unmanned systems, it is like you cannot do it because there is
    a rule or a reason why you cannot. It is a lot of the things
    you see today and why we are unable to deal with unmanned air
    systems that would be operating over our bases. How do you deal
    with that and try to protect our bases in the same way?
        So I think it is an area we are working through. It is a
    challenge now. It works well in, as I was saying earlier, our
    restricted training areas. But where you have to go from a base
    to a training area is where it is more of a problem.
        Vice Admiral Merz. Ma'am, I would add, from the Navy side,
    getting back to Secretary Geurts' initial acquisition strategy
    discussions about having many tools, that is one of the things
    we ran into head on. We only manned system acquisition
    requirements for unmanned systems. So we have done a lot of
    work to relax some of those, taking advantage of the fact that
    there is no danger to a human there, no direct danger.
        The training ranges, in general, they need some work. Those
    fell on the category of hard decisions over the last 10 years.
    We are being very deliberate about recovering those. We have
    done some structural things in the resourcing world. We have a
    centralized resource sponsor to cover all our unmanned
    vehicles. We are centralizing our program elements.
        So this is very much becoming mainstreamed. One of the
    reasons is to get your larger question of manning, maintaining.
    They do not come without cost. You think unmanned, no people.
    Less people, but still people. And they still need to have a
    total ownership cost-like approach to how we man and field
    those.
        Senator Hirono. And they need different skillsets.
        I am aware that we need to move our Marines out of Futenma,
    and that as they go through Guam, we need training facilities
    for them.
        General Walsh, you know that we are, as far as I know,
    still negotiating to get a training area on CNMI, Confederated
    Northern Mariana Islands. So I am probably going to want to
    follow up with you as to how that is going, in light of maybe
    you are going to change the kind of configuration or the kind
    of training that you intend to do there, because it is not as
    though the CNMI Government is welcoming that kind of live-fire
    training facility with open arms either.
        Lieutenant General Walsh. What I can add to that, Senator,
    is the Pacific Commander out there has looked at that training
    range that the Marine Corps is responsible. He is the executive
    agent for looking at that for the Joint Force, ensuring that it
    is meeting all the Joint Force needs. We stood up a working
    group now across the services to try to decide what that
    training range needs to be able to meet all the services'
    needs.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
        Senator King?
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Admiral Merz, to go back to the question I telegraphed,
    describe, please, the thinking that went into the re-missioning
    of the Zumwalt, where you see its functionality, where it is
    headed.
        Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. So the Zumwalt is a very
    progressive ship virtually in every element of its capability.
    So what we found was the advanced gun system has become a
    particularly hard challenge to get through, not so much the gun
    but the projectile.
        Senator King. The projectiles were too expensive. Wasn't
    that part of the problem?
        Vice Admiral Merz. Too expensive, and they were not meeting
    the range. So even at the high cost, we still were not really
    getting what we had asked for. So what we have elected to do is
    to separate the gun effort from the ship effort, because we
    really got to the point where now we are holding back the ship.
    That ship is very capable with or without the gun. The gun, of
    course, would make it more capable.
        So what we have elected to do is to proceed ahead with the
    ship delivered to the fleet as a strike platform. It does have
    80 vertical launch cells. They are the larger variety cells, so
    that opens up opportunities for advanced development on our
    weapons side also.
        Her combat system is very good, and her inherent ship
    capability. I can certainly brief you on a more classified
    level.
        Senator King. And it is stealth capabilities are important.
        Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir, very, very important.
        So we think the ship is very well built and ready to join
    the fleet. We are very excited to get her, and we will continue
    to develop the rounds for the gun in parallel.
        Senator King. We may have to go into a different setting.
    What about directed energy, based upon the enormous power that
    that platform generates?
        Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. We are very committed to
    directed energy. We have a family of lasers that we have moved
    into the accelerated acquisition arena. They are categorized by
    the power of the lasers. We are looking to field a handful of
    these over the next year, both our low- and medium-powered
    lasers, as we continued to develop----
        Senator King. Is this a possible option for the Zumwalt?
        Vice Admiral Merz. It is a possible option for all ships.
    So whether or not that would eventually replace the ship, right
    now, we have not given up on the projectile for the advanced
    gun system.
        Senator King. But you are not going to wait for it, I think
    is what you are saying.
        Vice Admiral Merz. No, sir. The ship is going out. Whether
    or not the directed energy is an ultimate replacement for that,
    time will tell on how we deal with the projectile. But it is a
    candidate option for all ships.
        Senator King. Mr. Geurts, you are talking about cruiser
    replacement. Is that also going to be an existing hull form?
    Are you looking in that direction?
        Secretary Geurts. Sir, I think as the CNO has described,
    and I will pass over to Admiral Merz because it is in his lane,
    we are going to look at those requirements closely. We are
    going to look at what the requirements are, and then how that
    matches up with the existing hull forms or new hull forms.
        But I would say, certainly, our experience as we are
    working through frigate----
        Senator King. That is what I was going to ask, if there are
    lessons learned there.
        Secretary Geurts. Yes. So seeing the speed, de-risking the
    program, delivering with high confidence, having the existing
    hull form provides a lot of benefits in those areas.
        So we will look at how the requirements process comes
    together, what comes out of Admiral Merz's shop, and then we
    will marry that with what that looks like in terms of available
    platforms. That is a process we have planned for the future.
        Bill, if you want to add?
        Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. Really quickly, we are
    immersed in this future service combatant requirements review.
    It is going from large to small, manned and unmanned, to
    optionally unmanned. It is going to be a very comprehensive
    plan on how we transition out of the cruiser, for one, but,
    ultimately, the DDG, and what would follow the frigate.
        The shipbuilding plan lays out very steady shipbuilding
    profiles. That is just to secure the commitment for these types
    of ships over time. They just secure the capability in those
    years. This plan will fill in those capabilities and when we
    need to do a phased shift to those.
        Senator King. You are talking about life extension on the
    DDGs. That could be an upgrade of capabilities, could it not?
        Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. It certainly could be.
        Senator King. This is a bit of an off-the-wall question,
    but I spent yesterday morning with Joint Force in Key West on
    drug interdiction.
        The startling numbers are these. For every 100 drug
    shipments they know about, they have the capacity to interdict
    25. In other words, 25 percent of what we know about through
    our intelligence is being interdicted. The rest is getting
    through. This is a gigantic detriment to our country.
        The short question is, got any spare ships?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator King. Are there mothballed frigates? Are there
    other ships? Because this is national defense. People are dying
    because we are not interdicting these ships. If these were
    terrorists coming in, I daresay we would figure out a way to
    stop them. And yet, people are dying because of these illicit
    drugs.
        Is there any possible conversation that could go on between
    the Coast Guard and the Navy, in terms of assets, training,
    those kinds of things?
        Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. These conversations are
    ongoing and endless. Rolling back to Senator Cotton's question
    about the combatant commander demands, everybody is stressed,
    so it becomes a priority sourcing on what we have.
        I will tell you that we are in the middle of what we call a
    requirements evaluation team look at intertheater missions.
    That is one of them that we are evaluating. This involves
    Expeditionary SURTASS, Expeditionary Medical, SOF support, the
    lift, and drug interdiction.
        So all these requirements we are putting on the table to
    see if there is something out there for a future small surface
    combatant that we can potentially start filling some of these
    holes.
        Senator King. I would urge you to think creatively, because
    we are fielding a lot of capability, for example, in the
    Western Pacific because of someone who may attack us, and yet,
    we are not adequately responding to someone who is attacking
    us.
        Thank you very much, gentlemen.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Senator King.
        Secretary Geurts, in February, I introduced a bill with
    Chairman McCain called the Surface Warfare Enhancement Act.
    This legislation expands the principal duties of your position
    to include sustainment and maintenance of ships, aircraft, and
    other weapons systems. The intent is to make a single Senate-
    confirmed civilian official responsible for sustainment, which
    has historically accounted for approximately 70 percent of the
    total lifecycle cost of a weapons system.
        What is your view of such a change?
        Secretary Geurts. Sir, I think there is an absolute link
    between the acquisition and the sustainment piece of things. As
    we build the 355-ship fleet, we are going to have to really
    work hard on the sustainment because that is, again, 70 percent
    of the cost.
        So if that is the view of Congress to put that all under
    the RDA hat, I think there is opportunity to leverage that all
    under one hat. Even short of that, I would tell you----
        Senator Wicker. Is it a good idea?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Wicker. Or do you want to take issue with Senator
    McCain and----
        Secretary Geurts. I do not want to take any issue with
    Senator McCain.
        I think it is good to look at it holistically. I guess what
    I was going to say is, we are doing that already, Admiral Merz
    and I.
        I think in the next version of the shipbuilding plan, we
    are going to try to look at the sustainment piece, not just the
    new build of that. So we are doing that. If that gets codified
    in law, that just makes it clearer.
        But I am committed to spending as much energy trying to get
    our arms around the sustainment, whether it is the shipbuilding
    yards or contracting strategies or our programmatic approaches
    to sustainment as I am on the front end of programs.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much.
        Senator King, I might point out that we had exactly
    precisely the same testimony in the Commerce Committee today
    about drug interdiction and the fact that so much of what we
    know is out there is simply unenforceable, because we do not
    have the assets. So I appreciate you mentioning that.
        If there is nothing further, we thank the witnesses very,
    very much for their testimony.
        We will leave the record open for the customary 3 days for
    questions for the record, and we ask our witnesses to get their
    answers back to us as quickly as possible.
        Senator Wicker. If there is nothing else, this hearing is
    adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]

                               [all]