[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]