[Senate Hearing 115-437]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Shelby, Collins, Murkowski,
Graham, Blunt, Daines, Moran, Durbin, Murray, Reed, Tester,
Schatz, and Baldwin.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. SEAN J. STACKLEY, ACTING SECRETARY
opening statement of senator thad cochran
Senator Cochran. The committee will please come to order.
This morning, our committee is reviewing the budget
submission of the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval
Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. We
appreciate very much the cooperation with our committee in
providing statements for our record of the hearing.
We have the good fortune of having the best Armed Forces of
any Nation. Our committees of jurisdiction have reviewed your
written statements, so we invite you to make a summary
statement that you think would be helpful to our understanding
of your budget submissions.
We have members of the committee, who served for some time
collectively, and it is a pleasure working with them, and I
appreciate their attendance today. We will proceed now to hear
from them. If there are any opening statements, we will be glad
to put your statements in the record, and then proceed to hear
from the witnesses.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Good morning, the subcommittee will come to order. Today we are
receiving testimony on the fiscal year 2018 Navy and Marine Corps
budget request. We are pleased to welcome, the Honorable Sean J.
Stackley, Acting Secretary of the Navy; Admiral John M. Richardson,
Chief of Naval Operations; and General Robert B. Neller, Commandant of
the Marine Corps.
For fiscal year 2018, the President's budget requests $171.5
billion in base funding to support the Navy and Marine Corps. The
request is $12 billion more than the current funding level. The request
also includes $8.5 billion to support on-going Overseas Contingency
Operations. These funds will support the training and operations of
Sailors and Marines throughout the world.
We appreciate the complexity of building the fiscal year 2018
budget and the tradeoffs necessary to ensure sufficient readiness and
investments needed to position for emerging threats to our security.
We look forward to your testimony, and sincerely appreciate your
service to our Nation, as well as the dedication and sacrifices made
daily by all the men and women under your command.
Your full statements will be included in the record.
Now I will turn to the Vice Chairman, the distinguished Senator
from Illinois, for his opening remarks.
Senator Cochran. If not, we will welcome specifically the
Honorable Sean J. Stackley, Acting Secretary of the Navy;
Admiral John M. Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations; and
General Robert B. Neller, Commandant of the Marine Corps.
The purpose of the hearing is to review the 2018 fiscal
year budget request from the Department of the Navy and Marine
Corps. We thank you so much for your leadership, and you may
proceed to provide us the benefit of your statement.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. SEAN J. STACKLEY
Secretary Stackley. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of
the subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
with the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) and the Commandant to
testify on the Department of the Navy's 2018 budget request.
We are extremely grateful for your subcommittee's
particular continued strong support for our Navy and Marine
Corps, and we look forward to working with you on this year's
budget request.
As the Nation's forward global force, your Navy and Marine
Corps stand ready to respond to crisis every hour, every day
around the world. From the northern Atlantic to the
Mediterranean, from the Straits of Hormuz to the Straits of
Malacca, and the vast expanses of the Pacific, and on the
ground in 37 countries around the world today, 110,000 sailors
and marines, and more than one-third of our fleet are deployed
conducting combat operations, international exercises,
maintaining maritime security, providing strategic deterrence,
and standing by to respond to humanitarian crises or natural
disasters.
The value of our forward presence and our ability to
conduct prompt sea based operations is the surest deterrent to
conflict and the surest guarantor of our national interests.
But maintaining the scale of these operations relies upon
our ability to maintain a high state of readiness. We have been
increasingly challenged to do so, however, by the growing
imbalance between the size of the force, the operational demand
placed on the force, and the funding available to operate and
sustain the force.
Years of combat and high operational tempo have accelerated
the aging of ships and aircraft, increased our maintenance
requirements, drawn down munitions and supply parts, and
impacted our training. Budget constraints, budget uncertainty,
and continuing resolutions have exacerbated these issues with
the net impact being a decline in overall material condition of
our ships and aircraft. Accordingly, our priority in this
budget request is to fully fund maintenance, spares, munitions,
increase steaming days and flying hours.
It is critical, however, that we make these course
corrections without turning to our modernization and
procurement accounts as bill payers for maintaining our
readiness while ultimately rely upon growing the force to match
the challenges ahead. So while building readiness is the
priority in 2018, building the sized Navy and Marine Corps and
capacity that the Nation needs will be the priority in the
upcoming defense strategy review.
This year's budget request procures eight ships, the
aircraft carrier Enterprise, two Virginia-class submarines, two
Arleigh Burke destroyers, one littoral combat ship, a fleet
oiler, and a towing salvage and rescue. The budget request also
includes advanced procurement critical to the Navy's top
shipbuilding priority, the Columbia-class and ballistic missile
submarine program.
It is worth noting that the Gerald R. Ford CVN 78 got
underway today on acceptance trials and is on track to deliver
this month. Lessons learned from Ford's design and construction
are driving down costs for her first follow-on ship with the
John F. Kennedy today.
The Virginia submarine and Arleigh Burke destroyer programs
continue the successful production runs and we will be seeking
your support to continue with the multiyear strategies that
have yielded substantial savings and provided critical
stability to the industrial base.
The Department particularly thanks you for your support in
2017 with the appropriation of the LPD 29. This added ship
provides tremendous support to our amphibious lift requirements
and the industrial base, while providing an effective
transition to the future of amphibious ship LX(R) program for
2020.
In 2014, the Navy was directed to truncate the Littoral
Combat Ship (LCS) program at 28 LCS and transition to the
frigate. Our plan proposed to accelerate the frigate design in
order to avoid a production gap at our LCS shipyards.
Since that time, the security environment, the budget
environment, and the industrial base have changed. We are
refining our requirements of a frigate to increase multi
mission capability. And in view of the additional year required
to get to a 2020 contract, we will continue to procure LCS to
maintain the industrial base.
The three ships appropriated in 2017, with the additional
ship requested in this year's budget, ensure continuous
production at both yards. This rate of production, however,
only meets the minimum sustainment.
And so, we will continue to update our assessment of the
frigate schedule, assess the effects of this and other
shipbuilding contract awards on the industrial base, and make
any appropriation modifications to our budget for 2019 to
ensure healthy competition for the future frigate program.
The budget request continues the steady recapitalization of
Navy and Marine Corps aviation capability. In total, we plan to
procure 91 manned and unmanned aircraft as we shift from large
scale development efforts to mature production for most of our
aviation programs.
Of particular note, the budge request includes funding for
24 F-35 and 14 Super Hornet aircraft, which will help to arrest
the decline in our strike fighter inventory while keeping us on
target for six squadrons of fifth generation aircraft from our
carrier decks in the 2024 timeframe.
We are requesting congressional approval for a third V-22
multiyear procurement in 2018 which would provide the most
affordable method to procure the final 65 aircraft for that
program.
This budget supports end strength of 185,000 Marines, the
proper size for today's mission. The Marine Corps is invested
in select ground capabilities to conduct distributed operations
and address changes in the operational environment including
procurement of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, the replacement
of about one-third of the legacy HMMWV fleet with a Joint Light
Tactical Vehicle, and survivability upgrades to the legacy
Amphibious Assault Vehicle.
Now, the Department of the Navy cannot accomplish its
mission to maintain readiness or modernize without a strong and
integrated industrial base. We have utilized contracting tools,
such as multiyear economic order quantity buys and capital
expenditure incentives, to provide a stable commitment to
industry. We appreciate past congressional effort and support
for these efforts and look for your continued support in the
future.
No quantity of next generation of ships or aircraft,
however, will bring victory without the skilled, dedicated,
talented sailors, and Marines, and civilians who build,
maintain, and operate our Navy and Marine Corps, and who
provide our naval forces with our asymmetric advantage.
Despite 16 years of combat operations, extended
deployments, and reserve mobilizations, today's force is the
most talented and highly performing in history.
In return, it is our responsibility to provide the
incentives to attract and the conditions to ensure that all who
are qualified to serve in our Navy and Marine Corps can do so
while creating an environment that promotes dignity and respect
for all. This remains a top priority for the Department.
In conclusion, our priority in this year President's budget
request is to rebuild the readiness and lay the foundation for
future growth in terms of numbers of ships and aircraft, and
advance capability of the force. To support these objectives,
we will need your continued support, and look to break the
cycle of continuing resolutions in providing the increased
outline budget provided in detail by our President's budget
request regarding the defense caps as imposed by the Budget
Control Act.
I want to thank this subcommittee for your enduring support
to our sailors, Marines, and civilians, and their families.
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sean J. Stackley
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify regarding the
Department of the Navy's 2018 President's Budget request.
Having the opportunity to serve our Sailors, Marines and
civilians--a force of over 800,000 strong--as the Acting Secretary of
the Navy is an extraordinary privilege that brings with it
extraordinary responsibility. The members of this sub-committee
understand with full recognition the quality and dedication of our men
and women in uniform who willingly put their Nation before themselves;
who stand ready to respond to crisis every hour, every day, around the
world; and who willfully sacrifice their livelihood and, if need be,
their very life so that we here in America may enjoy the freedoms we
cherish so deeply. The dedication, professionalism, unwavering
commitment to duty, and sacrifice shown by our Sailors and Marines and
their families, and the corps of professional civilians who support
them, is the foundation upon which our national security is built.
As the nation's forward global force, the men and women of your
Navy and Marine Corps are fully deployed, continuously present afloat
and ashore, promoting and protecting the national interests of the
United States. If called, they are prepared to `fight tonight' and win.
But, by operating forward, by maintaining a high state of readiness, by
participating in international exercises and providing assurance to our
partners and allies, by securing the maritime and ensuring access to
the global commons, by performing the full spectrum of missions
assigned--from humanitarian assistance to strategic deterrence--our
greater objective is to dissuade our adversaries and ultimately, to
deter potential conflict. To this end, the Navy and Marine Corps
operate as part of the larger Joint Force, uniquely providing the
sovereignty and persistence of a sea-based force able to operate
wherever the waters reach and able to rapidly maneuver ashore as an
expeditionary force with air and ground support. It is this ability to
operate independently for sustained periods that places naval forces in
such a high demand that Combatant Commanders' peacetime requests for
naval forces exceed the capacity of the currently sized force. Careful
management of our training, maintenance and deployment cycles, however,
has ensured our presence and our readiness to meet the nation's highest
priority demands as directed by the Secretary of Defense.
operational overview
In the past year, from Norway to the Baltic, from the Black Sea to
the Mediterranean, from the Horn of Africa to the Arabian Gulf, from
the west coast of Africa to the straits of Malacca, from the Philippine
Sea to the Sea of Japan, to the coasts of the Americas, and on the
ground in 37 countries around the world, on any given day greater than
100,000 Sailors and Marines have been continually deployed, operating
multiple carrier-strike groups, amphibious ready groups, Marine
Expeditionary Units, squadrons, submarines, and battle staffs. Our
presence in regions of interest around the world demonstrates U.S.
commitment to these regions, strengthens our alliances and
partnerships, and ensures our readiness to respond to any provocation.
We are a nation at war and the value of our forward presence and of
our ability to conduct prompt, offensive sea-based operations is
exercised every day. Throughout the course of the past year, greater
than 2,000 strike sorties flown from the decks of the Dwight D.
Eisenhower (CVN 69) and George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), along with
electronic warfare support from Marine Corps squadrons based at
Incirlik Air Base, have supported Operation INHERENT RESOLVE in the
fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). More
recently, upon the Presidential order to respond to Syria's use of
chemical weapons, USS Ross (DDG 71) and USS Porter (DDG 78) were
present and ready to strike with their complement of Tomahawk missiles.
While present forward in 5th and 6th Fleets aboard Makin Island and
Bataan Amphibious Ready Groups, Marines from the 11th and 24th MEUs,
deployed ashore to provide time critical artillery and security support
in Northern Syria. Marines from II MEF established Task Force Southwest
in Helmand Province to assist our Afghan partners in retaining control
of that contested area. Meanwhile, our Navy SEALS, Marine Corps Special
Operating Forces, and supporting expeditionary elements continue to
execute counter-terrorism operations in support of our theater Special
Operations Commands.
Concurrent with the high tempo of combat operations, we continue
our heavy engagement in the conduct of international naval exercises
and training. In June 2016; SIXTH Fleet units completed Exercise
BALTOPS, a high-end joint exercise, demonstrating American and NATO
resolve in the Baltic Sea region. The following month, the U.S. Navy
joined with our NATO, Baltic and Black Sea partners for the 15th
iteration of Exercise SEA BREEZE. In the following months, in the
Arctic, our Marines participated in the Norwegian-hosted exercise COLD
RESPONSE, testing warfighting skills in a cold weather environment. In
the Straits of Hormuz, 5th Fleet conducted its international MCMEX with
30 international partners to hone our skills and demonstrate our
resolve to ensure freedom of navigation. Half the world away, in the
Pacific region, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps participated in 69
international exercises to strengthen our partnerships and demonstrate
our commitment. The 25th anniversary of the Rim of the Pacific Exercise
(RIMPAC) brought together twenty-six maritime nations, including China,
along with 40 ships and submarines, over 200 aircraft, and 25,000
personnel for the largest international maritime exercise in the world.
SEVENTH Fleet units operating alongside our Japanese and Indian
partners conducted the trilateral Exercise MALABAR in the Philippine
Sea focused on anti-submarine warfare and search-and-rescue
capabilities. In Thailand the Navy and Marine Corps participated in the
major multilateral exercise Cobra Gold and in Korea we participated in
Exercises FOAL EAGLE and KEEN RESOLVE with our South Korean allies,
showing steadfastness in the face of North Korean provocations. We
conducted multiple Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT)
engagements with countries ranging from Singapore to Brunei. This small
sampling of our international engagements is enabled by a robust
forward presence across the globe.
The foundation of our Naval forces' credibility as reliable
partners and as an effective deterrent is our forward presence. From
the vast expanses of the Pacific, to the restricted waters of the
Arabian Gulf, to the Caribbean, the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean,
and the Gulf of Aden we are on watch around the clock.
Our permanent forward presence in the Mediterranean has
strengthened with the homeporting of four Aegis Ballistic Missile
Defense Destroyers in Rota, Spain, and with achieving Initial
Operational Capability of the U.S. AEGIS Ashore Missile Defense System
in Romania in 2016. The Marine Corps Special Purpose Marine Air Ground
Task Force--Crisis Response, based in Moron, Spain, provides regional
capabilities to instantly respond to crises ranging from non- combatant
evacuation, to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, to combat
operations.
With its permanently stationed Patrol Craft, Mine Countermeasures
ships and rotating combat forces, the U.S. FIFTH Fleet, from its
headquarters in Bahrain, provides a clear signal of the American
commitment to the region. Our leadership and participation in the
Combined Maritime Forces (CMF) in the Indian Ocean, together with 31 of
our partner nations, promotes maritime security, helps defeat
terrorism, and combats piracy in the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Gulf
of Aden and the Red Sea.
The value of our presence is not limited to the Indian Ocean. In
2016, a U.S.-led naval training maneuver in the vicinity of the Gulf of
Guinea transformed into a counter-piracy mission where navies from the
United States, Ghana, Sao Tome and Principe, Togo, and Nigeria tracked
a hijacked tanker through the waters of five countries and successfully
freed the vessel and rescued the hostages.
Permanently present on the east coast of Africa, U.S. Naval forces
command and operate the United States sole forward operating base on
that continent, Camp Lemonnier. In support of Combined Joint Task Force
Horn of Africa and working closely with our African partners, our
presence improves cooperation among regional maritime forces, builds
maritime law enforcement capacity and capability, and strengthens
maritime domain awareness in order to constrict operating space for
maritime crime and piracy.
The Navy and Marine Corps maintain a consistent presence across the
vast expansiveness of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, the world's most
rapidly growing, dynamic and increasingly important region. With forces
permanently stationed in Hawaii, Guam, Korea, Singapore, and Japan and
deployed from our east and west coasts, our commitment to this
potentially volatile region continues to strengthen. In early 2017, the
Marine Corps relocated the first operational squadron of F-35Bs to
Iwakuni, Japan from Yuma, Arizona and increased the capability of its
rotational aviation combat element in Darwin, Australia with four MV-22
Ospreys. The Marine Corps continues its realignment of forces across
the Western Pacific to enhance our deterrent posture while
simultaneously reducing the footprint of U.S. bases in Okinawa.With our
permanent stationing of 35 ships, 38,000 Sailors and 24,000 Marines in
the Western Pacific combined with a robust rotational deployment of
Carrier Strike Groups, Amphibious Ready Groups, surface combatants,
submarines, aircraft and supporting forces, our commitment to the
stability and security of the Asia-Pacific region is clear to all who
would question it.
In our own backyard, U.S. Navy surface, air, and shore-based assets
are forward and present throughout the western hemisphere. Under
OPERATION MARTILLO, our Cyclone-class patrol coastal ships USS Zephyr
and USS Shamal, with embarked U.S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement
Detachments, seized over 5,000 kilograms of contraband in interdiction
operations in 2016. USNS Spearhead recently concluded Continuing
Promise 2017, visiting Guatemala, Honduras, and Colombia to conduct
civil-military operations including humanitarian assistance, training
engagements and medical, dental, and veterinary support. Last October,
in response to Hurricane Matthew and at the request of the U.S. Agency
of International Development, 100 Marines from Special Purpose Marine
Air Ground Task Force--Southern Command, USS Iwo Jima, USS Mesa Verde,
and elements of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit provided
humanitarian assistance/disaster relief to the people of Haiti.
These are but a few examples of the daily operations of our Sailors
and Marines. Forward deployed and ready, our naval forces project our
national values through their frequent international engagements and
humanitarian assistance or disaster relief operations, and protect our
national interests through their mobility, agility, and combat power.
building readiness
Maintaining the readiness of our naval forces is key to maintaining
the scope and scale of operations demanded of them. We have been
increasingly challenged in our ability to do so, however, by the
growing imbalance between the size of the force, the operational demand
placed on the force, and the funding available to operate and sustain
the force. Since 2001, about 100 ships have routinely been deployed
each day in response to operational requirements. During this same
period, the size of the battle force has drawn down by 14 percent,
resulting in a steady increase to deployment lengths and the
operational tempo of the force. Schedules for training and maintenance
have been compressed as a result. Years of high flying hour operations
have accelerated the aging of our airframes, increased our maintenance
requirements, drawn down available supply parts, broken the
engineering-material-maintainers `line of balance', and increasingly
impacted availability of aircraft for training and surge operations.
Budget constraints, budget uncertainty, and Continuing Resolutions have
exacerbated these issues that stretch from the flight line to the gun
line to our depots. Each of these factors has placed added strain on
our ships, aircraft, tactical vehicles, and the Sailors and Marines who
deploy with them.
The budget environment throughout this period has increased the
challenges to our Sailors' and Marines' ability to perform their
mission. Since passage of the Budget Control Act, in particular, our
increased operational tempo has been met with a decreasing budget, when
measured in constant dollars. The net impact of this increased
operational tempo under the pressures of a reduced budget has been a
decline in the material condition of our ships and aircraft and
training of our Sailors and Marines. In order to meet our immediate
commitments, we have placed priority on ensuring the readiness of our
deployed forces and our `next to deploy' forces, but we are
increasingly challenged to meet future deployment commitments or to
surge forces in time of need due to the steady erosion to readiness of
the total force that has occurred during this period.
Reversing this trend requires that we first rebuild the warfighting
readiness of the current force. Accordingly, our priority in the fiscal
year 2017 budget, including the Request for Additional Appropriations,
and in the fiscal year 2018 budget request is to fully fund our
maintenance and training accounts. We must do this, however, without
turning to our modernization and procurement accounts as the `bill
payer', for maintaining our readiness in the long term will require
that we grow the force in terms of capacity and lethality to match the
demands that are placed upon it.
The fiscal year 2018 budget request funds ship operations and ship
depot maintenance to 100 percent of the forecast requirement to rebuild
our readiness at the unit level. Equivalent measures are being taken to
fund flying hours and aviation depot maintenance to rebuild aviation
readiness.
Funding for spare parts has been increased to reduce logistic delay
time and ultimately to increase steaming days and flying hours. The
planning, engineering, and maintenance support manpower at the naval
shipyards and aviation depots has been increased in order to align the
workforce to the projected workload. Major shipyard equipment and IT
infrastructure is being modernized at a rate above benchmarks to
improve workforce performance, execute maintenance more efficiently,
and reduce work stoppages. When and where needed, we are leveraging the
skill sets and capacity of private industry to augment our efforts.
These investments in people, the industrial plant, and the industrial
base are critical to improving shipyard and aviation depot throughput
and capacity and, more importantly, to increasing the operational
availability of our highest demand assets--our nuclear aircraft
carriers and submarines and tactical aircraft. It is important to note,
however, the effects of multiple years of insufficient resources cannot
be corrected in one budget year; the Department will require stable,
predictable funding over multiple years to achieve sustained positive
results.
Looking forward, we're working closely with industry on our most
critical ship modernization and aviation programs to improve
reliability in the near term (therefore reducing maintenance
requirements) and to invest in planning, engineering, material, and
facilities in support of long term maintenance and modernization
requirements.
Alongside our depots, our operational installations are a major
component of the Department's readiness requirements. Navy and Marine
Corps installations provide physical environments essential for
individual, unit and total force training; force deployment; materiel
sustainment; unit recovery; and equipment reconstitution. fiscal year
2018 funded the requirement for Department of the Navy facility
sustainment nearly 10 percent above 2017 funding levels. Within this
funding level, we are careful to preserve critical facility components
and to perform facility maintenance that affects the health and safety
of Sailors, Marines and their families. However, we continue to carry
risk in facility sustainment and will need to closely monitor and
manage the material condition of our many facilities. Over and above
facility sustainment, Military Construction also increased by about 10
percent in fiscal year 2018, with priority placed on these capital
investment projects that will preclude mission failure, increase
facility optimization, and sustain critical power, cyber-security and
utility capacity.
The Department of the Navy (DON) fully supports the Department of
Defense request for authorization to conduct a Base Realignment and
Closure round in 2021. Enduring savings from BRAC recommendations will
leave more DoD resources available for future force structure or
readiness requirements. Although Navy and Marine Corps infrastructure
capacity is about right, completing the more detailed analysis once a
BRAC is authorized will have value, and may highlight opportunities for
some savings.
building the force
The Naval Force is confronting new challenges in the 21st Century.
The United States is facing a return to great power competition, as
Russia and China demonstrate both the advanced capabilities and the
desire to act as global powers in their own discrete self-interest. The
Russian Navy is operating at a pace and in areas not seen since the
mid-1990s, and the Chinese Navy is continuing to extend its reach
around the world. Assertive competitors with peer-like military
capabilities have emerged that will contest our interests globally and
test the resilience of our alliances. Potential adversaries with less
military power are gaining capabilities through the proliferation of
advanced technologies that challenge our ability to ensure maritime
access and freedom of navigation in the littorals. Our adversaries are
pursuing advanced weapon systems at a level and pace of development not
seen since the mid-1980s and both near-peer nations and non-state
actors pose credible threats to our security.
The Department of the Navy is responding by investing in capacity
and advanced capabilities that increase the size and lethality of both
the current and future force, providing our Sailors and Marines with
what they need to fight and win a 21st Century conflict.
The 2018 budget request continues the steady recapitalization of
Navy and Marine Corps aviation capability. The balance has shifted from
large scale development efforts of prior years to mature production and
modernization of in-service aircraft for most of our major aviation
programs; while our most advanced aircraft--from the fifth generation
Joint Strike Fighter to the CH-53K Heavy Lift helicopter to the high
altitude long endurance unmanned MQ-4 Triton--are rapidly transitioning
to full rate production.
Our shipbuilding program is informed by the Chief of Naval
Operations' 2016 Force Structure Assessment (FSA). The larger force and
mix of ships outlined in the FSA reflect extensive analysis regarding
our operational cycle and the changing security environment. While
there is general agreement that we must increase the size of our fleet,
the potential timelines associated with fleet expansion requires that
we implement improvements in concept development, research and
development, and rapid fielding efforts to accelerate the fielding of
advanced capabilities that will provide our fleet a force multiplier
effect. As well, given the budget challenges inherent to expanding our
fleet size, we will need to further our efforts to drive down the
cost--in terms of both time and money--associated with our major
programs. Ultimately, the affordability challenges associated with
building this larger fleet will need to be addressed in the context of
the pending Defense Review.
While there is general agreement that we must increase the size of
our fleet, the timeline associated with fleet expansion requires that
we implement improvements in concept development, research and
development, and rapid fielding efforts to accelerate the fielding of
advanced capabilities that will provide our fleet a force multiplier
effect. As well, given the budget challenges inherent to expanding our
fleet size, we will need to further our efforts to drive down the
cost--in terms of both time and money--associated with our major
programs. Ultimately, the affordability challenges associated with
building this larger fleet will need to be addressed in the context of
the pending Defense Review.
As the nation's expeditionary force in readiness, the Marine Corps
has been continuously engaged in major combat and crisis response
missions over the past 16 years, resulting in a force that, in the
absence of change, would be improperly structured or equipped to meet
the demands of a future operating environment characterized by complex
terrain, technology proliferation, information warfare, and an
increasingly non-permissive maritime domain. This budget supports a
Marine Corps end strength of 185,000 Marines, the proper size for
today's mission. The Marine Corps is proposing force capability changes
to meet the demands of the future operating environment of 2025 and
beyond. Additional analysis will address modernization and the
acquisition of capabilities necessary for the future fight.
From aviation to ships to tactical vehicles to trained Sailors and
Marines, the immediate priority on building readiness and improving the
wholeness of the current force paces our ability to grow force
structure in 2018. Building the Navy and Marine Corps to the size that
the nation needs will require increased investment over an extended
period of time, beginning in the future years of the Defense Plan, as
informed by the pending Defense Strategy.
Shipbuilding
The fiscal year 2018 President's Budget request invests in the
modernization of our current platforms and weapons; supports
procurement of seven major warships and two auxiliary ships: the
Enterprise (CVN 80) Ford Class aircraft carrier, two Virginia Class
(SSN) attack submarines, two Arleigh Burke Class (DDG 51) guided
missile destroyers, two Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), one John Lewis
Class fleet oiler, and one (T-ATS) towing, salvage and rescue ship; and
continues advanced procurement for the lead ship of the Columbia Class
ballistic missile submarine program.
The first new design aircraft carrier in 40 years, Gerald R. Ford
(CVN 78) will deliver this month. The Ford is delivering on promised
capability, as demonstrated by land-based, pierside, and at-sea testing
to-date. The cost for this new ship class remains of great concern,
however, and the Navy and industry are focused on capturing lead ship
lessons learned, refining the ship construction process, capitalizing
on technological improvements, and enhancing shipbuilder facilities to
drive down cost. Cost performance on CVN 79 is promising thus far, and
we are committed to expanding ongoing cost control initiatives to
further reduce ship cost.
The Columbia Class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) program, the
planned replacement for the Ohio Class, is the Navy's top shipbuilding
priority. The program is executing detailed design efforts in
preparation for ordering long lead time material in fiscal year 2019
and starting construction in fiscal year 2021. The program's delivery
schedule is tightly aligned to the retirement schedule of our current
ballistic missile submarine inventory. Cost, schedule, and technical
performance on this program are being thoroughly managed to ensure we
deliver on time, on budget, and on target per our requirements.
The Virginia Class SSN program continues to deliver submarines that
are operationally ready to deploy within budget. The Block IV contract
for 10 ships continues co-production of the Class through fiscal year
2018. The Navy intends to build on past success with a Block V
Multiyear Procurement (MYP) contract for 10 boats, planned for fiscal
year 2019. This represents an increase of one submarine in fiscal year
2021, while also introducing two new capabilities to the fleet--the
Virginia Payload Module and Acoustic Superiority.
With 64 ships at sea and 12 additional ships under construction or
on contract, the Arleigh Burke Class (DDG 51) program is the Navy's
most successful shipbuilding program. Like the Virginia program, the
Navy intends to build on past success with a MYP for ten DDG 51s
beginning in fiscal year 2018. These ships will incorporate upgrades to
integrated air and missile defense which is being introduced in the
fiscal year 2017 ships.
Complementing the DDG 51, the lead ship of the Zumwalt Class (DDG
1000) delivered in May 2016, and is now in its homeport undergoing
combat systems activation with completion scheduled for fiscal year
2018. The remaining two ships of the Class are under construction.
The Navy is planning and executing the modernization of 11
Ticonderoga Class Cruisers (CG 63-73); critical to providing dedicated
Air Defense Commander (ADC) capability through the 2030s. The fiscal
year 2018 President's Budget requests funding to execute the ``2-4-6''
plan on seven of the eleven CGs. The remaining four CGs, which have
Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) capability, will receive modernization
to their hull, mechanical and electrical systems in fiscal year 2021 to
support their operation through their engineered service life.
The 2016 FSA revalidated the warfighting requirement for a total of
52 small surface combatants, including the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
and a future Frigate. To date, nine LCS ships have delivered and 17 are
in construction or under contract, and all are on track to deliver well
within the congressional cost cap. Three additional ships were
authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2017 which, with the
additional ships supported by this year's budget, ensure continued
production and will further mitigate the potential for layoffs at both
shipyards while the Navy refines the requirements and acquisition
strategy for the future Frigate. The LCS program continues to
incrementally field its mission systems.
LCS 4 is currently deployed with the first instantiation of an
over-the-horizon missile capability. The LCS Surface-to-Surface Missile
Module with Longbow Hellfire is currently in testing and on track for
introduction in 2018, and the Mine Countermeasure and Anti-Submarine
Warfare mission modules are in testing, targeting introduction in
fiscal year 2019 and 2021, respectively.
The Navy is revising its requirements for the future Frigate to
increase its multi-mission capability, lethality and survivability. The
Navy currently assesses that adding these capabilities to the Frigate's
design will delay its procurement to fiscal year 2020. We will work
closely with industry as we release the draft Request for Proposal for
this new ship class; continually update our assessment of the Frigate
schedule, assess the effects of this and other shipbuilding contract
awards on the industrial base, and make any appropriate modifications
to our plan for fiscal year 2019 LCS procurement as necessary to ensure
healthy competition for the future Frigate program.
This Navy continues to build toward a 34-amphibious ship force by
fiscal year 2022. The appropriation by Congress for LPD 29 in fiscal
year 2017 supports both amphibious lift requirements and the industrial
base. In conjunction with the Navy's fiscal year 2016 award for the LHA
8, the Fleet oiler (T-AO 206), and LX(R) design, LPD-29 provides for an
effective transition to LX(R) in fiscal year 2020.
To help offset challenges associated with increasing our fleet
size, the Navy is expanding its global reach through the development of
unmanned capabilities that will augment our manned platforms. Most
recently, the Navy designated the Large Displacement Unmanned
Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV) as a Maritime Accelerated Capability Office
program to accelerate unmanned underwater vehicle capability, and
released a Request for Proposal to industry to develop an Extra Large
Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (XLUUV) that will have extended range and a
modular payload capability. These UUVs will aid in the intelligence
assessment of the operational environment as well as respond to the
Combatant Commander's mission needs.
Similarly, surface operations will be augmented through an
integrated team of manned and unmanned autonomous capabilities and
capacity. Ongoing investments in autonomy and mine countermeasure
technology will continue to reduce the threat of mines in contested
waters while also reducing the risk to our Sailors while conducting
this dangerous mission.
Aviation
The Department is continuing the recapitalization of our aviation
assets ranging from our strike fighter aircraft to Marine Corps heavy
lift helicopters, and Navy maritime patrol aircraft, while continuing
our efforts with unmanned systems. In fiscal year 2018 we plan to
procure 91 manned and unmanned aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps.
Our investment prioritizes capability, capacity, and wholeness as we
restore aviation readiness.
Navy Carrier Air Wing composition will be a mix of 4th generation
and 5th generation fighter aircraft squadrons (F/A-18 E/F and F-35C),
leveraging each aircraft's strengths and capabilities to provide over-
match against expected threats while providing a cost efficient force
structure. The fiscal year 2018 President's Budget request keeps the
Department of the Navy on a path to have 5th generation aircraft
comprise 50 percent of its tactical aviation assets in the Pacific
Command Area of Responsibility by 2024.
The F/A-18 A-D was designed for, and has achieved, a service life
of 6,000 flight hours, performing as expected through its design life.
In addition to the maintenance and modernization work the Navy is
currently executing to extend the life of the F-18A-D inventory to
9,000 flight hours, we are working to transition to the newer and more
capable Super Hornets and F-35 as quickly as possible to eliminate the
increasing cost, at both the flight line and depot level, of keeping
legacy aircraft in service.
The fiscal year 2018 Budget request includes funding for 14 Super
Hornets in fiscal year 2018 with additional aircraft required in the
outyears to arrest the decline in our strike fighter inventory and
enable older aircraft to be pulled from service for mid-life upgrades
and service life extension. The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet will be the
numerically predominant aircraft in the Carrier Air Wing through the
mid-2030s.
The future of the Department's tactical aircraft relies on 5th
generation F-35B and F-35C aircraft. The F-35 brings unprecedented low
observable technology, modern weaponry, and electronic warfare
capability to naval aviation. These aircraft will recapitalize some of
our oldest aircraft--our legacy F/A-18s and AV-8Bs--which are rapidly
approaching the end of their service lives. In 2015, Marine Fighter
Attack Squadron 121 became the world's first F-35 squadron to achieve
operational capability and is now forward deployed in Japan. In 2018,
the Navy and Marine Corps team will deploy two Amphibious Ready Groups
with embarked Marine Expeditionary Units; each with a detachment of F-
35Bs aboard ship marking the first extended at sea deployments for the
F-35. The Navy's first F-35C squadron begins transition in 2018;
Initial Operational Capability (IOC) is expected by early 2019, and the
first deployment on an aircraft carrier is planned for 2021. This
budget procures 20 F-35B and 4 F-35C aircraft in fiscal year 2018.
The EA-18G Growler is a critical enabler for the joint force,
bringing fully netted warfare capabilities to the fight and providing
unmatched agility in the Electromagnetic Maneuver Warfare environment.
Growlers have flown more than 2,300 combat missions to-date and are
meeting all operational commitments. Carrier-based and expeditionary
Electronic Attack capabilities will increase significantly with
introduction of the Next Generation Jammer, which is currently
scheduled to complete testing in 2022.
MV-22 Osprey vertical lift capabilities, coupled with the speed,
range, and endurance of fixed-wing transports, enables execution of
missions that were previously unachievable. The Marine Corps' Osprey
fleet continues to experience a high operational tempo with multiple
MEU deployments and two Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force-
Crisis Response deployments in support of Africa Command and Central
Command. During 2016, the 15th active component squadron achieved full
operational capability, with the 16th scheduled for June 2017. fiscal
year 2018 begins procurement of the Navy CMV-22B variant in support of
the Carrier On- Board Delivery mission and represents the first year of
the next V-22 MYP contract.
The Marine Corps CH-53E Super Stallion is the only heavy lift
helicopter in the Department of Defense inventory. The CH-53E will
remain in service until 2030 to accommodate transition to its
replacement, the CH-53K, which, with 27,000lbs lift capacity at a
mission radius of 110 nautical miles, nearly triples the lift
capability of the legacy CH-53E. In fiscal year 2016, the Marine Corps
initiated a CH-53E reset to ensure the remaining aircraft possess the
longevity to complete the transition. Procurement of the CH-53K is
ongoing, with 51 procured in the FYDP in support of the total buy of
200. Transition will begin in 2019 and is forecast to complete in 2030.
Combining the reliability of the Boeing 737 airframe with avionics
that enable integration of modern sensors and robust military
communications, the P-8A Poseidon recapitalizes the anti- submarine,
anti-surface, and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
capabilities of the aging P-3C Orion. Seven (of 12) squadrons have
completed transition, with all squadrons scheduled to complete
transition by fiscal year 2020. The P-8A program is meeting all cost,
schedule and performance parameters; has achieved and surpassed
reliability standards for operational availability and is providing
game changing capability to the fleet. Program savings have enabled
procurement of one added aircraft (7 total) in fiscal year 2018 with no
increase to the budget.
The Department continues steady progress developing and fielding
unmanned aviation assets, building towards future air dominance through
an integrated team of manned, unmanned, and autonomous capabilities.
These teams of systems will conduct ISR, real-time sensor fusion, and
electronic warfare, increasing battlespace awareness and precision
strike capability.
The MQ-4C Triton will be a core capability of Navy's Maritime
Patrol and Reconnaissance Force and deliver persistent maritime ISR as
a force multiplier for the Coalition and Joint Force, as well as the
Fleet Commander. Triton will deploy with Early Operational Capability
in 2018. Fielding of the Multi-Intelligence configuration will enable
retirement of EP-3 aircraft in 2020.
The Navy is developing the MQ-25 unmanned mission tanker, the first
carrier-based unmanned program, to extend the range and reach of the
Carrier Air Wing and greatly reduce the need for F/A-18E/F aircraft to
serve as mission tankers. The MQ-25 was designated a Maritime
Accelerated Capability Office program by the Chief of Naval Operations
and Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and
Acquisition, and was also designated by the Secretary of Defense as a
Key Performance Parameter 'Reduction Pilot Program' per National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) fiscal year 2017. The Navy plans to
release a request for proposal for air system development in fiscal
year 2017 and down-select to a single contractor in fiscal year 2018.
Looking to the far future, the Department has initiated a Next
Generation Air Dominance Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) study. The AoA
is investigating technology and program investment requirements to
recapitalize Navy F/A-18E/F and EA-18G tactical aviation platforms in
preparation for their anticipated retirement beginning in the late
2020s.
Ground Forces
Marine Corps invested in select ground capabilities to conduct
distributed operations and address changes in the operational
environment. Key investments include the Ground/Air task Oriented radar
(G/ATOR) and the Common Aviation Command and Control Systems (CAC2S) to
enhance the ability of the Marine Air Ground Task Force to coordinate
and synchronize distributed C2 sensors and systems. Amphibious and
ground maneuver capability will be preserved and upgraded by
accelerating legacy Assault Amphibious Vehicle survivability upgrades,
procurement of 204 Amphibious Combat vehicles (ACV) and the replacement
of about one third (6,895 vehicles) of the legacy high mobility, multi-
purpose, wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) Fleet with the Joint Light Tactical
Vehicle (JLTV).
The ACV program is the Marine Corps' highest ground modernization
priority and is using an evolutionary, incremental approach to replace
the aging AAVs with a vehicle that is capable of moving Marines ashore,
initially with surface connectors and ultimately as a self-deploying
vehicle. ACV consists of two increments. The first increment will field
a personnel carrier with technologies that are currently mature. The
second increment provides mobility improvements and delivers
specialized mission variants.
Munitions and Weapons Systems
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 testing
in April 2017 successfully completed live fire requirements per the
program of record and is on schedule to declare Full Operational
Capability later this year.
The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) provides another layer to
the Navy's defended battle- space. Two ESSM Block 2 Controlled Test
Vehicle flight tests were successfully conducted this May with IOC for
AEGIS platforms scheduled for 2020 and Ship Self Defense System
platforms in the 2022-2023 timeframe.
The inner layer of the Fleet's layered defense is the Rolling
Airframe Missile (RAM) Block 2 designed to pace the evolving anti-ship
cruise missile threat and improve performance against complex stream
raid engagement scenarios. In fiscal year 2017, the RAM Block 2 Program
continued to demonstrate outstanding performance through successful
Fleet and ship qualification firing events. The RAM Block 2 will
proceed to a Full Rate Production (FRP) Decision Review in fiscal year
2018.
The Navy's Cruise Missile Strategy provides for the development of
stand-off attack capabilities from air, surface, and undersea platforms
against targets afloat and ashore. Key tenets are to 1) maintain and
upgrade legacy cruise missiles; 2) pursue advanced near-term
capabilities; and 3) plan and develop next generation integrated
solutions.
First, the Department's plan is to sustain the Tomahawk Block III
and Block IV cruise missile inventory through its anticipated service-
life via a mid-life recertification program, enabling the Department to
support Tomahawk in our active inventory through the mid-late 2040s. In
concert with our recertification program we will integrate
modernization and technological upgrades and address existing
obsolescence issues. In addition, the Department is developing a
Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST) capability to deliver a long-range anti-
surface warfare capability.
Second, the Department will field the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile
(LRASM) to meet near to mid-term anti-surface warfare threats. LRASM is
pioneering accelerated acquisition processes. Currently, the Department
anticipates LRASM to meet all warfighting requirements, deliver on-
time, and cost within approximately one-percent of its original program
cost estimate.
The Department also plans to develop follow-on next generation
strike capabilities. We intend to develop an air-launched weapon to
address long-term surface threats and a surface and submarine launched
Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW). NGLAW will have both a
long-range land strike and maritime capability that initially
complements, and then replaces, the Tomahawk.
The Department is also continuing to invest in modernization of
air-to-air weapons. The fiscal year 2018 President's Budget requests
funds for upgrade and procurement of AIM-9X Sidewinder and AIM-120D
Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM). The AIM-9X Block
II/II+ Sidewinder is the fifth generation variant of the Sidewinder
family and is the only short-range infrared air-to-air missile
integrated on Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force strike- fighter
aircraft, incorporating advanced technology to achieve superior
maneuverability and increase the probability of intercept of adversary
aircraft. AMRAAM provides an air-to-air first look, first shot, first
kill capability, while working within a networked environment in
support of the Navy's Theater Air and Missile Defense Mission.
The Department continues investments in other weapons lines,
including the Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II), the Advanced Anti-
Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) and AARGM Extended Range (ER), Joint
Air-to-Ground Missile, Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS)
II, and direct attack weapons and general purpose bombs.
SDB II provides an adverse weather, day or night standoff
capability against mobile, moving, and fixed targets, and enables
target prosecution while minimizing collateral damage. SDB II will be
integrated into the internal carriage of both DoN variants of the Joint
Strike Fighter (F- 35B/F-35C) and externally on the Navy's F/A-18E/F.
The AGM-88E AARGM is a medium-range air-to-ground missile employed
for Suppression and/or Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD/DEAD).
The AARGM cooperative program with the Italian Air Force transforms the
HARM into an affordable, lethal, and flexible time- sensitive strike
weapon system. AARGM is in full-rate production and is operationally
employed on F/A-18 and EA-18G aircraft. The AARGM-ER modification
program was a new start in fiscal year 2016 and will increase the
weapon system's survivability against complex and emerging threat
systems and affords greater stand-off range for the launch platform.
This budget continues a 5-year integration effort of JAGM Increment
1 onto the Marine Corps AH-1Z helicopter and continues to fund JAGM
procurement leading to IOC in fiscal year 2020. JAGM will replace the
HELLFIRE and TOW II missile systems for the Department. APKWS II
provides precision guidance capability to the Department's unguided
rocket inventories, improving accuracy and minimizing collateral
damage. Program production continues on schedule, meeting the needs of
our warfighters in today's theaters of operations. Marine Corps AH-1W
and UH-1Y helicopters achieved IOC in March 2012 and the Marine Corps
AH-1Z platform was certified to fire APKWS II in June 2015. To date,
these platforms have expended more than 190 APKWS II weapons during
combat missions.
The fiscal year 2018 President's Budget procures additional Joint
Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) kits to enhance the Department's
readiness. In thirty months of Operation INHERENT RESOLVE, the
Department's aircraft have expended more than three times the number of
500lb JDAM kits than were procured during the same period. This
significant demand has required the Navy to reduce the number of 500lb
JDAM available for training in order to preserve warfighting inventory.
Additionally, fully funding the General Purpose Bomb line item is
critical to sustaining the Department's inventory for ongoing combat
operations and replenishing it for future contingencies.
Space
The Department's Joint and Fleet space operations are vital to the
employment of naval capabilities and provide assured Command and
Control, persistent Maritime Battlespace Awareness; maneuver to include
physical, cyber and the electromagnetic spectrum; and integrated fires.
However, access to space is no longer guaranteed. The National Security
Space Strategy defined the current and future space environment as
driven by three trends: congested, contested, and competitive. The
Department will maximize the utility of space-based assets and assure
continued access in the face of growing adversary space capabilities by
increasing space- related proficiency throughout the force and with
targeted science and technology and research and development
investments.
Cyber
Building our force is not limited to new platforms that operate in
the traditional domains of sea, undersea, air and space, but also in
the newest warfighting domain: cyber. With the exponential growth and
ubiquitous availability of advanced computing methods and information
technology today's highly networked environment, our Navy and Marine
Corps must operate effectively in cyberspace. The Services require
unconstrained access and assured capabilities in cyberspace to execute
the full range of military missions. We must lead in both offensive and
defensive use of this new domain and building cyber resiliency into our
networks to allow us to ``fight through'' a cyber-attack.
Cyber resiliency ensures that when an attacker gets through our
defenses, we rapidly detect and react to the anomalous cyber activity
in a way that allows us to continue critical operations, or ``fight
through,'' while we restore the integrity of that portion of the
network. Cyber defense-in- depth is achieved by surveillance and
reconnaissance within our networks to detect malicious activity. Navy
and Marine Corps Cyber Commands leverage layers of sensors, analysts,
and cyber specialists to assure maritime missions and protect data.In
addition to defense and assured access, the Navy and Marine Corps are
prepared to deliver cyber effects at a time and place of their choosing
across the full range of military operations in support of Naval and
joint commanders' objectives.
Industrial Base
The Department of the Navy cannot accomplish its mission, maintain
readiness, or modernize the force without its partners in
industry.Building readiness and building the force requires a strong
and integrated relationship with our industrial base private-sector
partners. We will continue to work closely with our prime contractors
as procurement plans unfold to ensure our equipment, system, and
component suppliers are equally able to support the increased demand
associated with building a larger fleet. We have utilized contracting
tools such as MYPs, block buy contracts, Economic Order Quantity (EOQ)
buys, Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) incentives, and Shipbuilding
Capability Preservation Agreements to provide a stable commitment to
our industry partners, supporting long range planning focused on
affordability and cost control which increases our buying power. We
will continue these initiatives to provide stability and mitigate
volatility at the supplier level and improve productivity, efficiency,
and competitiveness across the supplier base. We appreciate past
Congressional support for these efforts and your continued support in
the future. While the different industrial sectors face different
challenges, common among all is the need for predictable and stable
programs which are dependent on a stable budget. We also welcome
Congress's support in providing that budget stability.
taking care of our people
The men and women of the Department provide our Naval Forces and
Nation with an asymmetric advantage. No quantity of next generation
ships or aircraft will bring victory without the skilled, dedicated and
talented Sailors, Marines, and civilians who build, maintain and
operate our Navy and Marine Corps. Despite 16 years of combat
operations, extended deployments and reserve mobilizations, today's
force is the most talented and high performing in history. But just as
the American technological advantage in warfare is not something we can
take for granted, we also cannot simply assume that we will always
attract America's best and brightest to serve in our all-volunteer
military and civilian workforce. With a turnover of approximately
95,000 Sailors, Marines, and 60,000 civilians a year, providing the
incentives to attract and the environment to thrive remains a top
priority for the Department. The desire to serve remains strong in
America and the Navy and the Marine Corps are achieving overall
recruiting objectives. We are, however, experiencing increasing
challenges due to an improving civilian labor market, a limited pool of
eligible candidates, and increases in accession goals. The Department's
civilian workforce is an irreplaceable partner in our naval service and
one of the most technologically advanced and innovative workforces in
the world. More than half of our civilians are scientists, engineers,
mathematicians, and logisticians and to sustain that workforce into the
future the Department continues to leverage strategic partnerships with
science, technology, engineering and math (STEM)-related groups and
educational institutions to highlight naval service as a rewarding
career option.
Maintaining our warfighting advantage requires diversity of
experience, background and ideas. The Department draws upon the widest
pool of talent and backgrounds to maximize combat effectiveness.
Through policy and practice, we have set the conditions to ensure all
who are qualified to serve in the Marine Corps and Navy can do so-while
creating an environment that promotes dignity and respect for all. In
2016, the Department of the Navy opened the training pipelines in every
occupational specialty to women. In May 2016, two female Marines
graduated from joint Army/Marine Field Artillery Basic Officers Leaders
Course; one graduated first in her class and the other in the top 5
percent. In April 2017, a Marine 2nd Lieutenant graduated from the Army
Armor Basic Officer Leaders Course to become the first female Marine
Tank Officer. Additionally, the first four enlisted women Infantry
Marines completed training and reported to Marine infantry battalions
in December 2016. In the Navy, female officers serve on all combatant
platforms, and female enlisted Sailors serve on all platforms where
berthing facilities are available. The first female enlisted Sailor
earned her submarine qualification and received her Submarine Warfare
pin in August 2016. In the recruiting arena, we are actively
emphasizing these integration efforts on Service websites and include
images of female representatives whenever possible, aimed at
encouraging women to enter recently opened occupational fields.
Having invested in recruiting the best talent available, we must
retain it. We remain watchful of an increasingly competitive
marketplace for talent in an improving economy. While we met the
aggregate enlisted retention goals for fiscal year 2016, we continue to
experience challenges and shortfalls in some communities, such as
Information Warfare, Nuclear technical fields, Special Warfare, and
Advanced Electronics. Officer retention remains at historically high
levels due, in large part, to judiciously offered incentive pays and
bonuses, improved mentoring, recent efforts to add flexible career
options, and an increased emphasis on life-work integration
initiatives. However, specific active duty officer inventory shortfalls
remain in Aviation for certain type/model/series and nuclear-trained
Surface Warfare Officers. We are actively addressing these shortfalls
through targeted incentives and other retention tools.
The Navy and Marine Corps Reserve continue to be a vital part of
the Navy and Marine Corps Team and the Total Force. Mobilizing and
employing reserve Sailors and Marines facilitates employing the Active
Component to meet other operational and warfighting requirements,
maintain unit integrity, and ensure Fleet readiness. 20 percent of the
Navy Reserve conducts operational support across the globe every day,
to include squadrons from the Maritime Support Wing flying fixed and
rotary wing missions in the South China Sea and reserve Coastal
Riverine Units conducting high value escort missions off the Horn of
Africa.
The Department is also working to ensure our personnel policies and
programs are keeping pace with the innovative human resources
environment of the private sector. The Fleet Scholar Education Program
(FSEP) allows our best and brightest officers to learn at America's
most prestigious universities. The FSEP provides a total of thirty
fully funded full-time graduate education opportunities with
participant selection from the highest performing officers from each
community. Career broadening programs improve the intellectual capital
of our officer corps, providing sought after opportunities for our best
and brightest.
We have focused on helping Sailors and Marines maximize their
personal and professional readiness by assisting them and their
families with the mental, physical and emotional challenges of military
service. Providing a holistic approach to maintaining the health and
resilience of our force, we have made improvements to physical fitness
and nutrition programs, enriched family support programs, developed
financial literacy training, and prioritized mental wellness. Both
Services extended fitness center hours of operation and are piloting
24/7 centers in a number of locations. Morale, Welfare and Recreation
programs like Adventure Quest and Single Service members provide a
variety of programs promoting physical activity and a healthy
lifestyle. MilitaryChildCare.com, an innovative online child care
information, request, and reservation system, which will be fully
operational this June, will allow our families to secure critical child
care services anywhere in the world before they execute a Permanent
Change of Station (PCS) move. The Marine Corps and Navy expanded
financial literacy training throughout the military lifecycle with
topics relevant to life and career touch points, particularly important
as we transition to the Blended Retirement System. Earlier this year
the Navy released a financial literacy mobile app to enhance access to
training, references and guides as well as resources for the transition
to the blended retirement system.
Despite our commitment to providing the highest quality of life to
our Sailors and Marines the tragedy of suicide continues to plague our
institution as it does to society as a whole. The Department has made
strides in arresting the incidence of suicide and continues to seek
promising paths to prevention.
During the past year, the Navy launched the Sailor Assistance and
Intercept for Life (SAIL) program, a research-based non-clinical
intervention strategy, modeled after the successful Marine Corps
Intercept Program, that provides rapid assistance, on-going risk
assessment and support for Sailors who have exhibited suicide-related
behaviors. The Marine Corps has initiated Death by Suicide Review
Boards to gain in depth understanding of all Marine deaths by suicide.
Although the Marine Corps and Navy have reduced military suicides from
the peak numbers seen a few years ago, we must continue our efforts to
increase resiliency, promote help seeking and provide treatment and
support for those in need.
Among our foremost responsibilities is to provide a safe and
supportive work place to our employees. Whether in the cockpit of an
aircraft, the engine room of a ship, or the office of an ashore
facility, the leadership of the Navy and Marine Corps recognize that we
cannot be successful in our mission if our people are not secure in
their environment.
The occurrence of physiological episodes (PE) in our legacy
tactical aircraft and trainers has emerged as the number one aviation
safety priority. From Senior Navy leadership to our engineers and
maintainers, to our aircraft manufacturers and NASA and the Mayo
Clinic, a comprehensive review of the design, the facts, circumstances
and processes surrounding PEs has been launched to arrest the increase
in PEs in our F/A-18 and T-45 aircraft. The entire Naval Aviation
Enterprise is focused on resolving this issue and we will keep the
Defense Committees and staff apprised of our findings and progress. In
the interim, we are taking every measure to ensure our aviators are
afforded the highest standards of safety as they perform their
inherently hazardous mission.
An environment that allows our Sailors, Marines and civilians to
thrive is also one that is respectful to all, free of harassment,
bullying and assault.Sexual assault is a crime that is not tolerated
within the naval service. Those who report a sexual assault are
supported by over 240 sexual assault response coordinators, 8,000 full
and part-time victim advocates, 252 legal personnel, 164 criminal
investigators and 215 medical forensic examiners. We have a robust and
effective Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program and Victims'
Legal Counsel that together encourage increased reporting and provide
critical support to those who come forward. We are also taking steps to
prevent and respond to perceptions of retaliation or ostracism on the
part of the courageous individuals who report these crimes--whether by
the chain of command or peers. While there is still much work to be
done, reporting across the Department has increased twofold since 2012,
and, based on surveys, our estimated number of assaults on Service
members has almost halved during that same time. Our leaders, at all
levels, are held accountable to ensure every member of our Navy-Marine
Corps team can excel in an environment that maximizes their talents and
rejects those who would degrade or diminish another service member.
A respectful environment is not limited to physical spaces but
includes the virtual and on-line environments where so many social
interactions occur. Discovery and investigation into the toxic and
predatory behavior harbored by the Marines United Facebook group has
uncovered instances of a breakdown of good order and discipline within
our Services. The discovery of this toxicity led to a comprehensive
investigation of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images by
Sailors and Marines, the extension of counseling and legal support to
potential victims, the review and update of policy and regulations to
cover this Internet enabled scourge, and the commitment to hold
offenders accountable.
Finally, as a Department, we remain dedicated to strengthening our
investment in the ethical development of our Sailors, Marines, and
civilian employees to further their competence, confidence, character,
and integrity such that their day-to-day actions and decisions are
motivated by and aligned with the Department's Core Values of Honor,
Courage, Commitment. We have given priority to analyzing and updating
training curricula and educational programs across the Department to
emphasize the importance of ethical behavior and to diminish instances
of destructive behavior. Our people are our competitive advantage and
we have no higher priority than to provide the tangible and intangible
incentives that will allow us to continue to recruit and retain the
nation's best and brightest.
good stewardship
In the quarter century since the end of the Cold War, the global
threat environment has only become more challenging as multiple
competitors seek to disrupt America's leadership role in the world.
Ubiquitously available innovations in technology and information
combined with increasing pressures on the Federal budget mean that we
cannot simply outspend our competitors and expect to retain our
advantage. We cannot just spend more, we must spend more smartly. We
must know where every dollar is spent and incorporate innovative
business practices to optimize the marginal value of our investment.
Auditability
A critical step in improving stewardship of the funds the
Department of the Navy is entrusted with is to undergo a full financial
audit in fiscal year 2018. Over the past years the Department has been
working to put the tools and business processes in place that will
allow an independent auditor to assess our financial statements,
transactions and assets. The Marine Corps reached this milestone a year
early in fiscal year 2017 and the Navy is leveraging lessons from the
Marine Corps to improve its audit readiness.
The Department of the Navy is not approaching audit as a discrete
test of our financial reporting but rather as a continual year round
process to improve management of the significant resources with which
we are entrusted. Standardizing our business processes and
strengthening our internal controls will not only ensure financial data
accurately reflects our business activities and minimize opportunities
for the misuse of funds, but as importantly, it will improve the
visibility of our management of the billions of dollars that it takes
to build, operate and maintain our naval forces. This visibility, in
turn, will allow us to better direct those funds consistent with the
nation's priorities.
The process of preparing for audit has also improved the culture of
accountability throughout the Department, as every senior leader across
the Navy-Marine Corps team embraces their role in developing and
enforcing appropriate internal controls. Senior leaders are assigned
responsibility for the correction of identified audit deficiencies and
their leadership and actions provide the ``tone from the top'' which
highlights the importance of effective controls and audits to all
business managers. Performing business processes in a standardized way
and retaining key documentation is the new normal for all who spend
taxpayer dollars.
The Department of the Navy understands the value audits will
provide in maximizing the value of every tax dollar spent. Given the
complexity and size of our operations, we anticipate that an
unqualified audit opinion will be several years away, but as annual
full audits of the Department of the Navy begin in 2018, we will
constantly assess the results for opportunities to develop and
implement the cultural, process and system changes needed to hold
ourselves accountable and to maintain the trust and confidence of the
American people.
Business Reform
The processes, tools and systems that we use to manage the business
of your Navy and Marine Corps have evolved over the past two centuries
of successful naval operations. By implementing discrete business
improvements over time, the Department, to date, has maintained its
edge. Just as our competitors have leveraged the accelerating pace of
technology development and absorption, however, so must the naval
services leverage and embrace improvements in technology to better
manage the processes that ultimately deliver our Nation's warfighting
capability and ensure that we retain that edge.
The Department of the Navy embraces the President's and Secretary
of Defense's initiative to reform government. Improvements in data
collection, storage and analysis provide abundant opportunities to not
only reduce cost but also to improve our decisionmaking in every
Department activity from warfighting to personnel management to audit
and real property management. The tremendous gains in commercial
enterprise valuation over the past decade have not been through the
implementation of efficiencies, but rather through rapid boosts in
productivity enabled by information and technology. To the extent
possible, the Department is committed to leveraging the innovations
increasingly employed by commercial industry to improve the
productivity of our business management processes and systems. Such
innovations include appropriate migration of data storage and
applications to the commercial cloud, continued consolidation and
standardization of our data centers, and improved business intelligence
and analysis capability.
Opportunities for improved productivity are not limited to the
modernization of our business IT systems. Exponential advancements in
manufacturing processes and materials, artificial intelligence, energy
capture, storage and transmission, and virtual and augmented reality
offer abundant opportunities to reform and improve not only our
business processes but also the productivity of our personnel,
training, acquisition and maintenance activities.
Nor are the opportunities for improved stewardship limited to
technology; process, policy, and leadership can also drive the agility
and innovation that leads to a more productive enterprise. The
Department of the Navy has welcomed the additional acquisition
flexibilities provided through the fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year
2017 NDAA. Consistent with Congressional intent we are capitalizing on
the flexibility inherent to Mid-Tier Acquisition and Acquisition
Agility provisions provided from fiscal year 2016 NDAA (Section 804)
and fiscal year 2017 NDAA (Section 806), respectively. Additionally, we
have implemented an Accelerated Acquisition approach with the
Department of the Navy that encourages and enables the rapid
development and transition of emerging technologies and engineering
innovations to address critical Navy and Marine Corps warfighting
needs. The Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle and the
Carrier based launched Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System are being managed
as accelerated capability programs with the direct senior leadership
involvement necessary to enable streamlined risk acceptance and
decisionmaking.
The Department of the Navy is actively expanding and strengthening
our network of partnerships, seeking further collaboration with
traditional and non-traditional industry, laboratories, and academic
institutions as well as international partners. In a combined effort
between the Secretariat, the Marine Corps the Navy and industry, we
recently conducted a Ship to Shore Maneuver Exploration and
Experimentation exercise in which we demonstrated over 100 innovative
technologies and concepts from varied industry partners, universities
and naval labs. Such Rapid Prototyping, Experimentation and
Demonstration (RPED) projects will inform our concepts and requirements
and shorten the cycle between the identification of a capability gap
and the delivery of a suitable solution.
Our reform efforts, focused on improving productivity, will evolve
as new opportunities are revealed. To maintain our reform momentum we
have invigorated a Department of the Navy Business Council to provide
four star level oversight and support for our continual reform efforts.
conclusion
The Navy and Marine Corps team is organized, manned, trained and
equipped to assure our allies, deter aggressors, and, when necessary,
defeat our adversaries and serve as an outward symbol of our nation's
resolve. Developing and maintaining globally present and operationally
relevant naval forces that provide timely, agile and effective options
to national leaders as they seek to advance our national security
interests requires that we take the longer view.
As a maritime nation, our security and prosperity is dependent upon
our freedom of the seas in time of peace and our command of the seas in
time of war. America's Naval forces' ability to shape and influence
events while advancing and protecting American interests around the
world traditionally relies upon a force whose strength is measured in
terms of numbers of ships, aircraft, and munitions; increasingly relies
upon advanced capabilities involving unmanned systems, advanced
sensors, stealth, electromagnetic maneuver, directed energy, and
hypersonics; and always relies upon the quality and dedication of
America's Sailors and Marines. Our future success in providing for our
Nation's security will ultimately rely upon Congress to provide the
resources we need to build, operate and maintain the force; to deliver
the necessary advanced capabilities; and to attract, train and retain
the best of America's young men and women to serve in our Navy and
Marine Corps. In exchange, we are committed to being excellent stewards
of those resources to ensure we deliver the maximum warfighting
capability for every dollar provided by the taxpayer.
Our priority in this year's President's Budget request is to
rebuild the readiness and lay the foundation for future growth--
capacity and lethality--of the force. The Department fundamentally
requires a predictable, timely budget--something that has been elusive
throughout the years operating under the Budget Control Act--to meet
this priority. We will also need an increase to the Budget Control Act
caps, as outlined in detail by our President's Budget request. Timely
passage of a full year appropriation at the requested level will
provide for the most efficient execution of the resources provided by
Congress, while bringing stability to our workforce and our industrial
base, and enabling the Department to most effectively train, maintain,
and deploy the force.
I want to thank this sub-Committee for your enduring support to our
Sailors, Marines, civilians and their families, and for your past
support for our key programs that support the Naval force our Nation's
needs. The fiscal year 2018 President's Budget request is properly
balanced to support the needs of the United States Navy and the United
States Marine Corps and ensures we are better prepared to fight and win
our Nation's battles today and in the future. I look forward to working
with you in the furtherance of our maritime capabilities.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, very much, Mr. Secretary.
Admiral John Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations.
Welcome. You may proceed with your statement.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JOHN M. RICHARDSON, CHIEF OF NAVAL
OPERATIONS
Admiral Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Durbin, and other
distinguished members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for the privilege to be here today to represent
our Navy team, our sailors, our Navy civilians, and their
families. I request that our written statements be entered into
the record.
I would like to take some time this morning to briefly
outline where your Navy stands today and where we need to go.
I just got back from Rota, Spain, Singapore, and Guam. Out
there, I visited our sailors who are in harm's way around the
world facing rising threats. They are talented, dedicated, and
they are laser focused on their mission. This is despite the
growing challenges of the security environment and despite the
challenges that we have imposed by inconsistent, delayed, and
inadequate funding.
Today, I hope to convey a sense of urgency. Our adversaries
are improving more quickly than we are. Our advantage is
eroding and we must increase our naval power today, pick up the
pace to maintain our winning advantage. This effort starts by
insuring that we have a firm foundation for solid growth,
restoring wholeness and balance.
This began with the fiscal year 2017 budget, which helps
arrest readiness declines. I would like to thank the committee
very much for the work done to pass that bill. But more needs
to be done. The challenges are sufficiently deep that it will
take both predictable and sufficient funding, and some time, to
fully recover.
We have aircraft grounded due to maintenance backlogs and
spare shortages. Our pilots do not fly enough. Our maintainers
are struggling to keep planes that are working up in the air.
We have not funded spare parts at required levels.
Maintaining our ships is also a struggle. Too many ships
are getting out of maintenance late, submarines and warships
are tied up next to the pier unable to submerge or get
underway.
I know that many of us are focused on adding more ships to
the fleet. I am too and the Secretary has outlined our
procurement plan. But make no mistake. If I cannot repair a
ship that has already been bought and paid for to get back to
sea, we forfeit the good, hard work of our predecessors. And
the effect is the same as not buying a ship. It ends up being
one less ship at sea today. Morale suffers and U.S. naval power
suffers a stark illustration of the importance of wholeness to
our way forward.
We are taking many strides here. We are making great
progress. As I mentioned, fiscal year 2017 was a great first
step to restore a lot of readiness. Fiscal year 2018 request
will capitalize on that investment and restore balance and
wholeness so we can grow moving forward. There are lots that we
need to do to shore up the force that we have. We need a firm
foundation.
As articulated in a white paper of the future Navy I
released last week, we also need a larger and more capable
fleet. And even as we shore up wholeness with this request, the
request preserves the program growth for the Navy. We invest in
emerging technologies for the future. It provides a balanced
approach that starts the acceleration of naval power from a
firm foundation.
As I talked to our sailors operating forward, protecting
America from attack, promoting our interests around the world,
they are focused as ever on their mission. I know that you
share my incredible pride in them.
But there is also a growing sense in the deployed fleet
that we, back here in Washington, just do not get it. Sometimes
it seems like we live in a parallel universe. We need to bring
these two realities together and do that quickly.
It is getting harder to explain to our sailors and their
families or to those who might want to join the fleet. But I
tell them to be hopeful, remain optimistic. We are on the road
to restoring wholeness and increasing our naval power now and
into the future. I am hopeful.
I am willing to do whatever it takes, working together with
the committee to get our sailors the resources and support they
need and that they deserve.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral John M. Richardson
Chairman Cochran, Vice Chairman Durbin, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the Navy's fiscal year 2018 budget request. This
budget is the second step along a 3-year path that started in fiscal
year 2017. In fiscal year 2017, Congress approved funding that helped
to plug the most urgent readiness holes in the fleet. The fiscal year
2018 request is focused on continuing to stabilize the ship--restoring
balance that will serve as a solid foundation for next year's
investments, which will be informed by the pending National Security
Strategy and National Military Strategy and chart a course to growing
our size and capabilities. We would not even be having this
conversation were it not for passage of the fiscal year 2017 bill.
Thank you both for the final bill, and for supporting the
Administration's request for additional Overseas Contingency Operations
funding.
The Navy submits this request in a time of increasing competition.
The world in general, and the maritime environment in particular, is
fast-paced, increasingly complex, and uncertain. The challenges we face
are more diverse, interconnected, and arriving more quickly than we had
anticipated. Our maritime rivals are quickly becoming stronger. There
is a need for urgency; we need to pick up the pace if we are to
maintain a position of naval leadership in the world. Your sailors are
out every day, all around the world, going into harm's way and
undaunted by the threats that they face. Their equipment is worn. Too
frequently, they don't have enough spare parts, and their stocks of
munitions are lower than they need. But they are tough, dedicated, and
proud of what they do. Back here at home, there is less evidence that
we get it. There is little sense that our margin is shrinking, that
time matters, and that we must take action. Again, your support in
fiscal year 2017 is important progress, and your Navy is very grateful.
But there is much more that still needs to be done.
This places a growing premium on what we in the Navy often refer to
as wholeness. For the Navy, wholeness is striking a balance of
capabilities that are ready to meet our missions today, complemented by
the additional investments that will enable us to sustain those
capabilities over time.
The heartbeat of the Navy is its people--this is where wholeness
begins and ends. This budget request reflects increases in both
military and civilian personnel. On the military side, we are
requesting an additional 4,000 active duty and 1,000 reserve personnel
to man modernized cruisers and destroyers, as well as Littoral Combat
Ships; properly support moves for our sailors and their families; grow
our cyber capabilities; and to implement our digital training
initiatives. We are also adding almost 3,700 civilian personnel to
conduct ship and aircraft maintenance, increase security at our bases,
and provide engineering and other developmental support for new manned
and unmanned aircraft, cyber, and tactical operations.
The most significant investments in our fiscal year 2018 budget
request build upon the funding provided in fiscal year 2017: the Navy
added $3.4 billion this year and hopes to continue to achieve and
better maintain readiness over the next 5 years. Afloat readiness
accounts are almost all funded to either their full requirement or the
maximum amounts that could be spent. These investments are designed to
help reverse years of significant strain on the fleet. The funding will
buy the gas so that our ships and aircraft can fully train and deploy.
It will increase the stocks of spare parts to keep those platforms
running or quickly restore them to service if something should wear out
or break. They will also provide for increased cyber resilience and
defense, and support modest improvements to our facilities.
As our competitors seek areas of advantage, our modernization
accounts will ensure our current platforms remain competitive through
their expected service lives. The fiscal year 2018 budget request
sustains most of our major modernization programs, across the undersea,
surface, and air domains. We also sustained our planned investments in
missiles, ship self-defense systems, and torpedoes in this request, and
increased funding for additional weapons in future years.
Even as we invested in enhancing our readiness, our fiscal year
2018 budget request also supports moving into the future. We fully
funded the COLUMBIA-class ballistic missile submarine's fiscal year
2018 program requirements, the Navy's contribution to our nation's
strategic nuclear deterrent and our highest shipbuilding priority. We
procure eight ships in this fiscal year, and another 33 across the
Future Years Defense Plan. We made minor adjustments to our planned
aircraft purchases, requesting one additional P-8A maritime patrol
aircraft in this year's request and reducing our expected purchases of
F- 35C fighters from 6 to 4.
The final element of our efforts to strike the best balance across
our fiscal year 2018 budget request is focused on advancing key
technologies that will make our current platforms more capable,
providing new ways to counter high rates of fire more effectively and
affordably. To that end, we have developed a new strategy to accelerate
introduction of lasers and laser-enabling technologies into the fleet,
and increased the funding in this and future years. We have funded the
research and development of the next generation land attack weapon,
hyper-velocity projectile, and hypersonic defense. And this request
sustains our investments in autonomy and unmanned air, surface, and
undersea vehicles.
We are adjusting our investments in tactical networks and
supporting capabilities, and have asked for $15 million to support a
small but empowered office to spearhead Navy digital warfare and
enterprise efforts. As just one example, one of our most impactful
digital efforts is the transformation of the information systems that
support our Manpower, Personnel, Training and Education enterprise. The
MPTE modernization project will consolidate information from over 50
different databases in order to support tailored, flexible, and modern
talent management and human resources support for our sailors. Our
initial steps toward implementation are leading us to redesign our
processes; in just one area, these changes have increased the number of
travel claims processed by 28 percent per employee, 38 percent faster,
with zero errors. Once we move claims processing fully online, we
project manpower savings of over 80 percent. We are requesting $35
million this year to move these critical transformation efforts
forward, which will extend across our MPTE enterprise.
This budget request acknowledges the growing prominence of
information warfare through increased investments in survivable
networks, electromagnetic maneuver warfare, and offensive and defensive
cyber programs. Cyber protection of critical warfighting systems will
provide the capability to automatically harden applications on naval
platforms, reducing vulnerability to cyber attacks. The budget request
also recognizes that as we advance technologies we must accelerate our
adoption of training that leverages latest educational methods and
tools, particularly the employing a combination of live, virtual, and
constructive (LVC) training. By increasing our investments by $217
million, we ensure that we keep our operators at the center of our
plans, ensuring that they will be able to most effectively fight their
ships, submarines, aircraft, and networks. Finally, we continue to seek
ways to exploit the advantages offered by smart manufacturing
technologies, including tools for shipyards and depots to speed
production, reduce maintenance and sustainment costs, and enhance
operations and logistics. These are just some of the highlights of the
Navy's fiscal year 2018 budget request, building upon fiscal year 2017
readiness investments to achieve greater wholeness, both now and into
the future. However, the perfect warfighting capability is useless if
it arrives late to the fight. Getting a new capability to the fleet
first, before any competitor, is decisive. As important as any specific
capability, we also need speed. Time matters, and we are not moving
fast enough. The Congress has a major role to play here. Becoming more
competitive starts with stable, adequate funding--the Navy simply
cannot stay ahead in a system in which we operate without a budget over
30 percent of the time. Stable and reliable funding allows our
suppliers to manage their workforce and costs more effectively, which
in turn reduces our costs. It gives our industry partners the
confidence to invest in advances that make their processes faster and
more efficient. We also need to better align our strategy with our
budgets. We cannot achieve wholeness when we continue to be asked to do
more around the world than our funding levels can support.
Within the Navy, we are rededicating ourselves to a single-minded
focus on building leaders, who are building the best possible teams. In
the past year, we have issued an updated leader development framework
to help guide the advancement of sailors as leaders of both character
and competence--the two necessary ingredients for professional
leadership. We also issued a framework that is informing advancement
strategies for our Navy civilians, to guide strategies that are
tailored to their particular areas of expertise.
I am grateful for the additional acquisition authorities that the
Congress has given to me and my fellow Service Chiefs, and have learned
a lot as I have started to execute them. Many of my colleagues in
industry that do both commercial and Defense Department work describe
two ways of doing business: the ``competitive way'' and the
``government way.'' They describe their worlds as consisting of
parallel universes that operate at vastly different speeds. In the
``government way,'' we take over 7 years to move from starting to look
at potential information technology systems to initial operations. The
``competitive way'' took deep learning from an idea to GO champion in
the same amount of time. Too often, the ``government way'' ignores the
fact that going slow--or worse, doing nothing--incurs risks that are
often much higher than acting imperfectly. In the ``government way,''
there are too many people that can say no. In the ``government way,''
there are layers upon layers of oversight, many of which have their
origins decades ago, in a time when there were no computers. I am
working with the Department and industry to examine our methods against
the need to deliver quality in a way that is also timely and cost-
effective. Make no mistake, continuing to operate in ``the government
way'' imposes costs and risks as real as any others we might be trying
to avoid. . To that end, right-sizing and modernizing our installations
and facilities will be an important part of our future competitiveness;
although the Navy believes its infrastructure capacity is about right,
completing the more detailed analysis once a BRAC is authorized will
have value, and may highlight opportunities for some savings.
Within the Navy, we are taking steps to accelerate acquisition.
There are two elements to our approach. The Rapid Prototyping,
Experimentation, and Demonstration (RPED) process seeks to develop and
field prototypes to find solutions to fleet problems. The Maritime
Accelerated Capabilities Office (MACO) process streamlines and
accelerates the acquisition decisionmaking process so that capabilities
can be delivered to the fleet as fast as possible.
These new ways of doing business are enabled by engaging with
industry much sooner in the acquisition process, both to help refine
the requirements process and to make it more efficient. As a part of
this, we have been increasing our outreach to small businesses, which
are often the most agile of our performers. And I am routinely calling
both on our own Navy team as well as our partners in industry to
challenge assumptions that we have grown to take for granted--
assumptions about how long it takes to design or build everything from
our most simple to most complex platforms. We are shifting our mindset
from technological miracles that deliver in the distant future, to one
of achievable and meaningful advances today that can be pushed forward
into the future through faster iteration. We must design and build all
of our future platforms with modernization in mind.
Finally, together we must develop a more competitive approach to
defining our future. I have been focused on getting better insight and
control of research and development funding so that it can be
prioritized to the areas of most decisive advantage. We need more
targeted investments, with well understood risks, that include time to
delivery as a critical discriminator.
If our efforts here are going to succeed, I will need your help. I
welcome the greater accountability you have given me, but would ask you
to look hard at areas where oversight can be pruned back to less
onerous levels. Which oversight functions are best performed by the
Navy Secretariat, by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, or both?
What steps can we take to maintain sufficient checks and balances, but
that also recognize the competition that we cannot ignore? These are
difficult questions, but ones that the world in which we find ourselves
in demands that we answer. I look forward to working with you in this
vital area, and to answering your questions.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, very much, Admiral. We will now
hear from the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Robert
Neller.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL ROBERT B. NELLER, COMMANDANT,
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
General Neller. Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Durbin,
and members of the committee.
Thanks for the opportunity to appear today and answer your
questions. It is good to be here with Secretary Stackley and
Admiral Richardson. My shipmates and I fully support the
comments that they made in their statements, and I am also here
to represent your Marines.
I know this committee, and the American people, has high
expectations for our Marines as our Nation's expeditionary
force in readiness. You expect your Marines to operate forward
with our Navy, engage with our partners, deter adversaries, and
respond to crises. And when we fight, you expect us to win. You
expect a lot out of your Marines and you should.
This morning as we hold this hearing, there are more than
35,000 Marines forward deployed and engaged doing just what you
expect them to be doing. Our role, as the Nation's
expeditionary force in readiness, informs how we man, train,
and equip the Marine Corps. It also prioritizes the allocation
of resources we receive from Congress.
Unstable fiscal environments of the past have required us
to prioritize the readiness of our forward deployed force over
those at home station. Those Marines are the ones that
immediately respond to crisis. Those Marines reinforced are
currently protecting our embassies around the world. Those
Marines are currently conducting air and artillery strikes in
Syria and Iraq. Those Marines are training and advising the
Iraqi and the Afghan army.
Twenty-four thousand of those Marines are in the Pacific
west of the international dateline deterring adversaries and
assuring our allies. And I assure you that your forward
deployed Marine forces are well trained, well led, and well
equipped.
However, this has come at a compounded expense and cost to
our non-deployed, those getting ready to go next, and those
that have just returned because those are the three types of
marines that we have today. Those that are forward deployed,
those that are getting ready to replace them, and those that
just returned. That is our ready bench.
The fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill is a good down
payment to improve the readiness of this bench and move us
forward to further recapitalize and modernize the force.
That said the instability of the past 8 years and the
continued legislative reality of budget limitations have
disrupted our ability to program long term activities and
directly challenge our efforts to sustain improvements to
current and future readiness. To continue to meet operational
commitments, maintain a ready force, and modernize for the
future, we need sustained fiscal stability.
While supporting requirements abroad, we continue to
innovate, leverage technology, invest in new systems, and
redesign our force through two initiatives called Sea Dragon
2025 and Marine Corps Force 2025. We must adapt both the
capabilities we possess and the thought process we bring to the
battlefield because our adversaries have continued to advance
their capabilities and their capacities. Our modernization
ensures our future readiness for any fight that may be in the
future.
As we look forward, priorities for this year remain
readiness recovery, implementation of the Force 2025
initiative, and acceleration of our modernization initiatives
to build a more lethal Marine Corps. We do not want our Marines
to enter a fair fight. And though we remain a lethal and ready
force, the margin between us and our potential adversaries has
closed.
With your continued support in addressing present
challenges and shortfalls, we will be better postured to fight
and win our Nation's battles now and in the future.
I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of General Robert B. Neller
Your Marine Corps remains the Nation's Expeditionary Force-in-
Readiness, able to answer the Nation's call in any clime and place. In
meeting that mandate, Marines are forward-deployed and forward-engaged
responding to crises around the world--managing instability, building
partner capacity, strengthening allies, projecting influence--meeting
the requirements of our Geographic Combatant Commanders. At home, our
recruiters are working hand-in-hand with local communities, recruiting
the best and brightest Americans our Nation has to offer and
consistently achieving our recruiting goals. We appreciate the recent
passage of the fiscal year 2017 funding. This is a down payment to
improve our readiness and move us forward to recapitalize and modernize
the force. That said, the fiscal instability of the past 8 years and
the continued reality of continued budgetary uncertainty disrupt our
ability to program long term activities and directly challenge our
efforts to improve current and future readiness. To continue to meet
operational commitments and maintain a ready force, your Marine Corps
requires fiscal stability.
Both in training and operationally, our Marines are busy; the
current deployment tempo is on par with the height of operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. While supporting requirements abroad, we also
continue to invest time and energy in developing the Marine Corps
Operating Concept and its supporting Marine Corps Force 2025
initiative. The changes within these institutional efforts will help us
mitigate against an increasingly volatile operating environment. Our
potential adversaries continue to advance their military capabilities
and build capacity; because of their advances in technology and
information use, we must adapt both the capabilities we possess and the
thought processes we bring to the battlefield. As we look forward, our
priorities for this year remain: readiness recovery, implementation of
the Force 2025 initiative, and the acceleration of our modernization
initiatives to build a more lethal 5th Generation Marine Corps.
your marines
In the past year, your Marines demonstrated the relevance of
expeditionary naval forces by executing approximately 20 amphibious
operations, 200 operations, and 70 major exercises. A strong demand
remains for Marines and tailored Marine Air-Ground Task Forces, driving
an aggressive operational tempo. Marines in the operating forces are
averaging a two-to-one deployment-to-dwell ratio, typically deploying
for 6 months, then spending 12 months or less at home station before
deploying again.
Our Nation has Marines on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Syria today, and our commitment is growing. We have increased the
number of Marine advisors in Afghanistan beyond our partnership with
the Republic of Georgia's Liaison Teams. In April, we deployed Marines
as part of Task Force Southwest training and advising the Afghan
National Army. Additionally, Marine tactical aviation squadrons are
supporting operations in Syria, Iraq, and Libya from forward-deployed
locations afloat and ashore.
Our Navy and Marine Corps Teams continue to perform as a flexible,
agile, and responsive maritime force. In 2016, the Marine Corps
deployed more than 11,000 Marines aboard Navy warships. This past year,
five separate MEUs supported every Geographic Combatant Commander,
participating in exercises and executing major operations. The 31st
MEU, our Forward Deployed Naval Force in the Pacific, performed Foreign
Disaster Relief (FDR) operations in Kumamoto, Japan, after a 6.5
magnitude earthquake and 7.0 aftershock struck in April.
Our Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (SPMAGTF) remain
engaged. Our SPMAGTF assigned to USCENTCOM provides dedicated Tactical
Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel (TRAP) support to Operation INHERENT
RESOLVE, while simultaneously delivering a flexible force for crisis
and contingency response. Those Marines continue to work with the 1st
and 7th Iraqi Army Divisions advising and assisting in the fight
against ISIL. In U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM), our SPMAGTF stands
ready to support embassies through reinforcement, evacuation, and
operations as required. Last July, Marines deployed to reinforce the
U.S. Embassy in South Sudan and have remained, ensuring State
Department personnel are able to provide critical support to the people
of South Sudan. SPMAGTF-Southern Command (SPMAGTF-SC) deployed for a
second time to Latin America, primarily focusing on Theater Security
Cooperation (TSC) and training in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Belize. At the request of the U.S. Agency for International
Development, Marines from SPMAGTF-SC provided FDR to more than 750,000
Haitians in the wake of Hurricane Matthew. SPMAGTF-SC were the first
Marines on scene, arriving within 48 hours of notification, flying more
than 250 flight hours, and distributing 290 tons of relief supplies
over the course of 12 days.
Marine Corps activities in the Pacific are led by Marine Forces
Pacific (MARFORPAC) headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii, with a forward-
stationed Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), III MEF, headquartered in
Okinawa, Japan. III MEF contributes to regional stability through
persistent presence. Marines remain the Pacific Command's (PACOM)
forward-deployed and forward-stationed force of choice for crisis
response. The Nation has 22,900 Marines west of the International Date
Line, operating within the Asia-Pacific Theater. This past January, the
first operational F-35B squadron deployed to Japan, bringing extensive
capabilities while simultaneously augmenting operational forces in the
area. The Marine Rotational Force-Darwin (MRF-D), a six month unit
rotation, based in Australia's Robertson Barracks, is in its fifth year
of operation. More than 1,000 Marines participated last year, taking
part in three major exercises over the course of 7 months. This April,
MRF-D returned to Australia with MV-22 Ospreys. Of note, this was the
first ever Trans-Pacific flight by III MEF MV-22 Ospreys, displaying
the operational reach these aircraft bring to the Marine Corps.
The Marine Corps maintains a vital relationship with the State
Department, providing security at our Embassies and Consulates. Today,
Marines are routinely serving at 176 Embassies and Consulates in 146
countries around the globe. Marine Security Augmentation Unit (MSAU)
teams deployed 62 times last year at the request of the State
Department, executing 19 Embassy/Consulate and 43 VIP (POTUS/VPOTUS/
SECSTATE) security missions.
Last year, the Marine Corps, in conjunction with Combatant
Commanders and the Marine Forces Component Commands, conducted more
than 160 security cooperation activities, including exercises, training
events, subject matter expert exchanges, formal education key leader
engagements, and service staff talks. The relationships we forge with
allies assure them of our commitment, deter adversaries, build partner
capacity, and set conditions to surge and aggregate with a Joint,
Coalition, or Special Operations force for major theater combat
operations. Partnering also trains our Marines for environments in
which we are likely to operate. Your support has allowed the Marine
Corps to operate globally and reap the benefits of those international
relationships.
marine corps operating concept and force 2025
The challenges of the future operating environment demand that our
Nation maintain a force- in-readiness, capable of global response. In
the strategic landscape, we find that nations compete fiercely for
natural resources, extremist groups employ violence to achieve
nefarious ends, cyber- attacks are on the rise, and advanced weaponry
and weapons of mass destruction continue to spread across the world.
Additionally, due to universal access to information, rapid advancement
in robotics, and new weapons technologies, serious threats have emerged
with increasing speed and lethality.
In the last year, we invested considerable time and energy
formulating the Marine Corps Operating Concept (MOC) and its supporting
Marine Corps Force 2025 initiative. These institutional efforts were
spurred by a critical self-assessment that revealed the Marine Corps is
not organized, trained, equipped, or postured to meet the demands of
the rapidly evolving future operating environment. We arrived at this
conclusion after a close examination of the current and future impacts
of complex terrain, technology proliferation, information warfare, the
battle of electro-magnetic signatures, and an increasingly non-
permissive maritime domain on the Marine Corps. The MOC embraces our
naval character, expeditionary mindset, and professional approach to
constantly improve and build on our foundations of maneuver warfare and
fight as a combined arms force. The challenges of the future will
impact how we organize our Corps and ultimately fight and win our
Nation's battles. This concept is a starting point addressing how we
will design, develop, and field a future force. It reaffirms the
importance of maneuver warfare and combined arms. In the past, we
successfully conducted maneuver warfare employing combined arms from
the air, land, and sea. Now, changes in the operating environment and
adversary capabilities drive us to increase emphasis on maneuver in a
cognitive sense, expanding our employment of combined arms to space and
cyberspace.
Concurrent with our MOC design, we conducted extensive
collaboration, war gaming, experimentation, and analysis to design a
balanced MAGTF optimized for the future in an effort dubbed Marine
Corps Force 2025. We continue to identify and, when able, acquire
practical, affordable, and effective ways to protect our networks;
practice information environment operations; configure capable tactical
units; recruit, educate, and train leaders on multi-domain warfare;
increase our long-range fires capability; develop reconnaissance and
counter reconnaissance forces; leverage automation and robotics to
augment Marines; develop innovative logistics capabilities and systems;
and further our warfighting capabilities within the littorals. The
Marine Corps must modernize and change to deter conflict, compete and,
when necessary, fight and win against our adversaries.
manpower
The center of gravity of the Marine Corps is its people, and the
American people trust us with this precious resource--their sons and
daughters. Our core values of honor, courage, and commitment are
engrained in our culture. Marine leaders have a moral obligation to
ensure the health and welfare of the Nation's Marines from the day they
commit to serve. We take this responsibility seriously and strive to
maintain the trust and confidence of Congress and the American people.
Taking care of Marines and their families is a key element of overall
readiness, combat effectiveness, and warfighting.
Our comprehensive package of services seeks the holistic fitness
and readiness of our Marines and their families--body, mind, and
spirit. We continue to prioritize support through programs like: Force
Fitness, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, Suicide Prevention and
Response, Behavioral Health, Wounded Warrior Regiment, Personal and
Professional Development, and Transition Assistance. The Marine Corps
remains focused on solutions to reduce destructive behaviors,
particularly sexual assault, suicide, and hazing. We are dedicated to
eradicating bullying, degrading, and abusive behavior committed online
or in person. The abuse of alcohol is a known factor and contributor
across the spectrum of force preservation issues and negatively impacts
the readiness of our force. We have to minimize these destructive
behaviors. We believe that preserving our commanders' ability to lead
in this area is a vital element to reaching this objective.
We appreciate the continued support from Congress, specifically the
most recent end strength approval of 185,000 Marines. We will create
the most lethal, capable, and ready 185,000 Marines our resources will
permit. That said, one continuing challenge is that the Marine Corps
operating forces are currently averaging less than a one-to-two
deployment-to-dwell ratio. This tempo is not sustainable as it does not
provide options to train to our full mission sets and it puts
unreasonable strain on our Marines and families. Ideally, we seek to be
a one-to-three deployment-to-dwell force. Deliberate and measured
capacity increases, reduction of our operational tasking, or a
combination of the two, are solutions that would put us on the path to
improve our deployment-to-dwell ratio. Our Marines want to deploy,
serve our Nation, and protect our country from threats overseas.
However, we owe our Marines and their families the appropriate
deployment-to-dwell time to allow them to learn, re-focus, reflect on
their most recent deployment, and train for the next deployment or
contingency.
readiness
Marines have a unique perspective on readiness. The Congressional
intent for Marines to serve as the ``Nation's Force-in-Readiness''
guides who we are and what we do--being ready is central to our
identity. As a force, we must remain ready to fight and win across the
range of military operations within all warfighting domains. Fiscal
reductions and budget instability has been the norm for the past 8
years and has consequently eroded our readiness. As resources
diminished, the Marine Corps protected near-term operational readiness
of its deployed and next-to-deploy units to meet operational
commitments; this has come at a compounded cost. Non-deployed units,
our ``ready bench,'' can still deploy with minimal notice but, if
required, would not be as ready or capable as necessary. More reliable
funding and support of the annual budget request must be there if we
are to improve our readiness and our ability to respond to crises.
A lack of amphibious warships, ship-to-shore connectors (SSC), and
Mine Countermeasure capabilities (MCM) puts the Nation at a severe
disadvantage. The Navy and Marine Corps team requires 38 amphibious
warships to support two Marine Expeditionary Brigades and to provide
the Nation a forcible entry capability. Our current amphibious warships
need updated, resilient and interoperable command and control systems.
As a maritime Nation, we need to be fully capable of exploiting the sea
as maneuver space in an age when the proliferation of anti-access
weapons continues to increase. This includes the ability to operate
freely in international waters and airspace. Thirty- eight amphibious
warships offer us agility and resilience in an unpredictable and
dangerous security environment. Along with these warships, the Navy and
Marine Corps team requires SSC that are survivable and reliable. Our
current Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) fleet averages 25 years of
service and our Landing Craft Utility (LCU) attained Initial Operating
Capability (IOC) in 1959--3 years prior to Senator Glenn orbiting the
earth for the first time. MCM capabilities are continually underfunded.
The Navy and Marine Corps team needs prudent and consistent funding to
rectify these issues through multi-year procurement and block-buy of
amphibious warships, SSC, and MCM.
Marine Aviation is in the midst of a focused readiness recovery
effort. We have developed an extensive plan to recover readiness across
every Type/Model/Series in the current legacy inventory, all while we
continue to procure new aircraft. We are realizing steady improvements
in aviation readiness, but the plan requires sustained funding, parts
and supply support, flight operations, and time. Each T/M/S requires
attention and action in specific areas: maintenance, supply, depot
backlog, and in-service repairs.
The F-35 Lighting II is more than just the next fighter, it brings
unprecedented low observable technology, modern weaponry, and
electronic warfare capability to the Navy and Marine Corps team.
Delivering this transformational capability to our front-line forces as
soon as possible remains a priority. The accelerated procurement of
this aircraft is essential as our legacy fleet of AV-8B, F/A-18, and
EA-6B aircraft are rapidly approaching end of service life. Though more
expensive than these legacy aircraft, the capabilities we receive in
return for our cost share in the joint program make it a wise
investment. We are aggressively seeking ways to reduce operations,
maintenance, and sustainment costs for this program. This aircraft is
currently demonstrating its ability to support the MAGTF and is
expanding the capabilities of Marine Aviation today.
The CH-53E is another example of an aircraft that needs to be
replaced--not extended--as this is the most cost effective solution.
Entering service in 1981, the out-of-production CH-53E Super Stallion
is 55 aircraft short of the required inventory and cannot meet the lift
needs of today's Marine Corps. Its replacement, the CH-53K, costs
approximately 30 percent more, but provides three times the lift
capability under the same conditions, and is the only maritime, heavy-
lift helicopter capable of supporting current and future warfighting
concepts. The CH-53K is capable of supporting 100 percent of the
MAGTF's lift requirements for approximately the same projected
operating and support (O&S) cost of the legacy CH-53E. The CH-53K will
provide increased range, payload, interoperability, and survivability.
The Marine Corps is executing a post-combat reset strategy to
reconstitute and increase readiness of our ground equipment. We have
reset 92 percent of our ground equipment, with 65 percent returned to
the Operating Forces and our strategic equipment programs. Our war
reserve includes geographically prepositioned combat equipment, located
both afloat and ashore. We remain focused on this recovery effort and
appreciate your support. That said, our ground equipment is old. Our
amphibious assault vehicles were fielded in the 1970s, with many of our
other ground systems fielded in the 1980s. Much like our aviation
assets, our ground systems must be procured and fielded to our Marines
in a faster manner, at lower operating costs and improved capability.
Marine Corps bases and stations support Marines and their families
and serve as training, sustainment, and deployment platforms. They
provide the capability and capacity to support the force and are
integral to combat training. To maintain near-term unit readiness, we
have accepted risk in facilities sustainment. While prioritizing
deployed readiness, our infrastructure and facilities continue to
decline. Taking risk in Facility Sustainment, Restoration and
Modernization (FSRM) requirements has resulted in the degradation of
our infrastructure, creating increased long-term costs. FSRM is
currently funded only to meet the most urgent life, safety, and health
issues. Improving the current state of our facilities is the single
most important investment to support training, operations, and quality
of life. In addition to FSRM, we require investment in military
construction to support the fielding of new platforms; facilities
necessary to meet improved training standards and operational readiness
enhancements; replacement of inadequate facilities; improvement of our
safety and security posture, and relocation of forces.
To address these challenges, we have developed an Infrastructure
Reset Strategy (IRS). Designed to improve infrastructure lifecycle
management and ensure infrastructure investments are aligned with
Marine Corps capability-based requirements, IRS supports the
warfighting mission and contributes directly to current and future
force readiness. Additionally, under this strategy, we will sustain
infrastructure and installations as capable, resilient, right-sized
platforms to generate force readiness and project combat power across
the range of military operations. The Marine Corps service
infrastructure capacity is about right; however, the IRS does address
reducing excess and aging infrastructure to improve readiness and
stability. The Marine Corps supports a Department of Defense request
for authorization to conduct a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
round in 2021 based on the needs of other services, and to reinforce
efforts planned through our IRS to optimize facilities posture to
support increased readiness.
Readiness is not just about equipment supply and maintenance, but
also the quality and challenging nature of our training through the
mental, spiritual, and physical readiness of Marines and Sailors across
the force. Readiness reflects through an organizational attitude and
confidence, knowing that it can respond to and win in any crisis
because it has been properly organized, led, trained, and equipped.
modernization
History has not been kind to militaries that fail to evolve, and
the global change we are witnessing is rapid and dramatic. Your Marine
Corps must be manned, modernized, and ready to meet the demands of a
future operating environment as defined by our National Military
Strategy. The development, procurement, and fielding of a 5th
Generation Fighter, the F-35 Lightning II, is just one aspect of our
modernization efforts. We are modernizing our entire aviation force,
increasing the lethality of our infantry, and ensuring our combat
support and logistics are the most modern and capable. The result we
aim to achieve is a Marine Corps that is the most advanced and ready--a
5th Generation Marine Corps. Capable of dominating the battlefield in
all five domains--air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace--a 5th
Generation Marine Corps will use information, an integral part of each
domain that must be leveraged, as the thread to connect them. This
requires transforming MAGTF command and control capabilities through a
unified networked environment that is ready, responsive, and resilient.
The 5th Generation Marine Corps is a modernized force required to meet
and prevail against any adversary on the multi-domain battlefield of
the future.
The Marine Corps must progress to stay ahead of the current
security environment while mitigating future conflict or face becoming
a force unable to deter and defeat future adversaries. Budget cuts
since the Department of the Navy top line peaked in 2008, coupled with
fiscal uncertainty, forced us to utilize limited resources to ensure
the readiness of deployed forces and sacrifice end strength, home
station readiness, infrastructure sustainment, and quality of life
programs, as well as delay critical modernization. We need to modernize
rapidly, to replace ``old iron'' with new, reliable, sustainable, and
affordable equipment across the MAGTF. We need the continued support of
Congress to increase the production rate of our acquisition programs
while funding future modernization initiatives. Further, the
recapitalization of our force is essential to our future readiness with
investments in ground combat vehicles, aviation, command and control,
and digitally- interoperable protected networks. Marines will continue
working to do what we do today better than ever, while exploring ways
these tasks might be done differently. The Marine Corps will persist in
developing and evolving the MAGTF through innovation and
experimentation, ensuring it is able to operate in all domains of
conflict.
The Marine Corps Warfighting Lab leads our experimentation effort
to capitalize on existing and emerging technologies and MAGTF level
exercises. In conjunction with our coalition partners, the Navy and
Marine Corps team has experimented with dispersed sea-based SPMAGTFs;
integrated MAGTFs in heavily defended littoral environments;
incorporated emerging digital technologies with aviation platforms and
our ground forces; and conducted naval integration with interoperable
Special Operations Forces. We will continue to emphasize
experimentation and innovation during our exercises as a way to inform
the development of distributed doctrine and future operating concepts.
Exercises serve as a test bed for experimentation and innovation as we
search for faster, cheaper, and smarter acquisition processes and
programs. Expect the Marine Corps to continue pursuing technologies
that enhance our warfighting capabilities such as unmanned aerial
systems (UAS) and robotics, artificial intelligence, additive
manufacturing, and autonomous technologies that provide tactical and
operational advantage. We have seen success in some of these
initiatives and require consistent funding to better plan our
modernization efforts.
Effective planning produces unit cohesion and leadership in our
operating forces, and financial predictability for our modernization
programs. The ability to properly plan achieves stability and
predictability for our personnel and families, ensures ample time to
train, and fosters development of our small unit leaders. Modernization
is critical to our future readiness.
our challenges and solutions
Our most immediate challenge is resolving the significant readiness
issues that have grown over the past 15 years. Collectively, fiscal
inconsistency, spending cuts, and accumulating wear and tear after
years of combat operations have depleted our readiness and delayed
planned recapitalization and modernization efforts. Though our forward
deployed forces are ``full up'' and ready for whatever comes their way,
our ``bench'' has become shallow--particularly for aviation. We also
lack sufficient amphibious lift. Our minimum requirement is 38
amphibious warships and we presently stand at 31, getting to 34 within
the current Future Years Defense Plan. Due to this shortage, we have
deployed two ground-based SPMAGTFs that have added deployment tempo to
the Force.
Over the past year, the Marine Corps dedicated nearly every
operational MV-22 Osprey squadron to source its global commitments, and
the increased utilization rates on these airframes affect the longevity
of their service life. To reduce operational tempo and continue to meet
operational commitments, we cut MV-22 and KC-130J aircraft from our
SPMAGTFs in CENTCOM and AFRICOM. Additionally, F/A-18 readiness
challenges necessitated a reduction of the number of F/A- 18 aircraft
assigned to squadrons from 12 to 10. Exacerbating our concerns in
aviation is a potential exodus of seasoned pilots and maintenance
personnel to the commercial airline industry. We ask for your support
for the fiscal resources we have requested to retain the talent in
which we have invested. With the continued support of Congress, Marine
Aviation will recover its readiness by recapitalizing our aging fleet,
while at the same time accelerating the procurement of new aircraft to
meet our future needs and support our ground forces.
conclusion
The unpredictability of the security environment and unknown future
facing our Nation today reaffirms the wisdom of the 82nd Congress--the
vital need of a strong force-in-readiness. Marines are honored to serve
in this role. We do not want to enter a fair fight; therefore, we must
build a 5th Generation Marine Corps that has no peer on the
battlefield. As we continue to innovate, leverage technology, and
invest in new systems, our current plan includes advanced infantry
weapons, the rapid procurement of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle and
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, long-range precision fires, and counter-
UAS capabilities. It also increases fielding rates of the F-35B and C,
continues the CH-53K procurement, begins research and development of a
Group 4/5 unmanned aerial system capable of being sea-based, and
continues to build manned-unmanned teaming capabilities. The plan as
described depicts a roadmap to rebuild and modernize America's Marine
Corps. With the continued support of Congress in addressing present
challenges and shortfalls, we will be better postured to fight and win
our Nation's battles now and into the future. The American people
expect and deserve nothing less from their Marine Corps.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, General. Appreciate you being
here and your leadership.
May I hear from our distinguished democrat ranking member,
Senator Richard Durbin?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My apologies to the subcommittee and everyone in
attendance, but we had an overlapping hearing of the senate
judiciary committee upstairs which caused me to be a little bit
late to arrive. I apologize. I am sorry for that scheduling
problem.
And I ask consent that my opening statement be entered into
the record.
Senator Cochran. Without objection.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
Senator Cochran. Ordered.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming Secretary
Stackley, Admiral Richardson, and General Neller to our hearing to
review the Navy's budget request for fiscal year 2018.
government funding situation
Two months ago, this Subcommittee met to consider the White House's
request for additional defense spending as part of the fiscal year 2017
omnibus.
As I discussed with Secretary Mattis at the time, the request from
the Office of Management and Budget was riddled with errors,
duplication, and poor justifications. OMB even neglected to propose a
way spend the increases without violating the Budget Control Act.
As we meet to consider the Navy's needs in fiscal year 2018, it is
not clear that the White House has taken its responsibilities any more
seriously than what we saw in March.
Congress continues to wait for the President to propose a nominee
for the Secretary of the Navy. This is not meant as any disrespect to
Secretary Stackley. But this is a persistent problem, not only for the
Navy, but for the Department of Defense, and all of the agencies of
government. By any fair measure, the White House is woefully behind
meeting this responsibility.
I'm also sorry to say that the White House's budgeting hasn't
improved since March 2017.
The budget submitted to Congress yesterday for the Department of
Defense exceeds the Budget Control Act caps by $52 billion. Of this
amount, the budget for the Navy and Marine Corps exceeds the
sequestration-level caps by about $15 billion.
We all recognize that there are holes in our Armed Forces that need
to be fixed. But there are fundamental problems with the Trump budget.
First, the entire $52 billion increase violates the Budget Control
Act, but the White House has offered no plan to amend those budget
caps.
This means that if Congress passed this budget tomorrow as it has
been proposed, it would trigger across-the-board sequestration cuts of
$52 billion from military programs. That would translate into a
senseless 10 percent cut from almost every line in the budget.
Second, with no fix to the Budget Control Act being proposed, we
can predict what will happen: Congress could simply jam tens of
billions of dollars into the Overseas Contingency Operations fund.
Congress, watchdog groups, and even the Pentagon itself have
pointed out that abusing OCO is bad budgeting, bad for military
planning, and bad for the American taxpayer.
Third, domestic programs ranging from medical research to education
are poised to be slashed by $54 billion to pay for increased defense
spending--despite overwhelming bipartisan support in the omnibus
appropriations bill passed earlier this month.
Our Armed Forces depend on healthy, well-educated young Americans
to sign up to serve out country. Cutting these programs will ultimately
shrink the pool of Americans who can serve in our military, making
these proposals very short-sighted.
Congress must work together on a bipartisan basis to ensure that
our appropriations bills fund every part of our national strength--
militarily, economically, and socially.
We should prevent this looming sequestration. We should do so in a
way that ensures parity between our defense and domestic investments.
We can do this. We have done this in the past. Members should not
allow the White House's lack of interest in meeting its
responsibilities hold us back from meeting ours.
navy & marine corps
I am eager to hear from our witnesses just how much of the Navy's
budget is above the Budget Control Act caps, as well as how this budget
intends to deliver on Secretary Mattis' priority of readiness and
filing critical holes in the Navy and Marine Corps.
For the Navy, the White House led us to believe that this budget
would begin the ramp up to a fleet of 355 ships. But the number of
ships in the budget is smaller than what Congress provided for 2017.
This Subcommittee needs to know what the plan is for our Navy.
General Neller, I am concerned about our Marines. I am most
concerned about the culture of the Marine Corps in the aftermath of
Marines United.
There are also concerns that the Marine Corps could be at a tipping
point. The Marines have been deployed non-stop for nearly 16 years, and
the strain on the force and your equipment is mounting.
conclusion
Given the fiscal constraints that face our nation and 800 pound
gorilla in the room--sequestration--this Committee needs to know the
Navy and Marine Corps' most pressing needs.
The Administration and the Department of Defense should not take
for granted the additional $15 billion in the final defense bill just
passed by Congress. That was no easy task.
I look forward to a thorough discussion of these issues as they
relate to the Navy and Marine Corps, and I thank you for your service
to our country.
Senator Durbin. I would like to note at the outset that the
request of the Trump Administration for the next fiscal year
for the Department of Defense is $52 billion over the amount
allocated by the Budget Control Act.
As every Senator here knows, that would require on its face
for us to do an automatic across the board cut in your
agencies, your services, as well as all other agencies of the
Department of Defense to make up the $52 billion.
There is still no response from the administration about
what to do about the Budget Control Act or sequestration. We
saw this in the fiscal year 2017 budget. We are seeing it again
in the fiscal year 2018 budget.
This is not responsible and the notion that we can take
care of this problem on a periodic or annual basis with funds
really is no way to run the United States of America or our
national defense.
So I hope that before the end of the day we can face the
hard, tough, stark choices and put this Budget Control Act and
sequestration behind us once and for all rather than what this
budget suggests.
MARINES UNITED
I would like to address two issues in particular. General
Neller, we talked about this in my office and I am going to
raise it again.
In March we learned the shockingly large number of current
and former marines, up to 30,000 have been posting explicit
pictures of female marines to certain websites.
This Marines United scandal is deeply disturbing. There has
been one arrest and at least 30 active duty marines are under
investigation. Secretary Stackley, last week the Navy announced
that anyone committing this type of crime will face mandatory
administrative separation processing.
I would like to ask the Secretary, the General, or whoever.
Does this new policy guarantee that anyone found guilty of
posting these photographs will be dismissed from the Navy or
Marine Corps?
Secretary Stackley. Yes, sir. Let me provide the first
answer to that.
We have established what the standard is for a Navy and
Marine Corps in terms of this particular behavior what is and
is not acceptable. The challenge that we will continue to have
is to identify individuals that are in fact guilty of violating
that standard.
But when we do, we will bring them to proper judicial
proceedings or non-judicial proceedings and ensure that those
that are guilty of violating the standard are dealt with in
civil court. Or if not, then we have the ability within NJP
(Non-Judicial Punishment) or UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military
Justice) using the articles that we have to either remove them
from the service or take otherwise appropriate action
determined at the time.
Senator Durbin. Do you know the identities of the 30,000
who were engaged in this?
Secretary Stackley. No, sir. In fact, the NCIS (Naval
Criminal Investigative Service) has been doing an exhaustive
review of the websites, all available information through
photographic evidence to try to determine the number of
individuals that could be identified through the photographic
evidence tracing back through the web to try to identify the
subjects that are guilty of posting these photographs. And of
those, how many of those would be in active duty any service.
They are looking across the board in terms of services.
It is a tough challenge. Out of the literally greater than
150,000 photographs that they have reviewed, the number of
individuals we can identify are in the small double digits.
Then we are first going through, trying to process those
through civil court, and if not then bring them back inside of
UCMJ and NJP.
WOMEN IN THE U.S. MARINE CORPS
Senator Durbin. General Neller, there are approximately
15,097 females in the active duty Marine Corps or 8.2 percent.
The average age of women serving is 24 years of age. I would
like you, if you would to address a few issues.
First, do you believe that there is an important role in
the future of the Marine Corps for women to serve? And if so,
what impact has this scandal had on the morale of those
serving? And what is the Marine Corps going to do to try to
entice future women as recruits to become part of the Marine
Corps leadership?
General Neller. Well, Senator, first, yes, absolutely there
is a role for women in our Marine Corps. And I think if you----
As we are on our program to try to increase the number of
women in our Corps to 10 percent of the force, and our recent
advertising campaign is one of the first steps.
But I will say on this Marines United, as disgusting and as
offensive as this whole thing is, the number of Marines as
Secretary Stackley said, that were involved in this behavior is
nowhere near 30,000.
FEMALES IN THE MARINE CORPS
You have to understand Marines United--and I am not
condoning anything that anybody did that was disreputable or
discrediting to our Corps--most of those Marines joined that
site to help each other to deal with whatever they brought back
from the war. We do not really know how many Marines were in
this sub-link that we are dealing with these pictures.
The individual that broke the story, he estimated it at
500, but we do not know. But we are continuing to dig into
this, go through the pictures, an ongoing investigation. As
Secretary Stackley said we found 50 or 60 people that they have
referred to us and they are in the process of being
adjudicated.
So back to females. I think this whole thing, as disturbing
and as difficult as it has been, has actually been a benefit. I
think it has been a benefit to our Corps because I think it has
brought up a very simple point. It is really not about social
media. It is about how we view women in our Marine Corps.
The answer is we have not viewed them as well, and
appreciated their contribution, and the sacrifice they have
made, and the credit that they deserve. So to me that is the
issue.
I think the great majority of Marines that I have talked
to, male Marines, they understand that. And I think we are now
on a path to make everybody understand that this behavior is
not acceptable; that a Marine is a Marine. Once you earn that
title, you do not have to earn it again. And if you are not
going to be part of the solution, then you are going to have to
go somewhere else.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
The Senator from Alabama.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LCS PRODUCTION
Admiral Richardson, the Navy's most recent Force Structure
Assessment, FSA, explains as I understand it that 459 ships are
needed to achieve the Navy's missions and reasonable
expectation of success without incurring significant losses.
Those are the words that came out of the report. However, the
final 2016 FSA concluded that 355 ships is an acceptable
minimum force.
Could you describe the importance here, in a public setting
as much as you can, of meeting the minimum force levels in each
of the major ship classes as outlined in the FSA? How important
is this, not just to the Navy, but to our strategy and our
ability to project force around the world if needed?
Admiral Richardson. Senator, thank you for the question.
We did have a Force Structure Assessment that validated the
need for 355 ships. Those run the gamut of every ship class
that we have in the Navy from nuclear powered aircraft
carriers, to our SSBN's providing strategic deterrence, to our
large surface combatants, attack submarines, small surface
combatants, and amphibious ships.
It is the combination of that force and with respect to the
aircraft carrier, the air wings that they carry. It is a matter
of capacity of the force.
Senator Shelby. All these ships are important, are they
not?
Admiral Richardson. They are all important.
Senator Shelby. Because they have a role in the Navy.
Admiral Richardson. They do. Yes, sir. They come together
as a team. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Secretary Stackley, in your written
testimony today, you mentioned the importance of ensuring
continued production of the LCS shipyards while the Navy
refines its acquisition strategy for the future frigate.
Is it accurate to say that uncertainty, or even a break in
current production, could add a significant cost and time delay
to the delivery of the Navy's future frigate?
Secretary Stackley. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Leaving aside the cost and time in the
small surface combatant class of ships, has the Navy considered
what is optimal to get the best ship at the best price for the
taxpayer and, of course, the war fighter?
Secretary Stackley. Yes, sir. Let me first answer the
question regarding the risks associated with any break in
production. True of the LCS program, true of any shipbuilding
program, a break in production would be devastating.
And it is not simply the impact on things like learning
curve. It would be an impact to the vendor base and it is the
potential loss of the skilled labor that we rely upon to build
these extraordinarily complex warships. So any break in
production, we would consider to be unacceptable for a major
shipbuilding program.
With regards to the strategy going forward for the LCS,
right now we are procuring literally 1 year at a time.
We are going to take the three ships--the one added by
Congress in 2017 and combine it with the 2018 ship that we have
requested--in order to go out with a single procurement of
those 2 years to provide as much stability across the current
LCS builders as we can, while we continue to refine the
requirements and press forward with the design of the frigate.
We want to keep the LCS and the frigate heel to toe as best as
possible, so that we have a healthy industrial base to compete
for that future frigate program.
Senator Shelby. How important is it to keep that industrial
base going because you cannot just snap your fingers and build
ships? You have workers. You have everything, suppliers. You
have to have skilled people, have you not?
Secretary Stackley. Yes, sir. It is absolutely critical.
Our Navy is the only true customer for procurement of these
complex warships in this country. And so, we cannot afford to
lose the help that we have today in the industrial base.
We have past examples where we have had a gap and the
impact of trying to restore from that gap is pretty
devastating.
Senator Shelby. Admiral Richardson, back to you.
As a submariner, and as someone who has studied naval
strategy in your career, you probably understand better than
most how our peer competitors, China for example in particular,
look at our vulnerabilities. Everybody does in making their
plans.
Can you describe what the Navy is doing, as much as you can
in this setting, to improve its defensive and offensive
capabilities to ensure that our adversaries understand that
they cannot beat us in a fight? That is very, I think,
important.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, thank you.
First, you mentioned I am a submariner and one area that we
do enjoy an advantage right now is in undersea warfare, and we
are working very hard to maintain that advantage. It is just as
you said, though, our adversaries are studying us closely and
are crafting their force to address those advantages.
NAVY CAPABILITIES
Then as you mentioned, we need to grow the Navy as much in
the importance of shipbuilding and ships' matter. Then we need
to advance in capability. And so, we need to equip those ships
with better technology to make each and every one of them more
lethal. Finally, I am moving hard to network that fleet
together so that it can operate as a single team across a
broader expanse.
And so, it is the combination of capacity, capability at
the platform level, and then the combined effect of a network
fleet that will allow us to maintain our edge.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
The distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your service. And please tell all
the men and women of the Navy and the Marine Corps, well done.
Thank you.
SHIPYARD MAINTENANCE AND READINESS
Admiral Richardson, you pointed out that probably the most
pressing issue you have is readiness. That is particularly
demonstrated with respect to some of the submarines that are
tied up, literally, and cannot be operated.
It goes to the point you also made, I think, about the
folks at sea do not think we get it. They are sitting around
with a billion dollar ship that cannot go anyplace and they are
just sort of wondering.
Can you let us know how this budget helps you deal with
those issues of ships that have to be overhauled and what is
the constraint?
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir.
This is one of the major focuses of this budget request is
that it starts to get at the industrial capacity really across
the board for the Navy, and in particular, in shipbuilding.
And so it requests, among other things, an increase in
shipyard workforce. It does some capital investments in the
shipyards, and then reinvigorates all those accounts that will
allow us to get back to work on those shipyards.
I also have Admiral Moore, the Commander of the Naval Sea
Systems Command, focused on finishing those upkeeps on time.
These resources will allow him to get after that in a
meaningful way.
Senator Reed. This might not be appropriate in an open
setting, but how many submarines are nonoperational because
they are waiting for certifications and overhauls?
Admiral Richardson. Well, we have a number that are in
programmed overhaul. I think a better way to describe that,
sir, is just sort of how----
We have the USS Boise, the one that has lost her submerged
certification.
Senator Reed. Right.
Admiral Richardson. She is unable to submerge right now
until she gets into the shipyard. We are waiting for an
opportunity to bring her in and this budget helps us get there.
Then there are a number that are just delayed in
maintenance sometimes by hundreds of days waiting for their
maintenance to get done. That is also time that those
submarines should be at sea. This also goes for our surface
force as well. It is not just confined to the submarines.
NAVY INDUSTRIAL BASE
Senator Reed. In that context, I would presume that the
submarines would have to be in a nuclear shipyard, is how they
overhaul it. Is that correct?
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir.
Senator Reed. But some of our surface ships could be
overhauled and repaired in commercial yards, and this goes to
this industrial base issue.
Secretary Stackley, has anyone thought about how we more
efficiently allocate work? My sense is that a shipyard gets a
contract to build ships, and they build ships. If they do not
get that ship, it is bad for workers and everyone else. But is
there a way we can start transitioning from building a ship to
doing the overhaul and repairs so that we maintain the
industrial base?
Secretary Stackley. Yes, sir. Let me start with, I will
call it division labor, between our public and private
shipyards.
Our four public shipyards are predominantly our repair base
for our nuclear carriers and submarines. And so the challenges
that the CNO just described is a workload issue in those
facilities. So the submarines are being impacted by the
carriers, for example. It is a ripple through in terms of
schedule and impacts.
SHIPYARD MAINTENANCE AND READINESS
We have in the past, and we continue to look at it, used
the private sector to augment our capacity in terms of repair
and maintenance in the depot. And so, there are occasions that
you are quite familiar with where we have taken submarines out
of public workload and put them in the private sector. E.B. and
Newport News, obviously, are the two shipyards that are capable
of taking on that work.
On the nonnuclear side of the house, we are working across
a broader private sector repair base. What we have been doing--
particularly over the last couple of years when there has been
a mismatch between our workload and the capacity in the repair
side, which has led to either significant increases in workload
beyond the capacity or just the reversal, a drop in workload
that has tended towards layoffs--we have been working carefully
with the private sector to give them total transparency to our
planned workload. We have been trying to balance across things
like homeports to ensure that we do not have a peak in one area
and we have a dearth in another area.
But this comes back, again, to some of the uncertainty
issues associated with the budget. These are planned and
executed on an annual basis.
So if, for example, this year, you are into the eighth
month of the year before you have your final appropriation.
That has created tremendous uncertainty from our standpoint in
terms of being able to contract for these availabilities.
Industry's standpoint to understand, do they hold onto the
workforce because the work is coming or is this something that
will be delayed into the next year?
So it is a combined Navy, industrial base, and
congressional effort that has to be collected together to
minimize the impacts to the industrial base, and to ensure that
we are getting the degree of readiness that we need for the
dollars that we have, and to be able to best hit the schedules
that we have laid out for our ships, our service ships in this
case through the optimized fleet response plan.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
The distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for your service.
SHIPYARD INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY
Admiral Richardson, I know you are very familiar with the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. It has been called
the gold standard of public shipyards because of its efficient,
high quality work.
You mentioned you are concerned about the readiness of the
fleet, a concern that I share.
One of the studies that is underway is the Department's
Shipyard Dry-dock Study and the broader Shipyard Infrastructure
Modernization Plan to make sure that our four public shipyards
have the facilities and the up to date equipment to be able to
keep our fleet out there, to keep our submarines in service.
Could you tell us what the status of those studies are?
Admiral Richardson. Yes, ma'am.
First, let me just highlight the terrific performance of
the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. That is one shipyard where our
work is being done pretty much on schedule, if not a little bit
ahead. And so they do great work up there.
This Naval Shipyard Dry-dock Capacity and Survivability
Study is underway. It has our full attention. I would say that
it includes a number of initiatives.
One is just that as the Virginia-class improves, we start
to talk about the Virginia payload module. We start to talk
about the Columbia-class. The need to adjust our dry-docks so
that they can accommodate those new classes of ships is the
first pressing need.
Then the study also addresses larger capital improvements
that may be possible. I look forward to bringing that to the
Congress to discuss how we can incorporate some of the modern
ideas that go towards really improving the performance of any
industrial shipyard.
So in the private sector, as we mentioned, they have
already done a lot of these capital expenditures to improve
workflow from the arrival of material all the way through to
its production. And so, that study is underway and I look
forward to bringing it to you when complete.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Admiral.
Mr. Secretary, as the Senator from Alabama mentioned, the
Navy's most recent fleet assessment sets a goal of 355 ships.
That replaces the 308 ship force level goal that was released
in March 2015.
If you read the Navy study, there is a sense of urgency. It
says we need a more powerful fleet in the 2020's, not the
2040's. It goes on to say the Navy must get to work now to
build more ships.
And yet, as I look at this budget, it appears to continue
President Obama's 30-year shipbuilding plan and does not seem
to reflect the latest assessment by the Navy, which has also
been endorsed by the President, who has indicated his support
for a 350 ship Navy.
Did your budget request get cut by OMB (Office of
Management and Budget)?
Secretary Stackley. No, ma'am. Let me describe it.
Clearly throughout this hearing, we have tried to emphasize
the priority in this budget is to restore readiness for the
force. The best way to increase whether it is your ship count
or your aircraft count on deployment in theater where you need
it is to raise the readiness of the in-service fleet. And that
is the priority in this budget.
But we are also making clear that with the defense strategy
review that is ongoing now and will report out in time to
support our 2019 budget request going through the building and
to OMB. That a priority is, one, we hold onto the readiness
gains in 2017 and 2018, but we have to build the force in terms
of capacity and capability, as the CNO has emphasized, to
ensure we are ready for the future fight.
So while today we do, in fact, hold what we had in the
prior budget request, we look forward in the 2019 budget to
build on this foundation.
SHIPBUILDING PLAN
There is one critical capability, though, that I do not
want folks to lose sight of inside of the 5 year plan that we
have laid out. That is in the past we had anticipated dropping
down our submarine construction, our attack submarine
construction during years of the Columbia program procurement.
In fact, we intend to and we are laying the groundwork to
sustain a two submarine per year procurement rate, because that
is our number one shortfall when you look at the force
structure assessment that was done and the updates to that in
the CNO's white paper.
Senator Collins. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired.
I do want to put a statement in the record, with your
permission, talking about language that we put into the omnibus
regarding the remaining funding for procurement of a third DDG-
51 for a ``swap ship,'' as it is called. We have a specific
directive to the Navy to expeditiously award and complete this
destroyer as a Flight IIa ship which has both a stable design
and a stable cost.
I know that contract negotiations are ongoing and I look
forward to the Navy heeding the direction from Congress.
[The information follows:]
The recently enacted 2017 Omnibus included the remaining funding
for the procurement of a third DDG-51. The vast majority of the funding
for this ``swap ship'' was provided in the previous year's
appropriations.
This ship is tied to the December 2015 workload reallocation
agreement among the Navy and the two major shipyards.
In the Omnibus' explanatory statement Congress expressed the intent
that the Navy should expeditiously award and complete this destroyer as
a Flight Two A (Flight IIA) ship, which has both a stable design and a
stable cost.
I understand that contract negotiations are ongoing, and I look
forward to the Navy heeding the direction from Congress and this
committee so we can get this ship into the fleet as soon as possible.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
The Senator from Washington, Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here.
SEXUAL ASSAULT AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Let me start by just following up on the issue that Senator
Durbin raised in the event surrounding the Marines United
Scandal. It really is so appalling and unacceptable.
I do appreciate the steps you have taken to discipline the
offenders, and I heard your answers in terms of what you were
doing in terms of the investigation.
This is shocking. The impunity with which marines were able
to use social media to violate their colleagues is just
absolutely unacceptable.
I appreciate what you are doing now. I know changing the
culture is hard. We have been hearing this forever, but this
has been a problem for too long. It is serious. It requires
decisive action to prevent sexual harassment and sexual
assault.
I wanted to ask you more. What are you doing to prevent
sexual assault and sexual harassment?
Secretary Stackley. I would describe that we have been on
this campaign to prevent sexual assault and harassment for a
large number of years. You have been involved, and have frankly
been a good, ensuring, strong conscience over our efforts.
But the approach is comprehensive. It starts by, one,
ensuring everybody understands zero tolerance and what zero
tolerance means in terms of specific behaviors. I will allow
the CNO and the Commandant to speak specifically.
But every step along the way from accession into the
service and throughout their careers, it is not just a matter
of, ``Here is the standard.'' But it is also ensuring that
people understand their degree of accountability for the
standard. It is the oversight effort, not just by the chain of
command, but also by fellow members in uniform to ensure that
those standards are upheld.
Now what has been critical is understanding when occasions
occur. And so we have tried to ensure that there is an
environment there where folks who have been subject to assault
or harassment can step forward and feel safe.
And so, we try to create a safe haven for reporting those
instances so that we can deal with, one, take care of the
individual that was assaulted. And two, track down the subject,
the perpetrator that committed the assault. And then three,
hold them accountable in accordance with our zero tolerance and
the standards that we have set forth.
So I think what you find is the occurrences have been drawn
down over time and the report of instances have gone up, which
indicates that we are succeeding.
Senator Murray. Yes, I have seen that and I appreciate
that, but this scandal is just like, here we go again. I just
want you to know, all of us to know, that this is just not
acceptable from day one.
What are we doing for our men and women in service to let
them know that?
General Neller. So Senator, let me try to make you
understand that this is not just something we are going to work
around and then go back to business as usual.
Senator Murray. Right.
General Neller. So we formed a taskforce to address this
and that taskforce is not going to go out of business. They are
going stay as the standing force to continue to monitor this.
We have changed our social media policy. We now have
recruits when anyone decides to access in the Marine Corps, if
they make it through the accession and they are going to make
it to boot camp, they are going to sign a piece of paper saying
that they understand the policy and it is very clear. It is
going to be part of the training at every point along the
continuum of a Marine.
SEXUAL ASSAULT AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Every Marine serving today has signed a piece of paper
which, to them, they see as punitive, but it is not. It is
just, ``I want you to recognize the policy that we have
written, the changes we have made to policy. This is what the
rules are and if you fail to abide by these rules, then you are
going to be held accountable.''
We had to go through a process with our commanders. Now, I
cannot tell commanders what to do and prejudge actions if this,
then this.
To the question from Senator Durbin, are they all going to
get discharged? No. They will be processed and there is a
process to do that.
But I think commanders now better understand that they have
things that they can do. In fact, the one thing they cannot do
is nothing. And so all these are changes that have taken place
since this happened which, again, it is unfortunate.
I was talking to a very famous team coach of the New
Zealand All Blacks. He said, ``Why do we have to lose to
learn?'' And unfortunately in this case, it was not a good
experience, but I think we learned a lot and hopefully we will
not have to go through this again to learn more.
But as I have told everybody, this is not going to go away.
I would like to tell you like with sexual assault, like with
suicide, with any other things that we are going to get to
zero, but I cannot tell you that.
But I can tell you that we are fully committed to making
sure that everybody understands the rules and that when you are
dealing with a group of people, 60 percent of which are 25
years older or younger, that they are going to understand. They
are going to make mistakes, but they understand they also are
going to be held accountable. And the commanders understand
that they are critical in this process.
GROUND CONTAMINATION
Senator Murray. I very much appreciate that, and I know I
am out of time.
I did also want to quickly ask you about--and my State has
a great relationship with the Navy--but we do have an issue at
Oak Harbor and Coupeville on the groundwater contamination
issue associated with firefighting foam. I know others. This is
going to be a longstanding thing.
If I can get back from you how much resources you are going
to need on that and whether we are ready for that. I would
appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
The answer is provided in the Additional Committee Questions
section.
Senator Cochran. The distinguished Senator from Missouri,
Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ACCESS TO EDUCATION COUNSELORS
Secretary Stackley, I have some questions here I may just
have to ask for the record because we do not have much time,
and I want to ask some other questions in addition to this.
I think you are well aware of the fact that the Navy
consolidated all of their education counselors to Dam Neck,
Virginia and then they established eight regional coordinators,
two for each of the four Navy regions in the United States.
I have heard a number of concerning stories from schools
that used to get a lot of referrals and would be able to deal
directly with people serving who no longer get those referrals.
And so their view would be that the minimal number now of
advisors to people seeking undergraduate or graduate degrees is
not really very familiar with all the options out there
available to them.
So here are a handful of questions, I am just going to give
you for the record. One, how many sailors do you think are
helped under the new system?
Two, how many sailors in the previous year were enrolling
in classes compared to what happened last year?
How are you going to judge whether this new organizational
structure is working or not?
Then I guess the fourth question--I am going to leave the
fifth one; I may submit that in writing--the fourth one would
be are you giving considerations to shutting down the base
education centers that are currently open?
If you want to answer that last one here, I will let you do
that.
Secretary Stackley. Yes, sir. I appreciate the question. We
will get back to you in terms of the numbers. I do not have
those handy. In the course of this budget process, it has not
been brought forward that we would be shutting down those
sites. No, sir.
I will emphasize that, one, we rely on the great technical
skills of our sailors and Marines. The weapon systems that we
put to war require that we have extraordinarily intelligent,
talented individuals, and we are blessed with that.
So our education programs in access and referral, we have
to ensure that they are healthy and that they thrive. That we
not just attract, but then we also can further the educational
opportunities.
So this is important to us. You asked how we are going to
measure and monitor.
Senator Blunt. Right.
Secretary Stackley. We will get back to you.
[The information follows:]
The answer is provided in the Additional Committee Questions
section.
F-18S
Senator Blunt. All right. I will be interested to see how
you measure and monitor this. And, of course, they have
technical skills. And, of course, all of these schools have
places you can go.
But why are you reducing the way you can interact with
people who know those programs in ways beyond what you may find
on that is something I am going to be interested. And maybe you
are right and maybe the traditional way to do this has been
wrong, but I would like to know how you are going to evaluate
that.
Admiral Richardson, I noted in the budget, of course,
Senator Durbin and I are both always interested in the Super
Hornets. The good news is the Navy is too.
I noticed that you included 16 more and an additional 66
aircraft like that of the F/A-18's. This subcommittee has been
very supportive of the request on these planes. I have two
questions, really.
One, do you anticipate another unfunded priority? I have
noticed for a long time these planes have been the top line on
the unfunded priority list. I mentioned that to General Mattis
that if you really want these planes, we would like to see them
on the funded priority list rather than have to go to that
list.
And then, can you talk about the role that that plane, as
well as the Growler, maybe plays in your air package?
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir.
Absolutely a critical part of our fleet is our Hornet
fleet, both the Super Hornet that you described and the
Growlers. As you pointed out, there are a number on the funded
priority list and the unfunded priority list is headed your way
shortly as well.
So we remain committed to that. We remain committed to
extending the life of the current Super Hornet fleet and we
also, as part of that, will be procuring more Hornets. This
goes directly to the readiness of the force, the ability to get
these aircraft up and forward deployed.
With respect to the Growler, absolutely fundamental to the
new way of warfare right now, the electromagnetic part of
warfare right now. The Growlers are in tremendous demand. I
would not be surprised if that even grows further as
electromagnetic warfare becomes more and more a fundamental
part of the way we do business.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
The distinguished Senator from Hawaii.
Senator Schatz. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Neller, I want to ask you about our progress with
the defense policy review initiative. I know Secretary Mattis
has reaffirmed our realignment plans during his visit to Japan
in February and I also fully support our agreement with the
Japanese Government.
MARINES IN GUAM
But I want to ask you about how this impacts your progress
and planning? I worry that there are aspects of the current
plan that are going to fall short, particularly when it comes
to Guam.
We know that sending Marines to Guam depend on our reliance
on lift to move them around the region, and that is lift that
we do not have. It is possible that because of ongoing issues
at CNMI, that the Marines will not have access to a necessary
training range to support large unit level training that they
need to maintain readiness.
I will just read quickly from a letter I received from
Secretary Mattis in response to a series of questions that I
asked him. ``We are challenged to provide adequate lift
support, both maritime and air, to our distributed forces. We
acknowledge the need to improve strategic lift capabilities and
will continue to explore options to mitigate the shortfalls.''
On the question of training facilities, something even more
alarming because he recognizes the lift challenges and
exploring options, but when it comes to training ranges on
Guam, ``The completion of CJMT is not tied directly to the
relocation of the Marine Corps units to Guam.''
So what that means is that we recognize that there is a
military level problem, but we sort of continue a pace for good
reason, because of our longstanding relationship with Japan and
a commitment that our country made to the country of Japan.
But I wonder if you might flesh out the problem of lift and
the problem of training areas as it manifests itself? We are no
longer in the theoretical realm. You are now spending money on
Guam. You are now in the process of relocating at least some
Marines from Okinawa.
How do we maintain our commitment to Japan, but still do
this in a smart way, General Neller?
General Neller. Well, Senator that is a real complicated
question, but let me give it a shot.
So we are currently on plan for the Japanese Government to
build the Futenma Replacement Facility in the northern part of
Okinawa. We are still on plan to have Marines go to Guam.
The situation strategically, operationally as we have seen
in the news recently has changed. The capabilities and the
adversaries have changed the dynamic there.
So the bottom line is somebody is going to go to Guam. The
Marines are going to go to Guam. We are going to reduce the
number on Okinawa because that is a political imperative and we
have made that agreement with the Japanese Government.
But the Marine Corps has always said that wherever we go,
we have to be able to train and maintain the readiness of the
force that is there.
There are still some environmental issues, not just on
Guam, but on Tinian and other islands that have not been
adjudicated yet. We should know later on this year. Some of the
money we are continuing, we are spending just basic
infrastructure because we do know that there are going to be
forces on Guam because we have to reposition the force to meet
the political imperative.
That said, I think the Pacific Commander, Admiral Harris,
has looked at different options for where they might, at least
temporarily, base aircraft because of the threat and the
evolving treat. And so the discussions that we have had with
the Secretary and the Joint staff, we are at the very beginning
of taking a look at this. But for the time being, we are
committed to the plan.
But your concerns, I share your concerns about being able
to move the force, be operationally relevant, make sure the
force is safe, and is not at-risk, and it also is able to
train.
MARINES IN GUAM
Senator Schatz. What happens if CNMI does not work?
General Neller. For us, then that would be a problem
because the forces that right now are scheduled to go to Guam
require that they be able to maintain at least a rudimentary
level of readiness, training readiness. And I think that that
would cause us to have to go back and say all right.
We are going to fulfill our commitments to Japan. We want
to get out of Futenma. The Japanese want us out of Futenma. We
build a Futenma Replacement Facility. There are other places
that we could go to train. There are other options and I think
it would be appropriate at that time if all that comes to pass
that we consider taking a look at those options.
Senator Schatz. You know this, General Neller, but just to
point out that the Futenma Replacement Facility is no slam dunk
because there are environmental, and political, and community
issues on Okinawa. And so, all of this remains complicated.
I am not criticizing you for trying to manage this
situation. But just to make sure that the Office of the
Secretary, and the State Department, and the White House
understand that this is a complex situation.
But to the extent that we are implementing a plan that was
developed over the last decade, we may need to be quicker in
making adjustments to make this work for the Marine Corps and
the Navy.
Thank you.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
The distinguished Senator from Montana, Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And gentlemen, thank you for your service to our country
and for appearing before this committee today.
MISSILE DEFENSE
The Navy and Marine Corps team is one of our Nation's most
visible means of projecting power across the globe and
promoting peace from a position of true strength.
In fact, just last month, when the USS Barry showed the
world that America is not bluffing when it draws a red line.
For those to the East, the arrival of the second carrier group
in the vicinity of the Korean peninsula was not lost on our
adversaries or our allies as well.
I am a son of a Marine rifleman. It is my observation that
today's Marines are cut from the same cloth as the yellow legs
who landed in Chung, held the Pusan Perimeter, and pushed the
North Korean Peoples' army all the way to Chosin Reservoir. I
daresay this has been the observation of the North Korean
leadership as well.
But today, the readiness of our equipment reflects 16 years
of sustained operations abroad, as you pointed out in your
testimony. I continue to support the Administration's efforts
to restore our forces to the highest level of military
readiness.
This past week, North Korea conducted two missile tests,
which it claims demonstrates the country's ability to reach
Japan and U.S. military installations in the region. This
raises the immediate question of whether our missile defenses
can adequately respond to an attack if one were to occur.
STRATEGIC DETERRENCE AND MISSILE DEFENSE
But coming from Montana, where the 341st Missile Wing keeps
one-third of our Nation's ICBMs ready at all times, I would
like to consider how deterrence factors into our national and
our regional strategy to discourage North Korea from launching
an attack at all.
Admiral Richardson, given the Navy's complementary roles in
both missile defense and nuclear deterrence, how does the
nuclear triad factor into our overall strategy in the region?
Admiral Richardson. Senator, the nuclear triad, all three
legs working together is absolutely existential to our
situation going forward. If we did not have that secure and
effective triad, we would be having a much different
conversation than we are having right now. It would be far more
severe.
That is why the Columbia-class submarine is our number one
modernization priority to maintain the undersea leg of that
triad. But that only works in conjunction with the other two
legs of the triad as well.
That in combination with missile defense activities run by
Admiral Syring and executed by the Joint Force really working
together, we think has got to put some serious considerations
in the mind of any leader who would threaten us with that type
of missile technology, a missile attack.
ASIA PACIFIC AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY
Senator Daines. I want to stay in the Asia-Pacific realm
here for a moment.
Last February, President Trump and Prime Minister Abe
called on countries with interests in the Asia-Pacific region
to avoid actions that would escalate tensions in the South
China Sea.
I just returned from leading a delegation to both China and
Japan, and I share the President's view that further
militarization in the South China Sea is not in the best
interests of the region.
Admiral Richardson, what progress has been made to decrease
tensions in the Asia-Pacific region through naval operations in
the South China Sea, Navy to Navy relations with U.S. allies
and partners, and interactions with your Chinese counterpart?
Admiral Richardson. We do regular interactions and I
appreciate the fact that you take a regional perspective there
because it is not just a bilateral thing between the United
States and China in that region.
I just came back from Singapore where they celebrated the
50th Anniversary of the Republic of Singapore Navy. They had
about 30 Chiefs of Navy from that region around there.
When you bring that group together, particularly the Chiefs
of Navy in that region, they are talking about the importance
of a rules-based structure down there that allows prosperity
and trade for everybody in the region to occur on a level
playing field. And that to the degree that militaries are
involved, it is really to support and advocate for that rules-
based structure that allows trade and prosperity. And so, this
is the convention of the Law of the Sea and all those sorts of
structures that allow us to do that.
The United States is a Pacific Nation as well. We have been
present there in the South China Sea, I would say in a non-
provocative way, for decades. And we are going to continue to
be there as well to protect our interests in the region, the
interests of our partners and allies there.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Admiral. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
The distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator
Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS AND SEQUESTRATION
Admiral, are CR's bad for the Navy?
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. The Marine Corps?
General Neller. Yes, sir. They are.
Senator Graham. As of April 20, 2016 is it accurate that of
the 276 F/A-18 Hornets, only 87 were flyable; 31 percent?
Secretary Stackley. Senator, that sounds about right. The
exact numbers go day by day.
General Neller. Yes, the numbers go day by day.
Senator Graham. Okay.
General Neller. We are seeing slight improvements, but we
are not where we want to be.
Senator Graham. Well, this budget is trying to address
that. Right?
Secretary Stackley. It is, yes.
General Neller. It is.
Senator Graham. Okay. Marine Corps. The CH-53E Super
Stallion, 28.5 percent were ready for operations on April 20,
2016. Does that sound right?
General Neller. Somewhere in there. It is improving. We
have a reset, but the 53 is an old airplane and needs to be
replaced.
Senator Graham. February 7, 2016, 53 percent of all naval
aircraft could not fly before the Omni passed. Is that true,
Admiral?
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Sixty-two percent of the F/A-18's were out
of service.
Admiral Richardson. That is about right. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Who did this?
Admiral Richardson. Well, it is a combination of----
Senator Graham. Would you say the Congress did this?
Admiral Richardson. It was a team.
Senator Graham. I mean, we shot down more planes than
anybody else because of our budget, because of sequestration,
the CR's.
Is that a fair criticism of the Congress?
Admiral Richardson. The CR's and sequestration have not
helped maintain our readiness.
Senator Graham. Well, I would say that we are responsible
for this, not you.
Does sequestration kick back in this year under the Budget
Control Act? Does it?
Admiral Richardson. It does.
Senator Graham. Secretary of the Navy.
Secretary Stackley. Yes, it does.
Senator Graham. What would that mean to the Navy and the
Marine Corps?
Secretary Stackley. Well, across the board, we would be
going backwards in terms of the readiness that we are trying to
restore in the 2017 and the 2018 budgets. And so, ships and
aircraft that are operating today, ships would be tied up to
the pier.
Senator Graham. Do you see a fast way forward for this
budget submitted by the President to pass?
Secretary Stackley. Well, the----
Senator Graham. I do not, so that is probably a question
for me. I do not.
So if this budget does not pass, what we are going to do?
What are you going to tell the Navy and Marine Corps about
sequestration if it kicks back in? What are you going to tell
the Marines, General?
General Neller. I am going to tell them that the force is
forward deployed as we are going to be as ready as we can make
them. It will be much harder back at home. We are probably not
going to be able to do the training and maintain the gear that
we need to maintain, and our modernization will be delayed.
Senator Graham. Do you think morale will go down when they
hear that?
General Neller. I do.
CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS AND SEQUESTRATION
Senator Graham. What about the Navy?
Admiral Richardson. The same, sir.
Senator Graham. Do you see a plan to fix this? I mean, I do
not. I am in Congress and I do not see one.
What are we going to do about the fact that the law of the
land is sequestration? The budget proposed by the President
does not have a snowball's chance in hell of passing.
I think it is incumbent upon us to help you better than we
are doing. Let us buy back sequestration. Let us have a Super
Committee 2, which was unacceptable to me. It is for the
Congress to create this problem year in and year out with CR's.
Those sequestrations on top of it give you temporary relief.
Here we are in fiscal year 2018 when the threats to the country
are greater.
Do you agree they are greater in fiscal year 2018 than they
were in fiscal year 2010?
Secretary Stackley. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Do you agree with that from the Marine's
point of view?
General Neller. I do and it is not getting any better, sir.
Senator Graham. So we are appropriators. There seems to be,
and I think we all owe it. I am a little preachy here, but that
is okay. It is my time.
I think we all owe it to these men and women to give them a
little better certainty in what is going to happen in their
lives. To improve the equipment, not retrograde it. To
modernize the force, not keep it up with duct tape.
So Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member, right now in May
there is no plan to fix sequestration. There is not a
bipartisan effort. There is not a sole party effort to relieve
the suffering that we have created for the men and women who
serve from insane budget cuts at a time of great threat.
SOFT POWER
Soft power, Admiral Richardson. General Mattis when he was
the Four Star Marine General said famously, ``If you cut the
State Department's budget, you better buy me ammo,'' more ammo.
Do you agree with that from a Navy perspective?
Admiral Richardson. Sir, it is a full national team effort.
There is a balance.
Senator Graham. Do you believe that soft power is
instrumental in winning the war on terrorism?
Admiral Richardson. There is a role for soft power.
Senator Graham. General, what do you say?
General Neller. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. Do you realize that the State Department's
budget is cut by 29 percent? Do you see a situation in the
world that is so much better that you could justify a 29
percent cut in soft power from a military perspective, Admiral?
Admiral Richardson. Sir, soft power is power.
Senator Graham. The threats are greater. What about you,
General?
General Neller. We are only going to get them with a
military capability to a certain point. There has got to be a
political solution and that is where the State Department comes
in.
Senator Graham. Thank you all.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired. The
distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
EXERCISE NORTHERN EDGE
I appreciate the line of inquiry from my colleague from
South Carolina and the very direct responses.
Admiral, I want to take the conversation back to one that
you and I had by phone a week or so ago about the training
exercise up in the Gulf of Alaska. As we discussed, there was
community concern about the timing of that exercise coming in
early May just as fishing season is coming on as well as the
proximity to those high value fish openings.
The community officials emphasized to me quite clearly that
they are very pro-military, but that they felt that the Navy
was not hearing, perhaps, some of their concerns. I do
appreciate that there is consideration being given to my
request and theirs that these future exercises be moved to the
fall. There are also some in the communities that remain
skeptical about whether the Navy is using the best science in
evaluating fishery's impacts.
So I would like you to just place on the record here this
morning your view of whether or not the Navy requires a social
contract with the local communities to conduct exercises in the
waters that provide their livelihoods.
Where do you think the Navy is going with respect to
Northern Edge and what the Navy plans to do with respect to
future community engagement?
Admiral Richardson. Ma'am, thanks for that question.
And also, I want to just highlight how grateful we are for
the support of the communities in Alaska for the United States
Navy training in the Gulf of Alaska.
Senator Murkowski. And you know that that is real. So thank
you for saying that.
Admiral Richardson. It is completely real and our ship
visits there showed that. They turned out with just effusive
warmth.
We did, leading up to that exercise, do a number of
community engagements as you and I discussed. But as we also
discussed that clearly left some itch unscratched. There is
something that we still have to address.
To really achieve that, I would say a bond of trust and
confidence with the community that we are, one, sincerely
considering their concerns. And two, are dedicated to bringing
all the science and technology, all of the environmental
research to bear to make sure that we look at the same things
and see them the same with respect to going forward.
And so, we are very mindful of your request to take a look
at the scheduling of that exercise in the future to de-
conflict. We are going to give that very serious consideration.
We are also, as we discussed, going to roll in after the
exercise to do some community engagement, to make sure that we
fully understand that the exercise went as well as it could
this last version. And maintain an engagement between exercises
to build that habitual relationship that will allow us to do
this in a way that everybody sees it as a win.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that. I think the
engagement will be appreciated, but also the transparency with
these community conversations and the fact that they will be
ongoing.
ICEBREAKERS
I want to speak about icebreakers. I do recognize and thank
the efforts of the Navy in partnership with the Coast Guard to
accelerate the design and construction of Polar icebreakers. As
you know, we call it an aging fleet. In my mind, one Polar
icebreaker does not constitute a fleet here. So we have some
work to do.
The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2018 budget request has $19
million for the icebreaker program. It does not appear that the
Navy has requested any funding for this very important program.
So the questions for you this morning is just speak to the
progress and the status of icebreaker. And then, as we develop
the fiscal year 2018 budget, what funding is needed to keep the
program on its accelerated path?
Admiral Richardson. Yes, ma'am.
You have highlighted the importance of the Arctic. Always
important, but even more so as climate change opens up regions
of the Arctic that are being exploited by a number of nations
around the world.
As you also pointed out, ma'am, this is primarily--the
icebreaking mission--is a Coast Guard mission. We are bringing
to bear all of our expertise and advice that we can to work
with the Coast Guard. We have a formal Memorandum of
Understanding. We have an integrated program office working
with them to advise them in terms of how to get this capability
reconstituted.
Senator Murkowski. And you would agree that there are
clearly advantages to be had by block-buying icebreakers as
opposed to buying each vessel individually. We know these are
expensive, so figuring out those efficiencies is going to be
key.
Admiral Richardson. Ma'am, from my experience in
shipbuilding, when you can commit to a number of ships, that
allows the industrial base to level load work, to buy material
at an optimum price, to really do this efficiently and on the
order of 10 to 15 percent more efficiently than if you do it
year by year.
Senator Murkowski. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you. The time of the Senator has
expired.
The distinguished Senator from Kansas, Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Gentlemen, thank you for joining us.
First of all, Chief, thank you very much for the
conversation you and I had with a young man in Topeka, Kansas
when we were together at the Reagan Defense Forum. You
indicated to him that he had been accepted to the United States
Naval Academy. Thank you for participating in that call and it
highlights for me this issue of readiness as there are young
Kansans, young Americans who are entering a career in our
Services.
PHYSIOLOGICAL EPISODES IN AIRCRAFT
The responsibilities that we have as outlined by Senator
Graham, responsibilities that you have are tremendous to make
certain that they have the necessary equipment, and training,
and prepared for the missions that we ask them to pursue.
Let me first begin with the Secretary. Mr. Secretary, the
Navy recently grounded the T-45's training aircraft fleet.
Can you bring me up-to-date, bring us up to date on what
has transpired since then and how the issue is being corrected?
Secretary Stackley. Yes, sir. I will give you a quick
update, and the CNO and Commandant might want to provide their
perspective as well.
The issues that brought the T-45, that resulted in the
operational pause, as we described it, for the T-45 is
associated with the environmental control system on the
aircraft, and specifically a system called On Board Oxygen
Generating System. That if you have contaminants in that
system, it could lead to a condition called hypoxia where the
pilots would get disoriented.
And so this is a low occurrence issue, but it is a number
one concern in terms of naval aviation safety. So with the T-45
fleet, the rate of occurrence of this issue started spiking in
the February timeframe. And it went from, while the numbers
were still relatively low, the trend was alarming.
And so we grounded the aircraft while we brought our
technical community to bear. We brought our medical community
to bear. We brought industry to bear. We brought outside
experts to bear to understand what are the causes, and what do
we need to do in terms of changing the design and configuration
in the aircraft so that we have absolute confidence in its safe
operation?
But also in terms of training the pilots when they are
operating, putting certain restrictions in place that would
reduce the likelihood of this occurrence while you are
training. And then also to educate, to train and educate the
instructors and the pilots on the condition, what we are
dealing with, the changes that we are implementing.
So right now, we are getting back to the air in a very
measured fashion so we can return to training at the high rate
that we need to as we walk the paces in this remediation type
of program.
It is not going to be a quick and immediate fix. So what we
need to do is control the conditions so that we are, at the
same time, limiting, reducing any safety impacts or any risks
to our pilots. Not just people we advise, but frankly, also in
service with the F/A-18's.
Senator Moran. Before you defer to the Admiral, if they
would like to respond in writing, I would appreciate it because
I want to ask a second question.
[The information follows:]
I would like to add that as we continue to assess potential root
cause, we, in parallel, are focused on implementation of air crew
alerting and protection devices and systems so that we can resume
student training in the T-45 just as soon as possible, but keeping in
mind that safety is the number one priority.
WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY
Senator Moran. I want to raise something that is so
important on readiness and I think the Navy in particular is
missing an opportunity that we want to raise with you.
This subcommittee has provided additional funding in recent
years dedicated to maintaining naval air fleet readiness; in
particular, partnering with universities that have the capacity
to fulfill immediate readiness demands and to do the work at a
fraction of the cost.
Admiral and General, what concerns me is that this will
happen yet again. And by that, I mean the Navy has not invested
in the opportunity to partner with universities in solving its
readiness problems.
The Navy can, I quote, ``Correct its limitations by
investing taxpayer dollars,'' wasting precious time when you
already have the capacity, the capabilities at your disposal.
Universities that have engineers, physical space, innovative
tools, and an abundance of materials to support your readiness
and capacity problems.
This has a home component. I bring this up because they are
so good at what they do, and yet they are not being utilized to
the degree that they can.
I brought this to your attention about Wichita State when
we were together at the Reagan Defense Forum. What I am looking
for is that you will utilize the funds that this subcommittee
has appropriated for you in partnering with universities who
have that capacity and to help deliver the services that the
Navy needs sooner rather than later.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, as the Secretary pointed out, we
are looking for anybody who has an ability to help us get
through this very vexing problem.
And so, you have my commitment that we will overturn every
stone that we can.
Senator Moran. I would just say, Admiral, I am not sure
that has happened to date and I would encourage you to
personally take a look. We would be glad to have a more lengthy
discussion about the opportunities that we see available to the
Navy.
Admiral Richardson. I look forward to that, sir.
Senator Moran. Thank you, sir.
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby [presiding]. Senator Baldwin.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP INDUSTRIAL BASE
Secretary Stackley, when you and I last spoke, we were
discussing the Navy's transition from the LCS to the frigate.
And you noted the importance of avoiding a production gap and
layoffs at the Littoral Combat Ship shipyards during this
transition.
You have also testified to the importance of preserving
shipbuilding jobs, noting that a failure to do so will
ultimately harm the American taxpayer, and the U.S. Navy in the
form of increased costs, extreme delays, and decreased quality.
Talking about the Littoral Combat Ship program in December
at a hearing, you stated, and I quote, ``If production drops to
an unsustainable level, then those facilities are going to
ultimately shutter.'' I believe that one Littoral Combat Ship
in fiscal year 2018 will result in that unsustainable level.
You were recorded in a recent U.S. Naval Institute news
article saying that, again I quote, ``The day we award that
last ship, you are going to start laying off people. And you
are going to lay them off until they are gone. And if you are
going to stop production and build another ship, you have lost
your skilled labor and you have got to rebuild it.''
President Trump's request of just one Littoral Combat Ship
in fiscal year 2018 will create this exact worst case scenario:
job losses and damage to our industrial base, harming our
national security and taxpayers.
Both LCS shipyards are optimized for three ships per year.
Earlier this month, Admiral Neagley, the Program Executive
Officer for the LCS testified, and I quote, ``We think about
three ships a year is the right number to maintain the
workforce and to leverage the efficiencies from the investments
in those yards.''
So just one LCS in fiscal year 2018 could result in 800 job
losses at Marinette Marine in my home State of Wisconsin, and
nearly 2,000 jobs across the State, devastating the yard's
ability to compete for the frigate.
I wrote to President Trump warning him of this result and
urging him to fund three LCS ships in fiscal year 2018.
I would ask for unanimous consent to enter that letter in
the record.
Senator Shelby. You have.
[The letter follows:]
Senator Baldwin. I would like to express my strong
objection to President Trump's decision to cut the LCS program
and put Wisconsin shipbuilding, and its skilled workers, and
their families at great risk.
But my questions for you, Secretary Stackley, are, number
one, what do you mean when you say in your testimony that one
LCS ship in fiscal year 2018 will, ``Ensure continued
production at both shipyards''?
Number two, what does continued production look like in
this case? Because I see a lot of skilled Wisconsin workers
that will be out of work.
And three, how do you reconcile your earlier statements
with the harmful consequences that will come from the
President's budget request for only one Littoral Combat Ship?
Secretary Stackley. Yes, ma'am.
Let me go back to my opening remarks and walk through.
Just, first, I stand by every statement that you just quoted in
the past. The health and welfare of our industrial base is
critical and central to our ability to build the fleet that we
need going forward.
The challenges that we have in 2018, our number one
priority has been, and we have been emphatic about this, to
restore our readiness. Not to do it at the cost of procurement
and modernization, but in 2018 budget-wise, we do not have the
capacity to grow in terms of procurement and modernization.
That becomes a 2019 budget issue that we have to deal with
through the strategic defense strategy review.
LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP INDUSTRIAL BASE
One LCS in 2018 only makes sense when you combine that one
ship with the three ships in 2017. So that across the two
builders, they are each going to get at least a one ship per
year rate, which is below the optimal. Which was the three
across the two builders during that period of time, three each
year. It is below the optimal, but it does meet a minimum
sustaining.
Today across the program, the two builders have completed
ten LCS's, effectively completed ten LCS's. With the 2018
budget request that brings the total program up to 30 LCS's,
which means that there are 20 ships in the backlog across those
two shipbuilders.
So what we have got to do is work that ten ships per
shipbuilder backlog and mitigate any impact in 2018 while we
revisit 2019 and understand what the industrial base needs.
I will be clear that the one ship in 2018 is below the
optimal. Absolutely, ma'am, and we are concerned with every
loss of skilled labor that we run into in these types of
circumstances. But we have to balance that against the other
priorities in the budget associated with restoring our
readiness.
So we were not able to grow the capacity in 2018. We need
to come back and revisit that in 2019 and we need to leverage
the opportunity that you all provided with the additional ship
in 2017. So across the whole, as best as possible, we retain
stability in the shipbuilding industrial base.
We do not want to lose sight of a potential of the foreign
military sales potential that is coming through with Saudi
Arabia and their potential LOA associated with the multi-
mission surface combatant that we hope to bring across the line
in this timeframe.
Senator Cochran [presiding]. The time of the Senator has
expired.
The distinguished Senator from Kansas, Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me a
second round. I want to go to General Neller.
General Neller, I want to follow up on the conversation
that I and the Admiral had. I want to talk about F/A-18's. The
budget requests $3.4 billion for maintenance to ready the force
and funding readiness accounts to the maximum.
General Neller, you said in February, and I quote, ``None
of this is going to happen overnight. Even if you had the
funding to increase the acquisition of airplanes or even if you
had the money to increase the throughput through Fleet
Readiness Centers.'' I again want to highlight an opportunity
that the Marines and Navy have.
WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY
Wichita State University, they have the largest university-
affiliated structural testing facility in the world and the
only internationally recognized resource for material
certification, which allows faster material development and
qualifications for the military.
And so, General, I want to hear from you that your
understanding of that availability of universities to be of
assistance to the Marine Corps. Your readiness circumstances
may be more dire than even the Navy.
How do I make certain that I have the Marine Corps'
attention in this opportunity that exists?
General Neller. Senator, I have talked with your fellow
Senator, Senator Roberts, about Wichita State. So I am aware of
the aviation facility or capabilities in a rudimentary level.
What they can or cannot do to help us do in-service repair
or help us with fixing airplanes, I do not know. But based on
what you have told me today, I give you my word that I will go
down and investigate that, and I will send somebody down there
to find out what is within the realm of possibility.
Part of the problem that we have is if I look at F/A-18's
today, the greatest down for legacy aircraft is their short
supply. So I do not believe, unless Wichita State is a source
of supply, that that is going to be able to help me.
But if there are issues with in-service repair or they have
people that are qualified engineers that can look at a repair
that needs to be made. If they can help with that repair, they
would have to get certified through NAVAIR because we work
through them because they are the ones that certify people to
do these repairs.
There are three types of things on legacy aircraft. Either
we cannot fix it or we do not have the artisan to fix it. We
need a part to fix it or there is something that we have to
have a certified engineer to look at. And that may be where
Wichita State might be able to help us with that.
And so, I was not aware when I talked with Senator Roberts,
we talked about it in a different context. I was not aware
there was actually funding involved in this. But I assure you,
sir, that now that you have made me aware of this, I will get
some direct attention on this to better understand what the
capability is.
Senator Moran. Thank you, again. I think that is exactly
the capabilities that are offered, and I think the funding that
has been made available has not been utilized in that way.
I needed to get this to your attention and to the Admiral's
attention, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE PROCUREMENT
General Neller, can you please explain why the Marine
Corps' fiscal year 2018 budget request includes funding for
approximately half the total number of JLTV's that were planned
as part of last year's request? What is the significance of the
JLTV in the Marine Corps' modernization strategy? And should we
read anything into this reduction in the fiscal year 2018 buy?
General Neller. Well first, Senator, the JLTV and the
acquisition objective, right now, is 5,500 and I would like to
buy more because really we need to recapitalize the HMMWV's of
various model type series that we have, HMMWV A2's, the up-
armored HMMWV. They are old. They need to be replaced.
So my understanding is that we are continuing to work and
to go forward as fast as we can with the funding because it is
critical for us to recapitalize this part of our ground
vehicles. So I would not read anything into that.
In the past, there were always trades in the budget. Some
things have a higher priority. The recapitalization of our
ground vehicles has my full attention. I think we are trying to
buy as many as we can with the resources we have available.
ACQUISITION STRATEGY
Senator Baldwin. Secretary Stackley, since we last spoke,
the Navy has changed its acquisition strategy for the frigate,
delaying the first procurement to fiscal year 2020 and really
expanding the requirement process.
Can you explain the rationale for this change and what is
the way ahead, particularly in terms of requirements?
Secretary Stackley. Let me start and I am going to hand off
part of this to the CNO.
The bottom line is when we established the requirements for
the frigate in the 2014 timeframe, it was based on a certain
assessment in terms of the multi-mission capability that we
would be able to deliver with that frigate design.
The security environment has changed. The CNO will talk
about his assessment that drives towards greater multi-mission
capability. So we need to add a design window to bring that
additional capability to the frigate design. That effectively
delays the procurement 1 year and that gives us another
challenge in 2019 to ensure that we hold on to the industrial
base during this 1 year period.
Admiral Richardson. With respect to the requirements, ma'am
that is kind of our business. I would say three things,
significant things that have changed since we even approached
the frigate requirements originally.
One is the threat environment is moving very quickly, as I
said in my opening remarks. Exponential is the word that
describes the pace of change. And so, we need to address that
change in the threat as we redesign and re-craft the
requirements for this frigate.
The fiscal environment has changed. And so, we need to make
sure that we are finding that optimum cost for that platform.
Not being too over-constrained that will drive necessary
capability out, but neither do we want it to run high and then
become unaffordable. And so that cost point, finding that knee
of the curve is going to be critical.
And finally, the way we operate is changing. The way the
U.S. Navy operates in terms of networking this frigate into the
larger fleet, executing distributed maritime operations. That
has changed as well.
So the combination of those three things really
necessitated that we go back to the drawing board and make sure
we have not missed an opportunity to put to sea a ship that
will address today's threats and be modernizing into the
future.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Cochran. Are there other questions of the panel?
If not, let me thank you as a panel for your cooperation
and assistance in this hearing.
We want Senators to know they can submit additional written
questions for the witnesses. We would request you respond to
them in a reasonable time.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Sean J. Stackley
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
education opportunities
Question. Secretary Stackley, the Navy recently reorganized how
they support sailors who are working to complete their undergraduate
and graduate degrees.
As you know, the Navy consolidated all their education counselors
to Dam Neck, Virginia, and then established eight regional
coordinators, two for each of the four Navy regions in the United
States.
We have heard concerning stories that referrals to schools like
Webster University have dropped significantly since the change went
into effect.
I am particularly interested in knowing how many sailors were
helped under the new system.
How many were helped the year prior to the new system?
How are you judging the outcomes of this reorganization?
Is the Navy planning or considering shutting down its base
education centers?
I would like you to get back to me with information on how this
change has potentially limited educational offerings for our service
members.
Answer. Through May 30, 2017, Navy has provided courses for 34,524
Sailors in fiscal year 2017. In fiscal year 2016, Navy provided courses
for 46,091 Sailors.
Outcomes on the organization will be based on tuition assistance
average usage statistics over the previous 6 years (e.g., total tuition
assistance funds executed; course enrollments, participation, new
users, success rate, degrees earned, etc.).
The following Navy College Offices have been closed since October
1, 2016:
Bethesda, MD Charleston, Coronado, CA Corpus
SC Christi, TX
Everett, WA Fallon, NV Great Lakes, Gulfport, MS
IL
Kings Bay, GA Lemoore, VA Little Millington,
Creek, VA TN
New London, CT Pensacola, Ventura Whidbey
FL County, CA Island, WA
The following Navy College Offices will close on September 30,
2017:
Jacksonville, FL Kitsap, WA Norfolk, VA San Diego,
CA
Experience to-date suggests that this change has not limited
education offerings for Sailors. In fact, this new approach, which
leverages networking tools Sailors use every day, has made counseling
and tuition assistance more accessible across the continental United
States, including at installations and reserve centers that did not
previously host a Navy College Office. Through a combination of virtual
services, Sailors access the information they need at their
convenience, consistent with their needs, without the working-hour
limitations imposed by traditional brick-and-mortar Navy College
Offices. Whether in the field, or at the Navy College Virtual Education
Center, counselors do not refer Sailors to specific academic
institutions, but focus counseling on education options, opportunities,
available programs, and assisting the Sailor in deciding what
institutions best meet his or her goals. With the newly redesigned Navy
College Program website, new Mobile Application and incorporation of
web chat, electronic-help requests, and the ability to self-schedule
counseling, we have seen an increase in the number of Sailors using
these virtual tools, and in the phone call and email volume at the Navy
College Virtual Education Center.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
``investigation and remediation: perfluorooctane sulfonate (pfos) and
perfluorooctanoic acid (pfoa) in drinking water sources''
Question. Secretary Stackley, Washington has enjoyed a strong
relationship with the Navy for more than a century and our communities
are good at working through issues with the Navy as they arise.
Recently the communities of Oak Harbor and Coupeville were made
aware of ground water contamination associated with firefighting foam
used at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island and Outlying Field Coupeville.
Oak Harbor, Coupeville, other communities in Washington State, and
communities around the country will be dealing with this groundwater
contamination for years to come and I am worried there are not enough
resources allocated to this problem.
Does the Department of the Navy have the resources to take care of
every affected community and clean up all contamination?
Answer. Yes. The Department of the Navy (DON) has made responding
to known or suspected releases of PFOA and PFOS, especially where they
potentially impact drinking water, a high priority under the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). DON has spent $45 million
conducting investigations or other response actions at 47 active or
closed installations. We have the resources to continue our proactive
national response to these emerging contaminants under DERP.
Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not
regulated these chemicals, DON shares your commitment to the protection
of human health from these emergent contaminants in affected
communities in Washington State and around the country. DON would
support EPA consideration of promulgated national drinking water
standards for PFOA/PFOS under the Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory
process, which is a well-established, formal and transparent process
that involves all stakeholders including the public.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
size of the fleet
Question. Today's fleet stands at 275 ships, an increase from the
271 ships in 2015, but nowhere near the post-World War II era of
approximately 740 ships. The Navy is scheduled in the next decade or so
to take delivery of 80 new ships. Over the same period, the Navy has
scheduled 49 ships for decommissioning. These numbers give the Navy a
net increase of just 31 ships. That number is still 44 ships short of
the president's requirement of 350 warships.
What is the Navy's plan to reach the president's 350 warship
requirement or the Navy's requirement of 355 warships in a reasonable
amount of time?
What is the Navy doing to prepare for all of the additional support
and costs associated with a larger fleet?
Answer. Consistent with the Secretary of Defense's three-phase
campaign, the Navy is first restoring readiness and addressing pressing
shortfalls in fiscal year 2017-2018, in order to build a strong
foundation for growing a larger, more capable, more lethal force
starting in fiscal year 2019. This will ensure today's Navy is fully
ready and that our 275 ships are properly maintained to reach the end
of their service life. Informed by the National Defense Strategy, the
fiscal year 2019 budget will prioritize building a larger force.
Increasing Naval Power is contingent upon stable and increased funding
above the current Budget Control Act defense spending caps.
The Navy is exploring all options to increase our inventory of
ships faster, including identifying hot production lines that can
easily be expanded, assessing options for extending the service life of
current ships, and reactivating retired ships. The Navy is also
engaging shipbuilders and suppliers on ways to increase shipbuilding
capacity. The Navy will continue to pursue multi-year procurements,
block buy contracts, and economic order quantity buys to provide a
stable commitment to our industry partners. We continue to work with
industry to address opportunities to improve performance and more
affordably build ships with low technological risk.
Finally, the Navy is also evaluating the total ownership cost of
growing the force to include the manpower and maintenance implications.
Those needs will be programmed into future budgets and will be aligned
with ship construction and deliveries to the fleet.
quality vs. quantity of the fleet
Question. Some have argued that the Navy needs a future fleet
composed of a ``high/low mix'' of different types of ships.
Is the ``high-low mix'' an appropriate way to be framing the
problem to begin with?
What would these lower technology ships look like and how many of
those do you think the Navy needs versus more capital-intensive items,
like nuclear-powered super carriers?
Answer. A ``high/low mix'' is an option for designing a future
fleet. One example is Navy's current use of small and large surface
combatants. In this construct, small surface combatants such as LCS are
better suited to perform many missions, at an optimized investment
strategy, than are larger surface combatants. This frees the larger
ship to focus on higher-end missions (e.g. ballistic missile defense).
Employing the right mix of large and small surface combatants not only
improves warfighting effectiveness but also increases affordability for
the nation.
Navy is currently conducting analysis on various fleet
architectures and designs, including ``high/low'' mix options. Upon
completion of this analysis, Navy will brief Congress on how these
efforts will inform future force plans and capability/capacity
decisions.
______
Questions Submitted to Admiral John M. Richardson
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
``public shipyards: capacity and resiliency during navy expansion''
Question. Admiral Richardson, President Trump has spoken at length
regarding his desire to increase the size of the Navy to 350 ships.
Regardless of whether that is the final number, significant increases
in shipbuilding have implications for every aspect of the Navy.
A significant increase would not happen quickly and would require
dramatic increases in investment to shipbuilding, force structure,
operations and maintenance, and other accounts.
Additionally, a large increase in the number of ships would add
significant stress to the Navy's public shipyards, including the Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard in Washington State.
What kind of increases to hiring, infrastructure, and operations
would you need at the public shipyards to accommodate a significant
increase in the number of ships?
Answer. The Navy's approach to increasing Naval Power includes
maintaining a balance of new ships, readiness, manpower, and
infrastructure. The Navy will continue to seek to provide the
infrastructure and workforce to meet the maintenance and modernization
needs of the Fleet and to be able to inactivate, dispose of, and
provide emergency repair for U.S. Navy ships, systems, and components.
The Navy is already planning to modernize the Naval Shipyards to
make them 21st century shipyards. This modernization includes upgrading
the infrastructure while also improving the overall layout of the
shipyards, which were originally designed to build new ships, to be
optimized for ship maintenance and modernization. Such improvements are
intended to not only improve the facilities but also to enhance both
processes and productivity across the Naval Shipyards.
In conjunction with growing the fleet responsibly, we are taking
into consideration the associated cost to maintain that larger fleet,
both in terms of increasing the size of our Naval Shipyards as well as
the size of our private sector ship repair industrial base. The Navy
will need a stable and predictable budget to support a more capable
fleet to meet the nation's needs.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
navy recruiting efforts
Question. What are the Navy and Marine Corps plans to recruit
talented individuals from rural parts of the country like Montana?
Answer. As in the past, Navy continues to compete for talent among
all demographic and geographic areas of this Nation, including the
State of Montana. Through application of a combination of social media
platforms, electronic applications, and video technologies, we are
making Navy opportunities available to all, regardless of geographic
location, particularly in remote and isolated areas that do not have an
in-person Navy presence.
______
Questions Submitted to General Robert B. Neller
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
amphibious ships
Question. The Navy's current shipbuilding plan calls for 38
amphibious ships, while the Marine Corps has stated that 54 amphibious
ships are needed to answer Combatant Commanders' operational demands.
In light of this deficiency, would you support continued production of
LPD amphibious ships to address operational readiness challenges as
soon as possible?
Answer. The Marine Corps' 38 amphibious warship requirement is
based on our mission to provide the nation with an expeditionary force
in readiness, capable of simultaneously projecting two Marine
Expeditionary Brigades globally, at the time and place of our choosing,
while supporting sea control and denial missions as part of a Naval
campaign. A 38 amphibious warship fleet configured in a mix of 12 LHA/
LHD and 26 LPD/LXR will enable the broadest application of the Marine
Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) to the range of military operations. The
2016 Force Structure Assessment, published by the Navy, recommends 355
ships with 38 amphibious warships. We have 31 ships in the current
amphibious fleet with 23 available for worldwide service.
To sustain a capable maritime expeditionary force we need to couple
investments in maintenance and modernization with a balanced
procurement strategy. We can reduce programmatic risk through multi-
year procurement and block buys. This approach will reduce operational
gaps by building and delivering ships prior to decommissioning legacy
platforms.
The LPD is a very capable platform and we are grateful for
congressional appropriations to build LPD 29. The Amphibious Ship
Replacement LX(R) will replace the aging LSD fleet and is based off of
the proven LPD 17 hull form design. The LPD/LX(R) design has matured
through the disciplined application of industry informed cost reduction
initiatives, optimized ship construction techniques paired with
balanced capability and capacity trade space decisions; thereby,
providing a capable warship at the best value.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
marines at fort leonard wood
Question. General Neller, as you know, Fort Leonard Wood is proud
to be home to the most Marines in the nation outside a Marine Corps
base.
Even with a huge number of Marines already on post, there is room
for growth.
I know that the Marine Corps has been looking at the feasibility of
moving civilian law enforcement training to Fort Leonard Wood, which
obviously makes a great deal of sense given that Fort Leonard Wood is
home to the Military Police School and Marines already go through there
for military police training.
I would ask that you continue to work on the feasibility of this
move, complete that assessment as soon as possible, and keep my office
updated on any developments.
Answer. The Marine Corps has submitted a formal request to the
Department of the Army to support our basic civilian police officer
training. The Department of the Army is currently making a
determination on their ability to support the training requirements we
have identified. The Army and Marine Corps are working to reach a
mutually supported Service agreement that is economically feasible.
Upon completion; the Marine Corps could transition the majority, if not
all, basic civilian police officer training requirements to Fort
Leonard Wood in the near future. We hope to have the statistical
analysis complete by the end of calendar year 2018 and will notify your
office of key developments as appropriate.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
navy recruiting efforts
Question. What are the Navy and Marine Corps plans to recruit
talented individuals from rural parts of the country like Montana?
Answer. Marine Corps Recruiting Command has a robust and well-
established marketing and public affairs program designed to generate
awareness and understanding of military service, with the final goal of
putting our recruiters close to people seeking interest in the United
States Marine Corps.
Rural areas such as Montana are treated similarly to any other
location in the United States. A team of recruiters is assigned to
cover such geographic locations, actively engaging in recruiting
efforts, often driving countless hours to seek out and engage with
highly qualified young men and women.
Together with our marketing and public affairs program we ensure
accessibility to every interested and eligible person throughout our
nation regardless of their geographic location.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Cochran. This subcommittee will reconvene on
Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:30 a.m. The purpose will be to
receive testimony from the Department of the Army.
Until then, this subcommittee will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., Wednesday, May 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
Wednesday, June 7.]