[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 116-28]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES HEARING
ON
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS TACTICAL AVIATION AND GROUND MODERNIZATION
__________
HEARING HELD
APRIL 4, 2019
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-902 WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey, Chairman
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut PAUL COOK, California
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona MATT GAETZ, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DON BACON, Nebraska
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland JIM BANKS, Indiana
FILEMON VELA, Texas PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico, MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
Vice Chair DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
KATIE HILL, California
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine
Elizabeth Drummond, Professional Staff Member
Jesse Tolleson, Professional Staff Member
Caroline Kehrli, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hartzler, Hon. Vicky, a Representative from Missouri, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces........... 2
Norcross, Hon. Donald, a Representative from New Jersey,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces......... 1
WITNESSES
Nega, Daniel L., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Research, Development, and Acquisition for Air; accompanied by
LtGen Steven R. Rudder, USMC, Deputy Commandant for Aviation,
and RADM Scott D. Conn, USN, Director, Air Warfare, Office of
the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV N98)...................... 4
Smith, Jimmy D., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Research, Development, and Acquisition for Expeditionary
Programs and Logistics Management; accompanied by LtGen David
H. Berger, USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat
Development Command, and Deputy Commandant for Combat
Development and Integration.................................... 7
Winter, VADM Mathias W., USN, Program Executive Officer, F-35
Lightning II Program........................................... 5
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Nega, Daniel L., joint with LtGen Steven R. Rudder and RADM
Scott D. Conn.............................................. 38
Norcross, Hon. Donald........................................ 35
Smith, Jimmy D., joint with LtGen David H. Berger............ 91
Winter, VADM Mathias W....................................... 68
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Banks.................................................... 105
Mr. Norcross................................................. 105
Mr. Wittman.................................................. 105
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Courtney................................................. 109
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS TACTICAL AVIATION AND GROUND MODERNIZATION
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces,
Washington, DC, Thursday, April 4, 2019.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:02 a.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald Norcross
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD NORCROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM NEW JERSEY, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND
LAND FORCES
Mr. Norcross. Good morning. Excuse my voice, but the
hearing will come to order.
The Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee meets today,
our first hearing of the 116th Congress. We're going to review
the Navy and Marine Corps tactical aviation and ground
modernization programs for this fiscal year.
I would like to thank the members for working with us to
change the time. We are going to try to get the bulk of this
hearing in before votes come somewhere around 10:00 to 10:30.
The subcommittee has been busy over the last couple weeks
attending briefings with military departments to learn and
discuss mission areas and programs related to the jurisdiction
of this subcommittee. The briefings have worked well. I think
we have learned quite a bit. But that is the foundation of
oversight and what we are going to do this Congress.
We have a number of witnesses with us today, starting with
Vice Admiral Mat Winter, Program Executive Officer for the F-35
joint program--you are a very popular person quite a bit right
now; Rear Admiral Scott Conn, Director of Air Warfare for the
Chief of Naval Operations; Lieutenant General Steve Rudder,
Deputy Commandant for Aviation for the Marine Corps; Lieutenant
General David Berger, Commanding General of the Marine Corps
Combat Development Command and Deputy Commandant for Combat
Development and Integration; Daniel Nega--did I get that right?
Mr. Nega. That is close.
Mr. Norcross. It is close? Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition for Aviation
Programs; and Mr. Jimmy Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition,
Expeditionary Programs and Logistics Management. Yeah.
First of all, General Berger, congratulations, before we
get into our formal remarks, for your nomination as being the
next Commandant. Your shoulders will be heavy, but you stand in
a long line of great leaders, and I am sure you will do us well
and serve the country well.
Also, I want to thank the other witnesses for your service
for certainly everything that goes on.
We have quite a lengthy statement that I am going to put
into the record, but in order to save some time, I am going to
pare it down a little bit, because we have quite a bit, and we
want to make sure we get it finished before we move into that.
But today we are talking about the Navy and Marine Corps
plan to face a modern force ready for challenges posed by near-
peer adversaries taking shape. And this is a change based on
the National Defense Strategy and the changes that we are going
through. Yet we have been in a road that was taking us down in
an area that was very different from the national strategy we
have now.
There are a number of issues we are going to be dealing
with today, the F-35 being one of them; our rotor fleet,
certainly a number of issues there; what and which variants are
going to go on with the F-35; Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. The
list goes on and on.
But, at this point, what I want to do is turn it over to my
ranking member for her opening remarks, Mrs. Hartzler.
Good to see you this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Norcross can be found in the
Appendix on page 35.]
STATEMENT OF HON. VICKY HARTZLER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MISSOURI, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND
FORCES
Mrs. Hartzler. Good to see you, Mr. Chairman. And since
this is our first official hearing, even though we have had
several briefings, the first hearing of the 116th Congress, I
want to congratulate you on being chairman of this committee.
And I look forward to working with you. We have a strong
tradition of working in bipartisan fashion, and we look forward
to carrying that out and doing good things for our country. So
congratulations.
And thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.
As you know, we are here to talk about our Navy
modernization programs. It is important because years of
continuous combat operations and deferred modernization created
a crisis in the military readiness in both capability and
capacity. And it will take many years of increased defense
budgets representing real growth in order to fully address this
crisis.
We cannot afford to go backwards. This level of spending in
the fiscal year 2020 budget request is the minimum needed to
continue to repair our military and defend the country.
The chairman covered several of the major areas. I briefly
want to touch on a couple that I hope that you will address
today.
First, regarding physiological episodes in the aircraft, I
am encouraged by the progress being made as well as the amount
of resources requested by the Navy in fiscal year 2020,
approximately $278 million, in the areas of upgrading the
aircraft, changes in aircrew education and training, improved
maintenance practices, and bringing in the medical community to
better understand the human dynamic.
This needs to remain a top priority. And today's hearing is
a good opportunity for the witnesses to update us on the Navy's
efforts to mitigate these events in F-18 and T-45 aircraft.
Second, regarding the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program,
the chairman mentioned this as a focus. And I would also add
that we need to better understand what actions are being taken
now in this budget request to lower operation and sustainment
costs, to include ramping up organic depot capability,
improving the Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS,
and improving the time associated for long-lead parts.
The Block 4 modernization program, which includes hardware
and software, has 66 approved requirements associated with it.
The current estimated cost to complete the initial program is
approximately $10 billion.
The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation has
indicated the schedule could be viewed as high-risk due to the
large amount of planned capabilities to be delivered in 6-month
increments.
Given the scope and complexity of this effort, we would
like to hear and expect, Admiral Winter, you could provide us
with additional details on the challenges and risks associated
with this critical program.
And, lastly, we would expect to get an update on current
efforts to improve reliability and maintainability of the
aircraft, in particular for these aircraft fielded to
operational squadrons.
So a few things there.
And there is no doubt that the capabilities the F-35 brings
to the battlefield against advanced threats by peer competitors
is needed to meet the goals and objectives of the National
Defense Strategy. However, we all share concerns about rising
F-35 operations and support costs affecting long-term
affordability, which could result in lower procurement
quantities in the out-years.
And representing Whiteman Air Force Base, with the B-2
bomber, I know up close and personal what that can look like,
having a large amount of aircraft originally scheduled and then
ending up with--now we have 20 aircraft.
So the F-35 Joint Program Office, along with the military
services, appear to be very focused on reducing these costs.
And we look forward to working with each of you and industry in
a collaborative manner to reach your objectives.
And, lastly, regarding aviation readiness and strike
fighter inventories, it is my understanding that the Navy
continues to take risk in its management of the strike fighter
inventory and has an identified shortfall of 54 aircraft, which
amounts to one carrier air wing. We need to better understand
what impacts this has to overall readiness and what we can do
to improve the situation from a modernization standpoint.
So I thank the chairman for organizing this hearing, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Mrs. Hartzler.
And cost is obviously a major consideration. Obviously, you
have to weigh the risk, and that is your job, and a very
difficult one at that. But we are also looking at supply chain.
And if you just open up the newspaper or look online, Turkey
and part of that supply chain for the F-35 is going to factor
in quite a bit. And we expect to hear about that today.
And we have had a little change of the lineup, as I
understand it, but we are going to start with Mr. Nega. And we
are going to start with you, and then we will work down the
line with Admiral Winter. And some of your testimony is going
to be presented jointly.
Good morning. How are you?
STATEMENT OF DANIEL L. NEGA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION FOR AIR;
ACCOMPANIED BY LTGEN STEVEN R. RUDDER, USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT
FOR AVIATION, AND RADM SCOTT D. CONN, USN, DIRECTOR, AIR
WARFARE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS (OPNAV N98)
Mr. Nega. Good morning. Thank you.
Chairman Norcross, Ranking Member Hartzler, and
distinguished subcommittee members, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to update you on the
Department's fiscal year 2020 naval aviation programs.
I am joined today by Lieutenant General Steven Rudder,
Deputy Commandant for Aviation, and Rear Admiral Scott Conn,
Director of Air Warfare.
We would like to thank Congress for your support for the
timely enactment of the fiscal year 2019 budget. Receipt of the
fiscal year 2019 authorization and appropriation without a CR
[continuing resolution] increased our acquisition efficiency.
As GAO [Government Accountability Office] reported to you
in February of 2018, continuing resolutions result in
uncertainty, complicated operations, and inefficiencies. This
year's timely enactment enabled the Naval Air Systems Command
to obligate 41 percent of its O&M [operation and maintenance]
budget, three times the rate compared to fiscal year 2018 to
date; obligate 71 percent of planned depot inductions, five
times the rate of fiscal year 2018; and obligate 29 percent of
fleet support team funding, twice the rate of fiscal year 2018.
The teams were also able to clear the backlog of
contracting actions and, most importantly, improved our ability
to support the fleet.
Our fiscal year 2020 budget request aligns to the
personnel, capabilities, and processes needed to implement the
Navy-Marine Corps contribution to the National Defense
Strategy, where great power competition is the central
challenge to the prosperity and security of the United States.
A resurgent Russia and rapidly growing and more aggressive
China continue their aims to displace American influence in
critical regions around the globe. To regain and expand our
competitive advantage, it is imperative that we adapt to this
changed national security environment and do so with both a
sense of urgency and enduring resolve.
Great power competition against capable challengers will
not fade over one or two budget cycles. We need your support
over the long run as we face risks to our economic,
technological, and national security. To do this requires the
right balance of readiness, capability, and capacity
underpinned by stable and predictable budgets.
The lethality which naval aviation brings to bear in
support of our Nation's interests is at the forefront of this
challenge. As such, we request your continued support for both
our ongoing readiness initiatives and the investment in the
development of new and advanced capabilities.
Mr. Chairman, our fiscal year 2020 investments are focused,
balanced, and prioritized to deliver a ready, capable sea-based
and expeditionary force. To better enable the best use of our
requested investments, we continue to transform our business
practices and evolve our acquisition and contracting strategies
to maximize the output of every taxpayer dollar.
Leveraging the vision and acquisition authorities provided
by the Congress, we are working to become more agile to deliver
relevant capability at speed and at scale. To improve
readiness, we are leveraging commercial toolsets and best
practices by making fundamental changes to the processes by
which we plan and execute naval aviation sustainment
activities.
We thank you for the strong support this subcommittee has
always provided to our sailors and Marines, and thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today. We look forward to
answering your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Nega, General Rudder,
and Admiral Conn can be found in the Appendix on page 38.]
Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
Admiral Winter.
STATEMENT OF VADM MATHIAS W. WINTER, USN, PROGRAM EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, F-35 LIGHTNING II PROGRAM
Admiral Winter. Good morning, Chairman Norcross, Ranking
Member Hartzler, and the distinguished members of the
subcommittee. It is a distinct honor and pleasure to appear
before you today with my esteemed colleagues to discuss the
Department of the Navy's tactical aircraft modernization and
the critical role that the F-35 plays in that as well as
enabling our Department's National Defense Strategy.
With advanced fifth-generation capabilities being delivered
through the implementation of agile development technologies
and methodologies, the F-35 has turned the corner and now
embodies both fleet modernization and acquisition innovation
for our U.S. services, our eight international partners, and
our four foreign military sales teammates.
I am appreciative of your oversight, insight, support, and
interest of the F-35 and look forward to continuing the
discussions we began last month at our tactical aircraft
familiarization panel.
Since I last testified in front of this committee in March
of 2018, the F-35 Joint Program Office has made tremendous
progress across our three lines of effort of development,
production, and sustainment while continuing to enable
successful operations for our U.S. services and international
partners.
Specifically, we completed our system development and
demonstration flight test program; we delivered the full Block
3F capability with stable hardware and software; we made solid
progress in fixing our ALIS maintenance system; and we began
initial operational test and evaluation.
In production, we definitized the Lot 11 production
contract with an $89 million F-35A, $115 million B, and a $107
million C--all over 5-10 percent decrease over the previous
production lot.
We increased our U.S. services' depot repair capacities in
the United States. We activated the Italian maintenance,
repair, overhaul, and upgrade facility. And we established a
credible cost-per-flying-hour metric to get our hands around
the ownership and operational cost of the F-35.
We supported several U.S. Air Force theater support
deployment packages. We conducted the first-ever F-35 Charlie
air wing integrated flight operations on the USS Abraham
Lincoln. We successfully supported the United States Marine
Corps first deployments on the USS Wasp and Essex, to include
the first-ever combat operations of the F-35B by the United
States Marine Corps.
And we supported numerous declarations of initial
operational capabilities by our U.S. Navy, Italian Navy and Air
Force, Royal Air Force and Navy, and, just recently, the
Japanese Air Self-Defense Force, just to name a few
accomplishments.
As we look forward, as the program embraces an agile
framework for continuous capability development and delivery,
C2D2, to ensure we can deliver the Block 4 warfighting
capabilities, as we ramp up the full-rate production, with
plans to deliver 131 aircraft this year, and as we get ready to
achieve the 80 percent mission-capable rates for our combat
fleets, the F-35 is now on track to be affordable and meet the
needs of today's and tomorrow's warfighter.
Of course--you have heard me say this before--F-35 is more
than an airplane, and as you will hear today, the modernization
of F-35 is not limited to hardware alone. Rather, it is a
combination of software and hardware. And the ability to
collect, analyze, and share that data is a force multiplier
that enhances all assets in the battlespace.
The F-35 is truly the quarterback of the joint force. And
with stealth technology, advanced sensors, and weapons capacity
and range, it is the most lethal, survivable, connected, and
interoperable fighter aircraft ever built.
For the Department of the Navy, the convergence of stealth
aviation and maritime capabilities found within the F-35B and C
gives the United States Navy and Marine Corps combat attack
flexibility and improves their ability to truly fight
sophisticated enemy air defenses. This allows aircraft carriers
and amphibious assault ships to maneuver and engage threats in
highly contested environments.
Today, with over 395 aircraft fielded, the F-35 is more
affordable and lethal than ever before. However, I am not
satisfied, and we can't be satisfied. We have to continue. We
have to tackle the challenges in front of us for the repair
times, the spare parts postures, our production line flows, and
the labor skills to ensure that we can reduce overall ownership
costs.
In cooperation with industry, we have established
initiatives and are tackling these challenges with a clear
mandate to continue to drive affordability, quality, and
reliability across the entire enterprise to meet that 80
percent mission-capability rate, to drive below an $80 million
F-35 unit price, and to truly obtain the $25,000-cost-per-
flying-hour target in 2025.
Our President's budget fiscal year 2020 requests the
resources necessary to achieve these goals and funds the
continuation of our innovative agile development of critical
Block 4 capabilities, supports the production of 78 F-35 air
systems for our U.S. services, and ensures the required
investments to operate and sustain over 660 F-35 air systems
that are planned to be fielded at 22 bases and 7 sea-based
locations by the end of fiscal year 2020.
On behalf of the men and women of the F-35 enterprise, you
have my continued commitment to provide the accountability and
transparency the taxpayer demands and the affordable, game-
changing air system the warfighter needs.
I thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the F-35
program and its role in the Department of the Navy's
modernization and look forward to your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Winter can be found in
the Appendix on page 68.]
Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF JIMMY D. SMITH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION FOR
EXPEDITIONARY PROGRAMS AND LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT; ACCOMPANIED BY
LTGEN DAVID H. BERGER, USMC, COMMANDING GENERAL, MARINE CORPS
COMBAT DEVELOPMENT COMMAND, AND DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR COMBAT
DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION
Mr. Smith. Chairman Norcross, Ranking Member Hartzler, and
distinguished subcommittee members, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to update you on the
Department of Defense's 2020 Marine Corps expeditionary
programs.
I am joined here today by Lieutenant General David H.
Berger, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development
Command, and the Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and
Integration. We look forward to your questions as we move
through this this morning.
As stated by Secretary Spencer and Assistant Secretary
Geurts during previous hearings, the Navy and Marine Corps
continue to face a dynamic strategic environment that is
becoming ever more sophisticated, quickly evolving and pushing
the envelope of conventional technology.
Additionally, in the 2018 National Defense Strategy, in
order to retain and expand our competitive advantage, it is
imperative that we proactively work to meet these challenges
and do so with a sense of urgency through new operational
concepts and modernizing, resulting in overmatch.
The Navy and the Marine Corps must remain ready at any time
to respond to crisis and contingencies while simultaneously
deterring adversaries' aggressions globally each and every day.
Competing with the peer threat is the theme of our fiscal
year 2020 budget submission. It directly aligns to the
Secretary of Defense's guidance to increase lethality, improve
warfighter readiness, and achieve program balance.
In it, we prioritize investments so that our Marine Corps
will evolve from today's 1.0 force to a near-term 1.1
modernized force that leverages select existing programs to
achieve warfighting concepts, and ultimately a 2.0 future force
with revolutionary capabilities required to create that
competitive overmatch.
In it, we have prioritized modernization programs that
address command and control in a degraded environment, long-
range and precision fires, operations in the information
environment, air defense, protected mobility, enhanced
maneuver, and logistics.
These modernization efforts represent roughly 30 percent of
the total PB20 [President's budget request for fiscal year
2020] budget submission. They are synchronized with the
Secretary of Defense's National Strategy, the Chairman's
Capstone Concept for Joint Operations, and the Navy's
distributed maritime operations concepts and our expeditionary
advanced base operations concepts.
Through your help, we will continue the hard work to
rebuild our readiness and modernize our Corps to maintain our
competitive advantage against rising competitors. But we will
need your help to do so.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
committee today, and we look forward to your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Smith and General
Berger can be found in the Appendix on page 91.]
Mr. Norcross. Thank you for each of your testimonies. And
we will get right into questions and make sure our members have
a chance.
Admiral Conn, General Rudder, let's get right into the F-
35, and let's talk about fourth-generation versus fifth-
generation aircraft, the best mix. Over the course of the last
few years, there has been a tremendous amount of discussion on
fifth-generation and how important that was moving forward. Yet
we are--legacy issues, primarily the fourth-generation.
Where do you see that mix today? And in light of some of
the changes in the numbers of the F-35s being requested, what
mix do you see that going to as a percentage in numbers?
General Rudder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Marine Corps is going to be a fourth-gen/fifth-
generation mix until 2030. And we decided to stay with our
legacy Hornets and skip right into the fifth-generation.
We are going with a B and C mix, because we still have a
commitment to the Navy to not only deploy on carriers but also
do expeditionary operations. So we are going to buy--as you
saw, we rebalanced this year with more C's, just really more to
catch up.
We have begun training our first F-35C squadron up in
Lemoore, and we will be the second carrier deployment with the
United States Navy with the F-35Cs. And we will continue to
support them with that as well. So that is the B/C mix.
With the fourth-gen/fifth-gen, our strategy has always
been: Go from EA-6B to AV-8B, to F-18, down to one type
aircraft. And what that means is for our small 18 squadrons,
expeditionary squadrons, both B and C, we will be able to mix
pilots back and forth between the B and C, one simulator, one
maintainer, one supply account. And that creates efficiency for
us.
For us to stay with a fourth-gen, we have to keep a whole
other institution for a fourth-gen fighter. So for fifth-gen
for us, one for the business model, one type aircraft is
efficient and affordable.
On the other side of things, as we----
Mr. Norcross. Let me just drill down a little bit. So are
you saying only fifth-generation, 100 percent, when you are
deploying those?
General Rudder. After 2030, we will be----
Mr. Norcross. Oh, after 2030. How about between now and
then?
General Rudder. We will continue to be a fourth-gen and
fifth-gen fleet out until 2030, with both Harriers going to
probably 2028 and F-18s going to 2030, 2031.
Mr. Norcross. So, as a percentage, you are what now?
General Rudder. We are probably about 80/20 today, and we
will be 80/20 around the 2028 timeframe, but then 100 percent
fifth-gen by 2030 is our goal.
Mr. Norcross. Okay. I am sorry to interrupt. You can
finish.
General Rudder. I think the last thing I will just say is,
as we look at, for us, the Marine Corps being an inside force,
and we are deployed forward, we are deployed forward, as we are
today, even after we brought our first combat deployment back
today, we have 10 F-35Bs on the USS Wasp, and they are steaming
around various parts of Asia as we speak right now. I think if
you look at the competition from 2025 into 2030, fifth-gen for
us, as an inside force, will be--it will be required to win.
Admiral Conn. Thank you for that question, sir.
Much like the Marine Corps, we will not attain a 50/50 mix
until about 2030 based on the existing ramps that we have. Any
additional resources----
Mr. Norcross. And the ramps were the ones as----
Admiral Conn. As reflected in PB20.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
Admiral Conn. Any additional resources that would be
available from an F-35 perspective would provide us some buffer
to meet our transition schedule as we get transition squadrons
from Super Hornets into the Joint Strike Fighter.
Right now, first Navy squadron IOC'd [initial operating
capability] the VFA-147 in February. Next squadron transition
as part of TACAIR [tactical air] integration will be a Marine
Corps. And it goes back to a Navy and continues to alternate
through 2026 or 2027.
In terms from a warfighting perspective--because that is
really what this discussion should be about--the 50/50 mix
through 2030, with a Block 3 Super Hornet and with F-35s out
there and with E-2Ds out there and with E-18G Growlers out and
with MQ-25 out there, I don't look at any particular aircraft
capability; I look at the weapons system that flies off that
carrier as a carrier air wing--because that is how we are going
to fight--and what is the most lethality can it provide that is
affordable and executable in the near term, and that is what
our plan is.
Anything beyond the Block 3 Super Hornet is a next-
generation air dominance discussion in terms of what is going
to replace that aircraft. That AOA [analysis of alternatives]
will be complete this spring. The final report will come out
this summer. And that will inform future choices reflected in
future budget cycles, in terms of what do we need to do to get
after the lethality that we need at a cost that we can afford.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you. So, Admiral Winter, let's start
talking about the supply chain for the F-35. The numbers that
were originally planned were tremendously behind. We are not
even close to that. But the ones that were part of last year's
budget going into this year's budget have dropped a little bit.
What does that do to your supply chain? Is that giving you
the opportunity to get caught up with some of the problem areas
of supply?
Admiral Winter. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman.
The slight perturbations of U.S. service quantities across
the recent years are really within what I call the margin of
error for our growth phase. We are going from 66 aircraft that
we delivered in 2017. We delivered 91 last year. We plan to
deliver 131 this year. And we will be at 167 by 2020.
The slight inputs and decreases and increases are not
having a drastic input on the purchase order demand on our
supply chain because we are also putting a big demand signal on
them for spare parts for sustainment.
And so, as we look at the complete supply chain demand
signal, the production and sustainment balance, we would have
to see reductions of quantity measured in 40 or 50 in 1 year,
or increase, to really put a reduction of demand on our supply
chain.
Mr. Norcross. So does that end up in the delivery schedule?
There is a difference between the two. So the actual delivery,
is that being impacted at all?
And the next thing we are going to want you to comment on,
in the event that Turkey is no longer part of the supply team,
how are you going to handle that?
Admiral Winter. Yes, sir. So the first question and the
impact on the supply chain, what we are seeing right now is,
with the current demand on the 3,000 suppliers that provide
parts to the production line and to our sustainment enterprise
for spare parts, they are struggling with the demand signal on
them, because they are producing parts for the production line,
they are producing parts for spare parts for sustainment, and
we still have them repairing their part for the ones that are
breaking now that we have 395 aircraft deployed.
So the strategy here is to take that demand signal of
repairing the parts off of our industry and put it into our
depots, our organic depots around the country, our fleet
readiness centers and air logistics centers, so that our
industry supply chain can truly focus on what they do best,
which is generating new parts.
What we are seeing is that the ramp-up and the demand
signal lagged from both Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed Martin to
get the supply chain up the ramp from 66 to 91 to 131 to 167.
And so we are starting to turn that corner, but we are still
lagging.
Right now, my production line at Lockheed Martin Fort Worth
has on the average about 200 parts that are late every month.
What that does is that pushes work down the production line,
and we call it traveled work. Instead of stopping and waiting
for the part to show up, we move it to the next station, and
then they do that work at the next station. So there is a lot
of extra management and extra touch and extra work that has to
occur that is driving that price up and not necessarily seen by
flow of the production line.
The other part--right now, Turkey and my other seven
partners are all part of the supply chain, and they all have
roughly a percentage of supply chain demand commensurate with
the number of aircraft that they are procuring. Turkey is about
6 percent, 6 to 7 percent, of our F-35 supply chain.
Right now, there has been no disruption to the supply chain
from any of my partners, to include the United States. And the
flow we call the work in progress, WIP, that is flowing from
Turkey, from my other partners, continues to flow to not only
Fort Worth but to Cameri in Italy and Nagoya in Japan. Those
are our three production lines.
What we need to make sure is that any disruption to the
supply chain, no matter where it comes from, we are putting in
place the appropriate mitigation steps to mitigate potential
disruption of the supply chain.
I will stop there, sir, to see if I answered your question.
Mr. Norcross. You have. And I have a number of other
questions, but I want to give the ranking member an
opportunity.
Mrs. Hartzler.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you. Thank you very much.
So you are putting in place the mitigation efforts, but at
this point, if Turkey were to stop providing that 6 to 7
percent supply chain, where would you be at?
Admiral Winter. So, ma'am, from any supply chain provider,
we are between--we can do it in terms of aircraft or in terms
of time. The evaluation of Turkey stopping would be between a
50- and 75-airplane impact over a 2-year period. From a
timeline, we would see within 45 to 90 days an impact of the
slowing down or stopping of those parts to the three production
lines.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Thank you.
I want to shift to physiological episodes [PEs], the F/A-
18.
So, Admiral Winter, I will start with you. Should we be
worried that, over time, as we add more and more capability to
the F-35, that at some point the air handling system of that
plane won't be able to keep up?
And what have we learned from the current F-18 situation to
perhaps get out ahead of this so similar problems in the future
don't happen with the Navy and the Marine Corps F-35s?
Admiral Winter. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for that question.
The F-35 enterprise has been part of the entire Department
of Navy and the Air Force Physiological Episode Team, the PET
team, and has been there since day one, understanding the
causal factors, the barriers, and the solutions not only from
an operational perspective but, more importantly, technical.
The F-35 life support system already incorporates the
lessons learned from F-22, F-18, and other--F-15 and F-16 from
an initial design element in the middle of 2004 to 2005. F-35
has experienced, on average, the same or slightly less rate of
physiological events that other aircraft have.
Our solution space there is working with the aeromedical
community, just like our Department of the Navy folks, to do
understanding the physiological events. But we have also
incorporated three dedicated technical solutions to get ahead
of any potential ramp of physiological episodes.
In that, our oxygen-generating system--we call it the
onboard oxygen-generating system--it is pronounced ``OBOGS''--
we found that it was providing the appropriate concentration of
oxygen to our pilots, but there was a variation in it that, if
we reduced that variation, would eliminate a potential causal
factor. So we are incorporating that new logic to our OBOGS.
There is a seat portion assembly--that is in the seat of
the F-35--that senses cockpit pressure and other inputs and
will immediately initiate the emergency oxygen system to the
pilot if it senses that the decompression or the atmosphere
within the cockpit requires that. It was too sensitive, so we
have gone back and looked at that based upon pilot input, and
we are doing a seat portion assembly upgrade.
And then, finally, we have incorporated a carbon monoxide--
so a single CO [carbon monoxide]--catalytic filter that does
higher-fidelity filtration of carbon monoxide, which the
aeromedical community has determined is a first-order effect to
physiological events.
So those are all in work and will be in as the production
baseline for Lot 12 and are being retrofitted into our previous
jets.
Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs. Hartzler. Well, thank you. It sounds like you are
really taking the lessons learned and incorporating those.
I was kind of concerned, though, when you said that they
have the same rate of physiological episodes as the other
aircraft, though, even with all of these changes. Are they
already on there, or are you just incorporating them for the
future models?
Admiral Winter. So the OBOGS and the SPA, the seat portion
assembly, is early in the next quarter. And the COCAT [carbon
monoxide catalyst], the carbon monoxide, is early next year.
To your point about previous aircraft, what we are seeing
from a physiological pilot population, more experienced pilots
seem to have less incidents of physiological events. There is
not a direct causal factor drawn by that. And so we are seeing
our physiological events in our training aircraft over our
operational aircraft, and they are the same design.
Physiological events first-order effect is actual human being
makeup as we go forward.
Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs. Hartzler. I know it is a very complex issue and there
is not one particular solution. And I appreciate your focus on
trying to get a handle on this.
And let me turn to Admiral Conn.
I know you have been really focused on this as well. So can
you kind of give some update on the numbers of reported PE
incidents? Are they trending up or down? And can you describe
for us how the Navy gets feedback from the PE event
investigations back to the crew members and the pilots who
experience them?
Admiral Conn. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question.
First, I would say we have taken over 20,000 samples of air
that is coming out of the OBOGS system, whether a T-45 or F-18,
put it through the spectral analysis, and have determined that
there is no contamination getting to that aviator. So we have
ruled that out. All right? That is one.
Two, for our T-45, you asked for numbers, ma'am. In 2016,
we had 35 incidents; 2017, 31 incidents. Last year, we had six.
This year, thus far, this fiscal year, we have had one. So that
is progress.
We have done it through straight-lining the pipes, if you
will, that come off the engine that get to the OBOGS
concentrator to provide constant flow, better flow to that
piece of gear. And we have also increased flight idle RPM
[revolutions per minute] by 1\1/2\ percent, again, to get
better flow to that cockpit. And that is what is driving those
numbers down.
For Hornets, it is different. You have A through D's and
Super Hornets. And I have both numbers. I will talk to Super
Hornet numbers.
The primary driver to PE events in the Super Hornet is
cabin pressurization and fluctuations that we are seeing. The
incidents we have had for the Super Hornet--that is E, F, and
G, so we include the Growlers in this conversation--we had 87
incidents in 2016, 73 incidents in 2017, 65 incidents in 2018.
Thus far this fiscal year, we have had 41. Any progress we have
made has flattened out.
The good news is we know what we need to do in terms of
using data analytics, working with Admiral Luchtman, who is
leading the PEAT [Physiological Episodes Action Team] team at
NAVAIR [Naval Air Systems Command]. Things like the primary
bleed air regulator valve, secondary bleed air regulator
valve--we can connect that those systems are driving PE events.
Some of those are under contract and will start delivering this
year. Others of those gear will start delivering in 2020, and
we are going to install that on the airplane.
CPOMS [Cockpit Pressure and Oxygen Monitoring System], if
you have heard about that, where it is the digital cabin
altimeter, but it also measures the oxygen to be able to warn
the aircrew, that is being installed this year and will
continue being installed out through 2020 until we outfit the
fleet.
So, from a PE side, we have ruled out contamination. We
have had the engineering to address the T-45. It is in place,
and we have driven down numbers. From a Super Hornet side, we
have kind of flatlined on the cabin pressurization. But we know
what we need to do, and we are getting at it, with respect to
getting the items under contract, getting them in the aircraft.
And until we do that--and we need the resources that we are
requesting to do so--we are not going to make any significant
change to these cabin pressurizations.
In terms of follow-on care, we have aviators that have
numerous PEs or a couple PEs. We make sure that there is
follow-on care and have identified the resources with our
medical community, whether it be in Portsmouth or out on the
west coast, to make sure that they have access to the
specialists they need for any chronic symptoms that they are
seeing.
Mrs. Hartzler. As far as the investigations, though, and
getting that feedback back to the crew members and the pilots,
how is that done?
Admiral Conn. Admiral Luchtman is on the road as I speak
talking to aviators. He was down talking to T-45 folks earlier
in the week. He engages with Oceana for our strike fighters. He
goes out to Lemoore and provides feedback--honest, transparent,
``this is what we are seeing.'' And I can tell you that for the
young aviators down in CNATRA [Chief of Naval Air Training],
they have complete confidence in the T-45 system now.
Mrs. Hartzler. That is great. Well, appreciate all of your
ongoing efforts. I look forward to hearing the results of these
changes you make and how it impacts this, hopefully, in the
future.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
Mr. Carbajal.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to all the witnesses. And congratulations again,
General Berger, on your nomination.
General Berger, the full-rate production decision for the
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, JLTV, has been delayed,
apparently due to issues with the visibility and limitations on
how weapons can be fired from the vehicle.
What is your assessment of the JLTV program status, current
configuration, changes needed, and plans to resolve issues
prior to a full-rate production decision?
General Berger. Thank you, sir. The vehicle, as it is right
now, meets the Marine Corps requirements. The issues you spoke
of and the reasons for the Army delaying a full-rate production
were not Marine Corps issues; they were unique to the Army.
As a joint program, though, obviously, as they work their
way through solutions to them, we will be right next to the
Army to see the changes that they make in the glass of the
vehicle. In the other two items, we will see how that pans out
in relation to cost.
But we have already contracted for, purchased the low-rate
production, about 1,600 of them, this year. And then we will
wait for the full-rate production and go from there.
Mr. Carbajal. Would this have an impact on the economy-of-
scale reduced price that I assume you were projecting if the
Army is going to buy a lot less units of this vehicle?
General Berger. If they reduce their overall buy, then
certainly I think it would be like any other major system;
there would be an impact on cost.
So far, we have not seen that. That doesn't mean it won't
happen. But this initial decision was just to postpone the
full-rate production.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, General.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Norcross. Mr. Bacon.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate you all being here today. And congratulations
to the future Commandant.
My first question is on electronic warfare [EW]. What is
the current status of the Next Generation Jammer? And how does
the fiscal year 2020 budget support this effort and electronic
warfare and countermeasures initiatives in general?
Thank you.
Admiral Conn. For the Next Generation Jammer, the first
aspect or capability we look for is what we call mid-band. That
is fully funded. We had some challenges with respect to
structure design that set us back a little bit, but we
continued with the internals and the actual EW capability, and
we are back on path to deliver that pod.
The next aspect we are looking at is what is called low-
band Next Generation Jammer. When you look at where potential
threats are going, that is going to be a very important piece
of equipment that we need to deny, delay, deceive--I would
probably keep it as simple as that--in that high-end threat
environment.
And then there are also other aspects of EW on each
particular airplane that is under my portfolio. But I am not
sure that was exactly your question. But the Next Generation
Jammer--when I say E-18G, I should say E-18G with Next
Generation Jammer. It is a system of systems between the two.
Did I answer your question, sir?
Mr. Bacon. Yes, sir.
Concerning rotary lift, my understanding is there are some
pretty extensive infrared countermeasures. We don't have much
in the radar countermeasures. Do we need to be doing more
there? Or what is your feedback in that area?
General Rudder. I guess there is always a threat that we
need to keep pace with. And when it comes to aircraft
survivability equipment, that is no different, whether it is a
radar or weapons system. That is what we endeavor to do with
all our assets.
With the large aircraft infrared countermeasure right now
that we are putting on our V-22 and on our 53 Echo, our KC-
130s, and certainly some of our UC-35s and UC-12s, that will--
for up to fourth-generation threat for those, that does a
pretty good job.
For the radar warning indications, we are always trying to
keep up with the next generation of radar systems. And we are
doing it with our F-18s as well, because every time we turn
around a new system has a new band that we need to deal with.
But for our helicopters, certainly the new aircraft
survivability equipment, the APRs [radar warning receivers] and
certainly the ALQs [airborne countermeasures], are being
designed to counter the new threat as it progresses.
Mr. Bacon. I am not sure who to ask this question to, but
do you sense the OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] and
the Joint Staff are providing adequate EW direction so we get a
unified effort? Or is this sort of service-centric, from your
perspective?
Mr. Nega. Sir, I will take a stab at that.
I have a monthly meeting with Dr. Bill Conley, who is the
EW expert in OSD, and I believe that we are in lockstep not
just from a policy perspective but an implementation
perspective.
And let me add one more thing on the Next Gen Jammer low-
band. It is currently in a demonstration phase, and things are
going well. The expectation is that system will leverage the
section 804 acquisition agility, I will call it, to field that
system as quickly as possible.
Mr. Bacon. Okay.
General Rudder, I understand you are procuring or
requesting two MQ-9s for the Marines. Could you explain a
little bit what is the intention there, and do you get much
capacity with just two MQ-9s? I mean, I was part of the Air
Force and realize the huge network you have to have to provide
a full-time cap. So I am just curious, what is your intention
there with those two RPAs [remotely piloted aircraft]?
General Rudder. Yeah. Thank you, Congressman. The current
MQ-9s right now are in a contractor-owned, contractor-operated
endeavor that we are doing, and, quite honestly, we are in
lockstep with the Air Force in how we manage that, because they
are helping us with the network and how all this comes into
being, especially for the area that it is operating out of.
So one is, first and foremost, as we look at the future of
Afghanistan and what Task Force Southwest is doing, is this is
fulfilling an UUNS [urgent universal need statement] for them.
The purchase that we have in this year's budget allows us to
buy these systems that were already operating in a certain
location, which is in a really good location, support Task
force Southwest, and do other things like networking and
weapons that we can't do under the current contracting
association. So, first and foremost, to support the warfighter
forward.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you for your perspective.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
Mr. Golden.
Mr. Golden. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
General Berger, congratulations again on the nomination.
I think I was telling you the other day, I was having a
conversation with a gentleman who was explaining to me his
opinion that the high ground didn't matter on the battlefield
anymore; we are in an age with UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles]
and other new technologies from the sky, which the grunt in me
had a hard time contemplating.
And I think you and I agree that is probably not 100
percent the case, but I thought it raised a good question and
wanted to give you the opportunity to maybe talk a little bit
about the work that you have in this budget and that the Marine
Corps is working on in regards to air defense systems to
protect our ground units, where you can give them a little bit
of an ability to reach out and fight back against something
like a UAV, whether that just be eyes in the sky or even
something that might be able to reach out, you know, and bite
you.
But certainly something I never had to experience, so I am
interested in knowing, what are the Marines working on to make
sure that our grunt units are able to compete with UAVs from
above or fighting with a peer competitor with fixed- or rotary-
wing, you know, capabilities?
General Berger. Thank you, Congressman. I will start off
and ask my teammate to cover ground that I perhaps miss.
A couple things. First, the radar system called G/ATOR
[Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar] that we use, are fielding--or
started fielding last year and will continue fielding--is a
huge advance for us in identifying and tracking targets as they
come in, because it is expeditionary and it is electronic, it
is phased array. So the G/ATOR is part of the answer to your
question. It is not just the shooting part; it is the first
end.
MADIS [Marine Air Defense Integrated System], acronym for
the system that we have fielded in very limited quantities here
in CONUS [contiguous United States] and probably will do
overseas as well, is an integrated modular package on a Humvee
or a JLTV vehicle that has everything onboard one or two
vehicles, including the power system. And that one, initially,
kinetic, could be a directed energy solution for a weapons
system for it as well. And so far, it is going pretty good in
testing. We will see where that goes.
And then the longer range would be a medium-range
interceptor. Although not a core mission for us, we need to be
prepared for that. And that development is ongoing as well.
And I will ask General Rudder to see if he can fill in
holes for me.
General Rudder. I think your initial comment about the high
ground is--as we put together the Marine Air-Ground Task Force
[MAGTF] and the aviation and the ground elements that go into
that, it is all dedicated on putting human beings, infantry on
the ground to seize objectives, forward objectives, as are
stated in our advanced basing objectives and operations.
So when we talk about this, we talk about the high-end
fight. We get enamored by a lot of long-range systems, and we
have to have those too, like the F-35. As we back down into
that, right now, swarming quadcopters from enemy cause us great
concern. So we need to be able to do that.
So in concert with what General Berger just talked about,
whether it is another UAS [unmanned aircraft system] that will
take down that UAS or whether it is directed energy, which has
a lot of promise for this particular endeavor, having this full
spectrum of capability to protect as well as stay on the
offensive is all these things we are trying to piece together
for the MAGTF.
Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Golden. Thank you very much. And do you envision
anything that might be man-portable for ground units?
General Berger. Are you talking beyond the Stinger sort of
shoulder-launched?
Mr. Golden. Anything coming down the road in terms of
ability to engage with UAVs or anything like that.
General Berger. I will ask General Rudder. Not that I know
of, myself. I will ask him if he knows of anything.
General Rudder. We have a lot of systems that will only
offer that miniaturization. And technology right now is
providing a lot of capabilities for not only precision-guided
munitions that can be launched and hover and loiter at great
distances, but, again, smaller UASes that can counter other
UASes that we can certainly launch from a man-portable system.
General Berger. If I could just add one more. We have done
some experimentation with man-portable systems for low, slow,
kind of smaller UAVs, and they have not panned out so far.
Mr. Golden. I appreciate that. I am interested in that.
And the last thing I would say is, you know, I continue to
be interested in your new amphibious combat vehicle and look
forward to hopefully having the opportunity to get out there in
the field and see one of those in action. And, you know, I
think it is an important new, you know, investment that you are
making and critical to getting ready for, you know, this whole
National Defense Strategy in regards to China and the Pacific.
Thank you.
Mr. Norcross. Mr. Banks.
Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Rudder, we have heard a lot about the sustainment
cost for F-35s. And there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding
or misinformation about what the actual costs are versus the
CAPE [Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation]
estimates. I understand the prime contractor has committed to a
$25,000 cost per flight hour by 2025 for the F-35A variant.
I also understand the Marine Corps has done its own
analysis of what the actual operations and sustainment costs
are currently for the F-35B. Can you share those numbers with
us?
General Rudder. We have worked with the JPO [Joint Program
Office], with CAPE, with Navy, with all the different cost
estimators that determine what the O&S [operation and
sustainment] costs are going to be, and certainly costs per
flight hour, and I think we have settled on how we quantify the
costing. There are different categories, 1 through 5--manpower,
fuel, sustainment, and the like. And we have settled on this.
And I will say, for 2017--the actual cost for 2017, they
were $60,000 per hour, and in 2018, they were $51,300 per hour.
So some of that was due to we just didn't fly the numbers
of hours that we had bought into, which creates--believe it or
not, the less you fly, the higher your cost per hour is. If we
look forward to fiscal year 2019, we are striving to be at
$39,000 per hour.
The vectors, if all the things that Admiral Winter has
talked about as far as getting maintenance closer to the flight
line, getting some stability in sustainment, we believe that,
you know, that $25,000 per hour is going to be achievable.
Mr. Banks. Could you compare that for a moment with other
fifth-generation fighter aircraft?
General Rudder. I cannot compare it to other fifth-
generation fighter aircraft, only the fourth generation that we
have--other fifth gen, would be I guess, would be F-22, and I
don't have the numbers here, but certainly I can take that back
to my----
Mr. Banks. Take that for the record?
General Rudder. Take that for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 105.]
Mr. Banks. Okay. Moving on, I recently introduced the five
oceans Navy strategy, which proposes a force structure above
the Navy's current 355-ship plan. The Navy we need blends a
large force structure in advanced capabilities. In my view
deterrence is a critical component to our fight with near-peer
adversaries in preventing large-scale conflicts.
So Admiral Conn, what is the role of unmanned aircrafts
such as UAVs in the future fight with near-peer competitors?
Admiral Conn. Well, first we have Triton that is going to
be going forward this year, probably later this summer. And
then we are going to continue to build capability and capacity
with that system in accordance and comply with the NDAA
[National Defense Authorization Act] of 2011 that I need the
capability and capacity that I have greater than I have today
before I can sundown the EP-3 in 2021, and we are on track to
do that.
MQ-25 is going to be the next big system that we put, and
we are going fly it off our aircraft carriers. It is primarily
a tanker. It has some secondary capabilities of providing ISR
[intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] but the
primary mission is a tanker. As I look to the future, I think
to the past. I think the PBYs [World War II Patrol Bombers],
the eyes and ears of the fleet being out there extended range,
relaying information back to decision makers. I see that in the
future of large UAVs flying off our carrier.
Mr. Banks. That is helpful feedback. General Berger, in
your testimony you spoke about the investments needed in
manned/unmanned teaming in autonomous systems to facilitate sea
control and denial. What capabilities and technologies do we
need additional investment in to be competitive with our
adversaries?
General Berger. Just to make sure I understand--beyond
autonomous, beyond?
Mr. Banks. Yes, sir.
General Berger. Okay. First off, thanks for the question. I
would say our collective approach is not to match but to gain
overmatch because the match is kind of a fair fight that
General Dunford says we are never going to go into and none of
us do either. The manned to unmanned teaming you spoke of is
hard work. We have found over the past year and a half, 2
years, very hard work to do. But actually the teaming of that,
younger Marines and soldiers take to it pretty easily.
I think the longer term is going to be the depth part
either offensively or defensively in depth. In other words,
conceivably unmanned systems way far forward. Another unmanned
system that can act as sort of a mothership on shore or on
land, and then the manned portion and unmanned--unmanned
portion further back. In other words, a layering all the way
out in great depth.
I think the Navy is also making huge strides in subsurface,
which we absolutely need to have in sea control and sea denial
sort of roles. And lastly I will just say that the challenge
for us is in the command and control, the fusion of all of that
sensing when fighting as an--operating as a naval expeditionary
force, how to pull all that together, how to fuse it, and how
to distribute it in a manner that the appropriate commanders
can act on it.
Mr. Banks. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Norcross. Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the
witnesses for being here this morning. General Rudder, the
funding for continued development of the K-MAX unmanned
helicopter was not included in the initial budget proposal but
was included in the unfunded priorities list. It is about $18
million. Again, the K-MAX program in Afghanistan in 2011 flew
thousands of hours, and I think they racked up a pretty good
record of 4\1/2\ million pounds of cargo for Marines and Task
Force Southwest, which basically was the equivalent of about
900 convoys through pretty dangerous territory. So if Congress
does agree to that unfunded request, can you discuss how the
Marines would use that funding to continue research on heavy-
lift unmanned helicopter cargo lift?
General Rudder. Thank you, Congressman. We bought those K-
MAXs in a government-owned contractor-operated agreement in
Afghanistan. When we came back we endeavored to make them a
program of record, and are still working down that road, but we
were not able to secure the funding to get that back flying in
the fleet for test and operational usage for experimentation.
We have since, now, with the thanks really of this
committee to secure funding for that so now we have a
cooperative research and development contract that we are
working with K-MAX and they will take in--whether it is
happening right now or in the next few weeks they are going to
be trucked back to Connecticut and we are going to give them to
the vendor to let them work through a couple different things.
One is autonomous logistics delivery. Like we learned in
Afghanistan, there is certain things that you want on call, but
there is other things that you just need to have going
autonomously.
And I think the K-MAX with its lift capability and the way
we conceive distributed operations in the future, if we get
those airplanes we are going to configure them as we are
configuring this test vehicle back in Connecticut with autonomy
which will allow them to have terrain-following type of radar,
and it will be able to push a button, it will take the cargo to
a particular point that you have programmed in, it will drop
that cargo, and do it all day long. And we have seen
efficiencies with this over time.
So with the money that we have, we do have funded right now
to do those two aircraft that we own back in Connecticut. We
will bring those back hopefully by the end of next summer to
begin experimenting in Yuma and Twentynine Palms. But the extra
money that is in there now is to create a few more air vehicles
so we can kind of expand this usage. Because we see this as the
future of distributed operations, how we logistically supply
ourselves.
Mr. Courtney. Fairly modest request in Washington math, so
again, I appreciate that answer and hopefully that will help us
as we get closer to the mark. According to the Navy's long-term
tactical aviation inventory plans, the Navy continues to
maintain a mix of fourth-generation FA-18s and fifth-generation
F-35s through the 2030s.
Admiral Conn, can you talk about how you plan to integrate
the F-35s with the legacy aircraft and carrier air wing during
that transition period, and in particular whether there is
particular missions that you would select or prioritize for one
type of aircraft over the other?
Admiral Conn. We have been doing this integration effort
for a long time. Working with the Air Force, working with the
Marines, working out in Fallon, Nevada, with some of our young
disciplined trained aviators that fly out of TOPGUN [U.S. Navy
Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor Program] or fly out of Strike
[Navy Strike Warfare Center], those type of people are the
people that need to do this work and they are doing it in terms
of how we are going to integrate this fifth-generation
capability into the air wing.
And in terms of some of the missions, I see, as Admiral
Winter has suggested, you know, the F-35 operating forward
acting as a quarterback. Sensing, collecting, reeling, and in
some cases killing, various targets that are out there. But I
also have trucks known as a Super Hornet that can carry a lot
of ordinates that the F-35 is out there sensing, relaying the
information to a long-range weapon and getting it on the
target. Also working with the E-2D; between the E-2D, the F-
35C, the F-18 Super Hornets, the E-18G Growlers, when you put a
fifth-generation asset in there we just get better across all
mission areas.
If I had to go over the beach in some areas it makes more
sense to put an F-35 over the beach than a Super Hornet. It
doesn't mean I can't put a Super Hornet over the beach, but the
risk is a little bit different.
Mr. Courtney. All right. Thank you. I may follow up with a
written question after the hearing about just integrating also
how you are going to maintain two different types of aircrafts,
you know, in the close space of an aircraft carrier, but,
again, I thank you for your answer this morning, and I yield
back.
Admiral Conn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Norcross. Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you
so much for joining us today and for your testimony. I wanted
to begin with Lieutenant General Rudder and talk specifically
about the CH-53K King Stallion heavy-lift helicopter. Last year
we heard about how great this bird was going to be, the
strongest, the smartest, the best heavy-lift helicopter that
money can buy, and now we are hearing reports that the initial
operational capability milestones that are set for this
December are not going to be met, that that is going to have to
be pushed back, that there are a whole list of elements there
that have to be looked at so the initial operation test and
evaluation may not occur until 2021. There is a whole list of
design deficiencies, and I want to point some of those out.
The issues reported are airspeed indication anomalies; tail
boom and tail rotor structural problems; low reliability for
main rotor gear box; fuel system anomalies; overheating of main
rotor dampers; and hot gas impingement on aircraft structures.
A list of ones that are, you know, if you are a pilot such as
the great pilots you have in the Marine Corps and with your
experience those things are concerning about where we are with
that.
So my questions really are threefold. What is being done to
correct those issues? What is in the pipeline? Is this year's
budget request enough to make sure that we correct these design
deficiencies, and as we are looking at the ability to deploy
this helicopter are we on track to deploy it in 2023 or is it
going to be 2024, because I think making sure we have that
helicopter available to replace the Echoes [CH-53Es] is a key
element. So I wanted to get your perspective.
General Rudder. Thank you, Congressman, and you are exactly
right. It is important. Heavy lift is still a--really a DOD
requirement and a Marine Corps requirement still especially for
distributed operations. This airplane, last year we moved it
from testing in West Palm Beach, and we moved it to Pax River
where we put it through its paces. We brought it out to
Colorado, did high altitude testing, we banged it around in the
dirt out there, and we found some things.
And we found some things because good Marine test pilots
and Navy--and the naval enterprise found things that needed to
be fixed. So the delays that you see right now is to make sure
we get it right. And I think I may even defer to Mr. Nega and
talk about how we are negotiating the next few contracts is
that we are going to build concurrency into our next contracts,
so when the Marines get a helicopter it's going to have those
things.
All the things you just talked about are going to be fixed
before we give it to the fleet. If I back out from that, this
aircraft did some unbelievable things this past year. It lifted
36,000 pounds, it still can go, you know, 100 miles, 27,000
pounds, three times what the 53 Echo can do.
Now the question is to fix these technical deficiencies we
have, and they are all fixable, and at this part of the program
and give the Marines, the maintainers especially and our great
pilots, the aircraft they deserve.,
But I think we are on the right track. You will see where
we put in this year's budget we put what we need to fix as well
as, you know, manage our procurement a bit to make sure that we
do not get ahead of ourselves.
But if you let us continue on with the money we have asked
for this year and the money that we asked for for next year we
are going to fix this and we are going to deploy it in 2024.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you. Lieutenant General Berger, first of
all, congratulations on your nomination. We are excited about
that. And I know that you will do a fantastic job. And we
appreciate the great work that you have done throughout your
Marine Corps career.
I wanted to talk about munitions. And as you know having
munitions in the right places and the right types of munitions
are a key logistical element there on the battlefield, and as I
have had the opportunity to travel and talk to Marines forward
deployed in those areas many of the issues come up about having
the right quantities of munitions in the right places and the
right types of munitions. Can you give me an overview about
where we are with the Marine Corps with having the right
complement of munitions, having them in the right places, in
the right quantities?
General Berger. I will, Congressman. Thanks for the
question. And just to make sure, is your focus on small arms?
Mr. Wittman. Yes.
General Berger. Because--very good. Over the past perhaps
longer than 2 years, probably closer to three or four, a whole
lot of work done on the munitions, the 556 round that we have,
to make it more lethal, and we have gone through several
iterations of that with the Army.
Parallel to that was a different type of cartridge that
lessened the weight to make it carrying the same amount of
rounds would be cutting the weight by maybe two-thirds. The
first one on the lethality I think the work so far between the
Army and the Marine Corps is very solid, and the evolution of
rounds that we used in Afghanistan kind of reflected that.
There is another look, again, at the caliber to see if 556 is
what we want as a service and as a Department of Defense, and I
think all the right people are working on the answer to that
question.
Above that all good things like rockets where we fielded
MAAWS [Multi-purpose Anti-armor Anti-personnel Weapon System]
in place of the small, the medium machine gun 50 cal kind of
762 and up to 50 cal again looking at a different type of
cartridge that will lessen the weight and make it more
expeditionary.
I think--I don't know where the decision point is, so I
will ask on the caliber issue, but I do know it is one that
both the Marine Corps and the Army are side by side on, and I
don't know any as far as the timeline, sir.
Mr. Smith. We will take the caliber and the timing for the
record, the question for the record. We will get back to you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 105.]
Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Norcross. We are to go through a second round of
conversations, obviously fewer of us, and we are expecting
votes quite frankly at any moment.
General Berger, I want to give you an opportunity to give a
more visionary or strategic view. For the Marine Corps posture
review identifies the Commandant's highest priority command and
control [C2] in a degraded environment. How will the Marine
Corps fiscal year 2020 request put you on a path to delivering
this resilient, affordable C2 network?
General Berger. Sir, thank you. The way that you described
it is exactly why it is number one for General Neller for the
Marine Corps. We have a lot of sensing systems that we are
fielding now and the next couple years. Our challenge as a
naval force is how to integrate that and do it in a contested
electromagnetic spectrum sort of environment, and that is not
easy work. Because the mixture in just aircraft of fourth- and
fifth-gen aircraft and pushing the processing and dissemination
of that information, really difficult.
Hard enough to do if it wasn't in a contested environment,
but we absolutely expect the threat to go after our C2 systems
first, before logistics, before everything else, because they
believe that is our Achilles heel.
So for us, Navy and Marine Corps, it is number one for the
Marine Corps because if we can't have the network that we need,
and we absolutely will--then you break the force down in
individual small elements. It is going to remain number one the
rest of this year, and a fair portion of the requests this year
is aligned towards that, sir.
Mr. Norcross. But as you move forward obviously you are
preparing for this in our new equipment. How are you dealing
with it with the legacy equipment that we have?
General Berger. Retrofitting is probably an idea that only
the last few years we have started writing it into requirements
in the way we probably should have all along, but it wasn't so
necessary; now, it absolutely is. For example, we have Fox--we
have 117 Golf and Fox radios. Retrofitting them, difficult
work. Retrofitting a Humvee, hard work. The M1A1 tank, it is
analog, not digital.
In some of the legacy systems there is a point we reach
like with the M1A1 [Abrams tank] where you cannot go any
farther or the LAV [light armored vehicle]. The ACV [Amphibious
Combat Vehicle], the combat vehicle that we are starting to
field, baked into it, built into it. But for the legacy systems
you mentioned, sir, some will be bolt-on, kind of aftermarket
work, and some will be in a separate system that does the
fusion between legacy analog into a digital fifth gen.
Mr. Norcross. Have you done scrub down of all those systems
to see, you know, this comes down to what you do is making
these tough decisions, what risk are you able to take on, how
much of an investment into our older equipment versus
accelerating some of our new ideas.
General Berger. We have, sir, and in the budget that was
submitted you will see cancellation of some legacy programs
that were going to upgrade C2 systems, in favor of a more
modern platform.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
Mrs. Hartzler.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And General Berger, I wanted to add my congratulations
along with my colleagues on your new role. I look forward to
working with you, and have a question for you and Mr. Smith.
As you know, the Army is rapidly developing the next-
generation capabilities with respect to long range precision
fires, combat vehicles, future vertical lift programs in the
fiscal year 2020 budget. I was wondering if--what are you doing
to develop and invest in these next-generation capabilities and
how are you coordinating with the Army in these initiatives.
Mr. Smith. Well, ma'am, let me assure you that we are
closely tied to the Army. They are much larger for us, and they
are already working on things. They have a larger budget, and
the Marine Corps benefits greatly from leveraging and working
together as a combined force. There is no daylight between us
when it comes to the capability that we are working to extend
forward modernization efforts and bringing forth new
technology.
We have joint programs and a joint light tactical vehicle
where we are working great together with one another so that
synergy continues.
Mrs. Hartzler. That is great. As far as the Block 4
modernization with the F-35, you have committed to a
significant amount of funding to support this initial Block 4
modernization, but as I said in my opening statement, I think
there is some concerns with the projections going forward with
the idea that every 6 months there is going to be this big leap
as the cost.
So how can you assure us and the taxpayer that Block 4
modernization program won't follow in the footsteps of the F-
35's baseline program, which saw significant cost and schedule
growth during its development?
Admiral Winter. Thank you, ma'am, and it is a great
question. So we start with the maturity of hardware and
software of the Block 3F and the Block 4 takes the warfighting
capabilities that were identified by our services to address
the pacing threats through 2025, and we looked at the Block 3
app to see where the modernization enhancements and
improvements needed to be made to stay in front of that threat.
It is not a clean sheet of paper. The airworthiness and the
outer mold line, the majority of that structure--all the
structural work that was truly some of the unknowns over the
Block 3 and the earlier development has all now at a maturity
level.
What we see for Block 4 capability is about 80 percent
software modernization of current fielded software and 20
percent enabling hardware that will not change the outer mold
line of the aircraft. It will not drive additional
airworthiness testing in the same way and the manner and the
capacity that we had in Block 3.
Mrs. Hartzler. That makes sense. That makes sense. I have
heard the bell, so are we voting right now?
Okay. Just a couple quick other things. As you know,
Secretary Mattis had the 80 percent mission-capable rate as the
goal, and I was wondering if you could just kind of give us an
update on where we are at on the readiness rate of our
aircraft.
Admiral Conn. For Super Hornets, ma'am, I will keep this
brief because I know there is a tight timeline. We have invited
industry, asked industry to come out and assess our processes
at our squadrons, at our depots in California, and our
intermediate activities. We have reduced planned maintenance
intervals [PMIs] on Super Hornets from 120 to 60 days, and not
only did we cut it in half, the quality of the product that is
coming out of that PMI event is that much better, and the
aircraft is flying within a week from that PMI event, in some
cases 4 days. We are trying to reduce our 84-day inspections
down to 3 days. We have looked at treating artisans that do
these PMI events and repair repairables as surgeons.
Surgeons don't leave the patient and don't leave the
operating room in the middle of a procedure. You plan the
event, you know the resources you require, and you keep the
artisan focused on that effort. So those are just a few of the
things.
What are the results? The MC [mission-capable] rates we see
as a volatile stock market right now. The highs are getting
higher, the lows aren't going as low, but the vectors are going
in the right direction. We have seen anywhere from 63 percent
MC rates, that is a snapshot in time on a given day, to 76
percent MC rates, a snapshot in time on a given day, and they
fluctuate in between. We need to understand what is causing
that variance, fix what we can to maximize the peaks, minimize
the valleys, and keep the vector going in the right direction.
Mrs. Hartzler. Great. Admiral Winter, do you want to give
the F-35 rate?
Admiral Winter. Yes, ma'am. Similar to Admiral Conn, we
have identified the root causes and the levers needed to ensure
the availability and the mission-capable rates for the F-35. We
look across our entire fleet and have taken a full system look.
We need to make sure that we have increased spare parts on the
flight line. We need to make sure we can repair parts or
accelerate in the depot standups in the United States, and we
have pushed flight line maintenance authorities to our
warfighters on the flight line where they had to send back
parts or send back to get the maintenance completed. They can
now do that--those actions on the flight line.
Those three have and will continue to increase the
availability and the mission-capable rates of our F-35. What we
look at right now is a snapshot of our combat coded fleet. We
have the F-35A is 61 percent, F-35B is 64 percent, and the F-
35C is 84 percent. When we deploy and we provide afloat spares
packages and deploy packages, those mission-capability rates
average between 65 and 85 percent as we move forward.
Mrs. Hartzler. That is great. I am concerned that you said
that Lockheed Martin they have a 200-part shortage every month,
so I am glad that you are getting after the parts and focused
on this.
I think we will go ahead and stop, but thank you very much.
Mr. Norcross. Just a quick interjection because I might
have picked up on it incorrectly. General Rudder, you were
talking about the sustainment costs, and you alluded to that
when we came to a set of criteria that you were including in
that. I am paraphrasing. Are the criteria that you take into
account to come up with sustainment costs different than other
service branches or is there continuity across the board?
General Rudder. Every service computes their costs a bit
differently, but with the F-35 we have come together with CAPE,
the JPO, and the Navy, and we are on the same sheet of music as
far as computing costs. But in the very beginning we were
including some things, not including other things, but we have
now in the past year--of course it has been about year now
since we have come together, and we are all on the same sheet
of music when it comes to those criterias that we are including
for the cost.
Mr. Norcross. We are comparing apples to apples. Mr.
Golden, do you have any questions?
Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a quick
question for Rear Admiral Conn. As we look at where we are
today in great power competition the debate back and forth has
been how do we maintain and in some areas create a larger delta
between our adversaries and ourself because we want them to
remain near-peers. But as we look at where we are coming with
the deliberations back and forth about the remaining 2 years of
the Budget Control Act of 2011, the potential of sequester is
there. And you had talked about modernization and how critical
modernization is not only with current aviation platforms in
making sure that we get the new F-35 on board and, Admiral
Winter, I know you have talked about that too.
So I wanted to get your perspective about where did the
Navy see themselves if sequester were indeed to come back as
far as modernization, and where does that leave the United
States in relation to maintaining and in some instances trying
to enhance still keeping our adversaries as near-peers.
Admiral Conn. If we go back to sequestration levels it will
drive us back to making false choices between readiness and
modernization, which is in some cases why we are sitting where
we are today. There is a lot of programs we have both today to
keep them ready or to modernize them, let alone all the things
we have to do in the future. Every aircraft in CNATRA must be
replaced by 2035.
The E-6B has a pretty important mission. I have to
recapitalize that. C-130, I mean the list is long. And SLM,
service-life modernization, for taking a Block 2 into making it
a Block 3 Super Hornet. You know, we are finally at place where
we are buying more aircraft, either F-18 Block 3s, F-35Cs, and
when you add up the SLM efforts and number of aircraft we are
going pump out we are delivering more aircraft than we are
burning up each year, which allows us to now get out of some
old legacy systems, get rid of the F-18Ds, A through D's, give
the rest to the Marine Corps, drive down costs across the
force. That would cause some significant challenges, and we
always have hard choices to make. The choices would get that
much harder.
In terms of being able to provide the force that is going
to fight and win in that high-end environment, that would be at
risk.
Mr. Wittman. Very good. Vice Admiral Winter, any thoughts
on that?
Admiral Winter. I see the F-35 stays at full sprint in
development with our modernization, full sprint and production
to 2044, and full sprint as we go from 395 air systems to 1,200
air systems just over the next 4 years. Any reduction or
substantial reduction to funding amounts in development,
production, or sustainment will have considerable impact and
will erase all of the initiatives and all of the gains in
affordability that we have worked so hard to gain and we are on
the precipice here.
My biggest concern across the F-35 is truly my supply chain
management, and any disruption to the supply chain, be it self-
imposed or otherwise, will have a direct impact in the ability
to produce airplanes and sustain them, and then my warfighter
is not going to need to modernize them because he is not going
to buy them.
Mr. Wittman. Got you. Very good. Lieutenant General Rudder.
General Rudder. When you all really put in and helped us in
the budget lane to begin investing our readiness accounts fully
and while certainly modernizing. And for the Marine Corps we
are transitioning our complete fleet. So just an example for
the FRCs [Fleet Readiness Centers], our depots, in the past few
years the depots have hired back 2,700 artisans and engineers
and workforce, and we are catching up with our depot. Aircraft
are coming out, and they are flyable, and they are a great
product.
Our spares accounts now we have now fully funded our spares
accounts. This year for the F-18 alone we will reap the
benefits of $1.6 billion of spares that we were able to put in
for those accounts while all at the same time supporting the
NDS [National Defense Strategy] and buying new airplanes, F-
35s, CH-53K, we are going to finish off our V-22 buy and our
KC-130 buy here in the next few years.
So to do that we go back to the competition and balance.
And we have committed at this table to fully fund our readiness
accounts, and if we stay committed to that in a sequestration-
like event that means that something is going to give in our
modernization accounts.
Today the budget that we have set forward allows us to
balance. Readiness as well as modernize, and to compete in this
world I think we are going to need to maintain that for quite
some years to catch up.
Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Wittman. Lieutenant General Berger, your perspective? I
know you have a very--much broader perspective outside of the
aviation realm, but also across all Marine Corps operations.
General Berger. I would agree with what was already said,
Congressman. We would triage just like you would any patient.
You would absolutely make sure that the next units that are
deploying and the ones that are already deployed have
everything that they need. You are not going take anything away
from that. You are going to hurt research and development. You
are going cut that. We would cut the modernization way down
because what we can't have is a carrier strike group or an ARG
MEU [amphibious ready group Marine expeditionary unit] go out
anything less than 100 percent ready.
So we would triage the patient, cut off modernization,
reduce research and development, do whatever we needed to do to
make sure the units that were on the slate to deploy are ready.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you. And if it was up to the Armed
Services Committee we wouldn't have the problem. It is a matter
of those who aren't in this room who need to hear it.
I just want to follow up with one item and line of
questioning from Mr. Wittman on the CH-35K. General Rudder, for
the record can you talk about any new contract that you might
enter into, how it will address the deficiencies and any
potential ones?
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 105.]
General Rudder. We are endeavoring right now to enter into
a contract that addresses all the deficiencies, as well as any
new deficiencies as part of the delivery of that aircraft.
Mr. Norcross. Now that contract might include a set-aside
for any future unseen issues?
General Rudder. It could.
Mr. Nega. Yes, sir, let me jump in. There is an
expectation, and we are in negotiations right now with
Lockheed, there is an expectation that on that LRIP [low rate
initial production] contract that there is a risk sharing that
goes on there. So for any new discovery that risk will be
shared by the contractor.
Mr. Norcross. So it sounds like that Lockheed, who is at
risk here if they enter into that, understands that by now they
should have found any major issue?
Mr. Nega. The flight envelope has been tested to the
corners. General Rudder talked about how we sort of--we have
wrung it out. There is a relatively low risk that anything
major will be found; however, if nuisance issues come along, we
are not going to give those nuisance issues to the Marines, and
the Navy and Marine Corps team is not going to accept the full
risk of that, so the risk concurrency between the development
and the production there is that overlap is going to be taken
care of.
Mr. Norcross. But that is cost risk, we still have the time
risk?
Mr. Nega. Correct.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you. Mrs. Hartzler, any other
questions?
Mrs. Hartzler. No.
Mr. Norcross. Any closing statements?
We want to thank all the witnesses for working with us
today, and perfect timing, votes are being called.
We are adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
April 4, 2019
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 4, 2019
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
April 4, 2019
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. NORCROSS
General Rudder. On 29 Mar 2019, PMA-261 and Sikorsky reached a
handshake agreement for the combined contract award of CH-53K Lots 2
and 3. Targeted award is slated for early- to mid-May. Negotiations
resulted in a favorable position for the Government with several
contract terms that will reduce both the Government concurrency risks
of the development and production programs and potential retrofit
costs. The aircraft quantity was negotiated for 12 vice 14 aircraft due
to cost growth identified during Lot 1 production as well as the cost
of known technical deficiencies due to development and production
concurrency. The lower quantity will allow the program to afford the
aircraft while preserving planned support efforts within the budget and
program schedule. Aircraft Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) will be
Fixed Price Incentive, providing a firm target. Negotiated target
profit is lower than typical, at 10.3% average across multiple CLINS. A
more favorable overrun share ratio of 40/60 for the Government accounts
for the recurring risk of 126 known technical issues, and a 30/70
underrun share incentivizes the Contractor to drive down costs. The
negotiated ceiling is 121%. A gated process will not be required on
this contract as risk and incentives will be managed inside the
contract structure and the agreed-to concurrency clause. The
concurrency clause includes the correction of 126 deficiencies that are
required for a deployable configuration. The Contractor will cover
recurring costs of any configuration changes (beyond 126) discovered
during developmental efforts and required for the deployable
configuration, up to $5M per aircraft. [See page 28.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. BANKS
General Rudder. The F-22 CAPE less Indirect Support CPFH in FY17/18
was $ $70,035 and $61,993, respectively. These values are placed in
``then year'' dollars. [See page 18.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN
Mr. Smith. The Marine Corps adopted the M855A1 Enhanced Performance
Round (EPR), a 5.56mm munition, for the War Reserve Munitions
Requirement to align with the Army. The full requirement has been
procured and deliveries will continue through FY 2021. The M855A1 will
replace the Mk 318 Mod 0/1 SOST rounds as soon as logistically
feasible. Both rounds offer increased performance over the legacy M855
5.56mm Ball round. There is a joint/combined effort to lighten the load
with ammunition. The Marine Corps led this effort by developing a
polymer case round for .50 Caliber; the Army is working 7.62mm, and the
U.K. is working 5.56mm. The .50 Cal has performed well during testing
and qualification and the next step will be conducting user evaluation
within our training establishment. Furthermore, the joint team is
actively working to reduce the weight of small arms packaging. These
efforts combined will substantially reduce small arms weight enhancing
logistics and benefit the individual Marine. The Marine Corps is
actively working with the Army on the development of Next Generation
Squad Weapon capabilities and plans to begin procurement of the weapons
and associated 6.8mm ammunition after they are qualified for
production. The Marine Corps intends to start procurement in FY 2023,
and will field this weapon primarily to infantry. We will maintain
5.56mm weapons/ammunition for the rest of the force well into the
2030's. [See page 23.]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
April 4, 2019
=======================================================================
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. COURTNEY
Mr. Courtney. During the period where carrier air wings will have a
mix of fourth- and fifth-generation fighter aircraft, how will you
specifically manage the maintenance, logistics support, and detailing
of aviation maintenance personnel for two very different airframes
aboard the relatively small space of an aircraft carrier?
Admiral Conn. A Carrier Air Wing (CVW) is made up of individual
squadrons manned with Sailors who are trained, equipped, and qualified
to implement maintenance and safety programs allowing squadron aircraft
to conduct assigned missions in support of fleet operations. Each
squadron deploys aboard the aircraft carrier with requisite spares,
support equipment, tools, technical publications and training programs.
This is true whether the squadron is comprised of fourth or fifth
generation fighter, early warning, or rotary wing aircraft. The U.S.
Navy has developed the necessary Concept of Operations to specifically
manage the F-35C maintenance and logistics support for the CVNs and
integration with the rest of the CVW. New platforms, like the F-35,
introduce maintenance and logistical challenges during their early
adoption by the fleet. Fifth generation-unique issues such as Low
Observable coatings and an increased reliance on electronics, software,
and connectivity to conduct the mission are being addressed by the
fleet today. Processes are in place and are being exercised to fold in
lessons learned from developmental/operational test and initial
operational deployment to inform how the CVW will most effectively man,
train, equip, maintain, integrate and sustain the F-35C and future
fighter aircraft aboard the Navy's aircraft carriers.
[all]