[Senate Hearing 116-508, Part 2]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-508, Pt. 2
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 AND
THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 1790
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
----------
PART 2
SEAPOWER
----------
MARCH 27; APRIL 10, 2019
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-153 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman JACK REED, Rhode Island
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
TOM COTTON, Arkansas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
JONI ERNST, Iowa TIM KAINE, Virginia
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia
RICK SCOTT, Florida TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee DOUG JONES, Alabama
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
John Bonsell, Staff Director
Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director
_________________________________________________________________
Subcommittee on Seapower
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia, Chairman MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
TOM COTTON, Arkansas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JONI ERNST, Iowa TIM KAINE, Virginia
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
_________________________________________________________________
March 27, 2019
Page
Navy Shipbuilding Programs....................................... 1
Member Statements
Statement of Senator David Perdue................................ 1
Statement of Senator Mazie K. Hirono............................. 3
Witness Statements
Geurts, The Honorable James F., Assistant Secretary of the Navy 4
for Research, Development, and Acquisition; Accompanied by Vice
Admiral William R. Merz, USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations
for Warfare Systems; and Lieutenant General David H. Berger,
USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development
Command and Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and
Integration.
Questions for the Record......................................... 46
April 10, 2019
Marine Corps Ground Modernization and Naval Aviation Programs.... 53
Member Statements
Statement of Senator David Perdue................................ 53
Statement of Senator Mazie K. Hirono............................. 55
Witness Statements
Geurts, The Honorable James F,. Assistant Secretary of the Navy 56
for Research, Development, and Acquisition; Accompanied by
Lieutenant General David H. Berger, USMC, Commanding General,
Marine Corps Combat Development Command and Deputy Commandant
for Combat Development and Integration; Lieutenant General
Steven R. Rudder, USMC, Deputy Commandant for Aviation,
Headquarters United States Marine Corps; and Rear Admiral Scott
D. Conn, USN, Director, Air Warfare, Office of the Chief of
Naval Operations.
Questions for the Record......................................... 100
(iii)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2020 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2019
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Seapower,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
NAVY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in
room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator David
Perdue (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Subcommittee Members present: Senators Perdue, Wicker,
Cotton, Ernst, Hawley, Hirono, Shaheen, Blumenthal, Kaine, and
King.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAVID PERDUE
Senator Perdue. We will come to order and go ahead and get
started.
The Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower convenes
this morning to examine Navy shipbuilding programs in review of
the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2020 and the
future years defense program.
We welcome our three distinguished witnesses this morning:
the Honorable James F. Geurts, Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Research, Development, and Acquisition. Good morning. Vice
Admiral William Merz, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for
Warfare Systems; and Lieutenant General David Berger, Deputy
Commandant of the Marine Corps for Combat Development and
Integration.
General, congratulations on your nomination to be the next
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Delighted to have you three here today. Thank you for your
time and effort.
This is my first public meeting as the Chairman of the
Seapower Subcommittee. I am humbled to be leading this
Subcommittee and will do all I can to support our men and women
in uniform.
Today we have the smallest Army since World War II, the
smallest Navy since World War I, and the oldest and smallest
Air Force ever. At the same time, we face complex threats from
China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran. A robust naval fleet is
critical to deter aggression worldwide, project power, and
support our allies.
The Subcommittee on Seapower will provide vital oversight
and support for our Navy and Marine Corps as they work to meet
this increasing demand for global missions. I want to thank
Senator Wicker and Senator Hirono for their leadership over the
past 4 years. I hope this Subcommittee will continue to work in
a bipartisan manner. I fully expect that.
Earlier this month, the Subcommittee received a classified
threat assessment and learned how our Navy and Marine Corps
plan to operate in the face of these ever-growing new threats.
As we begin consideration of the budget request, this briefing
was very helpful in providing context for our next series of
budget-focused hearings on shipbuilding, naval aviation, and
Marine Corps ground systems. Thank you again, Admiral Merz and
General Berger, for your participation in that and for the
private briefings that you guys have given us.
In 2016, the Navy increased its minimum requirement to 355
battle force ships, a reflection of the strategic shift to
great power competition. Today, the Navy stands at just 289
battle force ships. While I understand the Navy is reassessing
the fleet size requirement, I believe the need for a larger,
more capable fleet is clear. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today about the Navy and Marine Corps plans to
achieve these requirements as soon as possible.
In addition to a global security crisis, we also have a
national debt crisis. Last month, our national debt topped $22
trillion. General Mattis and others have called the debt the
greatest threat to our national security, and I agree. It is no
secret that Congress' failure to pass a budget on time
hamstrings our military and limits our ability to plan for
future missions.
While there are many factors beyond the control of this
Subcommittee, the Secretary of the Navy's comments caught my
attention in December 2017 when he said ``continuing
resolutions (CR) have cost the Department of the Navy roughly
$4 billion. Since 2011, we have put $4 billion in the trashcan,
put lighter fluid on top of it, and burned it.'' I wish I had
been smart enough to make that quote. That is pretty good.
Budgeting by CRs is no way to run the government, and
Congress must do better. In this regard, I would like to hear
from our witnesses today regarding the budgetary and
operational impacts of continuing resolutions and the return of
sequestration in fiscal year 2020 potentially.
Additionally, I would like to review a number of other
shipbuilding-related topics, including the ongoing force
structure assessment and the factors that led the Navy to
conduct this assessment, greater clarity on the long-term
funding plan and challenges related to welding and quality
assurance with the Columbia-class submarine program; aircraft
carrier programs, including the Department's proposal to
inactivate the USS Harry S. Truman more than 2 decades early,
as well as testing challenges in the lead ship of the Ford-
class USS Gerald R. Ford; the Navy's plan to recapitalize the
Nation's strategic sealift fleet; and options to improve
acquisition performance on lead ships.
This Subcommittee will continue to work with the Navy and
Marine Corps to build a larger, more capable fleet while at the
same time demanding the best of our every taxpayer dollar.
I look forward to our witnesses' testimony, and I now
recognize Senator Hirono and thank her for her steadfast
commitment to this committee over the last 4 years.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAZIE K. HIRONO
Senator Hirono. My steadfast commitment will continue with
you at the helm. And, of course, congratulations to you who are
chairing this very important Subcommittee. Of course, I look
forward to working with you as we conduct active exchanges and
dialogues with the Department in order to reach the best
solutions to the issues facing our sailors and marines and
their families.
I want to welcome our witnesses, and of course, I have my
congratulations to General Berger for being nominated to head
up the Marine Corps.
We are grateful to each of you for your service to the
Nation and for the truly professional service of the men and
women under your command. We also pay tribute to their families
because, of course, we always say that the families are a very
critical part of the success of the men and women in our armed
services.
Today, our witnesses face difficult decisions as you try to
balance the need to modernize and maintain our technological
advantage against the need to support ongoing operations and
sustain current readiness. The threats we face around the world
require us to consider how best to get the Navy and Marine
Corps the resources that we need, but we must make sure that
any increase in resources does not come at the expense of
important domestic programs that families, including our
military families, rely on every day.
Last year, we had the benefit of an early budget deal that
included increases in the DOD [Department of Defense] top line.
This year, we are again facing the constraints of the caps in
the Budget Control Act (BCA). The President's budget attempts
to finesse the caps for DOD by moving a large portion of the
base budget into the overseas contingency operations, or OCO,
accounts that are exempt from the caps. I do not support such a
gimmick and hope we can move quickly to achieve a deal on the
budget resolution for fiscal year 2020 that avoids delays in
getting the necessary resources to the Department and to other
parts of the U.S. Government.
Today's hearing deals with various aspects of Navy
shipbuilding. These Navy programs play a critical role in
supporting and advancing our country's strategic interests in
the Indo-Asia-Pacific region, including from bases in Hawaii.
With that in mind, the Subcommittee has been focused on how we
improve our acquisition, stewardship and thereby ensure that we
are getting good value for every shipbuilding dollar that we
spend.
Two years ago, the Chief of Naval Operations (CN0)
presented us with a new force structure assessment. The Navy's
30-year shipbuilding plan last year would have increased the
size of the fleet but would not have met the 355-ship goal.
This year, the 30-year shipbuilding plan indicates the Navy
would achieve that goal in 2034. The attack submarine force
goal of 66 boats would be achieved in 2048, the same as last
year. The goal for large surface combatants would be achieved
in 2029. The surface force would remain at or above the level
through the remainder of the 30-year plan. Last year's plan
would have achieved the goal of 104 large surface combatants
for only 1 year during the 30-year period, the year 2024.
Despite having a requirement of 12 aircraft carriers, this
year's plan has a force of nine aircraft carriers for a little
over a quarter of the 30-year plan. This is a significant
reduction from last year's plan, which had at least 10 carriers
for all but 1 year of the 30-year plan. Some of this erosion in
carrier levels undoubtedly relates to the proposal to cancel
the refueling complex overhaul of the USS Harry Truman, which I
am sure we will hear more about. We have already had some
discussions with you.
Last year, section 915 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 expanded the duties of
Secretary Geurts' position to include acquisition and
sustainment, including maintenance matters.
I am very encouraged that the Navy is not ignoring a vital
component of maintaining a ready and capable fleet: our
national shipyards. And, of course, Hawaii has one of them.
These facilities, including the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard on
Oahu, are essential for maintaining a ready and capable fleet.
I am encouraged that the Navy has gotten serious about these
critical assets that have been neglected, as far as I am
concerned, for far too long.
I look forward to hearing from you this morning about how
the fiscal year 2020 budget supports this plan.
I also look forward to working with the Navy to ensure that
the shipyard modernization program stays on track.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Perdue. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
Now we will hear from our witnesses. Secretary, I believe
you are up first.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES F. GEURTS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION;
ACCOMPANIED BY VICE ADMIRAL WILLIAM R. MERZ, USN, DEPUTY CHIEF
OF NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR WARFARE SYSTEMS; AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL
DAVID H. BERGER, USMC, COMMANDING GENERAL, MARINE CORPS COMBAT
DEVELOPMENT COMMAND AND DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR COMBAT
DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Chairman Perdue, Ranking Member
Hirono, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today to address the
Department of the Navy's fiscal year 2020 budget request.
Joining me today are Vice Admiral Bill Merz, Deputy Chief
of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems, and Lieutenant General
Dave Berger, Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and
Integration.
Sir, with your permission, I intend to provide a few brief
remarks for the three of us and enter our formal statement in
the record.
Senator Perdue. Yes, sir.
Secretary Geurts. I would like to start by thanking the
Subcommittee and all of Congress for passing the fiscal year
2019 budget on time. The on-time receipt of the full budget
allowed us to expedite the delivery of lethality and readiness
to our sailors and marines while achieving cost savings through
much more efficient contracting. It also helped stabilize the
industrial workforce and our supplier base, both of which are
critical to our success.
The 2019 budget allowed us to continue to build the navy
and the naval force the Nation needs. This year, we will
commission 12 ships compared to an average of five ships per
year over the last 20 years. By the end of the year, we will
have 296 ships in our battle force inventory. Not only are we
building more ships, but their quality and capability continues
to increase with each delivery.
We continue to improve the acquisition and contracting
strategies to maximize the output for every taxpayer dollar,
including saving more than $4 billion for the construction of
the third and fourth Ford-class carrier and saving over $700
million on our next set of destroyers.
Our fiscal year 2020 request continues our commitment to
build a 355-ship Navy, as well as the other capabilities the
Navy and the Marine Corps require to meet the National Defense
Strategy. Our request is the largest shipbuilding request in
over 20 years and funds 12 battle force ships in fiscal year
2020, reflecting the critical role the Navy and the Marine
Corps play in our National Defense Strategy. It funds 55 battle
force ships within the future year defense program and results
in a smooth and continuous ramp to achieving 355 ships in 2034,
a 20-year acceleration from last year's plan.
This year's shipbuilding plan continues to reinforce the
powerful combination of a strong and stable industrial base and
predictable funding, as well as provides our initial estimates
on the enduring cost of sustaining a larger Navy after 40 years
of progressively smaller navies.
Recognizing that effective and efficient sustainment of the
fleet is absolutely critical, we have also submitted the first-
ever 30-year long-range plan for the maintenance and
modernization of the fleet. This complements our 30-year
shipbuilding plan. It outlines the growing maintenance
requirements and the many initiatives the Navy is executing to
improve the on-time completion of maintenance activities. It
complements the many other actions the Navy and the Marine
Corps are taking to improve the readiness of the entire force.
Finally, the Department of the Navy continues to place a
priority on fielding new technologies and capabilities, those
needed to compete and win in the future. These include a wide
range of unmanned capabilities in the air, on the sea, and
below the surface, as well as new capabilities enabled by
directed energy, hypersonics, artificial intelligence, and
advanced sensor systems.
Thank you for the strong support this Subcommittee has
always provided 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 Secretary Geurts, Vice
Admiral Merz, and Lieutenant General Berger follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by Secretary James F. Geurts, Vice Admiral
William R. Merz and Lieutenant General David H. Berger
Chairman Perdue, Ranking Member Hirono and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to address the Department of Navy's (DON) shipbuilding programs.
A lot has happened since the Navy last appeared before this
Subcommittee, and we are excited to talk about the accomplishments of
the workforce, the systems, and the processes that form our Navy and
Marine Corps team.
First, thank you for the timely approval of the fiscal year 2019
Department of Defense budget. On-time receipt of fiscal year 2019
authorities and funding enabled the DON to expedite delivery of
lethality, readiness, and cost savings through our ability to negotiate
and award contracts earlier than planned. Such continued support by
this committee and the Congress will ensure that the DON can execute
our strategies with confidence, while providing the predictability to
our industry partners that is critical to our joint success. Based on
the stability afforded by a timely budget, our naval forces are on the
right vector and, looking forward, remain focused on accelerating to
scale in support of the National Defense Strategy.
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. As detailed in the
2017 National Security Strategy and 2018 National Defense Strategy, in
order to retain and expand our competitive advantage, it is imperative
that the Navy proactively works to meet these challenges--and does so
with a sense of urgency. The Navy and Marine Corps must remain ready at
any time to answer the call and compete on a global scale. It is
together as partners that the DON, industry, and this Congress can meet
our mission to provide the right balance of readiness, capability, and
capacity coupled with budget stability and predictability. The
Department is prepared to use all authorities and tools at our disposal
to ensure the Navy can sustain and improve our Service as required by
the National Defense Strategy.
the fiscal year 2020 president's budget request
As part of the Joint Force, the maritime dimension of the National
Defense Strategy is to increase American naval power by building the
Navy the Nation Needs and enabling our Marines to be lethal and
resilient across all domains. The Fiscal Year 2020 President's Budget
is effective in funding the increasing force needed to get to the 355
battle force ship requirement identified in the 2016 Force Structure
Assessment. This year's plan includes procurement of 55 battle force
ships within the Future Year Defense Program (FYDP) and rebalances
service life extensions to produce a steady ramp to the aggregate goal
approximately 20 years sooner than last year's plan. This steadier
profile provides a predictable forecast for supporting acquisition
programs and reform efforts in shipbuilding, maintenance, and personnel
management. The Navy program provides flexibility given the dynamic
threat environments captured in the 2017 National Security Strategy,
2018 National Defense Strategy, and further exemplified in the Chief of
Naval Operation's Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority 2.0. and
concepts such as the Marine Expeditionary Advance Base Operations
Concept. The Navy is responding to this dynamic competitive environment
by iterating our warfare analysis and will complete an updated Force
Structure Assessment by the end of 2019. This year's budget request is
designed to provide adaptability, while maintaining alignment in
acquiring the correct mix of ships and capabilities across all phases
of warfare. This approach is wholly reliant on stable and adequate
funding; any condition for which the Navy must execute its plan under
the Budget Control Act or a continuing resolution, poses risk in
erasing the momentum the Department has gained and would certainly be
detrimental to this balanced approach.
Today, the Navy has 289 ships in its battle force inventory
compared to the 282 that were sailing last year at this time, and by
the end of the fiscal year end the Navy will have 296 in the inventory
of the battle force. The 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan remains focused on
utilizing the three principles of shipbuilding: (1) steady, sustainable
growth; (2) aggressive growth based on opportunity; and (3) Service
Life Extensions. The plan puts the Navy on a path to 314 ships by
fiscal year 2024 and 355 ships by fiscal year 2034. The fiscal year
2020 President's Budget adds 12 more battle force ships with a total of
55 over the FYDP. The fiscal year 2020 request represents the largest
shipbuilding budget request in over 20 years and includes: three
Arleigh Burke destroyers; one guided-missile Frigate; three Virginia-
class SSNs; two T-AO refueling ships; and two T-ATS combined towing,
salvage, and rescue ships. The fiscal year 2020 request also accounts
for the CVN 81 recently contracted with CVN 80 as part of a two-carrier
buy. The plan promotes a stable and efficient industrial base that
encourages industry investment in capital improvements, capital
expansion, and a properly sized world-class workforce. By setting
conditions for an enduring industrial base as a top priority, working
together with Congress, the Navy is postured to aggressively respond to
more investment in any year.
In conjunction with the shipbuilding plan, the DON has developed a
new Long-Range Plan for the Maintenance and Modernization of Naval
Vessels. This plan complements the 30-year Shipbuilding Plan and
Shipyard Optimization Plan and establishes the framework to effectively
sustain our investments in today's fleet. It highlights the requisite
development initiatives that will facilitate a more adaptable and
reliable industrial base, while providing a foundation to support the
workload forecasts of our industry partners. Tools like this are
critical to the success of the Navy and will help us build a culture of
continuous evaluation of the industrial base capacity and capability;
enabling us to meet the requirements of well-laid plans and adapt to
any surge demand if the situation arose.
As part of our enduring commitment to accelerating delivery of
advanced capabilities to the warfighter in the most affordable manner,
the Department continues its pursuits of acquisition and business
process reforms. The DON is utilizing accelerated acquisition
authorities previously provided by Congress to rapidly prototype and
field innovative systems such as directed energy, missiles, and
unmanned vessels.
The Department remains committed to the pursuit of strategically
key capabilities and is continuously maturing our policies and
processes to enable this progress. Streamlining contracting activities
to optimize savings are seen in examples like the two-carrier buy
resulting in $4 billion in savings, the DDG Multiyear Procurement (MYP)
saving $700 million, and pricing options for the fiscal year 2019 LCS
that took advantage of the recently awarded fiscal year 2018 LCS for
over $60 million savings. Additionally, the Navy is currently
negotiating two other multiyear contracts--for Virginia-class
submarines and Standard Missile-6 (SM-6)--that will save multiple
millions more. The Navy will continue to use these, and other
acquisition tools, to speed delivery of lethal capability to the fleet
and at a reduced cost to the taxpayer.
As the DON accounts for a large percentage of the total domestic
shipbuilding market, the timing of ship procurements is critical to the
health and sustainment of the U.S. shipbuilding industry and has
economic impact industry-wide. The growing logistics requirement in the
context of Distributed Maritime Operations illuminates the challenges
to recapitalize the auxiliary fleet, a key enabler for sustaining
protracted medical, logistics, repair, command and control, and support
missions. Because of industry dynamics over time resulting in an
atrophied U.S. commercial industrial base, close partnering with
industry and Congress is needed to recover the U.S. commercial market
in order to competitively and affordably address the Navy's auxiliary
shipbuilding requirement. Coincident is the review of the level of
effort needed to distribute logistics into a contested maritime
environment following safe transfer by the logistics fleet--smaller,
faster, multi-mission transports likely resident within the future
battle force. The DON is committed to maintaining a healthy and robust
industrial base in order to meet the Nation's future needs. The 30-Year
Shipbuilding Plan encourages industrial efficiencies and recognizes the
criticality of protecting workforce skills in the U.S. shipbuilding
industrial base so that in the long-term it can remain cost effective
and meet the demands of the 355-ship Navy the Nation Needs.
After 40 years of a progressively smaller Navy, as we reverse the
trend and rapidly grow, the Department faces additional challenges due
to the increasing sustainment and logistics costs associated with
owning and operating a larger fleet. Consistent annual funding in the
shipbuilding account is foundational to sustaining predictable workload
and capacity. Equally important will be properly phasing the additional
funding necessary to operate and sustain the new ships as they are
delivered--the much larger fiscal burden over time. The Navy is
partnering with industry to define and establish workable requirements
and working with Congress to sustain predictable profiles. These
supportive relationships will continue to promote efficiency through
capital improvement and expansion, research and development, and
sustainment of a world-class workforce.
summary
It is imperative that the DON retain and expand our competitive
advantage, as described in the 2017 National Security Strategy and
National Defense Strategy. This budget recognizes the central role the
U.S. Navy plays in our National Defense Strategy, and includes the
largest shipbuilding dollar request in over 20 years. Continued
congressional support of the Department's plans and budgets will help
sustain a viable industrial base of naval construction and repair,
efficiently execute the National Defense Strategy, and ultimately
ensure our military's capability, capacity, and readiness can continue
to deliver superior naval power around the world, both today and
tomorrow.
Thank you for your continued support of the Navy and Marine Corps
and request your support of the fiscal year 2020 President's Budget.
Programmatic details regarding Navy and Marine Corps capabilities
are summarized in the following section.
department of the navy shipbuilding programs
submarines
Ballistic Missile Submarines, coupled with the Trident II D-5
Strategic Weapons System represent the most survivable leg of the
Nation's strategic arsenal and provide the Nation's most assured
nuclear response capability. Our nuclear deterrent must be modernized
to remain credible--delay is not an option. As such, the Columbia-class
program remains the Navy's number one acquisition priority program and
is on track to start construction in October 2020 and deliver to pace
the retirement of our current ballistic missile submarines, deploying
for its first patrol in fiscal year 2031. To better align focus and
resources and ensure successful delivery of this program to the Fleet,
DON has established Program Executive Office Columbia. Additional
resources above the Navy's topline will be required for the Navy to
fund serial production of the Columbia-class SSBN and maintain its
planned shipbuilding profile.
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget supports the funding
required to continue lead ship design and advance construction
activities with a plan to achieve a target of 83 percent design
completion at construction start, as compared to the 43 percent at
start of Virginia-class. In September 2018 DON awarded the Columbia
Lead Ship Advance Procurement / Advance Construction and Long Lead Time
Material contract to General Dynamics Electric Boat for $481 million.
General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries-
Newport News will procure component and commodity material based upon
construction start and supplier lead times in order to support lead
ship construction start in October 2020. The fiscal year 2020
President's Budget request also funds Continuous Production of Missile
Tubes. This effort supports procurement of Common Missile Compartment
material for U.K. Dreadnought-class submarines being executed under the
Polaris Sales Agreement. The award was coordinated with the Virginia-
class program to maximize efficiencies across the procurement of all
large diameter tubes.
The Navy, the shipbuilders and related suppliers recognize that
vigilance in the execution and oversight of the Virginia and Columbia
programs is critical. In fiscal year 2020 the Navy will continue to
utilize the $225 million provided in fiscal year 2019 for industrial
base support to align shipbuilder-procured material procurements with
Columbia-class funding with funds budgeted for Virginia-class and CVN
for common components and vendors. Additionally, the Navy is
implementing Continuous Production on selected shipyard-manufactured
items to reduce cost and schedule risk and help strengthen the
industrial base with a focus on critical vendors. Advance Construction
activities are set to start in June 2019 at General Dynamics Electric
Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries-Newport News to proactively
manage schedule margin and reduce controlling path risks for Columbia.
The Tactical Submarine Evolution Plan is the Navy's long-term
procurement strategy for submarines and payloads that paces
evolutionary submarine design plans and processes to maintain undersea
dominance. The Navy will be building on past success by awarding a
Block V MYP contract for 10 ships in fiscal year 2019, with options for
additional ships. Starting with the second ship in fiscal year 2019,
these submarines will introduce the Virginia Payload Module and all
Block V ships will have Acoustic Superiority. The fiscal year 2020
President's Budget supports the required funding to maintain a cadence
of two-per-year Virginia construction established in fiscal year 2011
with Block III. Additionally, the fiscal year 2020 President's Budget
includes a third Virginia, which will be an option ship on the
multiyear contract.
aircraft carriers
The aircraft carrier is the centerpiece of the Navy's Carrier
Strike Groups and central to Navy core missions of sea control and
maritime security. Nimitz and Ford-class carriers will be the premier
forward-deployed asset of choice for crisis response and early decisive
striking power in major combat operations for the next half-century.
Ford-class CVNs are the first major design investment in aircraft
carriers since the 1960s, providing a 33 percent increase in sortie
generation rate, 2.5 times electrical generating capacity and a
reduction in manning of approximately 600 manpower billets over Nimitz-
class with a $4 billion reduction in total ownership cost per ship
compared to Nimitz-class.
The Navy continues to see progress in the testing of new systems
aboard USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). As of this January, CVN 78 has
completed eight underway events and conducted over 700 catapult
launches and arrestments with Navy jets, including over a hundred
launches and recoveries in one day on two separate occasions. These
fixed wing operations were successfully supported by a number of
aviation systems, while others will require continued refinement as
they continue to support ongoing shipboard testing. CVN 78 Post
Shakedown Availability/Selected Restricted Availability is ongoing, and
work continues on Advanced Weapon Elevator (AWE) construction and
testing along with Advanced Arresting Gear reliability upgrades. The
second of eleven AWEs was turned over to the ship's crew on February
14, 2019, and the joint industry and Navy team remain dedicated to
achieving operational readiness of all elevators in the quickest
manner. The John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) is over 53 percent complete with
launch planned in late 2019 and delivery in the fall of 2024. When
compared to CVN 78, CVN 79 is performing at an 18 percent man-hour
stepdown. In January 2019 the Navy awarded the Detail Design and
Construction contract for Enterprise (CVN 80) and CVN 81 as a two-ship
buy realizing savings in excess of $4 billion when compared to the
Navy's single ship cost estimates.
The Nimitz-class Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH) is key to both
the maintenance and modernization of each carrier in support of the
second half of its service life. USS George Washington (CVN 73) will be
halfway through her mid-life recapitalization in this summer with re-
delivery to the Fleet planned for summer 2021. The RCOH is refueling
the ship's reactors, modernizing its capabilities, and repairing ship
systems and infrastructure. The USS John C Stennis (CVN 74) RCOH
advance planning began in August 2018 with execution contract award
planned for early 2021. The fiscal year 2020 budget eliminates the
planned refueling of USS Harry S Truman (CVN 75) which was scheduled to
begin in March 2024. This decision saves $3.4 billion in the FYDP, and
saves more than $1 billion per year from operations, maintenance,
manpower, and aircraft. These savings provide an opportunity for the
Navy to invest in advanced and distributed systems that will shape
future naval warfare to expand our competitive advantage.
large surface combatants
The Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) program remains one of the Navy's
most successful shipbuilding programs with 67 ships delivered to the
Fleet. The fiscal year 2018-2022 MYP maximizes affordability and
stabilizes the industrial base. These Flight III ships will provide
enhanced Integrated Air and Missile Defense with the AN/SPY 6(V)1 Air
and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) and AEGIS Baseline 10. AMDR meets the
growing ballistic missile threat by improving radar sensitivity and
enabling longer range detection of increasingly complex threats. The
program demonstrated design maturity through its successful completion
of all developmental testing. AMDR is in production and on schedule for
delivery with the first Flight III ships. The President's Budget funds
the procurement for two ships as part of the MYP contract, plus a third
Flight III DDG 51 that will be awarded as an option ship.
Complementing the DDG 51, the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class guided missile
destroyers are optimally crewed, multi-mission surface combatants
designed to provide long-range, offensive surface strike capabilities.
The DDG 1000 ship continues to complete activation and test of its
combat systems in its homeport of San Diego. DDG 1001 was commissioned
on January 26, 2019, and is starting the process of combat system
activation and test. Construction on DDG 1002 is over 83 percent
complete at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works.
In the fiscal year 2020 budget request, the Navy has budgeted $71
million of Research and Development funding for the Large Surface
Combatant (LSC). These funds will be used to conduct additional
conceptual refinement and preliminary design that will lead to a system
requirements review in fiscal year 2020. The LSC will be a new
acquisition program that will leverage the DDG 51 Flight III combat
system while identifying and evaluating the integration of non-
developmental mechanical and electrical systems into a new or modified
hull design, incorporating platform flexibility and growth
opportunities to meet future Fleet requirements. The Navy intends to
evaluate capability areas for integration into the initial LSC baseline
that will result in increased flexibility and adaptability features
allowing for more rapid and affordable upgrades over the ships' service
life.
The Navy will continue to partner with industry to develop and
refine requirements for the LSC over the next year. This joint effort
will result in a stable requirements baseline and a ship that will have
been designed for producibility as well as the flexibility noted above.
small surface combatants
The 2016 Force Structure Assessment revalidated the warfighting
requirement for a total of 52 rotationally-crewed small surface
combatants, including the Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) and the future,
more capable Guided Missile Frigate (FFG(X)). Since last year the DON
has worked with industry to ensure full understanding of the
requirements for FFG(X), mature design proposals, and seek areas to
reduce overall cost and risk. Our requirements for the class are
mature, and were approved by Joint Requirement Oversight Council on
February 11, 2019. The Navy released a draft Request for Proposal (RFP)
on March 1, 2019--ahead of schedule--and will release the FFG(X) RFP
for Detail Design and Construction in the fourth quarter of fiscal year
2019. Having multiple offerors compete will ensure competitive pricing
and enable the Navy to select the best value design.
The LCS program is funded for 35 ships, 17 of which have delivered.
Of these, four are dedicated test ships, eight are Surface Warfare
(SUW) ships, eight are Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) ships, and 15 are
Mine Countermeasure (MCM) ships. The Navy is beginning to retrofit an
Over the Horizon Weapon System (OTH WS) on all LCS for increased
lethality. The award in May 2018 of the Naval Strike Missile contract
for OTH WS brings a technologically mature weapons system and extends
the offensive capability of the ship.
The Navy achieved Initial Operating Capability (IOC) of the final
component of the SUW Mission Package (MP), the Surface to Surface
Missile module. The Navy worked with the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation to improve the test design, employ best practices, and make
data driven decisions. The team jointly delivered a fully compliant
test outcome, while simultaneously reducing the number of developmental
test and operational test raid events. As a result, the Department
reduced costs while completing operational tests of the SUW MP two
months early. The ASW Mission Package Pre-Production Test Article was
delivered in November 2018 and ASW MP conducted end-to-end testing at
the Navy's Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center in January
2019. All of the MCM Mission Package aviation systems have reached IOC
and are being delivered to the Fleet. The modular nature of the Mission
Packages enables the Navy to deliver these capabilities now, while
continuing to mature the remainder of the systems. Additionally, the
Navy continues to evaluate employment of the MCM Mission Package off of
Vessels of Opportunity.
amphibious ships
LHA 6 America-class ships are flexible, multi-mission platforms and
will replace the aging LHA 1 Tarawa-class ships and LHD 1 Wasp-class
ships. USS America (LHA 6) deployed as the centerpiece of America
Amphibious Readiness Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit, while USS Tripoli
(LHA 7) is expected to get underway for sea trials within the next few
months with delivery planned for later this year. Fabrication has begun
on 71 of 216 units that will combine to shape LHA 8 in support of
fiscal year 2024 delivery. LHA 8 will include a well deck to increase
operational flexibility and includes a reduced island structure that
increases flight deck space to enhance aviation capability. All LHAs
will be F-35B capable.
The San Antonio-class (LPD 17) provides the ability to embark,
transport, and land elements of a landing force by helicopters, tilt
rotor aircraft, landing craft, and amphibious vehicles. The future Fort
Lauderdale (LPD 28) is 44 percent complete and planned for delivery in
September 2021, while the future Richard M. McCool Jr (LPD 29) started
fabrication in July 2018. LPD 28 and LPD 29 leveraged many design
innovations and cost reduction initiatives, including the first install
of the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) on LPD 29, as the class
transitions to the second flight of high-level capabilities. The Navy
intends to place the first Flight II ship, LPD 30, on contract by
summer of 2019.
The future amphibious force structure and composition will be
evaluated as part of the larger ongoing Force Structure Assessment.
auxiliary ships, expeditionary, and other vessels
Support vessels such as the Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB), and the
Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF) provide additional flexibility to
the combatant commanders. ESBs are flexible platforms capable of
hosting multiple mission sets with airborne and surface assets. The
USNS Hershel ``Woody'' Williams (ESB 4) delivered in February 2018 and
ESB 5 is scheduled for delivery in November 2019. ESB 6 and ESB 7 are
scheduled for contract award in fiscal year 2019, with delivery in
fiscal year 2022 and fiscal year 2023, respectively. The Navy accepted
delivery of the 10th EPF this past November. EPF 11 and EPF 12 are
under construction with deliveries planned in fiscal year 2019 and
fiscal year 2020, respectively. The final two EPF's have an agreement
in place, and will award this spring with delivery planned in fiscal
year 2022.
The Combat Logistics Force (CLF) consists of T-AOE fast combat
support ships, T-AKE dry cargo and ammunition ships, and T-AO fleet
replenishment oilers. CLF ships fulfill the vital role of providing
underway replenishment of fuel, food, repair parts, ammunition and
equipment to forward-deployed ships and embarked aircraft, to enable
them to operate for extended periods of time at sea. The Kaiser-class
(T-AO 187) fleet replenishment oilers will be replaced with the John
Lewis-class fleet replenishment oilers, designated T-AO 205-class.
Construction of the first T-AO 205 started in September 2018 and
construction of the second ship will begin in July 2019. The fiscal
year 2020 budget request includes two T-AO 205 ships.
The Department will begin construction this summer of a combined
towing, salvage, and rescue (T-ATS) ship to replace the four T-ATF 166-
class fleet ocean tugs, which reach the end of their expected service
lives in 2022, and the four T-ARS 50-class salvage ships, which reach
the end of their expected service lives in 2025. Two T-ATS are included
in the fiscal year 2020 budget request.
While by law icebreaking is a Coast Guard mission, the Navy and
Coast Guard established an Integrated Program Office in 2016 to rebuild
the Nation's heavy icebreaking capability. The Navy is supporting the
Coast Guard's efforts to recapitalize the heavy polar icebreaker fleet
on an accelerated schedule. The Navy/Coast Guard team plans to award
the detail design and construction contract this Spring to support
delivery of the first Polar Security Cutter as early as 2023.
ready reserve forces (rrf)
The Navy has begun the first steps in executing its sealift
recapitalization plan called Sealift that the Nation Needs that was
coordinated with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S.
Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), and the Department of
Transportation's Maritime Administration. This three-phased approach
includes the Service Life Extensions of select Surge Sealift vessels,
acquiring used vessels, and a new construction, common-hulled
shipbuilding program. The Navy's long-term strategy recommends
assigning new construction common hull vessels to the Maritime
Prepositioning Force (MPF) as delivered, ensuring the Fleet has the
latest capabilities to support employment across the full range of
military operations. Existing MPF ships would rotate to surge,
preserving capability and maintaining the requisite square footage to
meet USTRANSCOM sealift capacity requirements.
sustainment, modernization and service life extensions
The fiscal year 2020 Long-Range Plan for the Maintenance and
Modernization of Naval Vessels forecasts all in-service maintenance
ship-class workloads required to sustain the fleet over the next 30
years as it grows to 355 battle force ships. The intent is to provide
stability and identify shortfalls within the public and private new
construction and ship repair industrial base. The four key enablers the
Navy is addressing to efficiently maintain and modernize the Navy's
growing fleet are: the industrial base capacity and capability,
shipyard level loading, workforce training, and facilities investments.
The fiscal realities facing the Navy make it imperative to maintain
our in-service ships to achieve their expected service lives and also
extend the service lives through modernization efforts. The fiscal year
2020 President's Budget includes funding for the modernization of four
destroyers to sustain combat effectiveness, ensure mission relevancy,
and achieve the full expected service lives of the AEGIS Fleet. The
Navy and industry are collaborating on innovative approaches to
conducting modernization of cruisers and dock landing ships.
Service life extensions can be targeted, physical changes to
specific hulls to gain a few more years, or a class-wide extension
based on engineering analysis. The Navy has evaluated the most
effective balance between costs and capability to be the class-wide
extension of the DDG 51 class to 45 years and targeted refueling of Los
Angeles-class attack submarines.
The Navy is implementing changes recommended from the Comprehensive
Review that followed the incidents on USS McCain and USS Fitzgerald,
including implementing common bridge designs and installing common
equipment across the fleet. At the same time, the Navy is procuring and
installing the Next Generation Surface Search Radar in as fast and
efficient a manner possible. New ship classes, like the FFG(X), will be
built from the ground up with this common capability.
unmanned vehicles
Unmanned systems continue to advance in capability and are
anticipated to be key enablers through all phases of warfare and in all
warfare domains. The Navy is using a Family-of-Systems strategy to
develop and employ unmanned surface and undersea capabilities that
augment and relieve stress on the manned force and increase the cost
imposed on our competitors. In fiscal year 2019 the Navy will commence
low rate production of a modular Mine Countermeasures Unmanned Surface
Vehicle (MCM USV) and issue an RFP for a medium unmanned surface
vehicle (MUSV) to provide distributed sensing capacity to the surface
force. The fiscal year 2020 budget initiates the Large USV (LUSV)
program to provide distributed lethality as a part of the Future
Surface Combatant Force. In the undersea domain, the Navy has commenced
fabrication of Orca Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (XLUUV) and
will soon complete the design of the Snakehead Large Displacement UUV
(LDUUV). In fiscal year 2020 the Navy will issue competitive RFPs for
initial production of Snakehead LDUUV and Razorback environmental
sensing UUVs, and production of Knifefish mine countermeasures UUV. In
support of these new capabilities, the Navy is also investing in
enabling technologies, such as artificial intelligence, machine
learning, energy, and payloads, as well as establishing the
interoperable standards and open architectures for ease of technology
transition. These technologies and standards are the foundation
necessary to ensure integration and transition to the fleet using a
disciplined approach.
The Navy has undertaken an aggressive approach through competitive
prototyping in collaboration with industry to accelerate these new
technologies utilizing the all the new authorities granted over the
past few years such as middle tier acquisitions and acquisition agility
legislation. This is affording the Navy the ability to prudently
prototype, experiment, and demonstrate new capabilities prior to
commencing with Programs of Record. Unmanned vessels are key elements
in the future naval force and the Navy fully intends to leverage the
progress to date to inform new concepts of operation, new means of
integrating unmanned and manned vessels, and new capabilities afforded
by these advances.
combat systems
The Department continues to field the most capable and lethal
surface and submarine combat systems in the world. The AEGIS Combat
System Baseline 9 has been fielded on cruisers and destroyers and
continues to deliver unprecedented offensive and defensive
capabilities, including offensive strike and ASW, and simultaneous air
and ballistic missile defense on destroyers and Air Defense Commander
capability on cruisers. AEGIS Baseline 10 will incorporate the AN/SPY
6(V) AMDR providing significant performance improvements over the AN/
SPY 1D(V) radar and expanding the sensor coverage and enhancing the
Navy's ability to perform the Integrated Air and Missile Defense
mission. The Navy is leveraging the investment in AMDR to produce the
EASR that will become the primary Air Search Radar for carriers,
amphibious ships and the guided missile frigate. The use of a common
design and support strategy will enable significant life cycle
efficiencies in maintenance support, training, and overall cost for the
Navy's primary surface ship radars.
The Department continues to aggressively pursue affordable systems
that are employable from multiple platforms. Under the Surface
Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP), the Navy is replacing
aging analog electronic warfare systems first fielded in the early
1970's with new, digital systems. SEWIP Block 1 and 2 systems are in
Full Rate Production and continue to be installed across the fleet. The
SEWIP Block 3 program completed its Milestone C in December 2018 and
has begun Low-Rate Initial production of this new capability. The Navy
continues to deliver enhanced surface Undersea Warfare capability
through the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 aboard cruisers, destroyers, and LCS
Mission Packages, and the Ship Self-Defense System provides ships with
greater capability to defend against anti-ship cruise missile attack
and supports a myriad of mission areas on carrier and amphibious ships.
The Navy continued to equip its submarines with the ever-evolving
undersea combat system utilizing bi-annual hardware Technology
Insertions on even years and software Advanced Processing Builds on odd
years. This process leverages commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)
technologies via the Acoustic Rapid COTS Insertion (A-RCI) program
mitigates COTS obsolescence while providing more capability improvement
at lower costs.
missile programs
SM-6 missiles provide theater and high value target area defense
for the Fleet, and with Integrated Fire Control, has more than doubled
its range in the counter-air mission. SM-6 Block I declared Full
Operational Capability in December 2017 and the Navy plans to award a
five-year MYP contract for up to 625 SM-6 missiles this summer. The
fiscal year 2020 President's budget also includes funding for the
upgraded SM-2 Block IIIC and the SM-6 Block IB missiles, both are rapid
prototyping pathway middle tier acquisition projects. The SM-6 Block IB
seeks to provide an extended range capability in response to Joint,
Fleet and Navy Urgent Operational Needs.
The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) provides another layer to
the Navy's defended battle-space. ESSM Block 2 is on track to achieve
IOC for AEGIS platforms in fiscal year 2020 and Ship Self-Defense
System platforms in the 2022-2023 timeframe.
The inner layer of the Fleet's layered defense is the Rolling
Airframe Missile (RAM) designed to pace the evolving anti-ship cruise
missile threat and improve performance against complex engagement
scenarios. The RAM Block 2 successfully achieved a Full Rate Production
decision in November 2018.
expeditionary warfare
The Navy and Marine Corps team provides the combatant commanders
and our Nation the options needed to engage with our partners, to deter
our adversaries and, when needed, to fight and win. That capability is
underpinned by our disciplined, well-trained and motivated sailors and
marines equipped with amphibious ships, aircraft and weapons in our
arsenal. The Marine Corps execute their mission under the principle of
Expeditionary Warfare: to operate forward, to exploit the seas as
maneuver space as a base for global power projection, and to be ready
to maneuver to shore when so ordered. Our ability to deploy from the
sea in austere environments at a time and place of our choosing gives
us significant tactical, operational and strategic advantages over
potential adversaries. That ability is provided through the combination
of connectors that move forces from the sea base to the objective sites
and sustain the organic capability of those forces to maneuver and
fight on the objective.
Tactically, the ability to project multiple elements of a landing
force ashore via multiple entry points using both vertical and surface
means gives us greater flexibility in maneuvering into positions of
advantage over an adversary.
connectors
Marine Corps operations require the movement of personnel,
equipment and supplies, from the sea base to the objective and it is
connectors that are critical enablers for any naval force by closing
the last ``tactical mile'' with the adversary. Modern aerial connectors
are the vertical component, such as the MV-22 Osprey and CH-53K King
Stallion, extend operational reach and lift capacity, revolutionizing
our ability to operate from the sea, austere locations, and previously
damaged airfields within a contested environment. The Navy and Marine
Corps also require a surface connector and is in the process of
modernizing the connector fleet by replacing the aging Landing Craft
Air Cushion (LCAC) and the 50-year-old fleet of Landing Craft Utility
(LCU). This system of surface and aerial connectors will enable the
Joint Force to establish a web of sensor, strike, decoy, and
sustainment locations based on land and sea that complicates the
strategic and operational decision-making of our most advanced rivals
by defeating any Anti-Access/Area Denial operations. Continued funding
of the modernization, maintenance, and service life extension programs
of our existing fleet of connectors is critical to enabling our success
in future security environments.
The Ship to Shore Connector program will replace aging LCACs, which
have undergone a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) and a Post-SLEP
Extension program. Additionally, the fiscal year 2020 President's
Budget includes the procurement of 20 LCU 1700-class craft across the
FYDP, which will recapitalize, in part, the aging LCU 1610-class. These
platforms are essential in connecting the combat power and logistics
sustainment of the sea bases to the expeditionary forces operating at
the tip of the spear.
Senator Perdue. Thank you, sir.
We will now start the round of questioning. We will do 5
minutes in the first round, and then time allowing, we will go
into potentially a second round. I will start off and then we
will move to Senator Hirono.
Secretary Geurts, following up on my opening statement
today--and you referred to it in yours as well--regarding
budget stability, in a private conversation you have said this
is a key success factor to our Navy and Marines out there
today. The Secretary of the Navy also stated in testimony that
a return to sequestration in fiscal year 2020 could mean a $26
billion cut to the Department of the Navy, and he provided a
graphic. I think at each of our places this graphic is here.
Thank you for that. Showing the impact of what that would mean
in the procuring of six new ships and in the operation of our
Navy and Marine Corps.
Would you talk about the impact of that potential Budget
Control Act, which is the law of the land? If that were to
really take place, what would that do to our procurement plan?
Also as an adjunct, I would like each of you, if you have a
comment, to talk about how CRs impact your area of
responsibility. We have had 2 years now where we have avoided
them. We are halfway through this fiscal year and we are facing
the gun barrel right now of another potential for a CR
September 30th of this year. I would like you to tell this
Subcommittee how dangerous that could be for your area of
operations.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I will start out and then ask
my two compatriots here to give their perspective.
From the Budget Control Act, it would be devastating. We
have really done well by having smooth, efficient production
lines well planned out. All the work we have done over the last
couple years would be completely devastated if we went into
Budget Control Act, one, because of the magnitude of the act,
and then it is further compounded because we would have to
apply that, under normal circumstances, to each line item,
which means each individual ship, since they are line-item
appropriated. The dollar amount would be devastating. The
impact would actually impact every ship because we could not
actually even balance the dollars as we go forward.
So as we look at that from a shipbuilding perspective, all
we have done to get out of the boom and bust and have a
repeatable, efficient, effective program plan would all be kind
of thrown in there. As we have seen, it has taken us decades to
recover from gaps we had in submarine construction from Katrina
impacts. You would essentially undo everything we have done
over the last couple years to rebuild the Navy in an efficient
manner.
Senator Perdue. Is it safe to say that future acquisition
costs would go up?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, and it is not just acquisition. It
will also be on the readiness and the maintenance.
On the CR impact, if I look over the last 10 years, by my
accounting the average is we have been about a third of the
year in a CR as an average over the last 10 years. What does
that draw? That draws huge uncertainty.
I mean, I can talk about it at the program level. I would
ask General Berger and Admiral Merz to talk about it kind of at
the deckplate level.
But with that uncertainty, then I have to create multiple
versions of contracts. Everything we are doing on ship
maintenance to move planning early gets thrown out because now
you have to continually replan. We did 258,000 contracts last
year in the Department of Navy, $110 billion worth of work.
They will now have to do that once, twice, three times.
Then in particular with the 2020 budget where we have got
increases in ship counts, those will all have to be rolled
back. Increases in personnel to man the ships we are fielding--
those will all be impacted. New starts like our new frigate--
all of that would have to go on hiatus.
The real issue is uncertainty. If you knew it was going to
be for 82 days, you could plan around that. You do not know
when the CR is going to end, so you are kind of in an endless
replan.
I would ask my two teammates here to provide their input.
Senator Perdue. Yes. We have about a minute left. We will
come back to this later if we need more time, but I would like
to hear from these two commanders as well.
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I will speak
quickly here.
I think Secretary Geurts covered it. But in the simplest
terms, it impedes virtually every area of our operation, and it
is a crushing impact on morale for the forward-deployed force.
Under your oversight, we applied industry best practices
and we have tried to improve our efficiency. We found the
impacts even worse than we thought. Unfortunately, we have real
data here over 10 years of CRs. This is not anecdotal. Through
the renegotiation of about 10,000 contracts, a 6-month CR in
2018 costs us $5.8 billion in buying power. In real terms, that
is the equivalent of about three destroyers that we were unable
to execute.
There is a GAO report in March that reinforces our
assessment. The impacts I think as Secretary Geurts covered,
for fiscal year 2020, but a loss of $2 billion of reprogramming
or shifting funding to the Military Personnel (MILPERS)
accounts, $4 billion in operations and maintenance, nearly
another $6 billion in shipbuilding that we will be unable to
execute.
So last year, we have seen a return to good behavior and
the high productivity. We got away from the bad short-term
behavior, what we call survival tactics. We just cannot go back
if we expect to win.
Senator Perdue. General Berger?
Lieutenant General Berger. Sir, it is an
oversimplification, but I think at the title X level where we
work, we are going to trade modernization to pay for readiness
because that is what we must do. All the progress that they
noted that we have all seen with on-time budgets goes backwards
because we will absolutely make sure the next units to deploy
are ready to go, as we have in the past.
At the unit level where I came from in August, just 30
seconds on that where Senator Hirono and I first met. Those
commanders out there plan their whole training and education
plan, their deployments, their exercises based on the budget
they think they are going to get. It is not even flow over 12
months. If they do not know, if they go into sequestration or a
CR, that unpredictability the Secretary mentioned at their
level--they do not know whether they are going to Thailand or
the Philippines or Australia or whether they can afford that.
They have to write the contracts. They have to lay in the
airlift a couple months in advance. We lost a lot of money when
we were in a CR buying airplanes, scheduling maintenance,
laying contracts in for things that did not happen.
Senator Perdue. To put it bluntly Russia and China do not
face this sort of financial constraint with regard to their
planning. Is that correct?
Lieutenant General Berger. I am not qualified to answer
that. I just know the impact it has on us. It is not good.
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
Senator Hirono?
Senator Hirono. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the fact that you continue to focus on the
damage done by CRs, and in fact, some of you probably know that
the Chairman and I were part of a joint House-Senate special
committee to address the budget and appropriations issues, and
both of us shared the concern about continuing to resort the
CRs. But we were not able to come to a resolution or
appropriate recommendations, which just goes to show how
intractable this problem is. But certainly putting a large part
of the base budget into OCO funds is not the answer either.
I want to get to the public shipyard modernization issue,
Secretary Geurts, because that is something that, as you know,
I have been really focused on.
I do applaud the Navy for establishing a plan for
modernizing the public shipyards because up to now, we have
been in, pretty much, fits and starts without a comprehensive
plan.
Does the Navy's fiscal year 2020 budget fully fund the
shipyard modernization plan? Because the fiscal year CNO's
unfunded priority list is silent on shipyard modernization. I
want to know whether you are fully funded to do what you----
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. It is fully funded. We have
put a lot of resources in it. Just to foot stomp your issue,
the average age of our dry docks across all of our yards is 62
years old. That is just one element of where we need to
modernize the shipyard, both recapitalize that, as well as
recapitalize equipment and facilities.
Senator Hirono. Yes. We know that there are major needs for
modernization. So I just want to be assured that you actually
have money to proceed with that.
Are you considering any changes to the plan to accelerate
specific capability expansion or specific productivity
enhancements in view of the ship maintenance problems that you
are facing?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. We are working to look at
that. The shipyard plan kind of has three major lines of
activity. One is recapitalizing dry docks. The second is
productivity improvements by re-laying out the yard. We believe
that will get us 65 percent more efficiency just in terms of
moving workers closer to the work. The third is recapitalizing
tools and machinery in the shipyards themselves. All three of
those are underway.
Additionally, we have started master planning, and so at
Pearl Harbor in particular is our first where we have hired a
master planner to help work through the details. We are going
to do that in all four of the yards to work through all the
detailed planning of how exactly to lay out the yard to get us
to the efficiency we want.
My end goal is as the number of ships goes up, we get the
efficiency in the public yards so that we stabilize the
workforce there, we can deliver the increased demand through
efficiencies in the yard versus having to hire additional folks
to meet that growing demand in the out-years.
Senator Hirono. Well, you also face the challenge of having
workers who are retiring in large numbers, and you have a lot
of people in the shipyards who are doing the necessary work
with fewer than 5 years of experience. So there is that. You
can move the people closer to where the work is to enhance the
efficiencies, but you have the overall concern about where the
workers are coming from.
Secretary Geurts. Absolutely.
Senator Hirono. What are you doing on that----
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. We have accelerated our
hiring, and so we are at the level of workforce, 36,700, we
want in all the four public yards. We have achieved that a year
early. As you indicate, about 57 percent of those right now
have less than 5 years experience. We are employing a whole
host of technologies, apprentice programs, and they are taking
best practices from around the world to get that workforce
trained, capable, and stable so that as we improve the
facilities, we will leverage the foundation of a strong
workforce that we have put in place.
Senator Hirono. I have been to our apprenticeship programs,
and I am seeing more women getting into those programs. Is that
a potential source of really good workers? Are you doing any
kind of particular outreach to women to work in our shipyards?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. I will have a follow-up to
give you kind of a more specific answer to that. I would say in
the time here, we are looking for the best workers and fully
leverage diversity wherever they come from. It is a great
opportunity to help the Nation out. They are stable, really
important jobs for us, and we are looking to actively recruit
and maintain that workforce.
Senator Hirono. I look forward to talking with you more
about that.
[The information referred to follows:]
Secretary Geurts. The public shipyards engage in a number
of efforts to attract women candidates to the workforce. These
efforts include partnering with professional organizations
tailored toward women such as the National Association of Women
in Construction, Society of Women Engineers, Women in
Technology, and other local organizations (e.g. Patsy Mink
Center for Business and Leadership) to reach as many women as
possible. In an effort to boost the number of women applicants,
female shipyard workers, including female apprentice program
graduates, are encouraged to represent the shipyards and lead
recruiting efforts at local job fairs and other outreach
events. At Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard (PHNSY) specifically,
the shipyard has stood up a Barrier Analysis Team to analyze
triggers and identify barriers to the employment of females in
non-traditional occupations and to the advancement of women in
high grades and leadership positions. As well, PHNSY is working
to improve access for women in all areas of the base, including
its Nursing Mothers Program by updating its workplace support
policy and adding additional lactation locations.
Moving on, for either you, Mr. Secretary, or Admiral Merz,
the Navy is requesting funds for three Virginia-class boats--I
know my time is almost up, but could I finish my question--in
fiscal year 2020 instead of the two planned for fiscal year
2020 at this time last year. The Navy budget justification
material says that since the normal advance procurement funds
were not budgeted before now, the third boat in the fiscal year
2020 request will not begin construction until fiscal year
2023.
I would also note that last year, the Navy's 30-year
shipbuilding plan through 2048 did not ramp up production of
three Virginia-class boats at all. This year, the Navy's 30-
year shipbuilding plan includes the third boat in fiscal year
2020 but does not include a third boat in any other year in the
30-year plan. It is a little bit mystifying to me.
I can understand that you would request advance procurement
for an additional attack submarine in fiscal year 2020, but why
would you ask for full funding for a boat that cannot be built
in fiscal year 2020?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. I will start out, and if
Admiral Merz wants to jump in or we can come back around to it.
As we discussed last year in the committee, our biggest
shortfall in your opening statement as well noted is in attack
submarines. That situation will get worse before it gets
better. We are looking for any opportunity to accelerate that
versus the other fleets we had, and while normally we would
have just done the advance procurement, since this is outside
of the block buy and because of the criticality of adding the
submarines and trying to get that left of the Columbia
production ramp-up, we chose to fully fund that in 2020 when we
made the hard decision to fully fund that in 2020 versus over a
couple of years.
Senator Hirono. Okay. I may have further questions. But
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Perdue. Senator Hawley?
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, each of you, for being here today.
Let me start with the 355 ship target, which I understand
is a result of the force structure assessment in 2016. Is that
correct, Mr. Secretary? Admiral, I will direct it to you.
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir, it is.
Senator Hawley. Now, I understand, based on testimony last
year, that the Navy is currently looking again at the force
structure assessment and updating that, Admiral. Is that
correct?
Vice Admiral Merz. We are and that will be completed by the
end of the year.
Senator Hawley. Completed by the end of this year.
I wonder if you can give us a preview. I mean, a lot has
changed since the last force structure assessment was finished.
I am thinking of, in particular, the National Defense Strategy,
which represents a significant shift, obviously strategically
and otherwise. Can you give us some thinking on how the NDS may
impact the force structure assessment update and where you are
on that?
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. I have not had a preview of
the force structure assessment, but I can certainly comment on
some of the complex variables we are inserting into the ongoing
assessment.
We typically do a force structure assessment every 2 to 3
years. The services are about 2 to 3 budget cycles. It is
driven by a significant change in threat, a change in guidance
as the National Defense Strategy, which actually covers both.
Then we work it through with the combatant commanders, the
Operating Plan (OPLAN) analysis, the campaign analysis. It is
typically founded on the capabilities we have on how we would
fight with the projection into the future. It does not
typically identify new capabilities we need, best employment of
what we have or what we are projected to have.
Some of the things we have entered into a churn of this
force structure assessment is the shift--I will say shift back
to distributed maritime operations, which is very reflective of
a peer or near-peer type of competition we might face. Along
with that came a recognition that we will likely have to change
force mix, not necessarily types of ships, but the numbers on
either side; a strong look at logistics on how we would support
a distributed maritime operation. We just finished the sealift
report on 18 of March, and that showed that the sealift
requirement is about correct, but how we distribute that into a
contested environment is under review and that will be part of
the assessment.
All that has created quite a few moving parts for this
force structure assessment. We were asked recently do we expect
the number to go up or down. I certainly do not expect it to go
any lower. I would not be surprised if it goes up on several
categories.
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much.
Let me ask you about modernization. China, obviously, a
major focus, the major focus perhaps, of the NDS. We know that
China is in a rapid buildup of sea power. It can exceed 400
ships by some estimates soon. The statistic that is perhaps
more alarming to me, however, is the statistic that at least as
of 2017, 70 percent of China's navy was considered modern,
outfitted with the latest technology, including AI.
Can you give us some visibility, Admiral, into steps that
the Navy is taking to make sure that our fleet is not only
large, of sufficient size, but also that we are, indeed,
incorporating the latest technologies, including AI and others,
to make sure that we are on equal footing or better than our
Chinese counterparts?
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. Not surprising, it will be
somewhat of a similar answer.
On the front end of our assessment are the OPLAN analyses
by the combatant commanders who keep a very close eye on the
threat. I will tell you we are very impressed with China's
commitment to modernization, their commitment to maintenance.
Maybe some insight to the Chairman's question on them, do they
face the same type of budget constraints? We do not know but we
do know they follow our models and in some cases are executing
better than we are. This is part of our recovery and our
recommitment.
Artificial intelligence, machine learning, this all goes
into how we would employ the force, and it will have an impact
on the type of force that we buy.
Some of these vectors are a little bit hard to track now. A
lot of this technology is very new. But along with the last
force structure assessment, the defense committees also
directed us to do an additional assessment. Every single one of
them has identified the new technologies we have to pursue,
open the aperture, more distributed lethality, cost-imposing,
attritable, which includes machine learning, artificial
intelligence.
All these factors are coming together for a reevaluation of
how this force mix might look.
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Go ahead, Mr. Geurts.
Secretary Geurts. If I could just add in we are absolutely,
I would say, on the acquisition technology side really focused
on how do we stream new capabilities into both our existing
fleet and future fleet much more quickly. There are some really
exciting stuff on architecture, and whatnot. Perhaps I can give
you an update on that in a little more detail because we are
really--I would say the Navy is on the front end of bringing
new capabilities into ships much more quickly, and I can
probably give you some examples of that.
Senator Hawley. I would appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information referred to follows:]
Secretary Geurts. Overall, the Navy has taken an
evolutionary approach to introducing new capabilities to the
fleet. Examples include: AEGIS Virtual Twin (VTwin)--Developed
in under 14 months, the AEGIS VTwin uses cutting edge
technology to run the AEGIS Weapon System code in a fraction of
the original hardware space. In March 2019, the system
successfully detected, tracked, and intercepted a cruise
missile target off the coast of Virginia. This first-ever event
proves that a virtualized version of the Navy's premier weapon
system matches the performance of legacy hardware while
enabling the Navy to rapidly deliver software updates and new
capabilities. Navy will transition the AEGIS VTwin into the
AEGIS Virtual Combat Management System, field in additional
Destroyers, and shrink the timeline to field warfighting power.
Using the AEGIS VTwin we successfully intercepted a live at sea
aerial target on March 25 from the USS Thomas Hunder (DDG 116).
This was done after an unsuccessful intercept the previous day
as a result of a software configuration error. After analysis
quickly determined the root cause, a fix was developed,
verified, approved, and installed back in the AEGIS VTwin
aboard the USS Thomas Hunder (DDG 116) the next morning,
allowing for the successful target engagement. This sequence of
events demonstrated how virtualization allows us to quickly
analyze, fix, and deliver new capability to the Fleet. Unmanned
Maritime Autonomy Architectures (UMAA)--UMAA standardizes the
payload and sensor autonomy interfaces allowing commonality and
re-use. The objective of this initiative is to reduce cost for
subsequent acquisition programs while accelerating autonomous
advancements to the fleet. The UMAA is being developed in
fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020 with broad industry
participation which leverages prior standards work. These
standard interfaces do not replace autonomy solutions, but
seeks to enable re-use of autonomy development across all
unmanned systems. Solid-State Laser Technology Maturation (SSL-
TM) Demonstration--The Navy has identified laser weapons as an
urgent capability need and is moving rapidly to deploy advanced
laser capabilities to the fleet. Under the SSL-TM research
program, the Office of Naval Research will be executing an at-
sea demonstration on USS Portland (LPD 27). This 150kW laser
can be used in defense of small boats and drones and has
counter-C4ISR capabilities as well. Ships--Ships are produced
with Space Weight and Power margins to accommodate future
capabilities. Some of our most successful programs are making
evolutionary transitions to provide improved capability. The
Navy has developed three primary capability evolution plans
(Surface, Tactical Submarine, Amphibious Warfare) outlining
capability improvement areas to guide the Navy and industry in
managing the timing of block improvements. Some examples of
recent and ongoing transitions are DDG 51 Flight III, Virginia
Block V, LPD Flight II, LHA Flight I and FFG(X).
Senator Perdue. Senator King?
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
By virtue of my service on several other committees, I just
want to share something that I think is a rising problem that I
think could be very important, and that is cyber attacks
through subs of major contractors. We are seeing that in the
utility field. We are seeing it also in the military. I hope it
is something you can really have some urgency on. You can have
a five-person engineering head hunting firm that gets into the
system of their general contractor and thereby can steal
intellectual property. I think it is something we are now
seeing more of, and I hope you can put the fear of God into
some of these people and not just rely on the big guys having
good security but the subs that have access into their system.
That is just a point I wanted to mention.
I am a little worried about the timing of the Columbia-
class. Tell me about how that is coming. I understand it is
getting tighter. There have been some problems and the schedule
is shrinking.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Columbia's schedule has not
changed. As you know, we were fairly proactive in looking at
critical technologies, demonstrating and prototyping those to
the left of when we would traditionally do it in a program,
learning some of the lessons of some of our other lead ships
where we had technical challenges that drove delivery of that.
But the area that has probably gotten the most kind of
visibility and has actually showed us we have work to do is on
the missile tubes, large, complex welds, finding the quality,
understanding how we inspect those for quality. We had some of
those issues pop up last year. That has eroded some of the
margin but has not impacted the schedule.
Senator King. You are still within the----
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. We still have an 11 months'
margin to the need date for those. We are going to continue our
prototyping activities to beat down any of the areas where we
see risk in terms of construction. In terms of the program
overall, they are close on their design curves and maturity. We
are going to have a higher design drawing completion on that
ship than any submarine we have ever produced before.
Everything we are trying to do is to maintain margin, beat
out the risk as early as we can, and then position that program
for success because, as you know, we do not have a lot of
schedule margin on the back end of that program to get it into
the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) fleet to----
Senator King. Because there is a potential gap on the other
end with the retirement of the Ohios.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. We are tight. There is not a
gap yet, but we do not have a lot of----
Senator King. Potential gap.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. We do not have a lot of margin
on the back end. Columbia is our number one program. We are
doing everything we know how to continue to drive risk out and
deliver that on schedule.
Senator King. Good. Thank you.
Admiral, how are we doing with the integration with the
Flight III DDGs coming in? Is that going smoothly? Are we on
schedule? Does it look like it is going to be a smooth
transition?
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. We are on schedule. The first
one delivers in fiscal year 2023. The last hurdle really for
the phased integration of the capability we need was the final
test on the radar, and that was just recently completed and the
radar did fine.
Senator King. So that is ready.
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir.
Senator King. Maintenance plan. You talked about
maintenance. I think I heard you say, at least implicitly, more
aggressive work on maintenance, better scheduling, shorter
periods because if we can do a better job on maintenance, we
have more ships at sea. Give me a little more detail on what
your plans are on maintenance.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I would say my largest focus
area over the last 6 months has been on the maintenance side.
We have some issues in some of the new construction. We are not
delivering yet to the degree I would want to the fleet in
maintenance. My end goal is ships come in on time, ships go out
on time.
Senator King. Do you have data on sea readiness per ship?
It would be nice to know. Are they ready to be at sea? Are they
at 82 percent or 62 percent or 90 percent?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. We can pull all that data for
you.
Senator King. For the record, I would like to see it.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Where I am focused on--we have
talked some on the public yard side of things. I am also really
focused on the private yard maintenance where we do most of our
non-nuclear, in fact, all of our non-nuclear, surface
maintenance and doing a couple different things there. We are
really taking a hard look, putting commercial best practices on
inspections the government does. We have reduced those on our
availabilities by 30 percent. My target is 50 percent. So we
can operate as efficiently as we can in the private yards.
[The information referred to follows:]
Secretary Geurts. Senator, The Navy's readiness for sea
plan, or force generation model, as we call it, is the Optimal
Fleet Response Plan (OFRP). Under that plan ships are generally
ready for sea when they are not in maintenance. But, they are
not ready to deploy, prepared for high end conflict, until they
have completed their training and certification. Under the OFRP
ships should be in the highest levels of readiness i.e. ready
for deployment, or in sustainment, slightly less than 50
percent of the time. The specific numbers of ships in these
readiness categories are classified, and will be provided to
the Committee under separate cover.
Senator King. Because that equals more ships.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. We got to get them out on time
because if we do not get them out on time, that just ripples
all the way through the force.
The second piece is relooking at our contract strategy. We
tended to award ships one at a time with not a lot of planning
window, which made it really tough on industry to operate
efficiently. Right now, we are moving our award dates 90 days
before the availability. My goal is to get those to 180 days.
Then the third is reduce--we were doing a lot of higher
headquarters contract changes versus allowing folks to fix
things on the waterfront. We have already put those in so that
changes under $25,000, negotiate on the spot. That is also
driving a lot of efficiency.
Senator King. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Perdue. Senator Ernst?
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Gentlemen, thank you so much for being here today.
Senator Hawley, thank you for bringing up AI and those
capabilities because I want to dive in a little bit more there.
Earlier this month, I held a subcommittee hearing through
Emerging Threats and Capabilities, and we did talk about AI. We
have the development fielding of AI systems in our own
formations, but we are also keeping an eye on what Russia and
China is developing. At what point do you assess that
artificial intelligence will be making a critical difference in
the way Russia and China deploy their forces? Do you see that
as an imminent action or is it further down the line?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. My sense is it is on a
continuum. I do not think it will be, you know, today this,
tomorrow that. I think the way the Department of Navy--and
again, both my compatriots join in. AI can apply to large
things and small things. Using artificial intelligence on
maintenance, how do we do smarter maintenance, how to increase
the speed we can train, as well as some of the big kind of data
analytics decision-making tools. I think all of those are in
varying states of maturity. Some of it is ready to go right
now. We are looking to accelerate that into the force now. Some
of the larger will take time to perfect. That is kind of my
sense of it right now.
Senator Ernst. Would you say that we are on an even playing
field with some of our adversaries and where they are with AI?
Secretary Geurts. I would say we are ahead, but I would say
that is--we have got some sockers that are catching up to us if
we do not continue to focus on it. The Department of the Navy,
as well as the Department overall, is really focusing on it so
we do not lose our competitive advantage here.
Senator Ernst. Are there other recommendations? You
mentioned maintenance, and that is always a great way to use AI
through any of our branches of service. Are there things
specific to our naval forces that you think would benefit by
using AI?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. Again, I will maybe ask two
folks to jump in here.
I think training is another one, how to speed up training
and get really kind of personalized training. As we said, we
have a large workforce on the shipyard we are trying to train.
We have very complex systems we are putting in the field with a
growing junior force. Understanding how to fully leverage that
I think will be critical.
I would say at the higher levels how we do decision-making.
But maybe, Admiral Merz, do you want to jump in?
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, ma'am. I appreciate the question.
This is a high interest item for the Navy. I would be happy to
get with you in a classified setting on the comparative
capabilities between us and at least the pacing adversaries.
But where I think this is an enabler not just for fighting
but for peacetime operations, situational awareness, how we
manage the force, where we place the force. We are still
considered the largest, most capable navy in the world, but
when you disperse us over the globe in any one particular area,
we are likely not the largest, and depending on how much time
we had to respond. We see this as a critical enabler for both
what we will call man in the loop, man on the loop, or just
machine-to-machine discussions, and we are pursuing all that.
As a matter of fact, it is a very rich area where we are
partnering with industry. We were hoping we could just adopt a
solution, and we are discovering that industry is struggling
with this like we are, and we have found a lot of middle
ground. We can work together.
Senator Ernst. I do appreciate that. I just think there is
a lot more that we can do with AI not only administrative
tasks, maintenance tasks, but also as AI applies to autonomous
vehicles and so forth. You know, we may not be quite there yet,
but at some point, we will start to see more autonomous
vehicles out there, autonomous boats perhaps. You are very
personnel heavy.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. In this year's budget, we
have over $400 million in 2020 and over $3 billion in the FYDP
on autonomous ships. That was going to be my kind of final
comeback. AI and machine learning--that combination to get the
capability we want out of those autonomous ships is absolutely
critical, and we are already applying to the autonomous
vehicles we have, another area that is very rich.
Senator Ernst. Okay, very good.
Well, my time is about to expire. Gentlemen, thank you.
Admiral, I may take you up on that offer. We can do a deep
dive. Thank you.
Senator Perdue. Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to the witnesses. Good to be back with you. Thanks
for the good work that you are all doing.
I want to talk about the Harry S. Truman. This is the first
Seapower Subcommittee we have had since the news came out that
in the President's budget request there is a suggestion that
the Truman not be refueled at its midpoint.
The committee hears a lot both in open and classified about
the continuing need for the aircraft carrier platform in terms
of the capacity that it provides, but also in terms of the
flexibility. It can be here; it can be there as problems crop
up in different parts of the world.
The military has recently made a commitment to do a two-
carrier buy. Those new carriers are important. But I think a
lot of us were puzzled about a suggestion that you would
squander an asset at its midpoint when it might have another 25
to 30 years of active life post refueling. This is really the
first opportunity we have had to kind of ask what is the
thinking behind that. I know there is an ongoing study about
how to get to 355 and what the mixture is. But if you could
talk about the thinking behind the recommendation, that would
be helpful.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I will start out and then ask
Admiral Merz to jump in from his perspective as the warfighter.
First I would say is we are all in on the Ford-class
carrier. That is why we signed a two carrier deal. We see that,
as the Acting Secretary said yesterday, we need carriers now.
We need them in the future. This is not a survivability issue
or the Navy walking away from carriers by any regard.
But we are looking at how are we going to be competitive in
the future and what is the force mix that gives us the most
competitive advantage in the conflicts we see going forward.
That necessitated some bold moves and some tradeoffs, quite
frankly.
What the Department looked at is getting the Fords, getting
that is our carrier of the future. That allows us to put the
air wing in the future on and trade for that, particularly in
the out-years of the FYDP, capability for some of these
unmanned systems and some of these other cost-imposing systems
that we think we need to complement the carrier of the future.
That was the thought process. It was a tough challenge. It
was somewhat of a bold move. We want to have that discussion
early enough to have the robust debate it deserves with an
ability to continue to look at that and understand if it is the
correct decision from everybody's perspective.
Bill, would you like to add?
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
This is, obviously, a very big deal to us as well, a very
important decision that took a lot of thought.
Our commitment to our carrier requirement is the Ford-
class. However, that requirement evolves over time. It is still
12 carriers, and we are committed to getting to 12 carriers.
This is a warfighting investment decision. We have done a
whole series of studies, including several directed by the
defense committees, and they all push us in the direction of a
more distributed force, autonomous vehicles, directed energy,
rail guns, and all these things are investments that we decided
now is the time to move out on.
We know the security environment is getting more complex.
Having this more distributed, cost-imposing force we think will
complement the battle force. It is not intended to replace the
battle force.
The effect of removing the Truman will be realized in the
late 2020s, 2027, 2029 when she would have come out of the
yards. Over that time, we are going to continue to validate
this approach. We are going to continue to experiment. We will
adjust in stride. We have a long history of doing that. Yes,
this is a reversible decision, but we would like not to reverse
it at the expense of these other capabilities that we need to
pursue, and every indication has told us we need to evolve and
to pursue.
Senator Kaine. Can I ask you this? You say the gap would
show in 2027 and 2029 when it would come out after the
refueling. I think the refueling is supposed to start in 2024.
Is that right?
Vice Admiral Merz. It would. That would have started
regardless.
Senator Kaine. Let me ask this. There is still an ongoing
study. This is still sort of under some analysis. In that
analysis, are you taking into account the effect on the
industrial base of not doing the refueling? What we have heard
from industrial base partners that work on the refuelings is
that they really worry that they are in somewhat of a fragile
spot, and removing that refueling beginning in 2024 could
jeopardize them. Is that one of the areas that you are
analyzing as you try to reach the----
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. The analysis I am speaking of
was a warfighting analysis. The analysis on the industrial base
was done in advance of this decision. I will turn that over to
Secretary Geurts to comment further.
Senator Kaine. If I could, Mr. Chair, just have him answer
that last question, that would be great.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. As you know, anything in
shipbuilding is all about the industrial base, and while there
is some fungibility in terms of the skill sets needed to do
this overhaul, there is a lot of specialized skill as well. We
have looked fairly closely at that. I think we will probably
make some adjustments in the budget looking forward should the
refueling continue to be off our plan, where do we move the
inactivations, and look at that closely, work closely with the
shipyard. There is a gap we see that it would cost. We have a
lot of inactivation work to do, but we are going to have to
work that closely with the shipyard to understand because we
are going to have to preserve that workforce capability. I do
not want to trivialize that as an issue to work. We have some
time to work as that workforce impact would not really hit
until 2023 and then into 2024. It is something we are going to
have to work. We looked at it at the top level as we made the
decisions, but it will be something we are going to have to
work closely with the shipyards on.
Senator Kaine. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Perdue. Senator Cotton?
Senator Cotton. Thanks, gentlemen.
Let us keep probing that line of questioning from Senator
Kaine. The decision about the Truman has been in the news a lot
lately. We have been talking about it a lot here in Congress.
The Truman is still good to go, though, until 2024. Is that
right?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir.
Senator Cotton. Because that was when it was scheduled to
enter its mid-life maintenance cycle. When was it scheduled to
come out?
Vice Admiral Merz. 2027, 2028. It is all part of the
shipyard loading and how----
Senator Cotton. The decision that is being taken now will
not have a real world impact then until about 2027 or 2028.
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. But the decision is only
reversible for about another year.
Senator Cotton. What exactly is that real world impact in
2027, 2028, just in laymen's terms.?
Vice Admiral Merz. That is a little bit of a foreseeing
threat vector analysis. The way we approach is what
capabilities might we need to predict what we think is coming--
--
Senator Cotton. Just in simpler terms, on your carrier
fleet, what is the practical impact in 2027 and 2028 if the
Truman does not undergo that refueling?
Vice Admiral Merz. It will be one reduction in a carrier
through the----
Senator Cotton. For how long?
Vice Admiral Merz. Until she would have retired in 2048.
Senator Cotton. How much money do you save by not
undergoing that mid-cycle refueling?
Vice Admiral Merz. It is about $4 billion to not do the
overhaul, and then it is a savings of about $1 billion a year
in operating cost.
Senator Cotton. You are proposing to put that money into
Ford-class carriers.
Vice Admiral Merz. We are proposing to put it into a whole
spectrum of capabilities that will complement the force.
Senator Cotton. Could Congress resolve this challenge or
this tradeoff that has been created for you simply by putting a
little bit more money into the shipbuilding program over the 5-
year defense plan and then into the future?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. So you will start in terms of
practicalness in the next 2021, 2022. We normally order our
equipment, long-lead activities for that. Then in 2023, 2024,
you start the labor portion of that. As we balanced the top
line, we made that decision.
Obviously, you could trade within the top line or add to
the top line. The dollars in 2020 are fairly negligible. 2021
and 2022 is really--if we do not make the hard decision by not
doing it, you will have made the decision because we will not
have the long-lead equipment.
Senator Cotton. Got it. The simple answer, though, which
the Department of Defense would usually tell Congress is we can
solve some problems for you if we give you a little more money.
Right?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir.
Senator Cotton. Got it.
Let us talk about carriers and the role they play,
specifically the vulnerability to them. We hear a lot about the
asymmetric threat. It is a classic example of a really
expensive boat versus a really cheap missile. We are talking
primarily here about China, just to get down to brass tacks.
ISIS does not have anti-ship ballistic missiles against Russia
and Europe. You are looking at primarily an air and ground war.
Not entirely. Primarily. So we are talking about China and its
anti-ship ballistic missile fleet.
These carriers are not just sitting ducks, though, out on
the water. Are they? I mean, how easy is it for China to hit
one of our carriers with a ballistic missile?
Vice Admiral Merz. This is the question that I really look
forward to answering. I can give you a lot more detail in a
classified setting. I think we should do that.
I will tell you this is not a survivability decision about
the carriers. We feel very strongly the carrier is more
survivable now than it has probably been in the last 70 years.
We can walk you through why we think that both from a
capability standpoint and also on how we operate the aircraft
carrier.
Senator Cotton. How fast is a carrier?
Vice Admiral Merz. It is a little bit of a sensitive
number. Fast.
Senator Cotton. It is really fast. It has lots of defenses?
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir.
Senator Cotton. I knew some lieutenants in Iraq who were
somewhat cavalier about incoming mortar fire on their bases.
They used to say big base, little bullet. The ocean is even
bigger than a base in Iraq or Afghanistan. Right? So big ocean,
little bullet.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. It is the only runway that will
move 700 miles a day.
Senator Cotton. Got it.
Which brings me to a final question----
Vice Admiral Merz. I would like to clarify that is not our
defense.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cotton. I understand.
Vice Admiral Merz. That is an element of the operations.
Senator Cotton. But speed is security.
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir.
Senator Cotton. Final question. There is that threat,
though, of the anti-ship ballistic missiles against not just
the carriers but any surface ship. Is that one of the main
advantages that we have in our undersea capabilities, our fast
attack submarines, that they are not susceptible to that kind
of anti-ship----
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. Our whole approach to warfare
is using cross-domain capabilities to effect whatever
capability we need based on the face of the threat. The
undersea capabilities for us we think is our number one
asymmetrical lethality advantage over anyone else in the world.
Senator Cotton. As China's missile threat does, in fact,
potentially force us a little bit further away from the first
island chain, those fast attack submarines can loiter a lot
closer.
Vice Admiral Merz. The submarines will have to work a
little bit harder.
Senator Cotton. That is one reason why it is so vital that
we maintain the shipbuilding pace for those fast attack
submarines in the medium and long term and do not let, as
Secretary Shanahan said the other day, a capability or capacity
gap emerge.
Vice Admiral Merz. Exactly right, sir. We can make this
argument on every shipbuilding line for what they bring to the
fight.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
Senator Perdue. Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here.
Secretary Geurts, I was really pleased to hear you say to
Senator Hirono that you reaffirmed the commitment to the
shipyard infrastructure optimization plan. As you point out,
the average age of our dry docks is 60 years old. You also
acknowledge that the biggest shortfall we have is with our
attack submarines, and as Senator King pointed out, we all
understand that the better job we do on maintenance, means that
we can have more ships at sea.
I was really surprised when projects from the Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard showed up on the military construction list of
projects to take money from for the President's border wall. I
was particularly surprised because I know you were at the
Portsmouth Shipyard last fall. You were briefed on the projects
which directly relate to our ability to expand the dry dock
capacity there and allow us at the shipyard to be able to do
maintenance on more ships.
Can you explain what the thinking is here, why we would
take money from those projects that would back up our ability
to address our backlog in attack submarine maintenance?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. The list that was generated
was generated just based on those projects that met a certain
set of criteria. That was not the list, as I understand it, of
projects that were not to be funded. That will be a secondary
process that the Secretary of Defense will work through.
I believe and what I have heard is the Secretary of the
Navy will have an opportunity to provide his thinking in terms
of readiness impact and all the other impacts should any of
those projects be defunded.
The list itself was just a list to a certain set of
criteria, particularly those that have not been funded yet in
2019, as I understand it, but that is not a list of projects
that were to be defunded, as I understand it.
Senator Shaheen. But you would acknowledge that there is
some uncertainty about that. I can tell you, having visited the
shipyard last Friday, that there is a great deal of uncertainty
at the shipyard among the people who work there about what this
means for their future. I would argue that if we want to send a
clear message about the importance of our attack submarines and
our Navy and what is really critical to our national security,
that we would not put those projects that are critical to
maintaining our attack submarine fleet on that list of projects
to be considered for defunding.
Can you tell me what the Navy's response was when you were
asked to list projects?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. Again, that list was created
to a certain set of criteria, not the value or importance of
each one of those projects. Instead of have they been obligated
yet, it was not a value judgment of the project. It was just a
generic formula to a set of criteria the Secretary of Defense
had put together.
I will affirm the absolute criticality of maintaining our
optimization plan. The Navy intends to put $21 billion towards
that over the next 20 years. A lot of these near-term projects
are absolutely critical, particularly in Portsmouth with dry
docks which are some of our oldest dry docks in the Navy that
we need to maintain those capabilities. I would be hopeful that
folks in the shipyard do not take that as a signal of the lack
of our commitment or lack of importance to that modernization.
Senator Shaheen. Well, I think it sends a very mixed
message that is not a good message for the Navy, for the people
who are so committed to ensuring that we have the ships that we
need in the fleet, and for the country about what is important
if we are going to maintain our national security.
I would like to pick up on the question about our
industrial base partners next because one of the things that I
have heard is that there is a lack of Virginia-class parts
available in the national stock system and that the public
shipyards are taking extraordinary measures to get parts and
that is often resulting in delays.
Can you comment on that and what is the problem there and
what we need to do to address it?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. As we have gone to two
Virginia ship per year rate, as well as had more Virginia
submarines in the fleet, we have had some parts that failed at
different rates than we expected when we put the original
supply system in there. Congress has been very helpful to fund
in our kind of integrated enterprise plan particularly parts
that are common across our submarines and carriers to allow us
to invest in those suppliers to get those suppliers up at rate.
That is not only critical for today's operation, but as then we
add Columbia on top of it, we have got to make sure the supply
base is really ready to operate, not only to produce more but
to sustain more that we have in the fleet. We are continuing to
work on that very closely. I appreciate the great support.
Senator Shaheen. Is that what it is going to take to make
sure that we have the additional parts? Is it to make sure
there is more funding or what?
Secretary Geurts. No, ma'am. I mean, it is continued focus
on it, continued looking at it.
The other thing we are working closely with our supply base
is allowing them to see the composite need between current
construction, future construction, repair and maintenance. That
way they can size and they can understand the demand we will be
placing on them and make smart investments so that they are
going to be ready as we continue to place more demand.
This is a little bit of the--when we talk about supply
base, when we did not build submarines for about 10 years, this
shows in perfect clarity how long it takes to rebuild that
base, how fragile it is, and how important that the whole
Nation continues to focus on it because if you take your eyes
off it or go on a bust cycle, it is really, really hard to get
that back particularly when you want to add new capability.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Perdue. Senator Blumenthal?
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to, first of all, Secretary Geurts, ask about the
submarine program. You are convinced that the three-ship
program Virginia attack class is a prudent and actually cost or
money-saving way to plan going forward for this year so that we
can continue at two ships per year and have that option of a
third and, in the end, will help to save resources.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir, particularly as we look at that
gap coming up. Since we are going to fund it all in 1 year as
opposed to--we did not include it in our kind of economic order
quantity. It will not deliver as if it was a 20-ship. A lot of
details to work through to make sure we have got it feathered
in on the line, but I believe we would not have put it in the
budget if I did not believe we could not execute it.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you whether you think that
the training and manpower education programs are commensurate
with the demands we are going to have at that yard and others
that will be involved. Obviously, thousands of new workers are
going to have to be hired. I visited the apprenticeship and the
training programs at Electric Boat and elsewhere in
southeastern Connecticut, and my own view is we are going to
have to be making a much greater investment in those training
and education programs.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I would say both the submarine
yards have been putting a lot of energy into that. It is a
critical factor in terms of how well we can actually execute
the programs we have had. As we have seen on some of the
Virginias, as we have tried to accelerate them, we have done a
great job getting that 66-month centers as we have tried to
move to 60-month centers. We have seen some challenges on
having a sufficient trained workforce. I think the programs are
in place.
What I would say is we are going to have to solve this
before Columbia, and so to the degree this continues to help
put us on a smooth growth path to the large number of the
workforce we are going to have to bring in for Columbia, that
will benefit us.
Senator Blumenthal. The funding for many of these
programs--for example, Electric Boat is going to go from 20 in
its design apprenticeship program up to, I think, more than
300--come from the Department of Labor, not from the Department
of Defense. The Department of Labor's budget in the President's
budget will be cut, I believe, by around 30 percent for
training and education programs of exactly the type that are
necessary for this purpose.
Are you concerned?
Secretary Geurts. Absolutely, sir. I would be happy to
follow up with you on some more detail. We have had contact
with the Department of Labor, and I would be happy to go over
there personally. I know the Secretary of the Navy has also had
interest in this to ensure they understand the criticality and
the priority of that to support the Navy.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, you and I are totally in
agreement on the criticality of that funding, but if the
President's budget is adopted, it simply will not be there in
the Department of Labor. I hope that we can move forward
together and kind of change that budget. It is not in the
jurisdiction of this committee, but I think it is important to
our national defense. Would you agree?
Secretary Geurts. Absolutely, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Maybe I can ask you whether in your view there is likely to
be a loss of faith among the general public when they see a
carrier like the Truman, which has another 30 years of life--
forgive me--scrapped to put resources into other programs that
may be worthwhile, and yet we are building more carriers. I
have trouble explaining that to folks in Connecticut who say,
you know, we drive our cars until we cannot use them anymore.
Right? At least some of us do. We do not just trade them in
necessarily because we like the looks of another car, another
ship, particularly when we are spending billions of dollars.
What would you say to those folks?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. The new carrier does provide
additional survivability, additional capability, additional
flexibility for the 50 years going.
Senator Blumenthal. The Truman is not survivable. Is that
the message?
Secretary Geurts. No, sir. All I would say is that the
existing Nimitz-class are absolutely awesome carriers that are
doing a great job. What I would say, though, is we are
committed to the Ford-class carrier in overtime replacing the
fleet with that newer class carrier. That is true. We made a
hard decision in terms of trading off additional 25 years and
the sunk costs that go with that to some of the other
capabilities. It was not a trade of a Ford versus the Truman.
It was in the broader perspective of we need carriers, we need
them for the future. They are in every scheme we have. We also
need some other capabilities, and given the budget limits we
had, we had to make some hard tradeoffs. I would not say the
Trumans have no value and we do not assess any value to the
Truman.
Senator Blumenthal. I would like to follow up because my
time has expired, and I apologize, but just in terms of our
conveying the explanation to our constituents in terms they can
understand, I think it would be important to be armed with
those facts and arguments.
I want to conclude by congratulating Lieutenant General
Berger on your nomination to be Commandant. This may be the
last hearing that you go without getting tough questions, sir.
[Laughter.]
Senator Blumenthal. But we look forward to working with you
and congratulations.
Thank you.
Senator Perdue. We will now enter a second round if you
guys have other questions. I have one I would like to probe.
Mr. Secretary, Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation's fiscal year 2018 annual report talked about
significant rents of the Ford-class. There were four systems
that are the most problematic right now. Right? The
electromagnetic launching system, the advanced arresting gear,
dual radar, and then the advanced weapons elevators.
These technical issues have caused delays, obviously. Also
they talked about the demonstrated reliability. The question
was also brought up in the annual report about the catapults'
resting gear, the elevators, and radar.
Would you give us an update on those four systems and also
talk about the maintenance period that we are in right now? I
think there was an 8-month delay. Now it looks like a 15-month
delay. Can you talk about those two very important issues
relative to the Ford-class?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sure, absolutely, both very
important issues.
Those are kind of the four new technologies we put into the
Ford-class, newest carrier design we have done--we had not done
a new carrier in 40 years.
I would say on the first three, on the electromagnetic
launch, the resting gear, and the radar, I think we are in good
shape there. There is going to be reliability we are going to
have to test, and we will not be able to do that until we go to
sea. We have done 750 traps and launches with the system. But I
would say we have to get it in sea and put it through its
paces. I am fairly confident there.
Elevators. We have 11 of them. Two of them have been
delivered. They have been operating. Cruise force has full
control of those. They have been operating reliably. The
feedback I have gotten from the crew has been very positive. We
have nine more we have got to work our way through, two uppers
and seven lowers. We are working our way through that
particular area. I have not seen anything in the elevators that
shows me that it is something we cannot solve, but it is a lot
of work to work our way through those pieces.
Senator Perdue. Sorry to interrupt. The boat was supposed
to be delivered in 2015. As I understand it, it was delivered
in 2017. This is now 4 years in and the elevators are still an
issue. Is this a learning experience for us as we go forward in
terms of new technologies and application on these lead ship
developments?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, absolutely. I am happy to kind of
talk. Lessons learned we are putting into kind of all our new
lead ship designs. But certainly I would say--and again, I was
not there at the time, so I have the benefit of looking
backward. We did not build the ground test infrastructure for
these new technologies to prove them on the ground before--
proving it the first time for the elevators on the ship has not
been the right path to go forward, something we do not want to
repeat on other ships.
The other thing I would say is I am commissioning--I talked
I think in November about it. I am going to commission an
independent review team for the technologies, not as much for
the lead ship, but making sure that we have all the support,
all of the technical support, spares, everything we need to do
as these systems go to sea to ensure we have got all the
infrastructure in place to support the ship and the crew long
term. Some immediate issues to get everything working on 78 now
just left to the elevators, a couple of remaining elevators.
But I want to make sure we have got all of the back-end support
in place so when that ship goes to war, the captain can take
her out with complete confidence and understand that everything
will work and we have got all the proven reliability and
support needed.
In terms of getting out of the availability right now, we
have got three causal factors causing the delay getting out of
the yard. I never want to deliver something late to the fleet.
I view that as a failure on my part of getting that ship out on
the schedule we had. We intended in July. Right now, my best
estimate is October.
That is driven by three causal factors. One is repairs and
changes made to the nuclear propulsion plant based on lessons
we learned out of sea trials. The second piece is just the
balance of all the things we had intended to do and the
availability, just the kind of scope of work. Then the third is
finishing up those remaining elevators and getting those to the
point where the crews got access and can use all of them.
Senator Perdue. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Senator Hirono?
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Just as a follow-up to the request for three Virginia-class
boats, so Secretary Geurts, how concerned are you about delays
in the current submarine construction program where we are only
building two attack boats per year and construction on the
Columbia-class strategic missile submarine program has barely
started? What does this performance say about the ability to
ramp up production for an extra attack boat, the third boat in
fiscal year 2020, or the advisability of ramping up production
in fiscal year 2020 with no plan for building three boats per
year during any other year in the 30-year shipbuilding plan?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. I would say strategically one
of the things we tried to do on the 30-year shipbuilding plan
and one, I think, of the real benefits of this year's plan
versus last is you saw a smooth-out of that production in
growth profile. Maybe in a follow-on discussion, Admiral Merz
can talk about the benefits. That is I would say generically
because the better we can smooth that out, the better it helps
training and manpower and all the other pieces.
On Virginia specifically, as I said, we started with an 84-
month span. We have gotten those ships down to 66 months. Our
goal was to try and drive them all the way to 60 months span
time at two per year. We are struggling a little bit to get all
the way down to 60 months. Adding the third one in, we are
going to have to work that. It is a little bit challenging from
a perspective of it will look different because we do not have
the advance procurement. We have done it all in 1 year. But we
have also got a block buy 5-year program to kind of feather
that ship in.
I worry very much about ensuring, as we grow that submarine
enterprise, we can do it smartly, repeatably, and sustainably.
We were already going to be somewhat challenged going from two
submarines in Virginia to add Columbia. This will be a good
opportunity to continue to pressurize that system and work out
where do we have weak spots and friction points as we get ready
for Columbia to size that workforce and capability there. I
think to some degree, there will be some benefit to moving in
there, but it is something we are going to have to watch very
closely.
Senator Hirono. You are going to need to watch that very
closely because I recognize that our submarines provide us with
the asymmetric advantage in warfare. Because you are being very
aggressive in terms of the production of our submarines, we are
going to need to make sure that you are totally on top of that.
Now, going back to the refueling of----
Vice Admiral Merz. Senator, if I could just pile on to
complete the answer here.
Senator Hirono. Please.
Vice Admiral Merz. It is well documented, the value we put
in the submarine force and the gap between the requirement and
where we are today. It is also a great example of what happens
when you walk away from a shipbuilding line for a decade like
we did in the 1990s and you get to the point where there is
only so much you can do to recover. All of that drove to get
that third submarine into the 2020s.
To your specific comment, the next multiyear plan does
include options for a third submarine for fiscal year 2022 and
2023. Time will tell.
Senator Hirono. We will be getting that assessment.
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, ma'am. That was stated in the
shipbuilding plan, and that was actually directed by the
defense committees to include that in the next negotiation.
Senator Hirono. Turning to the refueling of the Truman, so
our aircraft carriers are very much a big part of our forward
presence, and that is really important and particularly with
China and North Korea. You explained that this was a hard
tradeoff because of budget considerations. As Senator Cotton
said, if we were to give you more money, you would keep the
Truman in place. Would you not?
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hirono. Would that be your druthers?
Vice Admiral Merz. Our druthers would to not surrender a
carrier that has 50 percent of its life remaining.
Senator Hirono. Yes.
Vice Admiral Merz. But we would like to not do that at the
expense of moving out on these other technologies, what every
assessment has told us----
Senator Hirono. Yes. But basically we should consider
giving you more money. Right?
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hirono. That you can not only save the Truman but
you can do these other opportunities, as you say, Mr.
Secretary, to invest in advanced and distributed systems that
will shape future naval warfare to expand our competitive
advantage.
Secretary Geurts, you said that with regard to, again, the
refueling of the Truman, I know that there are a lot--it
probably affects thousands of workers when we do not refuel the
Truman. You mentioned that you need to preserve the workforce.
For a number of reasons, everything, yes, does become a budget
kind of a consideration.
But it is hard to explain to people why you would basically
have thousands of people who would otherwise be working on the
refueling, not to mention we are not getting the full life of
this boat. Kind of hard to explain why we are not doing it if
there are other ways that we can provide funding for that to
occur.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. It will not be as large a job
if we inactivate that ship. We will carry some of the workforce
between this refueling and the next one down the pike. But we
are going to have to watch very closely the skill sets in that
refueling and work closely with the shipyard to balance all of
that out because we do not want to lose that critical skill
set.
Senator Hirono. Not to mention that the shipyards that were
intending to do this work--it is not as though they do not have
some fixed costs regardless of whether they do the work or not,
and those fixed costs have to be borne by the taxpayers
eventually.
Thank you.
Senator Perdue. Senator King?
Senator King. Thank you.
All this talk about submarines--I mean, about aircraft
carriers. I was fortunate enough to spend a couple of days on
the George Washington at sea, and the captain greeted me and
said you are going to be staying in the admiral's quarters. I
was feeling pretty cool because I was staying in the admiral's
quarters until I found out it is right under the catapult.
[Laughter.]
Senator King. They were doing night landings. So maybe the
electromagnetic catapult will be a little less noisy. I do not
know.
A couple things. Admiral, we are talking about a future
large surface combatant to be the next generation after the
DDG-51 [guided missile destroyer]. Both of you, if you will
tell where that project stands, what you think of it, and what
you are thinking of in terms of timing.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Maybe I will start with kind of
the timing piece and then Admiral Merz can kind of talk
capability, where we are thinking at.
Right now, the first one will be in 2025. The immediate----
Senator King. Are you saying delivery in 2025?
Secretary Geurts. No, sir.
Senator King. Initiation.
Secretary Geurts. Initiate. So right now, it is outside the
FYDP, first year outside the FYDP.
Money in the budget to start doing the development,
prototyping--so as we understand, work closely with Admiral
Merz on the requirement and with industry on what the state of
technology is, our intent is looking at prototyping, looking
for those high-risk areas where we need to prototype some of
that technology so that we do not have some of the repeat
lessons of some of our previous lead ships where we kind of
went right into lead ship. That will be an activity we are
going to mature over the year. Similar to what we have done on
frigate, we will have a very active conversation with both
industry and our technical warrant holders, understanding the
balance of risk----
Senator King. We are at the very beginning of that process.
Secretary Geurts. We are at the very beginning of that.
Senator King. We are finalizing requirements and----
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir.
Senator King. Admiral?
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. We learned a lot from the
frigate program, bringing in industry early, discussing the art
of possible ahead of the requirements generation, where in the
past we probably got in a bad habit----
Senator King. Looking at existing designs too.
Vice Admiral Merz. Looking at existing designs. Existing
designs are going to be part of the large surface combatant
review as well. As a matter of fact, the aperture is wider on
the larger ship than what we started off with the frigate.
We are very happy with how the frigate is progressing. The
lethality of the ship is going to be higher than we initially
thought we were going to be capable of getting. I think that
will affect probably the ultimate numbers of large surface
combatants we need. That will all be part of the force
structure assessment as we are coming through that.
With the lessons learned from the MQ-25 unmanned tanker,
the frigate effort, we are going to work with industry this
year to see if the art of possible also includes accelerating
that ship potentially to fiscal year 2023 or fiscal year 2024.
We are motivated to get our surface ship mix correct per
our future surface combatant analysis studies. That included
the frigate. That includes the large surface combatant, and
that includes this whole family of unmanned systems that
Secretary Geurts commented on with a massive investment this
year in the President's budget.
Senator King. General, you have been the forgotten man this
morning. What about sealift? I am worried that we are focusing
all on the combatants, the submarines. Are we at where we need
to be in terms of planning for additional sealift capacity? We
got to get your marines ashore.
Lieutenant General Berger. I will ask my teammate to jump
in.
On the sealift, probably two parts of it. One, the
strategic sealift from Continental U.S. (CONUS) across and the
other one, the more operational to tactical level sealift that
deploys and then postures the force as needed, all of which is
aging and all of which the Navy and the Marine Corps are
working hard to resolve. There are three different approaches,
which I will ask my teammates to talk about.
But in the end, we have to be able to move the forces we
need to. We know that figure and it is pretty steady, the size
of the force. But the speed at which we need to move them and
the reliability of those ships is what we got to attack.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I think just from the current
force requirement, it is pretty constant for heavy lift. We
just need to go recapitalize that. We have got kind of three
lines of attack, you know, buy some----
Senator King. We are on a schedule where we do not have a
gap in capacity.
Secretary Geurts. We are on a schedule where we do not have
a gap in capacity. But those are aging pretty quickly. We are
really looking hard at that current kind of heavy lift fleet.
We were going to do some service life extensions. We will
continue to do a business case to see if that makes sense and
then come back to the committee if there are opportunities to
accelerate that, maybe buy some more used ships as opposed to
keeping the old ones around. We are working our way through
that.
Bill has done a lot of work on, I will say, the new sets of
requirements and it is probably worth a minute, if you would
like, on where we are thinking there.
Senator King. Sure.
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. The requirement work we have
done in what we call the off season here is reflective of how
we shifted our whole fleet employment model of distributed
maritime operations, which really is a return to what it looks
like to face a potential peer. Part of that is the logistics
support, the strategic lift coming over, we will get it into a
safe area so then now what? What do you do with it to
distribute it and you distribute it into a contested
environment. That is an evolving requirement. It is reflected
in some of the work we are trying to do on the existing ship
lines and our unfunded priority list as we look at logistics,
we look at repair, we look at hospital ships. We know that the
two hospital ships are not enough to support us in a
distributed maritime operating environment.
All this, we are expecting a requirement to continue to
grow. We know the capabilities we need. The capacity is still
under review. That also will be fed into the force structure
assessment. Lighter, faster ships that can serve those specific
purposes, but also carry a lot of gear for the Marine Corps
quickly and efficiently.
Senator King. I just want to be sure when we are talking
about all these exciting attack ships, we do not forget that
sort of workhorse piece.
Secretary Geurts. It is on our radar, sir.
Senator King. Could I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Perdue. Absolutely.
Senator King. Yesterday we had the Army budget hearing,
posture hearing. There is a term that I have been learning in
the last few days called ``OCO for base.'' Does your budget
include OCO for base?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir.
Senator King. What percentage is it? Do you have any idea?
In the Army, it was 34 percent of their budget was OCO. Half of
that was OCO for base and half of it was traditional OCO. You
can take that for the record. I would appreciate it if you
would. It is a concern to me, Mr. Chairman, because it is
really not honest budgeting, and we are going to be discussing
that.
Thank you. I appreciate it, gentlemen.
[The information referred to follows:]
To comply with the base budget defense caps of the Budget
Control Act of 2011, the Department of the Navy's OCO budget of
$44.7 billion includes $35.5 billion of OCO funding for base
budget requirements in support of the National Defense
Strategy. OCO-for-base accounts for 79 percent of the total OCO
budget, and 17 percent of the total Department of the Navy
budget ($205.6 billion) for fiscal year 2020.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I will get you the exact
number, but it is on the order of--our OCO request last year
was about $5 billion. Our OCO request this year is about $35
billion. That shows you the difference in terms of OCO and OCO
base. But I will make sure you have the exact number.
Senator King. For the Army, it was $62 billion.
Secretary Geurts. It is actually $27.7 billion.
Senator King. Thank you.
Senator Perdue. Secretary, I want to talk about the lessons
learned, and I want to look at a little history here. These
examples were not on your watch or the leadership of the
Marines or the Navy currently. But I want to see what you are
doing now to address the lessons, hopefully presumably, learned
by these.
But if you look at the last lead combatant ships that have
been delivered, a total of $8 billion more in the initial
budget was required to construct these ships, and they had a
cost growth of on average of about 10 percent, but included
three lead ships that exceeded their initial budget by 80
percent or more. Three lead ships, 80 percent or more. Each
lead ship that was delivered to the fleet was at least 6 months
late with five of these lead ships being more than 2 years
late. We already talked about the four being $2.5 billion over
budget, 20 months late, and still not operational today.
I wanted to come back to your response to that to probe a
little bit. Can you be more specific about what we are doing
now in this budget that we are looking at going forward that
builds on the learning that you have from, say, those last
eight lead ship, combatant ship deliveries?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I was not there for all of it,
so I will not pretend to second guess decision-making back
then.
Senator Perdue. That is fair.
Secretary Geurts. I will just give you my perspective kind
of here. To your point, at the second kick of the mule, you do
not learn a lot. We are trying not to relearn old lessons
without attacking it.
I would say a challenge in shipbuilding is your lead ship
is your development ship. That provides a little bit different
nuance than in an airplane program or some of the other things.
It is not better or worse. It is just the fact we go at it. You
tend to get a lot of learning in that first ship because no
matter what you do prototyping-wise, you still have to get it
in the platform, get it into operations. There are some unique
elements to it.
Having said all that, we have not produced the ships in the
lead ship realm the way we wanted to and got them out to the
fleet at the speed and with all the capability we wanted to.
I would say there are four basic things we are doing to get
after it. The first is my teammate here in terms of
requirements, much better integrating acquisition and
requirements, and so it is not a transactional exchange. It is
an integrated exchange. You have seen us employ that on frigate
where we have had, you know, with industry's involvement, a
much better informed requirements setting activity because,
after all, if we do not have the requirement right, we will
chase that through the whole ship.
The second piece is really improved sub-system prototyping
like we have done on Columbia, try and get everything
prototyped as soon as we can, learn some lessons on Ford by not
having land-based prototypes for all the sub-systems. We are
chasing that right now a little bit. That would be the second
area.
Third, I would say is ensure we have the talent. All of the
services lost some organic talent when we went through this
massive downsizing in the 1990s. At Naval Sea Systems Command
(NAVSEA), we went from 700-ish naval engineers down to 200. We
are now back to 600 there. Regaining the government talent and
making sure that talent has got the skill for the work going. I
look across the entire naval enterprise in terms of talent. We
do not have the talent completely matched to the new needs. We
are working our way through that process.
Then the last I would say is I have got an independent team
right now reviewing the entire naval research enterprise to
make sure we are investing in technologies, to make sure we
have the right talent so that we are feeding into the process
the right technologies with the right experience so that we can
make smart decisions. When my teammate asks for a capability,
what are the technologies that would best fit that capability.
Those I would say are the four things we are doing now to
address that very important question you asked.
Senator Perdue. Well, that is very helpful because it seems
to me from the outside looking at this with a fresh set of eyes
that innovation and quality and quantity are needed right now
in dealing with these peer adversaries out there.
General Hyten chilled us a couple of weeks ago when he
talked about we have lost our ability to go fast. I do not
totally accept that, but we have got to win at this success
factor I think. It is a combination of great innovation but
timeliness in delivery too.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. The other thing I would say is
we are really differentiating the work, and so the time to get
a lead ship that we are going to keep for 50 years is different
than the time that I want to get an AI algorithm into that ship
or a new sensor into that ship.
I would say on the flip side what we have been able to do
in the submarine force--the other day we did a launch from a
digital twin of an Aegis combat system, which we virtualized.
That is really helping us speed new capability onto the ships
more quickly.
There is a lead ship set of issues that we have to deal
with, and then there is a speed to get new technology
capability, invention, whatever. We want to have a deliberate
and predictable and high confidence lead ship approach, and
then we want to have a high speed, high iteration turn time
approach for new capabilities where we can get them in the
fleet, get them in the hands of warfighters, let these guys
experiment with them, and then we can figure out which we want
to keep.
Senator Perdue. That is fair. Thank you.
Senator Hirono?
Senator Hirono. I just have a few more questions.
Mr. Secretary, you and I talked about a recent article that
was quite critical of the Navy accepting ships before they are
ready with all kinds of problems. Some of those discussions
that you have been having with the Chairman goes to the kind of
oversight of changes, including hiring people, you know,
engineers who can help you assess the kind of ships that we are
accepting, all of that. That is reassuring. You need to stay on
course on that.
Admiral Merz, you are working on updating the force
structure assessment before the end of this year. How will you
be incorporating the shift to Asia and the Pacific as you
consider expanding the fleet to deploy the number of ships you
need?
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, ma'am. The force structure
assessment actually starts with the warfighting requirement,
and the National Defense Strategy has set that warfighting
requirement as the Asia-Pacific as the pacing threat. First and
foremost, that drives the assessment. You cannot ignore the
other areas, but it helps to have a driving one. For instance,
we are very much closely tracking Russia technology
developments. They all feed into it, but the pacing threat is
the Asia-Pacific threat.
Senator Hirono. Yes. We need to make sure that we have the
appropriate resources in that area of responsiblity (AOR).
Again, with the cancellation of the Harry Truman, what are
the implications for what the new force structure assessment
will include in terms of aircraft carrier force levels in the
Asia-Pacific area?
Vice Admiral Merz. The force structure assessment does not
start with any preconceived force level. It will do a model.
Typically the model is unconstrained up front. It usually comes
up with a very large number for all ship classes. Then we apply
operating guidance on where we might take risk, deployment
models, and we work the number down to where we think it is
about the right level. From there, it comes up with a number
for each ship class, and when you add all those up, the current
one adds up to 355. Where the other one goes--I do not expect
it to be a smaller number, but what each one of those ship
lines contributes to that will likely change to some degree.
Senator Hirono. Are those decisions ultimately to be
disclosed in a classified setting?
Vice Admiral Merz. The analysis is a classified discussion
on how we got there, but once we end up, similar to the 355 and
the components that make that up, that will be an unclassified
number.
Senator Hirono. Mr. Secretary, your prepared testimony on
page 5 indicates that operations in a contested environment
means that the Navy's logistics fleet will need to include
smaller, faster multi-mission transports. Correct?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hirono. I do not see any specifics on a program to
shift in this direction in the Navy budget, but could you give
us a sense of what the Navy is doing or plans to do to shift to
smaller multi-mission transports?
General Berger, how will this contested environment affect
the Marine Corps' ability to conduct amphibious assault
operations?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. As Admiral Merz described, he
is working through the requirements element of that fast
logistics in the contested environment right now. As that comes
out, then we will work with him on acquisition solutions to go
there. I think in the good news category, that will be a lot of
smaller, faster roads where I think we have got plenty of
industrial capacity that we can leverage. We have had great
success over the last year with a lot of small businesses
delivering ships to the Navy. I have not seen all the
requirements output yet, but I think there is a rich industrial
base and opportunity to bring in additional capabilities
through those shipyards to solve that requirement. We will look
at that in the 2021 budget. That is probably where you will
start to see that show up.
Senator Hirono. All right.
General Berger?
Lieutenant General Berger. The way that we did logistics 40
years ago of offloading everything that is on the ship and
build a giant pile on the beach that you could fight inland
from are gone. That is never going to be able to survive.
Hence, like the Secretary pointed out, the concepts that we
are working on now are driving us towards the ability to be
much more dispersed, much more distributed, and therefore the
logistics be much more distributed. We cannot have an iron
mountain on a beach, and no one is planning on that. But the
ability to move troops, equipment, and supplies laterally
through an archipelagic region is driving us in the direction
that Secretary Geurts mentioned, not great big haulers that
dump it all on the beach, but much more smaller, more of them,
faster, lower signature, all that. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hirono. That would, Mr. Secretary, help our
industrial base at least for the smaller companies.
One last question, Mr. Chairman, if I can.
Mr. Secretary, we are aware that there have been some
problems with production of the ship-to-shore connector, or
SSC, program. This is a program that will replace our landing
craft air cushion, or LCAC, that transport equipment and
supplies ashore. I see that you have not chosen to request any
production for the SSC program in fiscal year 2020. Will this
gap in funding harm the program or cause a break in the
production?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. I will describe that, and if
General Berger wants to, from a warfighting perspective, give
his thoughts on it.
But the zero in this year's budget should in no way signal
the lack of importance of that program or lack of commitment to
it. What it shows is some of the technical challenges we have
had delivering that first capability and a little bit of the
production backlog we have had over the last couple years. From
my perspective, there is plenty of production awaiting
completion of that trial. That is queuing up. That will allow
us to continue to sustain that activity.
As we get the boat through its final acceptance trials, we
get the initial ones produced, I think that is another one of
excellent candidates where we should look at block buying or
multi-yearing as we will want to get them into the fleet as
fast as we can as soon as they are ready.
Our biggest hurdle right now is completing a couple of
technical issues to get that boat ready to go. All testing thus
far has shown the design overall is sound. We have got a couple
of technical issues to work through. As soon as that is done,
we will continue to accelerate that production line.
Senator Hirono. General Berger, did you want to add
something?
Lieutenant General Berger. Last week, ma'am, I had the
chance to go down to Huntington Ingalls and also to Textron. I
think everybody on this side of the table would echo your
concerns. We have 72 non-displacement LCACs right now. Most of
them have undergone a service life extension already, and some
of them may need to go through a post-SLEP [service life
extension program] extension program. They were fine when they
came out in the early 1980s. They could haul 60 tons and go
pretty fast and cover a lot of beaches. The ship-to-shore
connector at 74 times faster, more reliable is what we must
have. The risks you point out, ma'am--we are going to keep the
older ones longer, pour more money into them to maintain them,
and they will not be as capable as the ship-to-shore connector.
Textron knows what they need. They know the technical
challenge that they are facing. They have the right workforce
and the right leadership in place.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Perdue. Senator Wicker?
Senator Wicker. Well, I am delighted to follow up on some
questions that Senator Hirono asked.
Let me make sure I understand, Admiral Merz. There will be
a new force structure assessment taking into consideration the
warfighting requirement as guided by the National Defense
Strategy. But you do not expect a smaller number than 355
ships. That was your testimony.
Vice Admiral Merz. No, sir, I do not expect a smaller
number.
Senator Wicker. It would be hard to imagine considering the
threat that we have. It would be hard to imagine that your
statement would be incorrect there.
Now, Lieutenant General Berger, these smaller ships going
through the archipelagos that you talked about--what would be
examples of those?
Lieutenant General Berger. Right now, we have LCACs and
LCUs [landing craft utility] that move our equipment and our
supplies from ship to shore. What I am suggesting, Senator, is
we are going to need not quite planes, trains, and automobiles
but a family of connectors that can, on the surface, move our
supplies, move our equipment around at greater speed between
islands or between the ship to shore, between shore to shore.
Senator Wicker. Thank you for clearing that up.
Now, Mr. Chairman and Madam Ranking Member, we have a
budget proposal from the administration, and administration
budgets come and go. But we have got the responsibility of
actually providing the authorization and the funding here, and
we take that very seriously.
With regard to amphibious ship procurement, I see that the
budget defers an LPD procurement, an LHA procurement till 2024.
We will see about that.
But let me just ask about the need at the Marine Corps.
General Berger, do we still need 38 amphibious ships indicated
in the Navy's current force structure assessment?
Lieutenant General Berger. That requirement is valid today,
sir. But as mentioned earlier, the 2019 force structure
assessment--we will see what comes out of that.
Senator Wicker. Okay, but that is still valid, 38.
How many amphibious ships do we have today?
Lieutenant General Berger. Thirty-two, Senator.
Senator Wicker. Thirty-two as compared to a requirement of
38.
Do you foresee the Marine Corps mission eliminating
amphibious operations at any point in the near future?
Lieutenant General Berger. No, sir, I do not.
Senator Wicker. That is very helpful.
Let me ask you then, Mr. Secretary. Congress appropriated
$350 million in fiscal year 2019 to begin procurement of an LHA
and an LPD. However, amphibious ship procurement was removed
from the fiscal year 2020 budget proposal, as you know.
Instead, the Navy has deferred LPD procurement to 2021 and LHA
to 2024. This move has the potential to disrupt the amphibious
war ship industrial base as there is a long lead time
requirement for parts and materials, as we all know.
Instead of deferring procurement to 2021 and 2024, could
the Navy apply incremental funding to the LPD and LHA in fiscal
year 2020? Is incremental funding more advantageous than
deferring procurement? If Congress approves incremental funding
in the fiscal year 2020 NDAA for the LHA and LPD, would it
allow the Navy to accelerate how it spends the $350 million
that was appropriated in fiscal year 2019?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. You would have to give us that
authority. We have used that authority previously on LHAs,
occasionally on LPDs. With that authority then and the funding
we have in the budget, we could begin moving out on that long
lead material.
I would say for the LHA in particular, I think we are
concerned with it in 2024. It was there from an affordability
standpoint. We are going to look hard in the 2021 budget at
potentially moving that to the left as funding allows because I
am also concerned with a 7-year break in that ship, and I do
not want to lose the excellent workforce we have cranking out
LHAs right now. It is in the budget right now in 2024. That is
something we are all motivated to do both from a workforce
standpoint, as well as its contention with Columbia as it
starts ramping up in 2024. Incremental authority on both those
ships would allow us to get at that faster.
Senator Wicker. Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can help them
get these done in a more timely fashion.
Admiral Merz, DOD currently has an organic capacity of 15
million square feet on 65 roll-on/roll-off ships in the Ready
Reserve Force with an additional 4.5 million square feet of
roll-on/roll-off capacity on U.S.-flagged commercial ships
through the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement. These ships
are vital to wartime logistics, historically accounting for 90
percent of wartime transportation requirements. DOD has
developed a recapitalization strategy for RRF vessels to
maintain capacity at an acceptable level of risk.
Would you comment about that and briefly describe for the
committee what the Ready Reserve recapitalization plan looks
like and what measures the Navy will take to ensure that the
Ready Reserve vessels and their life is extended in a reliable
fashion?
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. I will make a couple
requirements--perspective remarks and turn it over to Secretary
Geurts on the acquisition side.
We revalidated the 15 million square foot requirement for
the strategic part of the lift. The challenge there is
recapitalizing it. It is in the fleet now, but it is old. It is
getting older. We are looking at creative and aggressive ways
to recapitalize that fleet. There are three levers we are
attempting to pull.
Building new would be preferred for the long-term health of
the fleet. There are some commercial shipbuilding challenges
with that that we are hoping to partner with Congress to help
resolve.
There is buying used either domestic-built or foreign-built
used ships.
Then there is also the service life extensions of old ships
to make them even older.
So you throw all that into a pile. We are trying to come up
with the right balance to get after this. Then we have the
previously discussed RORO requirement of the tactical side of
the logistics train. It has captured a lot of our attention, as
we have shifted to this distributed maritime operation and have
a distributed logistics operation to go behind it. I think we
are postured well to start moving out.
I will turn it over to Secretary Geurts.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, Senator Wicker. I think again both
those three lines of operation are there. As we look at the
commercial market and what is available on the commercial
market for some of the fairly generic RORO ships, we think
there is good opportunity to continue to look hard at that and
perhaps relook at the business case and purchase some rapidly
off the commercial market, accelerate that portion to get rid
of our oldest ships that are--it is becoming less and less cost
effective to extend them. Then we will continue to look at new
build, particularly new build for unique ships, which have
unique missions that are not necessarily found on the
commercial market.
Senator Wicker. Finally--and I appreciate the indulgence of
the chair--I was glad Senator Hirono touched on the Truman. Mr.
Secretary, this ship needs to be refueled, and if it is
refueled, it has got a lot more life in it. Is that correct?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir.
Senator Wicker. Okay, and we have got a year or 2 to
reconsider this decision. Do we not?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. We will have to start ordering
some of the advance materials in 2021.
Senator Wicker. 2021, okay.
Secretary Geurts. Yes. We have kind of got this year, and
then decisions after that start to become less and less
reversible or most costly to reverse. We made this decision now
when we have time to have a--it is an important decision. It is
one that requires full debate. We look forward to that. We
wanted to make it at a time where we would not have to
completely rewrite the budget depending on how that outcomes.
In terms of the near year, I would just say there are some
capabilities we believe that are required in the Navy, which we
have funded at the expense of that. That was a bold move. That
was a difficult decision for us. As we look at that and make
decisions, I think it is incredibly important for us to really
keep an eye on those capabilities and make sure we preserve the
opportunity to continue to explore and bring those
complementary capabilities into the naval fleet.
Vice Admiral Merz. Sir, I would like to just add a
clarifying point. The 2021 decision means a PRESBUD 2021
decision. We have this year to reevaluate the path we are on.
Senator Wicker. Well, I think that is an important point to
make, and I certainly want us to scratch our heads hard on
that.
Thank you very much, gentlemen. General Berger,
congratulations on being named Commandant. That was some news
whispered to me earlier today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
Senator Perdue. I just have one remaining question.
Before I do that, Admiral, would you clarify? I just want
to make sure I understood that right for the record that we
could expect this force structure report sometime in the next
calendar year. Is that correct?
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir, by the end of the calendar
year.
Senator Perdue. By the end of this calendar year.
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir, by the end of 2019, we will
have the assessment.
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
Secretary, we have talked about China today. We have not
really talked about Russia. The Russian submarine development
over the last decade has been pretty impressive, a little scary
actually with the development of the Sev submarine class and
now the Kalibr missile. Talk a little bit about how that
development, in addition to what we see China doing--how that
has affected this particular budget and your strategy going
forward.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Bill can also give his
warfighting perspective.
But I would say taking it up a level, the National Defense
Strategy from last year is really focusing us kind of at that
global competitive piece. Each competitor brings some unique
attributes and risk areas that we watch closely. Our job is to
figure out how to take that whole picture and create a force
structure that can both be effective and allow us to compete
and win, and then from my perspective, efficient and provide
value for every dollar the taxpayer puts to this. Both of those
are really what we are focused on.
I think Russia is, again, a little bit of a different
problem set. They certainly have some niche capabilities that
we have got to keep an eye on, and we are doing so. I would say
their niche capabilities drive some specific pieces. China's
global capabilities kind of drive the overall force set.
But, Bill, you might want to add a specific----
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, sir. In this forum, obviously the
inability to address specific threats--there is this
longstanding mutual respect between Russia and the United
States on maritime capability, and it is an influencer on the
capabilities we pursue in both quality and quantity.
Senator Perdue. Senator Hirono?
Senator Hirono. Thank you. I am done.
Senator Perdue. Senator Wicker, do you have anything left?
Senator Wicker. Probably, but I----
[Laughter.]
Senator Perdue. Gentlemen, that concludes the hearing
today. I want to thank you for your personal investment today
and all the information. This has been a very good hearing.
But more importantly, as leaders of your services, please
take back to the sailors and marines out there that we are dead
serious about trying to meet the needs of their mission,
protect our country. We do not take this lightly. It is a
financial issue. It is also a planning issue. We will be
earnest partners with you as we try to do that.
God bless you and thank you for today.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Committee adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Cotton
post-inf effects on u.s. military force structure and readiness
1. Senator Cotton. Vice Admiral Merz and Lieutenant General Berger,
considering that China can field approximately 1,227 medium range
ballistic missiles for the price of a single new United States aircraft
carrier, without an aircraft or human on it, what steps can the Navy
and Marine Corps take to change force structure and operating concepts
in a post-INF treaty world?
Vice Admiral Merz. Great power competition in the maritime domain
will require integrated and distributed multi-fleet operations. The
Navy Concept for Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) will increase
lethality and guide development of future warfighting capabilities for
the Navy. Validation of this concept will occur through operational
analysis, modeling and simulation, experimentation, war gaming, and
exercises at sea. In the Fiscal Year 2020 budget, the Navy is building
capabilities through investments in long range fires, hypersonics,
machine learning, additive manufacturing, quantum computing and
directed energy. We are building the fleet across a wide spectrum of
platforms including the Columbia-class submarine, next generation
frigate, and unmanned systems such as the Medium and Large Unmanned
Surface Vessels and the Orca Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicle.
Lieutenant General Berger. The Navy and Marine Corps have developed
operating concepts and technologies that expand the competitive space
and leverage advantages we hold in agility, dynamic maneuver and
resilience. Our forces are testing the ideas provided in Distributed
Maritime Operations and Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations. Those
sets and reps currently being practiced in wargames and training
exercises will inform our force structure and improve the concepts
developed. We are investing in the capabilities we need to compete,
deter and win in all domains supporting a naval campaign.
2. Senator Cotton. Secretary Geurts and Vice Admiral Merz, how
would you define survivability in a post-INF treaty world?
Secretary Geurts. The definition of survivability remains the same
and is made up of three main components: (1) Susceptibility--Avoid
taking a hit; (2) Vulnerability--Ability to take a hit and maintain
operations; and (3) Recoverability--Ability to recover from a hit.
While the post-INF environment presents challenges, not all of our near
peer competitors were signatories to the treaty and, as such, have made
significant advancements in offensive long range strike. The Navy is
working to increase capabilities in each of the survivability areas.
Susceptibility is being decreased through increased offensive
capability, increased defensive capabilities through improved
electronic warfare, counter-ISR, improved hard kill defenses, and
increasing the difficulty of engagements through Distributed Maritime
Operations. Vulnerability is being improved by building our ships to
Naval Combatant Design standards which are updated routinely based on
real life incidents and lessons learned. Recoverability becomes more
challenging as the threat lethality evolves but improvements in ship
design and dissemination of capabilities across the force decreases the
impacts of loss to the total force.
Vice Admiral Merz. The definition of survivability remains the same
and is made up of three main components: (1) Susceptibility--Avoid
taking a hit; (2) Vulnerability--Ability to take a hit and maintain
operations; and (3) Recoverability--Ability to recover from a hit.
While the post-INF environment presents challenges, not all of our near
peer competitors were signatories to the treaty and, as such, have made
significant advancements in offensive long range strike. The Navy is
working to increase capabilities in each of the survivability areas.
Susceptibility is being decreased through increased offensive
capability, increased defensive capabilities through improved
electronic warfare, counter-ISR, improved hard kill defenses, and
increasing the difficulty of engagements through Distributed Maritime
Operations. Vulnerability is being improved by building our ships to
Naval Combatant Design standards which are updated routinely based on
real life incidents and lessons learned. Recoverability becomes more
challenging as the threat lethality evolves but improvements in ship
design and dissemination of capabilities across the force decreases the
impacts of loss to the total force.
3. Senator Cotton. Secretary Geurts and Vice Admiral Merz, assuming
that intermediate range conventional missiles can be networked with
smaller, more numerous and distributed multi-mission platform ships,
will our definition of survivability for our ships have to change when
we look at future conflict?
Secretary Geurts. At the individual platform level, we don't expect
the definition of survivability to change--the Navy will have to assess
survivability at the force level to ensure that required capabilities
provide complimentary defense and offense in depth and are properly
positioned in the Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) environment to
ensure that successful adversary engagements against single platforms
do not unacceptably degrade the overall force level capabilities that
are required to prevail.
Vice Admiral Merz. At the individual platform level, we don't
expect the definition of survivability to change--the Navy will have to
assess survivability at the force level to ensure that required
capabilities provide complimentary defense and offense in depth and are
properly positioned in the Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO)
environment to ensure that successful adversary engagements against
single platforms do not unacceptably degrade the overall force level
capabilities that are required to prevail.
4. Senator Cotton. Secretary Geurts and Vice Admiral Merz, how do
you assess this will impact the ``mix'' of ships we need in the force?
Secretary Geurts. The addition of long range strike capability
would add another mission area to a multi-mission capable small surface
combatant. However, any effect that addition might have on the force
mix of ships would be dependent on capabilities/capacities required to
achieve objectives in a future joint fight, and on defense leadership
decisions on the characteristics of the systems developed and decisions
about what platform(s) should host them.
Vice Admiral Merz. The addition of long range strike capability
would add another mission area to a multi-mission capable small surface
combatant. However, any effect that addition might have on the force
mix of ships would be dependent on capabilities/capacities required to
achieve objectives in a future joint fight, and on defense leadership
decisions on the characteristics of the systems developed and decisions
about what platform(s) should host them.
impact of great power competition on military industrial complex
5. Senator Cotton. Secretary Geurts, what is the risk involved with
allowing our subsurface fleet to shrink to 45 vessels in 2030, as
compared to a Chinese fleet of 68 in 2025?
Secretary Geurts. While a detailed discussion of risk is
classified, the Navy is doing all it can to manage the impact of
reduced submarine inventory. It should also be noted that although
submarines play a role in Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), Maritime Patrol
Aircraft and Surface Combatants are significant contributors to both
Theater ASW and Defensive ASW against an adversary's submarine force.
6. Senator Cotton. Secretary Geurts, given the rate of Chinese
capacity and capability buildup, how long do you assess we will retain
the advantage?
Secretary Geurts. As the CNO has testified, both China and Russia
are deploying all elements of their national power to achieve their
global ambitions, and working to redefine the norms of the
international system on their terms. This includes creating their own
globally decisive naval force, undermining international security and
harming our national interests. Additional discussion of this issue
would require a classified forum.
columbia and ohio-class submarines
7. Senator Cotton. Secretary Geurts, how important is preserving
the nuclear triad to the overall deterrence strategy of the United
States?
Secretary Geurts. Preserving the nuclear triad is essential to
effectively deter adversaries. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)
confirms the findings of all previous NPRs that the diverse
capabilities of the nuclear triad provide the flexibility and
resilience needed for deterrence in the most cost-effective manner. The
Triad's complementary attributes of assured second strike, promptness,
and flexibility, ensure the enduring survivability of U.S. forces
against attack and our capability to hold at risk a range of adversary
targets in crisis or conflict. No single leg of the triad offers all of
these attributes. Eliminating any leg of the triad would greatly ease
adversary attack planning and allow an adversary to concentrate
resources and attention on defeating the remaining two legs.
8. Senator Cotton. Secretary Geurts, what would cutting this
program in half, as some have proposed, do to our ability to deter
other nuclear-powered nations from thinking they could attack the
United States?
Secretary Geurts. The Secretary of Defense, in the most recent
nuclear posture review, validated the Strategic Command (STRATCOM)
requirement for a minimum of twelve Columbia-class submarines to meet
our Nation's sea-based strategic deterrent requirements. The Navy and
STRATCOM determined a minimum of twelve submarines is required through
detailed analysis of operational requirements, patrol and maintenance
cycles, and current / postulated threats. The Navy can provide the
classified analysis supporting this requirement if desired.
9. Senator Cotton. Secretary Geurts, does it make sense to build an
additional 4-6 Columbia-class submarines, with those subs converted to
a conventional guided missile role?
Secretary Geurts. The four SSGNs now in service retire in the mid-
2020s. To meet payload and Special Forces requirements, the Navy is
inserting Virginia Payload Modules (VPM) into Block V and VI Virginia-
class attack submarines beginning in fiscal year 2019. The Navy will
make the determination of a new SSGN (next-generation payload-based
submarine) after establishing the requirements utilizing the Tactical
Submarine Evolution Plan as a guide.
deferred procurement and inactivation
10. Senator Cotton. Vice Admiral Merz and Lieutenant General
Berger, What assessment informed the simultaneous deferred procurement
of amphibious ships and inactivation and USS Harry S. Truman?
Vice Admiral Merz. The National Defense Strategy and the Navy
Strategy provide the overarching high-level requirements for the Navy
the Nation Needs, the Navy's enduring plan for building and sustaining
a lethal, resilient force through balanced investments across
readiness, capability, and capacity. For the USS Harry S. Truman,
consistent with the President's recent decision, Navy plans to retain
the aircraft carrier and complete her refueling overhaul. The original
adjustment was in concert with the Defense Department's pursuit of a
more lethal balance of high-end, survivable platforms (e.g. CVNs) and
complementary capabilities from emerging technologies. The LPD profile
was shifted to balance shipbuilding accounts in support of near-term
priorities articulated in the National Defense Strategy. Navy slid the
LPD profile right and deferred the fiscal year 2024 procurement to
beyond the FYDP.
Lieutenant General Berger. Per the fiscal year 2020 LRSS SBP, the
LPD profile shifted to balance shipbuilding accounts in support of
near-term priorities articulated in the National Defense Strategy. The
Navy did take risk in capacity within the FYDP in balancing its
portfolio in favor of readiness and lethality investments while meeting
the fiscal challenge of sustaining the shipbuilding plan. The changes
to procurement of amphibious ships were decisions made as a result of
balancing those portfolios within the FYDP.
11. Senator Cotton. Vice Admiral Merz and Lieutenant General
Berger, was it this same calculus that lead to the addition of a
Virginia-class submarine in fiscal year 2020?
Vice Admiral Merz. Yes, the National Defense Strategy (NDS) and the
Navy Strategy provide the overarching high-level requirements for all
our shipbuilding budget decisions to build the Navy the Nation Needs,
the Navy's enduring plan for building and sustaining a lethal,
resilient force through balanced investments across readiness,
capability, and capacity. Attack submarines are critical enablers of
the NDS and represent one of the Nation's most lethal asymmetric
advantages. Numerically, attack submarines remain the furthest from the
inventory objective. Adding a third submarine in fiscal year 2020 shows
our commitment to the industrial base to expand production, and also
better balances the total shipbuilding procurement funding over the
next five years as the Navy also begins to build Columbia-class
submarines.
Lieutenant General Berger. I defer to the Navy as submarines are
their program.
12. Senator Cotton. Vice Admiral Merz and Lieutenant General
Berger, has it been assessed that it is more critical to fill the
capacity gap we currently have in our fast attack submarines, than to
maintain the Navy's requirement of 12 aircraft carriers?
Vice Admiral Merz. No, that is not the assessment or justification
for the shipbuilding decisions in the fiscal year 2020 budget request.
Both requirements are important to the National Defense Strategy (NDS).
In addition to adding a third attack submarine in fiscal year 2020, the
fiscal year 2020 budget request also includes a two-ship procurement
strategy for Ford-class aircraft carriers (CVN 80 and CVN 81),
indicating the central strategic role aircraft carriers will continue
to serve in controlling the high-end fight. The Ford class was designed
to deliver more capability with more lethal systems and increased power
generation while also being more cost-effective than the Nimitz class.
In conjunction with this, the Department of Defense is also pursuing
portfolio options for strike capabilities from emerging technologies to
complement the more lethal balance of high-end, survivable platforms
(e.g. CVNs).
Lieutenant General Berger. I defer to the Navy.
13. Senator Cotton. Vice Admiral Merz and Lieutenant General
Berger, has our understanding of the operational environment changed?
Vice Admiral Merz. The operational environment remains consistent
with how it was described in the National Defense Strategy (NDS). The
NDS identifies great power competition with China and Russia as DOD's
priority and pursues three distinct lines of efforts to expand our
competitive space, including rebuilding military readiness as we build
a more lethal Joint Force. There is no choice between rebuilding
readiness and modernization towards a more lethal fleet--Navy must do
both, and each are equally important. This requires Navy to balance its
investments in readiness, capacity (force structure) and advanced
capabilities from a warfighting perspective. In addition to the
capability challenge of modernizing our force to contend with high-end
conflict, the Navy also must contend with regional actors and
activities below the level of armed conflict.
Lieutenant General Berger. Yes. Per service concepts regarding the
future A2AD fight, we must establish a forward deployed defense-in-
depth, anchored on naval ``inside'' forces, capable of Expeditionary
Advance Base Operations (EABO) and sustained afloat littoral operations
in support of the naval campaign. As naval ``inside'' forces, the Navy-
Marine Corps team must develop complementary capabilities to compete,
deter, and win in all domains and facilitate the maneuver and
projection of Joint Force capabilities. Our warfighting contributions
must help shape the strategic environment to prevent conflict.
Furthermore, our current investment in resources aimed at operating in
and defending sea bases in a contested environment is sound. The Marine
Corps, in concert with the Navy, leverages the sea as maneuver space,
to support fleet maritime superiority and naval expeditionary
operations. The Marine Corps acknowledges that our adversaries continue
to invest in A2AD that increasingly jeopardize our maritime dominance--
which is why we are increasing our investment in our ability to operate
in contested environments to remain relevant and compete with peer
competitors.
__________
Senator Thom Tillis
anti-access area denial and amphibious assault
14. Senator Tillis. Lieutenant General Berger, understanding that
certain near-peer adversary nations have made significant investments
in developing anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) capabilities which
could potentially limit the maritime freedom of movement in certain
regions, what capabilities would be necessary to set the conditions to
project power ashore, and what steps are the USN and USMC taking to
develop a future force structure to address these challenges?
Lieutenant General Berger. We can do this with multi-year
procurement profiles for amphibious warfare ships; with procurement
acceleration of LH program of record; by accelerating industry
production/build times; by developing robust maintenance and
modernization facilities; and by integrating evolving, maritime
technology with capacity for surge operations. Furthermore, we must: 1)
Modernize amphibious warfare ships for integrated or independent lethal
self-defense and strike capability and incorporate technologies that
enable a ``continuous lead-turn'' on our adversaries. 2) Return the SSC
procurement profile to established POR, and support a ``family'' of
global/regional specialized connector capacity/capability. 3) Sustain
MPF and Next Generation MPF that is networked and survivable, and fully
capable of at sea arrival, assembly and selective off-load. These
platforms must be capable of independent operations and sustain
interoperable critical links within the entire battleforce. 4) Ensure
resources are sustained for critical afloat and ashore C5I capabilities
including capable networks, high throughput (bandwidth) communications
in multiple spectrums and waveforms. Common Operational/Tactical
Picture and Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) for
Situational Awareness are especially relevant to independent,
disaggregated, and special operations.
15. Senator Tillis. Lieutenant General Berger, do you believe that
the current and projected amphibious ship inventory is adequate for
meeting USMC training needs and operational life requirements?
Lieutenant General Berger. No. The amphibious fleet allows the
naval force to do three basic things: conduct steady state operations
around the world; execute a global cost imposition strategy if we have
to fight; and project and sustain the force in a contested environment.
The current 30 year SBP accepts risk below the minimum requirement. The
current 30 year plan does not achieve and sustain the 38 amphibious
warfare ship requirement as stated in the Navy's 2016 Force Structure
Assessment (FSA). The 38 ship requirement in a mix of 12 LH and 26 LPD
is still the minimum inventory necessary to sustain global commitments
and tasking per the NDS and DPG.
16. Senator Tillis. Lieutenant General Berger, how would you
characterize the current state of U.S. Navy and United States Marine
Corps ship-to-shore maneuver including existing equipment shortfalls,
and how would you envision the future role for these units?
Lieutenant General Berger. The current surface connector and ACV
strategy will support the Marine Corps' capability to conduct entry
throughout the depth and breadth of the littorals. These systems
specifically enable combat power build up and sustained operations
ashore. The 72 non-displacement landing craft (LCAC SLEP/LCAC-100) and
the 32 displacement landing craft (LCU/LCU-1700) satisfy near term
amphibious warfare modernization goals. The 14 EPFs provide
complimentary intra-theater lift capability and potential employment
options. We must ensure that LCU/LCAC platforms are modernized per the
current replacement program to ensure our surface delivery capacity
remains capable of supporting global littoral operations. Furthermore,
we may need to holistically invest in a family of surface and vertical
connectors that provide unique or regional prepositioned or amphibious
surge capacities/capabilities that will enable USMC operational
concepts for sustained ``inside force'' activities. These systems will
be required to ensure ship-to-shore, shore-to-shore, and shore-to-sea
capacity at operational distances for force employment and sustainment,
in environments where survivability and reliability, speed and capacity
are key within and around the global commons.
17. Senator Tillis. Lieutenant General Berger, what investments in
connectors, fires or other capabilities might be required to ensure a
reliable ship-to-shore maneuver capability?
Lieutenant General Berger. Considering the response to the previous
question, investments in connector speed, capacity, endurance,
survivability, lethality, and autonomous operations are particular
areas of interest. In conjunction with the Navy, we are exploring
additional surface platform ideas with increased ranges and the ability
to carry and deploy small boats, decoys, weapons/weapon systems, and
amphibious vehicles--manned, optionally manned, or autonomous--to allow
for additional dispersion of amphibious warfare ships while causing
uncertainty for threat targeting systems. Furthermore, additional
surface platforms under consideration are Offshore Support Vessels
(OSV) and Stern Landing Vessels (SLV), and a NAVSEA SBIR initiative
(Modular Buoyant Kit) seeks to provide a ramp support platform to allow
for at-sea launch and recovery of small boats and amphibious vehicles
from vessels of opportunity in order to increase options for littoral
maneuver. It is anticipated that a future family of surface platforms
and connectors supported with vertical capability, in concert with
other ``self-deploying'' platforms/connectors, will facilitate maneuver
for entry and sustainment within the global commons.
__________
Senator Richard Blumenthal
cuts to virginia payload module
18. Senator Blumenthal. Secretary Geurts, from a shipbuilding and
supply base perspective, what risks and complications should we expect
from the decision to take out a Virginia Payload Module submarine in
fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021?
Secretary Geurts. The removal of the Virginia Payload Modules (VPM)
is executable and reduces some schedule risk associated with VPM
missile tube hardware deliveries. This will introduce inefficiencies
with the shipbuilders and the design yard, as it is more efficient for
the shipbuilders to build at a steady cadence of the same configuration
through the production line. Disruption to the supply base would be
minimal, as suppliers would continue to provide components such as 520-
ton air conditioning plants, circuit-D, internal communications system
and impressed current cathodic protection system, that would be used to
build additional VPM or non-VPM ships. A design change to remove the
VPM modifications to the Block V VPM ships would be required, adding to
the design and construction complication.
19. Senator Blumenthal. Secretary Geurts, has the Navy already
bought Virginia Payload Module-specific long lead items for the subs we
expected to be outfitted with the Virginia Payload Module? Do you have
a cost estimate for this change?
Secretary Geurts. The Navy has procured the Long Lead Time Material
(LLTM) for the first three Virginia Payload Module (VPM) ships. The
LLTM include large forgings, payload tubes, air conditioning (A/C)
plants, weapons launch consoles (WLC), and fixtures. The A/C plants and
some of the WLCs will be utilized for the fiscal year 2020 non-VPM
ship. The other items procured will be utilized in future ships. The
cost estimate is currently being evaluated to account for the removal
of VPM from a fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021 ship.
20. Senator Blumenthal. Secretary Geurts, without the Virginia
Payload Module, will our special operations community lose capability?
Secretary Geurts. The Virginia-class SSN (VCS) already supports the
special operations community through its inherent design, so there is
no impact to SOF by removing the VPM capability from one VCS in fiscal
year 2020 and fiscal year 2021. In preparation for the SSGNs retiring
starting in 2026, the Navy plans to incorporate additional SOF features
into the VCS in fiscal year 2021, mid-Block V.
21. Senator Blumenthal. Secretary Geurts, if we begin cutting
Virginia Payload Module ships from our Virginia-class submarines, are
we increasing the risk in the future of a capability gap in our desired
cruise missile posture?
Secretary Geurts. The Navy is committed to replacing the undersea
strike volume from our proven Ohio-class nuclear-powered, cruise
missile-equipped submarines (SSGNs) through the additional capacity
provided by the Block V Virginia-class Submarines and Virginia Payload
Module. SSGNs will begin decommissioning in 2026, with all four planned
for decommissioning by 2028. Any delays in the procurement or delivery
of SSNs with VPM will slow the restoration of the undersea strike
volume lost with the decommissioning of the SSGNs.
22. Senator Blumenthal. Secretary Geurts, have you spoken to
General Hyten at U.S. Strategic Command or General Thomas at U.S.
Special Operations Command about the future consequences or risk of
these cuts to their commands?
Secretary Geurts. The Department of the Navy regularly consults
with the combatant commanders when developing future force structure
requirements. I, along with the Vice Chief of Naval Operations and our
representatives, meet at least quarterly with U.S. Strategic Command as
members of the Missile Defense Executive Board (MDEB) and its sub-
committees. The MDEB provides recommendations and oversees
implementation of strategic policies, program priorities, and
investment options in order to promote continued improvement of a
ballistic missile defense capability. In addition, the Department
interacts regularly with U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)
through: the Navy-SOCOM Warfighter Talks, which focuses on SOF-Navy
interoperability; the Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Requirements Council,
which focuses on requirements and resourcing to support NSW/Fleet
integration; and the Undersea Executive Oversight Panel, which focuses
on submarine/SOF technical integration.
uss harry truman
23. Senator Blumenthal. Secretary Geurts, you mentioned in your
testimony before the Committee that the decision to retire the Nimitz-
class USS Truman while simultaneously requesting two Ford-class
carriers in this year's budget, was indicative of prioritizing Ford-
class at the expense of Nimitz-class, but was instead the result of a
larger set of budget trade-offs. Please elaborate and provide further
justification for this budget decision to retire the USS Truman at
midlife?
Secretary Geurts. The Navy is implementing the President's recent
decision to restore the refueling and complex overhaul (RCOH) for USS
Truman (CVN 75), and updating our long term procurement plans and force
structure accordingly.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2020 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2019
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Seapower,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
MARINE CORPS GROUND MODERNIZATION AND NAVAL AVIATION PROGRAMS
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator David
Perdue (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Subcommittee Members present: Senators Perdue, Ernst,
Tillis, Hawley, Hirono, Blumenthal and King.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAVID PERDUE
Senator Perdue. Good morning.
Before we begin this hearing this morning, I would like to
observe a moment of silence for the three marines that we lost
this week and the contractor at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the families in this time of
loss. So if you will indulge me, I would like us to take a
moment of silence. Thank you.
[A moment of silence was observed.]
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
It is a reminder that this is a dangerous business that you
and your men in your commands--men and women in your commands
face every day. So our thoughts are with those families.
The Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower convenes
this morning to examine Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs
and Marine ground programs in review of the defense
authorization request for fiscal year 2020 and the future years
defense program (FYDP).
We welcome our four distinguished witnesses: the Honorable
James F. Geurts, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
Development, and Acquisition; Lieutenant General David H.
Berger, Commanding General of the Marine Corps Combat
Development Command and Deputy Commandant for Combat
Development and Integration and the nominee to be the next
Commandant; Lieutenant General Steven Rudder. We will not talk
about call signs for these next two witnesses this morning. But
Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Aviation; and Rear
Admiral Scott Conn, Director of Air Warfare for the Office of
the Chief of Naval Operations. Thank you for being here this
morning, gentlemen.
In this subcommittee's first public meeting, we received
testimony regarding shipbuilding, which provided great insight
into how the Department is addressing this era of great power
competition, as described in President Trump's National Defense
Strategy (NDS).
In this hearing, we intend to further that effort and focus
on naval aviation, as well as Marine ground programs.
Specifically, we hope to address how the Navy and Marine Corps
are adjusting their aviation and ground modernization
strategies to support the National Defense Strategy.
The world is more dangerous now than anytime in my lifetime
in my opinion. We face complex threats from China, North Korea,
Russia, Iran. Now more than ever, our Navy and Marine Corps
need capable fleets and robust air and ground force
capabilities in order to deter aggression, project power, and
support our allies.
Not since the end of the Cold War has air power been forced
to operate in a contested environment both to project power and
to provide fleet defense. The ability to operate in a complex
threat environment requires the Navy to develop and field
cutting edge capability while modernizing current weapon
systems and maintaining an extremely high level of training and
readiness.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
the Navy and Marine Corps plans to balance these competing
priorities to balance a more modern and lethal force as quickly
as possible.
Additionally, I would like to review a number of other
aviation-related topics, including the future carrier air wing
and the balance of fourth and fifth generation aircraft, as
well as manned/unmanned teaming with unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV); depot maintenance capability and performance to ensure
our weapon systems are ready for the high end fight; next, F-35
integration into the fleet and its performance both deployed
and in training; next, psychological episodes in the Navy and
Marine Corps aircraft--I am sorry--physiological episodes in
the Navy and Marine Corps aircraft actions underway to solve
underlying issues.
The threats posed by our adversaries equally apply to the
Marine Corps ground elements. The ground combat element and
logistics combat element, two critical parts of the Marine Air
Command Task Force, must also modernize to meet these new
threats while maintaining a high level of readiness. I look
forward to hearing how the Marine Corps intends to modernize
and field new equipment to meet challenges facing the future
battlefields and ensure our marines have the tools they need to
win in battle.
This subcommittee will continue to work with the Navy and
Marine Corps to build aviation and ground capabilities ready to
defend our national interests, while demanding the best use of
every taxpayer dollar.
I look forward to our witnesses' testimony.
I now recognize Ranking Member Senator Hirono.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAZIE K. HIRONO
Senator Hirono. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I also welcome our witnesses this morning. Thank you
for your service.
I echo a lot of what the Chairman has always said, but
repetition is also good because it sticks in our minds.
So in today's discussion, we will examine how the
Department of the Navy's fiscal year 2020 budget request for
Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs would help increase
readiness, address shortfalls in munitions, pilots, and
maintenance personnel, and modernize our strategic deterrence
capabilities. We will also hear from our witnesses about how
the budget request supports Marine Corps ground modernization
programs. Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs play a
critical role to supporting and advancing our country's
strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific region, including from
bases in Hawaii.
As we consider the fiscal year 2020 budget, we need to
consider the significant challenges we face in naval aviation.
In particular, we need to hear more about how the new National
Defense Strategy will impact the Department of the Navy's
aviation programs. One such challenge will be meeting the
guidance of the Secretary of Defense to achieve a level 80
percent readiness in the tactical aviation inventory.
Another challenge will be to ensure that our flying
operations are as safe as we can make them. We all understand
that flying operations are inherently dangerous. Nevertheless,
our hearts are touched whenever we lose any of our brave men or
women in training operations, and specifically we regret the
recent loss of the AH-1 crew in Yuma, Arizona. I hope you will
extend our condolences to their families.
In a broader sense, we need to understand whether there may
be some pattern accidents in Marine Corps or Navy air
operations. Navy and Marine Corps pilots have been experiencing
problems with the environmental control systems in certain
aircraft, mainly F-18's and T-45's, that have resulted in what
the Chairman referred to as physiological episodes. While most
of these episodes have not led to accidents, they are troubling
nonetheless.
Last year, we enacted a provision in the fiscal year 2019
NDAA that establishes a national commission on military
aviation safety to review aviation safety issues. In
particular, this commission is charged with reviewing the rates
of military aviation mishaps between fiscal years 2013 and 2018
compared to historical aviation mishap rates and making an
assessment of the underlying causes contributing to unexplained
physiological episodes. The commission is not due to report its
findings until March 2020. So we need to be sure that the Navy
and Marine Corps are taking appropriate measures to reduce
accidents in the meantime.
In recent years, naval aviation has faced challenges of a
high operational tempo and uncertainty in the fiscal
environment. We need to hear from the services what progress is
being made to address these problems.
I would also like to discuss what the Department of the
Navy is doing to address corrosion, a significant issue that
costs the Department $20 billion a year. I will continue to
support efforts to help prevent and treat corrosion, to
mitigate its impact on the readiness of our forces.
This hearing will also provide a chance to discuss some of
the ongoing issues with the F-35 program. I am interested in
learning more about how the Navy and Marine Corps view the F-35
Joint Program Office's plans to modernize the F-35 fleet on a
faster pace than was envisioned for the original block 4
upgrade program.
I would also like to hear about the investments the Navy
and Marine Corps are making in training and maintenance
operations, as well as about problems in the Marine Corps CH-
53K program and what steps the Department is taking to correct
the cost growth and schedule delays in this program.
Finally, as we evaluate the budget request for the Marine
Corps, we must also make sure our marines have modernized
ground platforms. The fiscal year 2020 budget request includes
$3.1 billion for Marine Corps procurement and $623 million for
research, development, test, and evaluation funding. The budget
request supports the continued development of the amphibious
combat vehicle (ACV). The ACV is a new armored personnel
carrier, and it will support expeditionary maneuver warfare for
ground combat forces. In addition, the Marine Corps continues
to procure a joint light tactical vehicle, which provides
increased protection and performance over the legacy Humvee
fleet. I welcome an update from our witnesses on the status of
both of these programs.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses.
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
I think, Secretary Geurts, you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES F. GEURTS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION;
ACCOMPANIED BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL DAVID H. BERGER, USMC,
COMMANDING GENERAL, MARINE CORPS COMBAT DEVELOPMENT COMMAND AND
DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR COMBAT DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION;
LIEUTENANT GENERAL STEVEN R. RUDDER, USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT
FOR AVIATION, HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS; AND REAR
ADMIRAL SCOTT D. CONN, USN, DIRECTOR, AIR WARFARE, OFFICE OF
THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir.
Chairman Perdue, Ranking Member Hirono, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, thanks for the opportunity to
appear before you today to address the Department of the Navy's
fiscal year 2020 budget request.
Joining me today are Lieutenant General Dave Berger, Deputy
Commandant for Combat Development and Integration; Lieutenant
General Steve Rudder, Deputy Commandant for Aviation; and Rear
Admiral Scott Conn, Director of Air Warfare.
With your permission, I intend to provide a few brief
remarks and put my statement in for the record.
Senator Perdue. Yes, sir.
Secretary Geurts. I would like to start by thanking the
subcommittee and all of Congress for passing the 2019 bill on
time. On-time receipt of the full budget allowed us to expedite
the delivery of lethality and readiness to our sailors and
marines while achieving cost savings through more efficient
contracting and more efficient programs. It also helped
stabilize the industrial base and supply base, both of which
are key to our success.
While we gain great benefit from an on-time 2019 budget, we
are once again threatened by the prospect of returning to
harmful effects that impact our service readiness and our
modernization as a result of a continuing resolution for the
coming year. Budget uncertainty associated with a continuing
resolution adds instability, inefficiency, delays contracting,
and delays fielding of critical capabilities while introducing
unneeded risks into warfighting readiness.
Even more devastating to our recovery would the return of
Budget Control Act (BCA) limitations. Budgets commensurate with
the sequestration caps would not only immediately reverse the
progress we have made to date but would inflict a disastrous
impact on our future readiness and modernization.
Our 2020 budget request recognizes our continued focus to
fully restore our readiness while ensuring we develop and field
the technologies and capabilities that will ensure we maintain
our competitive military advantage. The budget submission
delivers the aviation and ground vehicle readiness and
modernization investments required to deliver on the National
Defense Strategy. It demonstrates our continued commitment to
ensuring our sailors and marines have the equipment they need
to execute our national security.
While we are here to discuss our 2020 budget request, I
would also like to recognize the sailors and marines who are
engaged in combat and operational activities around the world
as we speak, three of which gave the ultimate sacrifice earlier
this week. Thank you, sir, for recognizing them at the
beginning of this hearing. We keep their loved ones and their
teammates in our thoughts and prayers.
We have also offered our full support to our Japanese
partners as they lost an F-35 earlier this week, and we are
committed to giving them all the support we can as they work
through that issue.
Thank you for the strong support this committee has always
provided our sailors and marines, and thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. We look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Geurts and Lieutenant
General Berger to follow, followed by the prepared statement of
Secretary Geurts, Lieutenant General Rudder, and Rear Admiral
Conn follow:]
Joint Prepared Statement by The Honorable James F. Geurts and
Lieutenant General David H. Berger
introduction
The 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) identifies a requirement
for forward-deployed naval forces that can compete against, deter, and
if necessary defeat peer adversaries. As an essential element of those
naval forces, Fleet Marine Forces must provide stand-in capabilities to
the fleet to facilitate sea denial and sea control operations as part
of an integrated naval defense-in-depth or broader naval campaign.
Furthermore, the National Defense Strategy clearly identifies the need
for change--and rapid change in the form of accelerated modernization
in order to arrest and reverse any erosion of our competitive naval
advantage. This includes major changes to your naval expeditionary
force-in-readiness--the United States Marine Corps.
Fleet Marine Forces Marines (FMF) must be able to persist inside an
adversary's weapons engagement zone (WEZ) as stand-in forces to
facilitate the application of lethal stand-off forces and capabilities,
while simultaneously supporting broader fleet actions. Whether
organized as part of an Expeditionary Strike Group, Amphibious Ready
Group, or FMF capability ashore, Marine forces require significant
modernization to maintain overmatch of emerging threats and support
increasingly contested and distributed naval operations globally. While
our initial service modernization efforts prior to the release of the
NDS focused primarily on our Information Warfare capabilities and our
Command Element, since its release we have prioritized modernization
efforts which directly enhance the lethality of naval forces,
facilitate distributed fleet operations, and accelerate the development
of capabilities identified in concepts such as Distributed Maritime
Operations and Expeditionary Advance Base Operations.
our 2020 budget
``Competing with a Peer Threat'' is the theme of our fiscal year
(FY) 2020 budget submission, and directly aligns with the Secretary of
Defense's guidance to increase lethality, improve warfighting
readiness, and achieve program balance. This year's submission focuses
on three key budget priorities--modernization, readiness, and manpower.
Through divestiture of legacy systems which fail to provide overmatch
against a peer adversary; key investments in manned-unmanned teaming
and autonomous systems which facilitate sea control and sea denial; and
programmatic reforms, we are transforming today's Marine Corps into the
future Fleet Marine Forces required by the Navy and larger Joint Force.
To accomplish this goal, we require adequate, sustained, and
predictable funding; as well as your continued support for divestments
needed in order to modernize the force.
Accelerated and focused modernization remains critical to meeting
the demands of a strategic environment marked by peer adversaries with
access to advanced, lethal, and disruptive capabilities attempting to
create strategic dilemmas through fait accompli scenarios. Forward-
deployed Fleet Marine Forces operating afloat or ashore as an extension
of the fleet with modern capabilities can prevent such strategic
dilemmas through deterrence by denial, and if required--deter via
punishment along with the rest of the fleet. As previously noted by the
Commandant during testimony, we need a force capable of denying freedom
of naval maneuver to deter our adversaries; or, as necessary, a Corps
capable of exploiting, penetrating, and degrading advanced adversary
defenses in all domains in support of Naval and Joint Force operations.
In order to achieve the modern and lethal naval force required, we
must experiment with new technologies available on the market, and then
deliver the most promising of those capabilities to the force quickly
to take advantage of the rapid rate of technological change. The Marine
Corps Rapid Capabilities Office (MCRCO) makes this possible, seeking
emergent and disruptive technologies to increase our lethality and
resiliency. The MCRCO leverages authorities provided in the fiscal year
2016 and fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Acts and
develops partnerships to accelerate the requirements development and
definition process. With the consistent and steadfast support of
Congress, we will continue to fully fund this office. We also embrace
the idea of alternative acquisition pathways. We are using and seeing
value in Other Transaction Authority and intend to apply middle tier
rapid fielding authority at the first appropriate opportunity as a
solution to expedite modernization, where production is achievable
within five years or less. We look forward to working with this
Committee to identify additional opportunities to accelerate our
acquisition processes.
The following capability areas and ground programs support the
rebuilding a 21st century Fleet Marine Force necessary to facilitate
fleet operations in contested maritime spaces.
Long Range and Precision Fires
The NDS, as well as emerging naval concepts, identify the need for
naval forces capable of conducting lethal strikes at range, in depth,
and with precision in support of sea control and sea denial missions.
Marine Corps ground modernization efforts in long range precision fires
will enable our ground forces to contribute to Naval Integrated Fire
Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) and Army shore-to-shore Long-Range
Precision Fires capabilities.
In coordination with the Navy, the Marine Corps is pursuing the
integration of offensive anti-surface warfare (OASuW) capabilities into
traditional ground formations. The Navy/Marine Corps Expeditionary Ship
Interdiction System is a near term development of a ground-based anti-
ship missile capability that will soon enable the Fleet Marine Forces
to contribute to sea control/sea denial in support of a maritime
campaign, as an element of the joint force. These forward deployed
capabilities, ashore and afloat, will enable our fleets to deny
adversary use of key maritime areas or terrain, supporting the concept
of distributed maritime operations, with increased fire support
precision, range, and lethality.
We continue to expand our rocket artillery capacity through
additional investments in High Mobility Artillery Rocket System
launchers and communications equipment in support of the activation of
5th Battalion 10th Marines, which will reach initial operational
capability in fiscal year 2021. This battalion will expand long range
precision fires capability of Fleet Marine Forces based in Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina, and supporting 2nd and 6th Fleets.
The Marine Corps is also working closely with the Army to develop
longer range cannon and rocket systems and projectiles, such as the
M777 Extended Range, supercharge cannon propellant, XM1128 base bleed
projectile, XM1113 rocket assisted projectile, and Guided Multiple
Launch Rocket System Extended Range rockets in support of sustained
operations ashore. These modernization efforts could double the range
of current cannon and rocket artillery systems. Furthermore, we are
participating in the Army's Cannon-Delivered Area Effects Munition
efforts to work toward a replacement for Dual Purpose Improved
Conventional Munitions. Each of these efforts provide opportunity to
work jointly toward common capability requirements while minimizing
overall costs.
Protected Mobility/Enhanced Maneuver
To distribute and concentrate FMF ashore, we must be able to
maneuver to positions of advantage, and engage and defeat threat forces
in all geographic, topographic, and climatic environments from
contested littoral waterways to complex urban environments occupying
key terrain in relation to maritime spaces. Our ground combat and
tactical vehicle modernization programs will replace legacy in our
inventory while also providing key mobility enablers supporting the
full range of future operational capabilities.
The Department of the Navy's and Marine Corps' highest Ground
Combat and Tactical Vehicle modernization priority is replacement of
the legacy Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) with the Amphibious Combat
Vehicle (ACV). In June of 2018, the ACV program achieved Milestone C
and awarded BAE Systems the production and deployment phase contract.
During the fall of 2018, ACV 1.1 prototypes demonstrated satisfactory
water mobility performance in high surf conditions, and in doing so met
the full water mobility transition requirement for ACV 1.2 capability.
Subsequently, the Milestone Decision Authority (ASN(RD&A)) approved the
consolidation of increments one and two into a single program to enable
continuous production of ACVs to completely replace the AAV. The next
key acquisition event is the Full Rate Production decision scheduled
for the third quarter of fiscal year 2020 following Initial Operational
Test & Evaluation. ACV remains on schedule to achieve Initial
Operational Capability in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020.
Our second highest priority remains the replacement of the legacy
high mobility, multi-purpose, wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) inventory to
support sustained operations ashore. In partnership with the Army, we
have sequenced the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program to
ensure affordability in conjunction with the execution of the ACV
program. This approach enables an affordable, incremental, and
simultaneous modernization of the two most stressing gaps within the
Ground Combat Tactical Vehicle portfolio. We have initiated fielding
the JTLV, and new equipment training is underway. The next key
acquisition event is the Full Rate Production decision planned for May.
Initial Operational Capability remains on schedule, and, by the end of
July the Third Battalion, Eighth Marines will be the first operational
unit equipped with JLTV as it prepares for its next rotation with the
Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit.
Air Defense
Forward deployed and stationed naval forces ashore are vulnerable
to attacks by adversaries with ready access to cheap asymmetric
capabilities--whether traditional rockets or unmanned systems that have
proven in recent conflicts to be both lethal and highly disruptive.
Lacking the protection and requisite resilience necessary to mitigate
and defeat these threats, we are investing heavily in modernizing and
expanding our air defense capabilities ashore. We aggressively
developing the Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS) Family of
Systems (FOS) to provide the naval force with an ability to detect,
track, identify, and defeat UAS, rotary and fixed wing aircraft. Coming
in multiple configurations, the MADIS FOS includes a JLTV-based variant
to defend maneuver forces against Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS),
fixed and rotary wing aircraft, as well as a variant that provides all
Marine Corps Installations, both CONUS and OCONUS, with a counter UAS
capability specially tailored to match the needs of each installation.
We have further identified the need for an expeditionary cruise
missile defense system to facilitate naval operations and further
support Fleet Marine Forces persisting inside the WEZ; thus, we are
investing in a Medium Range Intercept Capability (MRIC). Integrated
with the Common Aviation Command and Control System (CAC2S), Ground/Air
Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) and other sensors, the MRIC will defend
Fleet Marine Forces from a wide array of cruise missiles and other
aerial threats, providing protection of critical assets and enabling
the force to execute Expeditionary Advance Base Operations.
Command and Control (C2) in a Degraded Environment
Fleet Marine Forces require a sustainable, defendable, and
resilient C2 network, integrated with Navy and Joint Force networks,
which allows for timely and persistent information exchange while
enhancing battlefield awareness to dispersed tactical units. Critical
to the success of our support to the fleet is our ability to coordinate
and synchronize our distributed C2 sensors and systems. Our
modernization priorities in this area are G/ATOR and CAC2S. These
systems will provide modern, interoperable technologies to support
real-time surveillance, detection and targeting, and common aviation C2
suite to enable the effective employment and information sharing of
that and other sensors and C2 suites across the force.
G/ATOR ensures Fleet Marine Forces will be in full control of
designated airspace, and provides FMF commanders the freedom of action
to employ organic surface and air fires. G/ATOR Block II will acquire
threat indirect fire systems at much greater ranges than currently
fielded radars. The principal functions of G/ATOR Block II will be to
detect, track, classify, and accurately determine the origin of enemy
projectiles. G/ATOR detects the most challenging air threats to the
FMF, and will out-pace the threat for years to come.
CAC2S provides the tactical situational display, information
management, sensor and data link interface, and operational facilities
for planning and execution of Marine Aviation missions in support of
the fleet. CAC2S will eliminate the current stove-piped, dissimilar
legacy systems and will add capability for aviation combat direction
and air defense functions by providing a single networked system. CAC2S
will be the primary C2 system that integrates Marine aviation
operations with Joint, combined, and coalition aviation C2 agencies.
Networking on the Move is a C2 capability integrating tactical data
systems with satellite communications for Beyond Line of Sight
uninterrupted two-way access to digital data, with full Common
Operational Picture access, virtually unlimited situational awareness
and a powerful ability to issue digital orders (fires, maneuver,
planning) to ground, air, and logistic units anywhere on the
battlefield while on-the-move or at-the-halt.
Operations in the Information Environment (OIE)
Adversary use of ``information'' to manipulate facts, mobilize mass
perceptions, and contest our ability to C2 forces undermines our
traditional military advantages. We cannot count on uncontested access
to the electromagnetic spectrum any more than we can count on
uncontested freedom of maneuver at sea. Our Electronic Warfare Ground
Family of Systems (MEGFOS) is being developed to employ a common
backplane hardware infrastructure, which enables plug & play
capability, using software defined transceivers, amplifiers, and
specialized modules to provide upgradable, networked electronic warfare
systems for use across the FMF--on tactical vehicles, by dismounted
Marines, and at Expeditionary Advance Base sites. MEGFOS will operate
across a wide range of frequencies in order to provide the FMF the
ability to maneuver and fight in and through the electromagnetic
spectrum. Our transition to MEGFOS will be via the Multi-Function
Electronic Warfare (MFEW) program which modernizes Counter Radio-
Controlled Improvised Explosive Device--Electronic Warfare (CREW)
systems to provide networked and distributed MFEW capabilities to sense
and attack the adversary while providing protection from a multitude of
advanced spectrum reliant threats.
We are making rapid progress in the use of UAS to conduct
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, defend our troops in
harm's way, build battlefield Situational Awareness, and prosecute
targets of opportunity. We are currently fielding small UAS (sUAS) to
every infantry battalion for conducting Reconnaissance, Surveillance,
and Target Acquisition, for enhancing the reach of current
communications equipment, and for use in training for countering enemy
UAS platforms. We are using some commercial off-the-shelf systems as
well as systems produced through the use of additive manufacturing.
Simultaneously, we continue to advance the digital interoperability
between these systems and digital communications systems in order to
synchronize as well as control sUAS platforms.
Logistics
In a mutually contested maritime environment, logistics takes on
greater significance; especially for distributed naval forces operating
inside the WEZ. Global awareness, diversified distribution, improved
sustainment, and optimized installations are key enablers to sustained
operations. This requires innovative methods, the ability to leverage
new technologies, and continued naval integration as well as
integration with Joint and Coalition forces. Science and technology
efforts in additive manufacturing have resulted in advanced
manufacturing techniques, and must include reverse engineering,
prototype development, small to large scale fabrication, and
development of new approaches. As a result, we have procured 160 3D
printers, with more than 125 ground and 83 NAVAIR-approved aviation
parts; immediately improving readiness and lethality. Additional
investments in enhanced command and control for logistics systems,
unmanned transportation and storage of bulk fuel, and a broader
unmanned logistics systems--to include quadrotor cargo delivery systems
and littoral connectors--are paving the way in Next Generation
Logistics capabilities. Our logistics modernization efforts include the
development of autonomous ground, surface and sub-surface materiel
distribution systems. These include the development of autonomous
ground, surface and sub-surface materiel distribution systems;
development of operational and tactical, in-field digital fabrication
capabilities; and the development of sensor-driven logistics
information technologies.
summary/conclusion
In conclusion, the Marine Corps and our Fleet Marine Forces must
accelerate modernization efforts, and prioritize those initiative and
programs which increase the lethality of our stand-in forces, those
Fleet Marine Forces inside the WEZ, in order to more effectively
support distributed maritime maneuver and compete and deter. To achieve
this end, we will continue to transition from today's ``1.0 force'' to
a near-term ``1.1'' modernized force that leverages select, existing
platforms to achieve new warfighting concepts; and ultimately, to a
``2.0 future force'' with revolutionized capabilities required to
create the competitive overmatch desired by the NDS. While we are clear
on what success looks like for the future naval force and Fleet Marine
Force, as well as the path and sequence of events necessary to cause
our desired outcomes; there are many obstacles to overcome, and we will
need your continued support in order to succeed. As we accelerate
modernization and identify new capabilities which create overmatch, we
will have to make decisions regarding capacity reductions, changes to
programs-of-record, and potentially seek outright divestments of legacy
capabilities. These divestments will be required to secure sufficient
funding for our modernization. Your continued oversight and support
will be essential. In closing--accelerated modernization is the most
effective remedy to the problems and challenges identified in the NDS,
as well as the appropriate remedy to our long-term readiness problems.
Joint Prepared Statement by The Honorable James F. Geurts, Lieutenant
General Steven Rudder and Rear Admiral Scott Conn
introduction
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hirono and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the Department of the Navy's (DON) fiscal year 2020
aviation programs. Our budget request aligns to the current National
Defense Strategy where great power competition remains the central
challenge to U.S. prosperity and security. A resurgent Russia and a
rapidly growing China continue their aims to displace American
influence from critical regions around the globe, undermine our
alliances, and coerce our regional allies and partner nations. Both
nations, and their proxies, are attempting to challenge us in all
warfighting domains, none greater than on the seas and in the air.
Our fiscal year 2020 budget request recognizes that we are still
emerging from a period of strategic and resource atrophy instilled
under the Budget Control Act (BCA). Sequestration budget caps resulted
in a significant erosion of readiness and the loss of some of our
competitive military advantage. To address the challenges of great
power competition, and overcome the results of the BCA, we require
predictable and on-time budgets commensurate with the challenges we
face together as a nation. Receipt of an on-time budget in fiscal year
2019 was extremely helpful and most appreciated by the Department.
Budgets commensurate with sequestration caps would only undermine the
progress we have made and inflict significant damage to Naval Aviation;
the return to Continuing Resolutions would only add instability and
induce higher programmatic and warfighting risks.
Our fiscal year 2020 investments are focused, balanced and
prioritized to deliver a ready, capable, global sea-based and
expeditionary force. We request your support for the continued
transition of the major components of the Carrier Air Wing (CVW),
Expeditionary Strike Group, Amphibious Ready Group, and land-based
Expeditionary Wings. We appreciate the support of Congress to help us
improve our readiness posture and ask for your continued support as we
expand on the assimilation and teaming of manned and unmanned systems
and further mature the integration of advanced platforms, sensors,
networks, electromagnetic spectrum, and strike weapons that provide the
necessary military advantage over those challenging the global posture.
China is innovating faster than we are and fielding significant
warfighting capabilities. To address the pace at which they are
progressing we cannot continue to develop weapon systems under a
procurement acquisition system with its foundations from the Cold War
(or earlier). We appreciate your continued support for the use of
accelerated acquisition authorities Congress provided under the fiscal
year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. While we are still
maturing the use of these authorities, we have seen positive results of
accelerated acquisition processes. We developed and fielded an Early
Operational Capability of the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile in
approximately four and one-half years as compared to eight years (or
longer) under traditional processes. Furthering that success, we are
developing MQ-25A as a maritime accelerated acquisition program and the
Next Generation Jammer Low Band is being considered for a Middle Tier
(Section 804) program.
Mr. Chairman, we are planning for a strategic environment that
continues to be complex, uncertain, and technologically advanced. Our
National Defense Strategy directs the development and operations of a
more lethal and ready force, prepared to defeat adversaries in high-end
combat. With the proliferation of modern conventional and cyber
weapons, from both state and non-state actors, we anticipate continued
challenges to our global influence across a large operational
continuum. But with the sustained support of Congress, we can continue
progressing along the path that addresses these needs, restores our
competitive naval advantage, enhances global deterrence, and ensures
Naval Aviation remains uncontested in an increasingly complex global
security environment.
tactical aviation
Strike Fighter Inventory Management Overview
The Naval Aviation Enterprise continues to actively manage strike
fighter inventory challenges. However, the key enabler will be stable,
on-time funding over multiple years to achieve the desired results.
The fiscal year 2020 request continues the Department's momentum in
reducing strike fighter inventory shortfall with procurement of 10 F-
35Bs, 20 F-35Cs, 24 FA-18E/F Block III Super Hornets and additional
aircraft across the Future Years Defense Program. In tandem with these
procurements, Service Life Modernization initiatives and capability
upgrades enhance our inventory by maintaining the tactical relevance of
the F/A-18 E/F and legacy F/A-18 A-D aircraft.
The Navy continues its accelerated divestiture of legacy Hornets
with the last fleet and training squadron completing transition to F/A-
18E/F in 2019, followed by the Reserve component in 2025. To maximize
the overall readiness capacity of the Department, F/A-18 A-D aircraft
will be transferred to the Marine Corps, the Naval Aviation Warfighting
Development Center and Naval Reserves. Based on operational and flight
test requirements, the Department will maintain a portion F/A-18 A-D
aircraft for the Marine Corps and Navy test squadrons through 2030.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
The F-35 Lightning II will form the backbone of U.S. air combat
superiority for decades to come. Whether the mission requires the
execution of strike, close air support, counter air, escort, or
suppression of enemy air defenses, both the F-35B and F-35C are vital
to our future as they become the lethal cornerstone of our naval air
forces. The Navy and Marine Corps will transition 25 squadrons over the
next 10 years as we replace our aging legacy fleet.
The Marine Corps has already established one Fleet Replacement
Training Squadron, one operational test squadron, and three operational
line squadrons, with USMC F-35Bs already operating in support of two
different Marine Expeditionary Units/ Amphibious Readiness Groups from
Amphibious Assault Ships (LHDs). The Navy declared F-35C Initial
Operating Capability (IOC) in February 2019. Continuing to deliver this
transformational capability to Navy and Marine Corps front-line forces
as soon as possible remains a top priority.
The DON is committed to reducing F-35 costs. The Department's goal
is to reduce the flyaway cost of the Marine Corps F-35B to be no
greater than $104 million dollars and the Navy F-35C cost to be no
greater than $98 million dollars no later than Low Rate Initial
Production (LRIP) Lot 14. We are also working to decrease operation and
sustainment costs by 27 percent over current projections.
The baseline program has delivered over 250 aircraft to test,
operational, and training sites (all variants). The F-35 program
continues to mature with base stand-up, sustainment of fielded aircraft
and maturation of the global sustainment enterprise.
The fiscal year 2020 President's budget requests $4.7 billion in
Aircraft Procurement funds (APN) for 10 F-35B and 20 F-35C aircraft,
modifications and spares.
F-35 Continuous Capabilities Development and Delivery (C2D2)
With the F-35 program soon closing Block 3F System Development and
Demonstration, we must continue to modernize the aircraft with advanced
capabilities to maintain the advantage over advancing adversary
fighters and ground-based radar threats.
Towards that end, the Department restructured the original Block 4
Follow-on Modernization acquisition strategy into a more agile
Continuous Capabilities Development and Delivery (C2D2) model. The C2D2
approach leverages commercial practices, develops capability in
smaller, more easily managed increments, and accelerates delivery of
warfighting capability. The approach also advances departmental goals
of reducing C2D2 risk and lowering cost. In support of fiscal year 2020
C2D2 ramp-up the DON requests $806.6 million in Research, Development,
Test, and Evaluation funds (RDT&E).
F/A-18 A/B/C/D Hornet
Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) efforts extended the F/A-18
A-D beyond its original service life of 6,000 hours to 8,000 hours, and
in select aircraft, up to 10,000 flight hours. Along with flight hour
extensions, these aircraft require capability upgrades to maintain
tactical relevance as the Marine Corps plans to fly a portion of the
legacy F/A-18 A-D fleet through the fiscal year 2030 timeframe to
bridge the transition gap to an F-35B/F-35C fleet.
The fiscal year 2020 budget requests $228.8 million in APN to
implement aircraft commonality programs, enhance capability, improve
reliability, and ensure structural safety of the F/A-18 A-D inventory,
and $101.0 million for the continuation of the Hornet SLEP.
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will be the numerically predominant
aircraft in CVWs into the 2030s. Continued investment in new aircraft,
capability enhancements and flight hour extensions significantly
improves CVW lethality.
In the second year of what will be a 72 aircraft Multi-Year
Procurement (MYP), the fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests
$1.80 billion in APN for procurement of 24 F/A-18E/F Block III Super
Hornet aircraft and $201.5 million of RDT&E for improvements, RADAR
upgrades and Block III development.
AV-8B Harrier
The fiscal year 2020 budget requests $27.4 million in RDT&E funds
to continue design, development, integration and test of platform
improvements. These improvements include continuation of an Engine Life
Management Program, Escape System upgrades, Joint Mission Planning
System updates, Link-16 Digital Interoperability (DI) integration,
Operational Flight Program block upgrades (mission and communication
systems), navigation improvements, weapons carriage updates,
countermeasure improvements, and updates to an Obsolescence
Replacement/Readiness Management Plan.
The fiscal year 2020 budget also includes $39.5 million in APN to
continue the incorporation of Obsolescence Replacement/Readiness
Management Plan systems, electrical and structural enhancements,
LITENING Pod upgrades, F402-RR-408 engine safety and operational
changes, DI upgrades that include Link 16, and inventory sustainment
and upgrade efforts to offset obsolescence and attrition.
Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Family of Systems
The Department is continuing a Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to address the anticipated retirement of
the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft in the 2030s.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff approved the Initial Capabilities
Document that frames NGAD study requirements to support the full range
of military operations from carrier-based platforms. The AoA is
considering the widest possible range of materiel concepts while
balancing capability, cost/affordability, schedule, and supportability.
It will assess manned and unmanned approaches to fulfill predicted
2030+ mission requirements. Analyses will consider baseline programs of
record (current platforms), evolutionary or incremental upgrades to
baseline programs (including derivative platforms), and new development
systems or aircraft to meet identified gaps in required capability. We
anticipate the NGAD AoA to report out during fiscal year 2019.
airborne electronic attack (aea)
EA-18G Growler
The EA-18G Growler is a critical enabler for the Joint force as it
brings fully netted electronic warfare capabilities to the fight,
providing essential capabilities in the Electromagnetic Maneuver
Warfare environment.
The EA-18G program will complete deliveries in July 2019 bringing
the total procurement quantity to 160 aircraft. This fulfills current
Navy requirements for AEA for nine CVWs and five expeditionary
squadrons plus one reserve squadron. The fiscal year 2020 President's
Budget requests $143.6 million of RDT&E for additional modernization to
ensure the EA-18G maintains its edge in the electromagnetic spectrum by
providing robust sensing and engagement capabilities.
Next Generation Jammer (NGJ)
The NGJ is the follow-on to the legacy AN/ALQ-99 initially fielded
in 1971 and is critical to the Navy's maritime fight. As adversaries
continue to make significant investments to improve their Electronic
Warfare capabilities, the Navy must be able to counter these threats to
maintain its operational advantage. The ALQ-99 has reached capability
limits both technologically and materially and is challenged against
modern radar threats and communication systems. NGJ is a critical
capability designed to address dynamically evolving threats and
provides Navy Carrier Strike groups and the Joint force with the
capabilities to achieve Electromagnetic Spectrum superiority. NGJ will
maximize the survivability and lethality of the Navy's 4th and 5th
generation aviation platforms and strike weapons and support all
Services and joint/coalition air, land, and sea tactical strike
missions.
NGJ will be implemented via three separate programs: Mid-Band
(formerly known as Increment 1); Low-Band (formerly known as Increment
2); and High-Band (formerly known as Increment 3). NGJ Mid-Band is
currently in the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase.
Despite a delay due to a required pod structure redesign effort to meet
air worthiness requirements, a collaborative government/industry effort
completed the structure redesign in June 2018, and the program is
scheduled to IOC in fiscal year 2022.
Our fiscal year 2020 budget requests $524.3 million in RDT&E for
delivery of Engineering Development Models, developmental flight
testing, and procurement of System Demonstration Test Articles. We also
request $111.1 million in RDT&E to complete the NGJ Low-Band
`Demonstration of Existing Technologies' effort and commence a follow-
on development contract.
airborne early warning aircraft
Airborne Early Warning Aircraft
The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (AHE) is the Navy's carrier-based
Airborne Early Warning and Battle Management Command and Control
aircraft. The E-2D AHE provides Theater Air and Missile Defense
capabilities and is a cornerstone of the Naval Integrated Fire Control
system of systems enhancements.
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $232.8 million in
RDT&E to continue the Navy's modernization priorities, to include,
Naval Integrated Fire Control development and test, Theater Combat ID
and National Technical Means integration, ALQ-217 Electronic Support
Measures and Survivability updates, Cyber Protection, Counter
Electronic Attack, Secret Internet Protocol Router chat, Crypto
Modernization/ Frequency Remapping, Multifunctional Information
Distribution System/Joint Tactical Radio System Tactical Targeting
Network Technology, Sensor Netting, and Data Fusion.
In the second year of what will be a 24 aircraft MYP contract
covering fiscal years 2019-2023, the fiscal year 2020 budget also
requests $934.7 million in APN for four Full Rate Production (FRP) Lot
8 aircraft and Advance Procurement for fiscal year 2021 FRP Lot 9
aircraft.
assault support and logistics support aircraft
Tilt-Rotor Aircraft (USMC MV-22 Osprey and Navy CMV-22B)
The fiscal year 2020 President's budget for the DON V-22 program
(MV-22 and CMV-22) requests $185.1 million in RDT&E, $993.8 million in
APN for procurement of aircraft, and $325.4 million in APN for
modification of aircraft.
Marine Corps MV-22 Ospreys currently have a permanent presence in
INDOPACOM, CENTCOM, and EUCOM supporting crisis response missions for
AFRICOM. At any point, there are no less than five MV-22 squadrons
deployed. Marine Corps is planning to procure an additional 16 aircraft
through a five-year multi-year procurement package (FY2018-FY2022). The
MV-22 readiness program, comprised of Common Configuration-Readiness
and Modernization (CC-RAM) and nacelle improvements, is the MV-22
community's optimized plan to increase mission capable rates by 15
percent. The fiscal year 2020 budget requests $115.6 million in RDT&E
for continued MV-22B development and product improvements, $8.5 million
to support advance procurement requirements and $315.3 million for
modifications, of which $140.2 million is reserved for CC-RAM and $33M
for nacelle improvements.
The Navy is continuing development of Carrier On-board Delivery
(COD) mission aircraft. The COD replacement program is leveraging prior
Department MV-22 investment to recapitalize the legacy C-2 Greyhound
fleet with CMV-22B tilt-rotor aircraft. Navy's CMV-22B aircraft require
modifications to the baseline MV-22 design to better suit this platform
for carrier operations. Those modifications include, greater fuel
capacity in the fuselage and wings to allow the aircraft to carry up to
6,000 pounds for a distance of at least 1,150 nautical miles, beyond
line-of-sight high frequency radio, public address system, improved
fuel jettison system, improved cargo lighting system and integration of
Operations and Safety Improvement Program (OSIP) capabilities. The FY20
President's Budget requests $69.5 million in RDT&E for continued CMV-
22B development, testing and product improvements; $985.3 million in
APN for procurement of 10 Lot 24 CMV-22Bs and long-lead materials for
fiscal year 2021 (Lot 25) aircraft; and $10.1 million for readiness and
interoperability OSIPs.
C-2A Greyhound
As the DON recapitalizes the long-range aerial logistics support
and COD capabilities with CMV-22B, the C-2A fleet will continue to
provide critical COD support for operations worldwide until the fiscal
year 2024 timeframe. The fiscal year 2020 budget request provides for
$15.8 million in APN and $1.5 million in RDT&E to manage remaining C-2A
aircraft mission systems obsolescence, including critical Center Wing
Section repair kits to maintain sufficient capacity and readiness to
safely complete the transition to CMV-22B.
CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement Program
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $516.7 million in
RDT&E to continue the CH-53K Engineering Manufacturing Development
phase and $1.0 billion in APN for procurement of six Lot 4 LRIP
aircraft, including Advance Procurement and initial spares.
The need for a heavy lift replacement aircraft remains vital to
supporting the Marine Corps in present and future warfighting concepts.
In spite of the recent setbacks associated with the program's
development--rate of closure in technical deficiencies--all of the
technical deficiencies are solvable issues. To date, the CH-53K has
flown more than 1,370 flight hours towards the completion of the
program. It has also demonstrated the lifting of 36,000 lbs and
operational gear like the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. During fiscal
year 2020, the program will continue to execute developmental test
flights including propulsion qualification, initial shipboard
qualification, aerial refueling, hot/high altitude testing, structural
loads demonstration, window/ramp guns testing and fire extinguishing
system development.
CH/MH-53E
To keep the CH-53E and MH-53E viable through their remaining
services lives, the fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $68.4
million ($11.4 million MH-53E and $57.0 million CH-53E) in APN and
$16.5 million ($0.8 million MH-53E and $15.6 million CH-53E) in RDT&E.
The funding will provide for Condition Based Maintenance software
upgrades, cockpit upgrades, Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial
Navigation System, T-64 engine reliability improvements, survivability
upgrades, and Phase I of CH-53E's Degraded Visual Environment
capability. These critical safety and avionics upgrades are essential
to address obsolescence issues within the cockpit, increase overall
situational awareness, and maintain mission effectiveness.
Maintenance on both variants of the H-53E becomes more challenging
as they approach 30 years of service. Unprecedented operational demand
of the CH-53E significantly impacted the material condition of DoD's
only heavy lift assault support aircraft. This challenge has been
significantly mitigated with the introduction and continued execution
of the H-53 reset initiative. The purpose of reset is to return fully
mission capable aircraft with zero discrepancies to the fleet and
recover readiness. To date, 24 aircraft have completed reset and
accumulated over 9,200 flight hours. Reset has also reduced both the
cost per flight hour and maintenance man hours per flight hour.
Continued reset and sustainment initiatives are critical to the success
of the CH-53E until its replacement, the CH-53K, is delivered to the
fleet. The MH-53E will continue to perform its primary mission of
airborne Mine Countermeasures as well as transport of cargo and
personnel until it is replaced by the family of modular systems that
comprise the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Mine Countermeasures Mission
Package.
attack and utility aircraft
AH-1Z/UH-1Y
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $114.1 million in
APN and $65.4 million in RDT&E for aircraft modernization efforts that
will significantly increase relevance, safety, and lethality on the
modern battlefield. The H-1 Upgrade Program completed procurement in
fiscal year 2019. Over a decade has passed since the initial fielding
of the Venom and Viper. The fleet has significant obsolescence issues
in software architecture, Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE),
navigation equipment, Health and Usage Monitoring Systems, and weapons
systems.
Previously funded hardware retrofits are currently underway for
mission computers, ASE, and DI. Drivetrain and air vehicle improvements
have improved reliability. The H-1 fleet is leveraging concurrent DI
and weapons upgrade efforts across the Aviation Enterprise to provide
initial LINK-16 and Joint Air-to-Ground Missile capabilities in fiscal
year 2020 and 2021 respectively. Additional efforts include EGI
upgrade, Aircraft Network Switch, and Advanced Data Transfer System.
Integrating and enabling the full capabilities of these systems
requires an investment in software modernization and Ethernet backbone.
The Marine Corps will seek future funding in support of these
initiatives to secure battlefield relevance, lethality, survivability,
and operational safety.
MH-60R/S
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $149.8 million in
APN and $19.2 million in RDT&E. APN funds support safety related
systems improvements, corrections of deficiencies, warfighter upgrades,
and obsolescence issues such as mission-computer modernization and
procurement of kits for the Helmet Display Targeting System, Advanced
Data Transfer System, Data Link, and VOR/ILS. RDT&E funding is
requested to support developmental efforts that include MH-60S Service
Life Assessment Program, Multifunctional Information Distribution
System Block Upgrade 2 and implementation of Link-16 J11 and J12.6
series messages that will enable the helicopter to provide in-flight
target updates to Net Enabled Weapons.
executive support aircraft
VH-3D/VH-60N Executive Helicopter Series
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $8.9 million of
APN to continue programs that ensure the in-service Presidential fleet
remains safe, reliable and current. Ongoing efforts include a
Communications Suite Upgrade (Wide Band Line of Sight) that provides
persistent access to the strategic communications network, the
continuing Structural Enhancement Program necessary to extend platform
service life, and Obsolescence Management needed to sustain and improve
system readiness for both VH-60N and VH-3D platforms. The Cabin
Interior and Environmental Control System upgrade is a critical
obsolescence management effort for the VH-3D, reducing aircraft
operational weight and improving maintainability. Where appropriate,
technology updates for legacy platforms will be directly leveraged for
the benefit of the VH-92A program.
VH-92A Presidential Helicopter Replacement Aircraft
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $187.4 million in
RDT&E to continue Engineering, Manufacturing and Development
activities, to include, contractor tests for airworthiness
certification and modifications of Engineering Development Model and
System Demonstration Test Article aircraft to support Initial
Operational Test and Evaluation. Additionally, $658.1 million of APN is
requested to procure six LRIP Lot 2 aircraft and associated support.
fixed-wing aircraft
KC-130J (USMC)
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $307.0 million to
procure three KC-130Js and spares as part of the fiscal year 2019 MYP
(MYP III) and $96.9 million in APN for targeted improvements. Key
improvements include increased survivability through advanced
electronic countermeasure modernization, upgrade to the Block 8.1
software that incorporates vital Link-16 digital interoperability, and
obsolescence upgrades to the Harvest HAWK Intelligence, Surveillance
and Reconnaissance/Weapon Mission Kit. The obsolescence upgrade
includes compatibility with additional Hellfire variants and an
improved full motion video data-link. Today, the KC-130J remains in
high demand, providing tactical air-to-air refueling, assault support,
Close Air Support, and Multi-sensor Imagery Reconnaissance capabilities
in support of Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (MAGTF) and
deployed Marine Expeditionary Units.
maritime patrol aircraft
Maritime Patrol Aircraft
The P-8A PoseiDON combines the proven reliability of commercial 737
airframes with modern avionics, robust military communications, and
advanced sensors and weapons to provide a range of advanced warfighting
capabilities. P-8A warfighting capabilities include full-spectrum, wide
area, cue-to-kill Anti-Submarine Warfare; armed Anti-Surface Warfare
(ASuW); and networked Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
(ISR). Continued congressional support of the P-8A program enables the
planned divestiture of the aging P-3C Orion aircraft fleet.
The fiscal year 2020 request includes $1.2 billion in APN for six
new aircraft. It also includes $198.7 million in RDT&E for development
of aircraft updates to include the addition of Networked Enabled
Weapons capabilities, satellite communication updates, track management
enhancements, and sensor fusion capabilities.
P-3C Orion
The active duty fleet will finish its transition to the P-8A
airframe in fiscal year 2020. Only the Reserve Force (VP-62 and VP-69)
will fly the P-3C in the Littoral Surveillance and RADAR System
configuration, augmenting the Active Duty Forces in this Maritime ISR
mission set through 2022. The Navy plans to recapitalize the reserve
Maritime Patrol Force into the P-8A airframe as resources permit.
EP-3 Aries
The EP-3E Aries is the Navy's only manned Maritime ISR and Signals
Intelligence (SIGINT) platform. The Joint Airborne SIGINT Common
Configuration includes Multi-INT sensors, robust communication, and
data links employed by the EP-3E air vehicle to ensure effective fleet
support across the full spectrum of military operations.
The fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act directed
the Navy to sustain the EP-3E airframe and associated mission systems
to minimize SIGINT capability gaps until the systems are fully
recapitalized within a system or family of systems that in aggregate
provide equal or better capability and capacity. The Navy's family of
systems approach to ISR shifts the focus from platforms to payloads to
deliver increased capacity and persistence by the end of this decade.
To support these efforts, we request $8.7 million for the EP-3 program
as we transition Navy's maritime ISR platforms.
unmanned aircraft systems (uas)
The DON has placed a priority on the development of unmanned
systems leading to a fully integrated manned and unmanned fleet.
Unmanned technology will not replace our Sailors and Marines; instead
it will unlock their full potential as the Navy integrates this
technology within our total force.
MQ-4C Triton
The MQ-4C is a critical capability and capacity enabler in the
Navy's Maritime ISR&T transition plan. Under this initiative, Triton
fills a vital role for the Joint Forces Maritime Component Commander by
delivering persistent and netted maritime ISR and furthers our plan to
retire legacy EP-3E aircraft as MQ-4Cs are delivered to the Fleet.
fiscal year 2020 investments are aligned to deliver air vehicles and
control station capacity to achieve IOC in fiscal year 2021, continue
our efforts to deliver five full Triton orbits to meet increasing
warfighter ISR demands, and enhance MQ-4C capabilities.
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $11.8 million in
RDT&E to continue Triton baseline development activities; $202.3
million in RDT&E for Multi-INT modernization; and $493.3 million in APN
for procurement of Lot 5 LRIP aircraft/spares, retrofit of the LRIP Lot
1 and Lot 2 aircraft to the Multi-INT configuration, and procurement of
long-lead materials for Lot 6 LRIP aircraft.
MQ-25 Stingray
The Navy is fully committed to unmanned carrier aviation.
Reflecting this commitment, MQ-25 has been designated a Maritime
Accelerated Acquisition Program with a requirement to deliver the
Navy's first carrier-based UAS no later than 2024. MQ-25's primary
mission is a carrier-based tanker to extend the range, reach, and
lethality of the CVW; its secondary mission is as an ISR platform. MQ-
25 tanker aircraft will reduce the use of F/A-18E/Fs for recovery and
mission tanking, freeing these tactical aircraft to execute their
primary strike fighter mission role and increasing strike fighter
capacity within the CVW. A key MQ-25 enabler for CVW operations is the
Unmanned Carrier Aviation Mission Control Station (UMCS) and its
associated infrastructure.
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $671.3 million in
RDT&E to procure 42 engineering development aircraft under a fixed cost
contract and to continue development of the MQ-25 air system and $32.7
million in OPN for installation of UMCS aboard CVNs.
MQ-8 Fire Scout
The MQ-8 Fire Scout is a rotary-wing system that includes two
airframe types, the MQ-8B and MQ-8C. The MQ-8C is an endurance upgrade
to the MQ-8B. It is a larger, more capable and more cost-effective
airframe that uses the same mission-control system, avionics, and
payloads as the MQ-8B. Both systems are employed from suitably equipped
air-capable ships, carry modular mission payloads, and operate using
the Tactical Control System (TCS) and Line-Of-Sight Tactical Common
Data Link.
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $29.6 million of
RDT&E to continue hardware and software modifications, payload
integration, cyber vulnerability closure, and safety improvements. The
budget also requests $79.6 million in APN to procure Active
Electronically Scanned Array radar kits, ancillary shipboard equipment,
aircraft support equipment, trainers and logistics elements to outfit
suitable-equipped air-capable ships and train MQ-8 aviation
detachments.
Tactical Control System (TCS)
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $9.5 million in
RDT&E for the MQ-8 System's TCS. TCS is a government-owned, standards-
compliant software suite that provides scalable command and control
capabilities for the MQ-8 Fire Scout system. In fiscal year 2020, we
will continue to enhance and sustain TCS software integration enabling
MQ-8 operations on air capable ships to include LCS, Frigate (FFG(X)),
and the Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB). We will also continue integration
and test focused on the MQ-8C radar and Minotaur mission management
system and migration to the Common Control System (CCS).
RQ-21A Blackjack
To meet the demand for persistent, multi-role ISR capability, the
Department is building a balanced portfolio of manned and unmanned
aircraft focused on expeditionary maritime environment missions. RQ-21
Blackjack, a Group 3 unmanned air system with the capability for runway
independent operations aboard amphibious ships and on the shore,
provides persistent ship and land based ISR support for Marine
Expeditionary and Naval Special Warfare tactical-level maneuver
decisions, unit-level force defense, and force protection missions. The
RQ-21 UAS has completed several successful combat deployments and has
proven itself to be significant contributor to the warfighter.
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $22.4 million in
RDT&E ($11.5 million USN, $10.9 million USMC) and $118.0 million in APN
for support of Marine Corps and Naval Special Warfare forces to address
ISR capability requirements ($98.2 million USN, $19.8 million USMC).
MAGTF Expeditionary UAS (MUX)
The MAGTF Expeditionary UAS (MUX) will provide a competitive
advantage to naval expeditionary forces operating in contested maritime
spaces. MUX is currently envisioned to be a weaponized, payload-
flexible, shipboard capable and expeditionary system that is runway-
independent for all weather conditions. The system will also provide a
multi-mission, long-range (690+ NM), long-endurance (24+ hours),
platform that will complement MV-22 operations and operate from the sea
in an uncontested environment. MUX will facilitate sea denial
operations and maritime maneuver globally in support of our fleet
commanders. The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $21.2
million for research and development requirements.
Common Control System (CCS)
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $43.1 million in
RDT&E and Other Procurement Navy (OPN) for continuation of CCS
activities. The primary mission of CCS is to provide common control
across the Navy's unmanned systems (UxS) portfolio to add scalable and
adaptable warfighting capability, implement robust cybersecurity
attributes, leverage existing government owned products, eliminate
redundant software development efforts, consolidate product support,
encourage innovation, improve cost control, and enable rapid
integration of UxS capabilities across all domains (air, surface, sub-
surface, and ground). CCS leverages existing government owned software
to provide UxS Vehicle Management (VM), Mission Management (MM) and
Mission Planning (MP) capabilities. CCS delivered initial UxS VM
functionality for MQ-25 Stingray in fiscal year 2018. CCS VM
functionality was delivered to MQ-8 Fire Scout in early fiscal year
2019 with another delivery scheduled for the third quarter of fiscal
year 2019. In fiscal year 2020, CCS will continue development of common
mission management/mission planning capabilities, common software
service development, and support, including the continued refinement of
incremental common service releases for MQ-25 Stingray and MQ-8 Fire
Scout which will support other future UxS platforms transitioning to
CCS.
strike weapons programs
Offensive Missile Strategy (former `Cruise Missile Strategy')
The Department previously developed and submitted a `Cruise Missile
Strategy' to Congress. This strategy delineated our plans for
supporting all cruise missile weapon systems such as Tomahawk, the
Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), Harpoon, etc. and the development
of future next generation weapons. Navy offensive strike systems,
however, consist of a broader family of current and future weapons.
These weapons capitalize on key system attributes (e.g. speed, range,
lethality, survivability, commonality) with a strong focus on
delivering `multi-domain' capabilities. Under this construct, `Cruise
Missiles' are a subset within the offensive strike weapons family. As a
result, the DON has broadened the scope of the `Cruise Missile
Strategy' to include all non-nuclear offensive strike missiles with
ranges greater than 50 nautical miles (i.e. the `Offensive Missile
Strategy' (OMS)).
The OMS construct supports a wider, more systematic approach
towards delivering a capabilities balance to increase overall force
effectiveness to address emerging threats. The DON will evaluate the
OMS via an iterative process. We will review existing and developing
capabilities, leverage analytical processes/study updates, and assess
threat/intelligence report updates to inform annual RDT&E and
procurement funding priorities to achieve an optimal mix of offensive
strike missile system capabilities.
Our OMS construct has three pillars. First, the Navy will sustain
relevant weapon systems. Our objective is to preserve the readiness and
capacity of our key strike weapons inventories. Second, we will pursue
strike weapon capability enhancements. Under this initiative, we will
develop near-term capability upgrades to enhance existing weapons that
provide critical improvements to our current long-range strike weapons
capabilities (e.g. Maritime Strike Tomahawk, new Tomahawk warhead
(Joint Multiple Effects Warhead System), LRASM V1.1, SM-6/Block 1B, and
the Naval Strike Missile. Third, we will develop next generation strike
missile capabilities to address emerging threats.
To fully inform Congress of next generation weapons development
plans, we have completed classified briefings to all four Defense
Committees.
Tomahawk Cruise Missile
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $320.1 million in
RDT&E, $386.7 million in Weapons Procurement Navy (WPN) and $78.6
million in OPN.
RDT&E will be used for development and test of: navigation and
communications upgrades to improve performance in Anti-Access/Area
Denial environments; a Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST) variant; a Global
Positioning System M-Code capability; the Joint Multiple Effects
Warhead System and Fuse; and the associated Tactical Tomahawk Weapon
Control System (TTWCS) and Tomahawk Mission Planning Center (TMPC)
updates that support all upgrades and address usability,
interoperability and information assurance mandates.
WPN is required for the restart of the Tomahawk missile production
line and procurement of 90 all-up-round missiles, procurement of 156
Navigation/ Communications kits, procurement of 20 MST kits and
completion of 112 missile recertifications.
OPN is required for procurement and installation of TMPC and TTWCS
hardware/software modifications to address evolving security
requirements, critical program information protection, obsolescence
updates, and modern computing architecture improvements.
Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW)
NGLAW will provide the next generation of long-range, kinetic
strike capability to destroy high-priority fixed, stationary and moving
targets--as well as those targets hardened, defended or positioned at
ranges such that engagement by aviation assets would incur unacceptable
risk. NGLAW will be capable of kinetic land and maritime attack from
both surface and sub-surface platforms. The NGLAW AoA has completed and
the classified results have been shared with all four congressional
defense committees.
Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 1 (Long Range Anti-
Ship Missile (LRASM))
OASuW Increment 1 (LRASM) will provide Combatant Commander's the
ability to conduct ASuW operations against near/mid-term high-value
surface combatants protected by Integrated Air Defense Systems with
long-range Surface-to-Air-Missiles and deny adversaries sanctuary of
maneuver. The program achieved Early Operational Capability (EOC) on
the Air Force B-1B in early fiscal year 2019 and is on-track to achieve
EOC on the Navy's F/A-18E/F aircraft prior to the schedule objective of
the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019.
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget request $65.4 million in
RDT&E for LRASM V1.1 development and testing and $143.2 million in WPN
to purchase LRASM All-Up-Round weapons.
Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 2
OASuW Increment 2 is required to deliver the long-term, air-
launched ASuW capabilities to counter 2028 threats (and beyond). The
Department continues to plan for OASuW Increment 2 to be developed via
full and open competition. To inform the long-term path forward, the
DON will leverage NGLAW AoA results to inform the required ASuW
capabilities. The AoA study to determine the Increment 2 path-forward
will complete in 2019. In the interim, Navy is pursuing incremental
upgrades to LRASM to bridge the gap until an OASuW Increment 2 program
of record can be established. Increment 2 IOC is now planned for the
fiscal year 2028-2030 timeframe.
Sidewinder Air-Intercept Missile (AIM-9X)
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $19.5 million in
RDT&E and $119.5 million in WPN for AIM-9X. RDT&E will be applied
toward the Engineering Manufacturing Development of critical hardware
redesign driven by obsolescence; developmental test of System
Improvement Program missile software (Version 9.4); and design and
development of Insensitive Munitions improvements. WPN funding is
requested to procure a combined 292 All-Up-Rounds and Captive Air
Training Missiles and associated missile/trainer related hardware.
Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM/AIM-120D)
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $39 million in
RDT&E for continued software capability enhancements and $224.5 million
in WPN for 169 All-Up-Rounds and associated missile-related hardware.
RDT&E resources support the development and test of an Electronic
Protection Improvement Program and a System Improvement Program to
counter emerging electronic attack threats.
Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II)
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $50.1 million in
RDT&E for continued development/test of the SDB II weapon, F/A-18E/F
Operational Testing, and F-35 Developmental Testing. The DON also
requests $118.5M in WPN to procure 750 All-Up-Round weapons.
Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) & AARGM Extended-Range
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $7.1 million of
RDT&E for Anti-Radiation Missile Foreign Material Assessment; $11.7
million for AARGM Advanced Development, FOT&E Correction of
Deficiencies, and System Capability Upgrades; and $119.6 million for
AARGM Extended Range (AARGM-ER) development. The Department also
requests $183.7 million in WPN for production of 245 baseline AARGM
Block 1 modification kits for integration into All-Up-Rounds.
Harpoon II+
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $25.4 million in
WPN to procure 70 modification kits and 9 Captive Training Missiles.
Harpoon II+ will integrate an upgrade package to the existing USN Block
1C missiles and System Configuration Set for the F/A-18 E/F and P-8
aircraft.
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
The fiscal year 2020 President's Budget requests $18.4 million in
RDT&E for software development, AH-1Z platform integration, modeling
and simulation, and completion of Developmental Testing, and
Integration Testing. Additional efforts include Operational Testing in
support of the FRP Decision and fiscal year 2020 IOC on the AH-1Z. The
budget request also includes $91.0 million in WPN to procure 382
tactical missiles and four captive air training missiles.
Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II)
APKWS II has become a weapon of choice in current operations due to
its high stowed ``kills'' capacity, exceptional accuracy and
reliability, and low-yield warhead that reduces the risk of collateral
damage while achieving the desired effect on the target. The fiscal
year 2020 President's Budget requests $31.5 million in PANMC for
procurement of 1,123 APKWS II guidance section kits for use on both
rotary-wing and fixed-wing platforms.
Direct Attack Weapons and General Purpose Bombs
Fully funding the General Purpose Bombs and Joint Direct Attack
Munition (JDAM) line items are critical to building and maintaining the
DON's direct attack weapons inventory. The fiscal year 2020 President's
Budget requests $63.0 million for Direct Attack Weapons and General
Purpose Bombs and an additional $82.7 million to procure 3,388 JDAM
kits to enhance readiness and prepare for future contingencies.
conclusion
Naval Aviation operates forward--near our potential adversary's
home shores. With an increasingly complex national security environment
and overt challenges to the current international order, we need
Congressional support to deliver the ready, capable, and global sea-
based and expeditionary force to meet these challenges. Our vision is
to provide the right capability in the hands of the warfighter, on
schedule, and in the most affordable manner possible. With the support
of Congress, we will build and sustain a lethal, resilient force
through balanced investments across readiness and capability and
rebuild the capacity we lost over the past decade.
Addendum A
safety
(part 1 of 2)
All Navy senior leadership views the occurrence of Physiological
Episodes (PE) in our tactical aircraft and trainers with the highest
concern and it remains our number one aviation safety priority. To
date, we have identified multiple interrelated causal factors. The
mitigation efforts currently in place, include software modifications,
personnel education, and equipment changes are positively affecting the
PE rate for all Type/Model/Series aircraft but most notably in T-45s.
With these mitigations, Naval Aviation is currently meeting operational
requirements and personnel are working in an operationally safe
environment.
For our T-45 aircraft we have reduced the overall PE rate
substantially with more than 100,000 flight hours flown and only 14
events since return to flight (where in prior years' rates had been as
high as 80 events/100,000 flight hours). Two of the 14 are still under
investigation for final determination as to whether or not they meet
the criteria necessary to be deemed a PE. Seven of the 14 cases post
return-to-flight were attributed to human factors; in all T-45 cases,
negligible contaminants were found in the monitoring devices, all well
below Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards, and
contamination has been ruled out as a causal factor in T-45 PE. Beyond
mitigating the identified flow problem from the engine, we are
integrating an Automatic Backup Oxygen System (ABOS) to improve oxygen
generating system performance overall.
In our F/A-18 aircraft, we continue to implement changes that are
improving the Environmental Control System, increasing system
reliability and improving the cockpit environment for our aviators. In
Legacy aircraft (F/A-18 A-D) we have seen an almost fifty percent
reduction in PE rates, largely due to implementation of AFB (Air Frame
Bulletin) 821 in 2017. AFB-821 which places life limits on seven ECS
high-time components with the purpose of inspecting and replacing
components as necessary to improve and baseline system operation.
Furthermore, the F/A-18 Root Cause Corrective Action team has
identified premature component failure as a contributory factor in
almost 300 PEs. All of those components are under re-design, and two
will be begin to be implemented in the Fleet in 4Q fiscal year 2019.
More work remains to be DONe, but mitigation and redesign efforts are
producing positive results in all FA-18 variants but not to the levels
we seek. We are collaborating across the DoD to leverage research
efforts to help characterize the cockpit environment to ensure we reach
long-range, holistic solutions. We are investigating every line of
inquiry recommended by NASA to include measuring breathing gas quality
at the mask. We are working with our industry partners to develop a new
On Board Oxygen Generating System concentrator designed to replace the
existing concentrator currently in the F/A-18 and EA-18 aircraft. This
effort will provide digital data logging of performance, increased
reliability and oxygen scheduling in compliance with the recently
published MIL-STD 3050.
We continue to provide Flag-level leadership and oversight to this
critical effort. RDML Luchtman heads the Physiological Episode Action
Team and unifies all PE actions supporting multiple aircraft across
Naval Aviation. Our engineers, industry partners, physiologists and
outside support will continue to work diligently to drive PE to the
lowest possible level.
safety
(part 2 of 2)
Class A, B, and C Aviation-Related Safety Issues Summary
A summary of all Naval Aviation Class A, B and C aviation-related
safety issues, including recent mishaps, trends, and analysis from
October 2016 through March 2019 follows. The rates presented in the
table are based on total mishaps per 100,000 flight hours and include
Flight, Flight-Related and Ground mishaps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Flight Hours Class A Class A Rate Class B Class B Rate Class C Class C Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2017 1,072,156 25 2.33 35 3.26 239 22.29
Fiscal year 2018 1,072,229 19 1.77 40 3.73 249 23.22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most recent (fiscal year 2017-13 Mar 2019) DON flight Class A
mishaps include:
28 February 2019: (MCAS Miramar, CA) Two F/A-18C's
collided in mid-air while conducting CAS. Both aircraft landed safely.
No injuries.
05 December 2018: (Philippine Sea) F/A-18D and KC-130J
collided while performing fixed wing aerial refueling mission. F/A-18
aircrew ejected with one fatality. 5 aircrew fatalities in the KC-130.
12 November 2018: (Philippine Sea) F/A-18F aircraft
malfunction resulting in loss of aircraft; aircrew recovered and in
stable condition.
18 October 2018: (Pacific Ocean) MH-60R crashed on
takeoff onboard CVN.
04 October 2018: (NAS Lemoore, CA) A right engine fire
occurred on a F/A-18F during a training flight. Emergency landing with
no injuries.
28 September 2018: (Beaufort MCAS, SC) F-35B crashed.
Pilot ejected safely.
21 August 2018: (VACAPES) F-35C ingested FOD while
conducting aerial refueling operations with an F/A-18F. Both aircraft
were damaged.
16 August 2018: (Near Mountain Home AF Base, Idaho)
Aircraft suffered hard landing in FARP prior to refueling operations.
No Injuries or casualties.
02 August 2018: (Lavic Lake, CA) UH-1Y skid and main
rotor blades damaged during Low Light Level RVL landing.
07 June 2018: (Western Pacific near Guam) FA-18E
experienced fire indications and engine failure immediately after
catapult launch. Aircraft recovered safely on single engine.
13 April 2018: (Iwakuni, JP) FA-18E experienced Class A
mishap in flight. Aircraft recovered safety.
03 April 2018: (El Centro, CA) CH-53E impacted ground
while on approach into a landing zone. 4 fatalities.
02 April 2018: (Djibouti Ambouli International) AV-8B
shortly after lift-off impacted ground, pilot ejected safely.14 Mar
2018: (Key West, FL) F/A-18F while flying single engine, crashed on
short final. 2 fatalities.
14 March 2018: (Key West, FL) F/A-18F while flying single
engine, crashed on short final. 2 fatalities.
11 December 2017: (Tinker AFB, OK) E-6B struck birds
during descent, leading to number 4 engine flameout.
04 December 2017: (NAS Fallon) F/A-18A right leading edge
flap departed aircraft in flight and hit the vertical stabilizer.
22 November 2017: (Philippine Sea) C-2A ditched while
inbound to CVN with 11 onboard. 3 fatalities.
11 October 2017: (Futenma MCAS, Japan) CH-53E engine fire
in flight, emergency landing. No injuries.
01 October 2017:(Monroe County, TN) T-45C crashed on low-
level training route. 2 fatalities.
28 September 2017: (Syria) MV-22B crashed on landing
during support mission.
12 August 2017: (Bahrain) F/A-18E departed runway during
landing after a ship to shore divert due to an engine malfunction.
Pilot ejected. No injuries.
09 August 2017: (25 Miles South of Key West, FL) F-5N
went down over water. Pilot ejected safely.
05 August 2017: (15 nm off NE Australia IVO Shoal Water
Bay) MV-22B struck LPD flight deck on final approach and then crashed
into water. Three personnel are missing and presumed deceased. 23
recovered.
05 August 2017: (North Island NAS, CA) F/A-18F struck
round down with right horizontal stabilator upon landing. Diverted
successfully.
16 July 2017: (Bay of Bengal) F/A-18F engine borescope
plug backed out in flight causing hot air to burn to engine bay and
aircraft skin.
10 July 2017: (Indianola, MS) KC-130T crashed on
logistics flight from Cherry Point to El Centro. 16 fatalities.
26 April 2017: (Off the Coast of Guam) MH-60R collided
with water on initial takeoff from ship. No injuries.
21 April 2017: (Philippine Sea) F/A-18E lost on approach
to landing on carrier. Pilot ejected without injury prior to water
impact.
05 April 2017: (Yuma, AZ) CH-53E landed hard and rolled
on day training flight. Crew of five uninjured.
28 March 2017: (El Centro NAF) HH-60H main rotor blades
contacted tail rotor driveshaft on landing.
17 January 2017: (NAS Meridian, MS) T-45 crashed
following a BASH incident on takeoff. Both crewmembers ejected. No
fatalities.
13 December 2016: (Off the Coast of Okinawa, Japan) MV-
22B attempted a precautionary emergency landing (PEL) to dry land but
crash landed in shallow water. Crew of five evacuated with injuries.
07 December 2016: (Off the Coast of Iwakuni MCAS, Japan)
F/A-18C crashed into the water while conducting a night mission. One
fatality.
21 November 2016: (Upper Mojave Desert Region) F/A-18F
struck a tree while instructor pilot was conducting a currency flight
event. Returned to base safely. No injuries.
09 November 2016: (Off the Coast of San Diego) Two F/A-
18As were conducting basic flight maneuvers and had a mid-air
collision. One aircraft crashed in the water. Pilot ejected
successfully. One aircraft landed with significant damage.
27 October 2016: (MCAS Beaufort, SC) F-35B had an
inflight weapons bay fire followed by an uneventful landing. No
injuries.
25 October 2016: (Twenty-nine Palms, CA) F/A-18C crashed
on final approach. Pilot ejected successfully. No injuries.
20 October 2016: (Yuma, AZ) CH-53E main rotor contacted
building causing damage to the aircraft.
DON Class A aviation ground and Flight Related mishaps (AGM and
FRM):
07 February 2019: (Tinker AFB, OK) E-6B being towed out
of a hangar when vertical stabilizer struck the hangar. (AGM)
09 December 2018: (MCAS New River, NC) CH-53E landing
gear inadvertently retracted during ground taxi. (AGM)
09 October 2018: (Kadena AFB, Japan) Two HH-60H
helicopters taxied into each other on the taxi ramp. No injuries. (AGM)
30 July 2018: (NAS North Island, CA) During hotseat, HH-
60H auxiliary fuel tank detached from aircraft and landed on two
servicemembers. E-6 died in the hospital, E-5 was treated and released.
(AGM)
18 July 2018: (SOCAL) Sonar Transducer Assembly (TA)
departed MH-60R during anti-submarine warfare (ASW) training. (FRM)
16 May 2018: (Andros Island, Bahamas) MH-60R lost a
dipping sonar while conducting sonar operations. (FRM)
17 September 2018: (Atlantic Ocean) E-3 killed when
struck by E-2C propeller on deck of CVN. (AGM)
21 February 2018: (MCAS Camp Pendleton, CA) O-3 died on
24 Feb from injuries sustained when he was struck by a UH-1Y tail
rotor. (AGM)
17 August 2017: (NW of San Clemente Island) MH-60R lost
SONAR transducer at sea. (FRM)
11 July 2017: (New River MCAS, NC) Maintenance personnel
struck by lightning on the flight line while working on MV-22B. One
fatality. Two others were treated and released.
25 June 2017: (MCAS Miramar, CA) Two Marines injured and
F/A-18A damaged after flammable material in drip pan caught fire. (AGM)
19 January 2017: (NAS Norfolk, VA) Three E-2C aircraft
damaged in an engine oil related event. (AGM)
18 December 2016: (Kadena AFB, Japan) Tow bar separation
resulted in aircraft/tow collision with damage to nose gear and lower
fuselage of P-8A. (AGM)
16 December 2016: (NAS Whidbey Island, WA) Canopy on EA-
18G exploded/jettisoned resulting in severe injuries to two personnel.
(AGM)
Senator Perdue. Thank you, sir.
I will be very brief. We are going to have 5-minute rounds,
and we will get started now.
You know, I would like to open up with the financial side
of this conversation before we get into the equipment and the
other parts. You mentioned in the last 2 years, we have had no
CRs, continuing resolutions, and an on-time appropriation last
year. 187 times in the last 45 years since the 1974 Budget Act
was put into place, Congress has used a continuing resolution.
I have been exploring this for a couple years, and I was on
the Harry S. Truman Monday of this week. I asked specific
questions of operating people. I have talked to marines in
Maron, Spain. I have talked to marines in Australia, everywhere
I go, Air Force people in Alaska. Anybody that will sit still
and listen to me, I want them to tell us how the CRs affect
your fighting capability and the people on the ground, the
morale, and the realities of funding maintenance and
procurement. That is open for the air guys, the ground guys.
Secretary, do you want to start that? But I would love to
get your thoughts and specific examples of how this really
affects the military in your area of command.
Secretary Geurts. Absolutely, sir. And thank you for your
interest in recognizing the impacts.
I will outline, I would say, it at the macro level in big
numbers that have B's alongside of them, which is important.
And then I would ask my teammates here to kind of give it more
at the deck plate level and what does it mean all the way down
to the unit level. And I think both of them are critically
important.
To the Navy, we see a $20.4 billion impact if we go to a CR
for the full year next year. Of that, about $5.2 billion would
be new start programs that we could not execute. About $5.3
billion would be production rate increases that we have
budgeted that we cannot execute, and about $9.9 billion of that
are for funds where we have programs that are growing or need
that funding and will be capped at their current level.
So that is $20.4 billion. That is a big number at the macro
level, which impacts ships. It impacts aircraft. It impacts
ground vehicles. It impacts research and development. It
impacts manpower. It impacts us across the board, all our depot
maintenance across the board. And it is not just programs. It
is people. It is depot workers. It is highly trained workforce
that if there is uncertainty, they are going to move to
different jobs. And so not only will it be a delay, it will be
a multiplier effect because we will not only lose either those
workforces in the depots or on the flight lines or in programs,
but the chance to recover them will have kind of a lasting
multiplier effect.
Senator Perdue. That is $24 billion. Your allocation for
naval operations----
Secretary Geurts. $20.4 billion.
Senator Perdue. $20.4 billion. So is that for fiscal year
2020? Correct?
Secretary Geurts. That is for fiscal year 2020. If we have
a CR the entire year, there is $20.4 billion of effort we are
not going to be able to execute based on the way the CR----
Senator Perdue. So directionally, that is around 10 percent
of your naval operating budget this next year. Is that correct?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. And it is big platforms like
the additional submarine we are trying to get underway, an
additional destroyer we have planned. It is our helicopter
replacement system so we can train pilots for all for our
helicopter fleets--that program. It is our new frigate. Based
on the testimony yesterday the CNO had, you know, that is a
game-changer for us. It impacts across the board at the big
program level.
Now, I would like to have the witnesses next to me also
describe what does it mean at the human element, kind of at the
unit level and at the deck plate level because impact on
programs is important. Probably even more impactful is the
morale and the impact at the human level throughout our
formation. General Berger, if you would like to add in.
Lieutenant General Berger. Just a couple thoughts. I think
at the Title X service headquarters level, clearly covered. At
the unit level where General Rudder and I and the Admiral are
probably more comfortable talking about, they already have a
plan for the following year long before October comes, which is
going to cost money, going to cost money to train, going to
cost money to deploy forces that are scheduled to deploy. It
costs money to purchase the ammunition. It costs money to move
the force to where you want to train. If you are on the east
coast and you are going to Twentynine Palms to train, all of
that costs money. So you forecasted all that and built a budget
based on what you thought you were going to get.
So when you go into a CR at the unit level, the first
question for them is they do not know how long. It is for a
given period, but their experience is we may have a second one
and a third one and a fourth one. So they begin the year
without a knowledge of either, A, what the total budget is
going to be or, B, how long are we going to be in this CR. So
they have all these decision points about when I will buy
airlift, when I will start to move equipment based on what they
are guessing they might get.
And inevitably what happens is exercises get canceled.
Sometimes stuff is moved, but the force cannot get there, so
you have wasted money. Or you move past the point where you
would buy the airlift and now it is more expensive because if
you do it 60 days out it costs one price. If you do it within
30, it is another price.
I am going to ask General Rudder if he has other thoughts.
Lieutenant General Rudder. That was a great explanation of
the deck plate.
And I would offer on top of that is our depots. In the past
couple years, we have been able, with the budgets that this
committee and both sides have given us, to hire back in the
naval FRCs [fleet readiness centers] alone 2,900 artisans,
engineers, and logisticians. I think the CR does not
necessarily make them go away, but it makes the hiring process
and retention process that much more challenging.
So we are now in a place at our depots we think of our
depots now like a weapon system. And we have got the right
people in place. We are still training many of those because
they are new joins even in fiscal year 2018, but we are now
producing on-time products that are going directly back into
the squadrons and they are flyable products, whereas before, we
were delayed, we were struggling. So I would offer just for the
support structure itself, CRs with 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks
start/stop creates a lot of uncertainty in our support
structure.
Admiral?
Rear Admiral Conn. There are a number of new starts that I
can mention. I think you are aware of some of them. Let me just
go to one point.
I had a meeting yesterday with the top gun CO and two
lieutenants that are on his staff. And we went over in a
classified setting the pacing threat. We went over what we had
planned in 2018, what was budgeted in 2019, what we are
requesting in 2020, where we are going in 2021. If we go back
to a CR, that stuff gets blown up. And what we are transmitting
to those lieutenants is we are not committed to winning.
Senator Perdue. That is why I asked the question, sir.
Great answer. Thank you.
Senator Hirono?
Senator Hirono. Thank you very much.
In fact, the Chairman and I have been very focused over the
past several months on our continuing use of CRs. And we are in
an environment now where I think we have concerns about our
readiness posture for all of our services, and I would say that
that is one of the biggest negatives of continuing to rely on
CRs to keep things going.
Having said that, though, I do not know what the answer is
to force Congress not to resort to the CRs, to force all of us
to come to terms with what we need to do in terms of funding.
And we hear from all of you all the time about the need for
stable funding and that is the greatest thing that we could do
to help you do your jobs. And sad to say we have fallen short
of that. We will try.
Admiral Conn, the Navy strike fighter shortfall estimate
has fluctuated widely over the past several years. In simple
terms, there are two pieces to solving the strike fighter
inventory gap: buying new aircraft and extending the service
lives of the ones we already have.
According to budget documents, the Navy has lost some
ground for near procurements since last year. Over the period
from fiscal year 2019 through 2023, the Navy had planned to buy
308 tactical aircraft. This year over the same period, the Navy
only plans to buy 289 aircraft, even taking into account
congressional adds to the fiscal year 2019 budget.
Admiral, why have you reduced the planned aircraft
procurements over the FYDP?
Rear Admiral Conn. Quite frankly, some of the reduction in
aircraft were to pay bills. Some of them were to get wholeness
in certain weapon systems, F-35, C2D2, block 4. It came with a
bill that we had to pay.
Senator Hirono. You had to transfer some money in order to
do that with the block 4. Did you not?
Rear Admiral Conn. In terms of the budget year.
Senator Hirono. Yes.
Rear Admiral Conn. Not in year of execution. And then as
well as in the 20 I understand.
In terms of the strike fighter inventory management, our
lowest point based on PB20 budget is about a 51 aircraft
deficit in fiscal year 2020, and that decreases to single
digits by fiscal year 2024. That is through the F-18
procurement that is in PB20. It is the F-35C procurement that
is in PB20. And it is also the service life modernization
effort, taking those block 2 Hornets making them block 3, get
them to 10,000 hours. When you add up all those numbers, that
is what is driving it.
We are finally in a position of buying or producing more
aircraft than we are burning up every year in terms of flight
hours. That is going to allow us to get out of older airplanes,
provide best of breed opportunities for the Marine Corps. It is
going to provide us to be able to start to strike in some of
our old airplanes, block 1's that will never be block 3's. It
provides enormous opportunity in this budget request.
Senator Hirono. So when do we get to that point that you
are describing that situation? How many years will it take for
us to----
Rear Admiral Conn. We get to single digits strike fighter
inventory management by fiscal year 2024.
Senator Hirono. Fiscal year 2024. We are probably going to
keep asking as you during every fiscal year whether we are
getting to that goal. Thank you.
Again, Admiral, I understand that depot throughput of
aircraft at the fleet readiness centers has improved over the
last couple of years. Has this improved productivity
contributed to improving the strike fighter shortfall situation
that we talked about?
Rear Admiral Conn. Yes, but let me be very brief here. We
have had, since January, a naval sustainment system effort in
place and working with industry where we bring in some of the
best of industry to look at the various functions we do to
maintain our aircraft at the depot level, at the squadron
level, how we do engineering, how we do supply. And we have
seen some pretty good results from the targeted focus in
Lemoore, California and FRC Southwest.
We have been able to reduce our planned maintenance
intervals on Super Hornets from 120 days to 60 days. And the
quality of the product is better. It is getting on a flight
schedule within a week, let alone weeks or months.
We have been able to reduce our turnaround time, 40 percent
to some of our highest degrader lists, generators,
interrogators, displays in cockpit.
We have been able to drive down backlogs in our rudder
service zoners that were keeping aircraft down. We had a
backlog of over 60 of those parts in January. We got it down to
zero, zero in March.
All that is allowing us to improve the mission capability
rates. In January, we had about 257 mission-capable Super
Hornets. Last week, we had a high, a snapshot in time, of 304
in that time period.
Senator Perdue. Is that 80 percent?
Rear Admiral Conn. That is short of 80 percent. Eighty
percent would be 320 of the roughly 400 PMAI [primary mission
aircraft inventory] aircraft.
Senator Hirono. I commend you for that. That took a lot of
very focused effort to make those kinds of changes and reduce
those times.
Rear Admiral Conn. It took effort but not a lot of money.
Senator Hirono. Which is really music to our ears. Thank
you very much.
And for the Navy-owned shipyards--can I just ask one more
question of the Admiral? The Navy has begun a multiyear,
multibillion dollar rehabilitation program that was long
overdue, and I think you had talked about that just now. But
what plan of action is the Navy implementing to further improve
depot throughput on the F-18 SLEPN, thereby improve F-18
aircraft availability to the fleet? So specifically regarding
F-18's.
Secretary Geurts. Ma'am, maybe I will take that. Then
Admiral Conn can give the kind of operational.
Similar to our shipyards, which were in dire need of
recapitalization, we are doing the same thing on the aircraft
side. Some of it is in situ, as Admiral Conn said, reenergizing
the teams, re-laying out what we can within the facility. That
brings you to a place but not all the way. We have invested our
normal legislation that says 6 percent of the working capital
fund in the facilities. We are at 10 percent right now. So we
are making up for not having the investment we needed to have
in there.
And as General Rudder said, we are treating the depots as a
weapon system in the fact that we cannot generate the force
needed if they are not operating and we do not think of them
every day as the key vital enabler for our combat power today.
And so we are looking at both immediate investment in people
talent and equipment, as well as long-term investment, so that
we have them rigged. As we get this readiness improved, we need
to sustain that improved readiness. I do not want a sugar high
where we bump up real quickly and we have not made the long-
term investments that do not allow us to stay up on step. And
so that is where we are working across all of our different
FRCs to make sure that they can sustain this improved
performance we are seeing.
Senator Hirono. So do you have a plan for modernizing the
fleet readiness centers that is analogous to the Navy shipyard
modernization plan?
Rear Admiral Conn. We do.
Senator Hirono. Good. Thank you.
Rear Admiral Conn. And there are three specific examples,
if I may. We are investing $42.5 million in this budget to go
after some modernization of our FRCs. Multi-access moving
machines is one. If you have a landing gear, and you have to
drill five holes with the equipment we have today, you put the
landing gear down, you line it up with the drill, you drill a
hole. Then you got to move the landing gear, realign the drill,
and drill a hole. The multi-access machine does all the work.
You do the labor once. It reduces timeline. It reduces scrap
rate.
Another one is a cold spray booth. When we get tail hooks
or landing gear in the FRCs, the first thing you have to do is
remove the paint. We scrape it and sand it. Cold spray booth--
you put it in the machine. It removes all that material
quicker, and there is less chance of damage to that equipment
in the process.
It is getting our FRCs into the 21st century because they
are a weapon system that attacks our readiness challenges.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Perdue. Senator Hawley?
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had the chance to sit down with General Neller a few
weeks ago, and we talked about a number of things, but one of
the issues he raised with me was his concerns about the CH-53
King Stallion and the issues that we are having there.
Secretary Geurts, maybe I will direct this question to you.
Can you give the committee an update on the CH-53 and the
problems we are encountering there?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, absolutely. When I came on board now
December 2017, that was a program, as I looked at it, that was
not where it needed to be. We were not achieving the test
points that we needed to at the rate we needed to, and we did
not have a real plan to deal with fixes we needed to make in
the production aircraft after we discovered them in test. It
was not anybody's individual fault. It was just the way we set
the strategy was not working for us.
And so we took a pause. I took a pause on awarding the
production contract. We took a hard look at the team and
restructured the test program, really focusing on what do the
marines need day one.
It is an incredibly important helicopter. General Rudder
can explain operationally why. My job is to deliver it with
confidence.
So we have re-laid out the test program. We have reDONe our
production contracts, and we have included in that negotiation
on these contracts we are about ready to award incorporation of
the known fixes into the production lot as opposed to
retrofitting them after delivery, as well as some capacity in
those aircraft to deal with problems as we discover them in the
future so we can reduce a concurrency risk, which was really
what was bothering.
The good news is we have a design that provides the
capability. We have tested the hardest parts. So we are fairly
confident that we have got the design right. We have some
issues we got to work through. And that was the whole goal in
that restructured program.
So I am in the final stages of getting ready to award that
production contract. I would expect that in the next coming
weeks. When we do that and we have the restructured test
program, that to me gives us a solid program with which then we
can go execute and be measured against our execution.
Senator Hawley. But you are satisfied that the design is
where you want it. You think you have got those issues ironed
out.
Secretary Geurts. I think we have the major ones ironed
out. We are still in the middle of a test program, but we have,
to the program's credit, tested a number of what I will call
the hard points and, as General Rudder would probably say,
corners of the envelope. So I am comfortable. I mean, we got
thousands of hours on flying the aircraft. There are some
things we need to fix. I want those fixed in the production
airplanes when they roll off. I do not want them to have to be
a retrofit after the fact. That was the whole idea of our
program restructure.
Senator Hawley. General Rudder, let me just ask you. The
CH-53 sounds very capable. However, do its capabilities justify
its premium price over, say, the CH-47? Are we going to get
bang for the buck here? To be honest with you, I was disturbed
by General Neller's comments, and he expressed pretty
significant frustration to me about the status of this program.
So is it worth it is what I am asking you.
Lieutenant General Rudder. I think if we step back and we
look at this program as a heavy lift helicopter, it is the only
one that this nation has that can do what it can do. And if you
look at what this helicopter has DONe this past year, we are
restructuring it because we have learned the hard way about
concurrency, and the Secretary is doing a great job negotiating
that concurrency in. So when the marines get it, they will get
a good product.
But there is no other helicopter in the world that has
lifted 36,000 pounds, can take this 100 miles ship to shore
with 27,000 pounds at 100 miles and go back and forth all day
long. So when you look at the hours this thing--it is flying
today--over almost 1,500 hours of test time.
Now, we need to fix deficiencies. Some is seat cushions,
the handholds, the engine gas reingestion. And the vendor and
the program office are going to fix these, and we are going to
hold them accountable to fix it. But if we look at the future
of what this nation is going to have to do with the NDS and
distributed operations, you are going to need logistics. You
are going to need heavy lift because we are going to be
distributed. We are going to be eating a lot of gas. And this
is the ship-to-shore connector that will do it for us. There is
nothing else out there in the inventory. I know you mentioned
CH-47. We could talk about those numbers offline, but that will
not get there.
And I think the last thing I will say is for the Marine
Corps, it has got to be shipboard compatible. I have to be able
to put it on the ship, hold it, park it, and that is one of the
challenges we have with any of the Navy marine aircraft is that
shipboard compatibility.
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much.
Let me just ask briefly, Admiral, in the time I have
remaining here. Let me ask you about the F-35C. Now that it has
reached initial operating capability, what is its operational
readiness rate? Are you satisfied with that? Where are we?
Rear Admiral Conn. The FA-147 IOC [initial operating
capacity] in February--part of this is the numbers. I have 22
of those airplanes right now. Seven of those are in that
squadron. They will get their tenth as they begin the workup.
We have seen anywhere from 60 percent MC to 80 percent, in
excess of 80 percent MC. It depends on which day we are talking
about. But remember for the PMAI piece of the F-35C, that is
seven airplanes right now. So you see some big fluctuations.
Senator Hawley. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Perdue. Senator King?
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have been talking mostly about hardware. I want to talk
about people for a bit. I know the Air Force has a significant
pilot shortage and mechanic shortage. Bring me up to date on
the Marines and the Navy on those two areas. Admiral? There was
a GAO report that said this is a persistent problem.
Rear Admiral Conn. It said 9 percent shortfall overall, 26
percent shortfall in first tour aviators. Part of that is tied
to our T-45 when we had to red stripe and we had to shut down
for a period of time. We knew that challenge was coming. We are
going to have to extend people in assignments or rotate people
or squadrons run the maintenance for basic phase. Maybe we do
not push those people to them. So that is in terms of where we
are.
I think some of the authorities you have given us in terms
of bonuses, the department head bonus and the increase in rates
has had some impact across most type model series. We have seen
no impact to the VFA community.
Senator King. Talk to me about recruitment rates. Where are
we? Are we bringing in as many pilots as we are losing?
Rear Admiral Conn. We are bringing in our goal. Now, do
people get a vote when they have the option to get out?
Senator King. That is the second part of my question is
retention.
Rear Admiral Conn. Retention? We are seeing a lot of
experience, and they are all very good, but some of our best
are deciding to go to other things. We are in a competition for
talent. The airlines are continuing to hire. But some of these
folks are going to grad school. Some of them are starting their
own business. The economy is doing well. There are choices.
There are sacrifices that we have. It is a challenge that we
have. And it is particularly at the more senior levels where we
are seeing the challenges the most.
Senator King. Senator Cotton and I about a year ago had
what amounted to a focus group with young Air Force officers
about flying and why we are losing them. And interestingly, the
discussion did not turn on money. We are never going to compete
with the airlines.
Rear Admiral Conn. True.
Senator King. It turned on flying.
Rear Admiral Conn. Correct.
Senator King. And the concern was getting onto a track that
led you to too much time behind a desk, and these are people
that joined the service in order to fly. Lifestyle and length
of deployments and ability to actually have time in the
airplane seemed to be the more important factors. Are you
looking at those?
Rear Admiral Conn. We do a survey for every pilot that
decides to leave. Three factors: not doing what they signed up.
They are not flying enough, which means we need to get our
readiness where it needs to be to get them in the air.
Two, there is some quality of life issues more so in our
non-fleet concentration areas, Lemoore being one of them.
Three, is the pay gap that is coming up in the surveys that
we have DONe.
So the additional authorities for the bonuses, quality of
life issues in Lemoore, and everything----
Senator King. Quality of life and time in the cockpit is on
you.
Rear Admiral Conn. It is.
Senator King. That is a management challenge.
Rear Admiral Conn. Absolutely.
Senator King. And I take it a similar story in the Marines?
Lieutenant General Rudder. Yes, Senator. We look at really
three big bins, and the flight hours is one of them. Pilots
want to fly, and for certainly the young pilots. All of these
readiness issues we talk about, we want to get to a percentage
which looks really good, but what that translates to is flight
hours. And if you look at the Marine Corps, in fiscal year
2016, we were at 13.5 hours per pilot on average.
Senator King. Per?
Lieutenant General Rudder. Per pilot on the average per
month. In 2017, we were at 15.4 hours per month per pilot. And
in 2018, we are at 17.9. And now we stand around 17.1. So in
that regard, I think some of the younger pilots are beginning
to fly now.
Now, the deployment. Some things that are out of our hands
a bit and that is we are still in combat. And if you are an AV-
8B pilot, you are either on the boat, you are getting off the
boat, or you are getting ready to go on the boat again. I mean,
it is a pretty quick turn, and we are running those folks
pretty hard. The same with the V-22.
So then you look at incentives, and incentives are
something that it is not all about money and we hear that loud
and clear. But it does help in some of the higher grade
officers where they have got to make some tough choices.
Senator King. You are saying all things being equal, money
helps.
Lieutenant General Rudder. Money helps. It really does.
Senator King. It is hard to argue with that.
Lieutenant General Rudder. It is. It is hard to argue with
that.
Senator King. I have just got a few seconds left.
Mechanics. That is a bottleneck too. Is it not?
Lieutenant General Rudder. So we have initiated for our
higher qualification mechanics--we have given them a reenlisted
bonus. We first started doing it a couple of years ago. And
what that has equated to is out of the 1,500-1,600
reenlistments, if you had the collateral duty inspector or
quality assurance representative duty, which is a higher
qualification of mechanics, you were going to get $20,000 to
enlist for 4 years. And the deal was that you had to stabilize
in that squadron. So with the numbers that we were able to
reenlist with that program, it equated to about 10 qualified
mechanics per squadron that we were able to----
Senator King. Are you getting them?
Lieutenant General Rudder. We are.
Senator King. Because my concern is that if we get into a
situation where we are short of both mechanics and pilots and
we end up with longer deployments and more of those kind of
activities, it becomes a downward spiral that aggravates the
problem. I take it you are attentive to that.
Lieutenant General Rudder. Yes, sir. I agree.
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Perdue. Senator Tillis?
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here and for your service.
General Rudder, I am kind of curious. I want to get an
update on the F-35 and specifically some of the work we are
doing down at Cherry Point. We have made some of the initial
appropriations for the lift fan facility--if you google the
cradle of civilization in God's country, it is pretty much
close to right there and home to about 45 percent of the Marine
Corps. But other than that----
But, no, I am interested in seeing how that is going, how
the deployment is going. I know that we have had some
information on the production of the Joint Strike Fighter. I do
not know if we are shifting to the right, but I would like to
get an update first on Cherry Point, what we are doing down
there at FRC East, but then more broadly the program. I will
start with you, but I am happy to have anybody else.
Lieutenant General Rudder. You are referring to really two
products that we have ongoing this year.
One is the repair facility that North Carolina really
helped us very graciously with that. The repair facility is on
contract. It should be DONe by 2020, January of 2020. So that
is on track.
And then the other side of that is the lift fan test
facility. So they will go hand in hand. That should go on
contract this year, and it is going to be a 2-year build. So I
would imagine that by 2021, we will have that up, and then it
will take another year or 2 to qualify that lift fan. But that
will be very important for the F-35B because there are only a
few places in the country that you can actually test----
Senator Tillis. Mainly at Rolls Royce in Indiana. Right?
Lieutenant General Rudder. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Tillis. And with the current production schedule--I
know at one time when we were first talking about it, we were
tracking towards their capacity tapping out at about the end of
2020, beginning of 2021. I do not know if the production
schedule has lifted some of that pressure off, but that is what
I was particularly concerned with.
Lieutenant General Rudder. I think that 2023 is kind of the
target that we are looking at, and somewhere before that, we
will go to either a longer first shift or a dual shift test
fan, lift fan facility workload before we get ours qualified in
North Carolina.
Senator Tillis. Mr. Chair and for the committee, General
Rudder alluded to it, but I want to thank the members of the
general assembly and the governor because we went out and
reached out to them and told them the economic impact that it
was going to have down in the State. And we wanted to make it
very clear that the State is solidly behind them. So they
appropriated $5 million out of their general fund in North
Carolina for the use of the Navy and for the Marines to
actually accelerate that project.
I will tell you, though, there was a learning there because
I went to the speaker and the Senate leader a few years ago.
They had the first seed money, and then they went back and
added more money. And we have this money that the State is
wanting to give the Federal Government, and I had to work a
little bit and intervene to get to yes because we were having
some sort of procedural review breakdown where they go, well,
before we take this check from a State entity, we have got to
assess this. So I think that that is one thing. If we want to
incent other States to do this when it is in our mutual
interests, we want to make sure that that process is
streamlined. But I appreciate the end result. I think it is
where we ultimately wanted to go.
The other question I have, since I have a limited amount of
time--I know what your priorities are. I tend to agree with
them and will do everything I can to support them. But I think
you also need to do some modeling based on gaming out how the
appropriations process is going to go. And if you come in and
do a sensitivity analysis, this is what you can do if we
appropriate the money you want.
But I think we also need to understand what specific
programs will be directly impacted. Hopefully, you are not
going to peanut butter it and make them all go slower. Some
may, just based on priorities, have to be on hold. I think that
it will help us work on both sides of the aisle to say these
are the material consequences if you get less than you expect
to get. And we need to know that beforehand so people know the
consequences versus just come up with a generic funding level
and then 6 months later, we find everybody starts hemming and
hawing because they do not recognize what it is ultimately
impacted.
The last question I have for you all really relates to the
future. Now that we see unmanned and other technologies on the
near term horizon, I think the other thing that would be
helpful in the future is say to what extent are some of these
new and emerging technologies going to impact some of your
current thinking about already committed to capabilities. So we
have got near-term opportunities that probably will not affect
near-term priorities for fielding capabilities, but they could
in the longer term. And I think that the sooner that we get
that so that we get people less obsessed with hitting a number
based on what we know today and more focused on the general
capabilities that you think are the best for lethality and
projection of power, I think that would be very helpful to us.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. And just briefly I would say my
experience has been, especially coming from special ops, it is
an either/and. It is not an either/or. And the real strength is
each has its benefits and challenges. And our experimentation
approach--and I will give a shout out to the Marine Corps for
actually getting it in the hands of the operational units and
letting them experiment with it and really figure out that
right balance and how do those each help each other versus
compete each other between unmanned and manned and autonomous
and manned I think is really where the opportunity lies. It is
not one or the other. It is to figure out how to get both the
unique capabilities playing best together and operational
design will win.
Senator Tillis. The best and highest use. But I think that
that feedback will be helpful because it will be instructive to
our future planning, future production priorities.
Thank you all. Thank you for your service.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Perdue. Senator Blumenthal?
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Major Berger--well first of all, welcome to all of you and
thank you for your service.
Major Berger, I was--I am sorry. General Berger. A bad way
to begin----
[Laughter.]
Lieutenant General Berger. I have been called worse by my
wife, a lot worse.
[Laughter.]
Senator Blumenthal. Well, it sounds like you and I are in
the same boat in that regard.
General Berger, I was interested to see a recent article--
and I am sure you are familiar with it--by Dakota Wood about
MARSOC [Marine Special Operations Command] basically arguing
against the request that is made in the 2020 budget to increase
the billets for MARSOC, in fact, arguing that it ought to be
disbanded entirely. And I think this is a fundamental question
for the Marine Corps, and I would be very interested in your
views on that.
Lieutenant General Berger. I just want to make sure I
understand the question, Senator. Is the question should we
expand MARSOC, do I think we should expand it?
Senator Blumenthal. I am sorry. The article argues that, in
effect, MARSOC ought to be disbanded. It is an article that was
printed I believe by the Heritage Foundation, and it is written
by a marine strategist who worked in the Marine Corps Forces
Special Operations Command between 2012 and 2013, Dakota Wood.
And the article is not necessarily the topic of the question,
but more the argument made in the article, which is that MARSOC
should be disbanded because those billets and those resources
could be better used in a more--to use a word that perhaps
fits, a more traditional Marine Corps function. And I wonder if
you could expound a little bit on why the Marine Corps is
asking to expand MARSOC, and why you think disbanding it would
be a bad idea.
Lieutenant General Berger. When the Special Operations
Command was formed, the Marine Corps did not jump into that
game at the time, as most people are aware. We waited. The
Army, Navy, and Air Force formed their service components, and
the Marine Corps watched from the bleachers to see where things
would go.
When we create Marine Special Operations Command, it was
after a great deal of deliberations, some of which General
Rudder and I were more junior to but watched and listened and
followed along.
At this stage, I would tell you they have--my personal
opinion or our opinion--that they have developed farther,
faster than most thought possible perhaps not because they are
wearing the Marine uniform. But we operate sort of as a joint
force every day with aviation and logistics and ground. So it
was a natural fit for them. And the small unit level leadership
that they depend on is a natural fit coming from the Marine
Corps.
I think they are vital. I think the Special Operations
Command and the joint force is better for them. The adjustment
of each service's special operations force is an ongoing debate
or discussion about what is needed going forward. And that I am
not qualified to talk about, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Let me ask because my time is limited--this topic of MARSOC
is one that I would like to pursue in the future. But for now,
let me move on to a discussion that I had with the Army and Air
Force in similar subcommittee hearings regarding combat
equipment for women, a topic I know everyone on this panel is
familiar with.
When I asked the Director of the Army Acquisition Corps,
Lieutenant Ostrowski, about this issue, he said the Army has
made ongoing adjustments. Just yesterday, I asked the folks
from the Navy and I have asked the Air Force as well.
I wonder if you could describe for us what the Marine Corps
is doing to make sure that this gear, whether it is body armor
or other personal equipment, takes account of the needs and so
forth of female members of the Marine Corps.
Lieutenant General Berger. I can tackle that, Senator. Most
of us sitting up here wore the original like OTV or whatever it
was called in the mid-2000s. There was small, medium, and
large, and you usually did not get whatever size you were after
anyway.
In between then and now, huge progress and beginning in
2012 I think with a great deal of effort towards expanding the
fit to fit female marines. We now wear plate carrier vests, and
all the way from the 2 percent to the 98 percent, it is a solid
fit. It was designed with them in mind, not as an afterthought.
But the plate carrier vests we wear right now were designed
with female shapes and sizes in mind from the beginning.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much. My time has
expired. Thank you for being here today.
Senator Perdue. Admiral Conn, would you talk about the
current fleet of airplanes? In the last decade since
sequestration, we had a 25 percent disinvestment in the
military. So that is from a static number. It does not count
what should have increased with inflation, et cetera. So 25
percent has put you in a position today where you are flying
more fourth gen than you would like. Would you talk about the
mix of fourth gen-fifth gen today and your future vision of how
you would interface the fifth gen planes as they start to enter
into your fleet?
Rear Admiral Conn. Number one, we will not get to our
program 50-50 mix until 2030.
Number two, our first fifth gen aircraft will deploy in
fiscal year 2021.
When I look at the weapon system that flies off our
carriers, known as a carrier air wing, I look at the combined
capability because we can carry 60 to 70 aircraft, elevated
sensors. We can throw mass at the problem.
I foresee the F-35 operating forward, sensing, collecting,
and relaying information back to a weapons truck, known as a
Super Hornet. I see the E-2D involved in relaying critical
information to all those fighters out there while the EA-18G
Growler, with next generation jammers providing coverage.
So it is that system of systems, and quite frankly, it is
where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. And that
is why we can do the 50-50 mix because of the capabilities and
capacities that we can put on our aircraft carriers. And that
is relevant until about the end of the next of the next decade,
20.
And then we are going to have a NGAD discussion, next
generation air dominance. The A-way will be complete in a
couple months, report out this summer, which will inform future
choices. I see greater unmanned capacity going on our air
wings, and we are going start with the MQ-25 that we are going
to field as soon as possible that is going to extend the
operational reach of that air wing. We are going to look for
opportunities. Part of this is when I look to the future, I
look to the past. PBYs and you look what they did in World War
II, out there operating far from the fleet, relaying actionable
information to decision-makers, something that we probably need
to look at and start getting after.
Senator Perdue. You talk about getting information from a
little different parts, and the sum of the parts equaling more
than the whole. Does that include integration with what the Air
Force is trying to do with ABMS right now, the advanced battle
management system, with the Army?
Rear Admiral Conn. One, we will have the tactical grid that
I think the joint force is going to have to plan.
Two, I am looking for weapons' quality to track information
from anywhere that I can get it, either internal to the carrier
strike group or battle strike force or external. I do not care
where it comes from. I just want it in those cockpits, sir.
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
General Berger, real quick. The Marine Corps started to
field the JLTV [joint light tactical vehicle] in its 2019
request, and you have increased the numbers requested since
then. At the same time, the Army--and this may be just their
decision to reallocate dollars--has actually slowed it down. I
am not trying to read anything into that. But what is your
assessment of the JLTV program today, and what feedback are you
getting from your marines as they are beginning to operate
that?
Lieutenant General Berger. Thanks, Senator, for the
question.
Your assessment is accurate in terms of the Army delaying a
full rate production decision, which we think will be in May
now, unless you have heard something different. But they did
that because there were three aspects of the vehicle they
wanted the vendor to continue to work on before they went to a
full rate production decision.
In our budget, we procured 1,400 this year. They are being
fielded this month. They will deploy this year on board ship.
So how are they doing? I think we will know the answer to
that within a month or 2 because marines will begin driving
them later on this month, and they will go on deployment later
on this year.
We are happy with the vehicle. It does things that the
Humvee could never be able to do.
Senator Perdue. In that vein, I have a few seconds left.
Let me go ahead and get this out of the way too--this question
for you, General Berger. Since canceling the expeditionary
fighting vehicle, the EFV, in 2011, you have chosen to pursue a
more measured multi-phase acquisition strategy, and you moved
toward combining the ACV 1.1 I believe and the 1.2.
Can you give us an update on that strategy? Do you still
have confidence that is the right direction? And how do you see
that fitting in, and when can we expect to deliver that
vehicle?
Lieutenant General Berger. Thanks, Senator.
It is in test right now, and the reason--I will not speak
for the Secretary. We are happy as a Marine Corps when a system
is doing better when you had forecasted, which is why the
Secretary was able to do it. The 1.1 was doing so well that we
can move faster. We are happy with that vehicle as it is moving
through test so far. The marines are happy driving it compared
to the AAV that they are operating.
And I will ask Secretary Geurts if he has any other
comment.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I mean, it was my decision to
put those together. And we did that.
I will applaud the team, a really smart government team,
that thought on how to capitalize up-side opportunity. We spent
a lot of time managing down-side risk. We are not in the
acquisition community nearly as proficient as taking advantage
of something. And so the team did a lot of work to test to the
1.2 requirements even though it was a 1.1 design. So that
allowed me to have the confidence that we have the data, that
we were already testing it. The operator feedback was what we
wanted. So they thought proactively, and then we put an
acquisition strategy that allowed us to accelerate. That brings
gear to the fleet faster. It is much more cost effective, and
now we can focus some of that R&D [research and development] on
what is past 1.2, not just redoing the R&D [research and
development] just for the sake of redoing it.
Senator Perdue. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Senator Ernst?
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair, very much.
And thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. I truly
appreciate the time that you have given to the committee and
for your service as well.
We know that we have to support a multi-domain dominance.
That is critical to our NDS. And we know that we have to have
advanced ground forces and we also need to be able to support
our aviation assets as well. So thank you for that.
I would like to start, of course, by talking a little bit
about aviation and the opportunity that we might see in the
future. One of the biggest challenges that we do have in
aviation right now is pilot shortage and understanding how,
one, can we either recruit and train more pilots or are there
other ways of doing business that we need to look at in the
future and that would include autonomous systems?
And I understand. I get a lot of pushback from some of our
pilot friends out there. I was able to go out about a year and
a half ago and bag some traps on the Abraham Lincoln. It as a
great honor to do that. But in the absence of additional
pilots, we do need to look at other ways of doing business.
So with that in mind, what steps have the Navy and the
Marine Corps taken as far as developing manned or unmanned
systems that can be utilized in the future? General Rudder,
would you like to field that first?
Lieutenant General Rudder. One of the interesting projects
we are doing right now with our K-MAX helicopter--we bought two
of these to use in Afghanistan as an autonomous logistics
delivery system and we--because of the graciousness of Congress
allowed us to have funds for that this year. So we are trucking
them back to Connecticut to have them retrofitted to get them
back flying again and having them retrofitted with some systems
that will make them autonomous. We hope to get them back next
year, and that will allow us to go back and experiment more
with autonomous systems.
So what we have found is although you have logistics that
you need to get to the right place at the right time, you also
need a workhorse that just does this automatically. And we are
hoping that this research project will allow us to really get
in the autonomous part of that particular system.
Also for our MUX, our MAGTF unmanned expeditionary system,
that we are developing now, a group 5 system that can come off
the ship, we would like to have that be an autonomous early
warning electronic warfare asset. It has long loiter persistent
time that does the job of what an E-2D would do off the
carrier, but it does that for the amphibious ready group. So we
are working on that.
All these things lead into artificial intelligence. It is
all tied together. But I think you are exactly right.
And I will offer one comment as I back out of the mike is
sometimes there is nothing unmanned about unmanned. Some of our
most precious assets right now are the folks that fly our
unmanned systems right now. So autonomy is key to try to
alleviate the human link in that.
Senator Ernst. I appreciate that. Thank you.
And we have talked about this as well, for us ground
pounders, the logistical trains that we have using autonomous
vehicles. So the fact that we might look at that as an aerial
delivery system is pretty important as well. So thank you for
that.
Secretary Geurts. Ma'am, maybe if I could, just one quick
add.
The other thing that we are doing is looking at it both
architecturally and programmatically. So on the carrier, we are
going to have one common data link to talk to anything unmanned
so that we do not get into the situation of we have to have 10
different unmanned data links intended for war rooms and all
that. So when we talk about forward, when we talk about where
we are going forward, it is to open up our ability to take
whatever comes. And so as that vehicle, whatever it looks like,
is discovered, invented by whomever, we can quickly integrate
it into the weapon system and not have to wait years and years
for another carrier cycle to get through. The same with the
amphibious cycle. So you need both pieces.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Secretary.
Admiral?
Rear Admiral Conn. I have a list of capabilities that looks
like a pyramid, and at the top are three things: automation,
manned/unmanned teaming, and artificial intelligence. I see
that as accelerating the observe, orient, decide, act, make
quicker decisions, provide more lethal actions. I see those
required to drive simplicity down to the tactical level because
our tactics are overly complex right now because we are facing
overmatch. We have to use those tools. And as we get a better
understanding of what automation really means, in light of a
pacing threat where an enemy gets a vote and mother nature gets
a vote, what is the true capability of that? And the artificial
intelligence--that is going to better inform where we are going
in the future. But we have Triton going out this year. We have
MQ-25 coming as soon as possible that we need to leverage that
work and get a better understanding of those attributes.
Senator Ernst. Sure. Thank you.
And if we could talk a little bit too about emerging
technologies. I chair the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities, and there are a lot of technologies that--and
Secretary Geurts, we have discussed this before. But respective
to aviation and ground combat, what do you see as the most
important emerging technologies that maybe we need to be
focusing on?
Secretary Geurts. I would put it in a couple categories.
One, as Admiral Conn put this, autonomous, a decision aid kind
of area, whether that is unique to the platform itself or in
the larger, either in a strike group or in the overall fight.
And then I think there is a whole new category--we have
been working on it for a while--on different weapons, directed
energy, a whole range of different ways so that we get away
from our only kind of answer is a 1,000-pound something that
has got to get transferred out that you only have so many of
because if we are going to operate at the rate, we are not
going to have time to steam bombs around.
And then the third piece is how do we network in, connect
everything together. So to Admiral Conn's point, I do not care
where the sensor is, I do not care whose nameplate it is on the
tail, whoever can get the sensing information to the shooter
the quickest with the right decision aids will win.
And I would say those are kind of the three macro
technologies. How to operationalize those is really important
because you can have the technology, but getting them into--and
continuing to invest in experimentation at unit level, at
battalion and higher level is absolutely critical.
And then the final piece is it is not technology but it is
thinking, is how do we continue--and we are doing a lot of work
on our acquisition programs, again to be able to insert the
technology much faster than we are right now. I mean, there is
a whole range of technologies in software development. I think
if we can get the technology development put together, then
operationalize it, and quickly integrate it, we will be in
really good shape.
Senator Ernst. Thank you. I appreciate it. My time has
expired. Thank you very much.
Senator Perdue. Senator Hirono?
Senator Hirono. Admiral Conn, I was very interested in what
you just said about that we are facing an overmatch. With whom?
Are you talking about Russia, China, or who?
Rear Admiral Conn. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hirono. And this is why your pyramid, which was
kind of an intriguing way to frame it, that you are looking--
what was at the top of the triangle?
Rear Admiral Conn. Artificial intelligence.
Senator Hirono. And so how much investment are you putting
into developing AI?
Rear Admiral Conn. I think AI may mean different things to
different people. The algorithms that we are developing and our
fusion engines for decision aids is probably the best example.
Senator Hirono. So in terms of the monetary request, are
you putting enough into the kind of research and development
that you have to do for AI?
Rear Admiral Conn. I do not think this is simply an
aviation discussion, and I will ask the Secretary if he has any
comments.
Senator Hirono. Sure.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. And I would be happy to take
for the record kind of a full accounting. We have some
investment in the S&T [science and technology] arena, and then
we have some much more focused investment kind of on the
platform piece. And so if it is okay, I just will take the
question for the record to lay that out.
[The information follows:]
The fiscal year 2020 budget request includes significant
increases to naval investments in Artificial Intelligence (AI).
A majority of these investments remain in the science and
technology area (BA1-BA3). The increase recognizes AI's
potential disruptive capability and broad applicability, as
well as the investment made by other world powers in AI.
Congressional support is welcome. Focused AI investment is
beginning to emerge for Naval platforms and acquisition
programs as well. BA4 Program Elements with AI investments
include Digital Warfare, Naval Advanced Submarine Systems
Development, and Expeditionary Logistics. Additional
information can be provided in a classified setting.
Secretary Geurts. And then I guess working closely with the
joint community because at some point--I do not again care
where the algorithm comes from. And so if the Joint AI Center
is building out or one of the other Services, we are doing a
lot of investment in looking at our data so that we will be
able to apply those algorithms quickly to the data we have. And
I think you need both halves of that equation.
Senator Hirono. So if you are saying that we should not be
operating in a siloed way, therefore we have to make whatever
appropriations, whatever amounts--those resources have got to
go as far as they can. So you will have to be working in
conjunction.
But I am curious to know if resorting to AI--I should not
say resorting. But if we are looking to AI [artificial
intelligence] and unmanned systems, et cetera, that is going to
become an increasingly important part of the readiness frame,
then I would be interested to know a bigger picture of how you
see the resources going toward those kinds of developments.
Last year, I asked the witnesses--this is for General
Rudder and Admiral Conn. I asked the witnesses at the Seapower
aviation hearing what changes have been reflected in the fiscal
year 2019 budget to adjust to the new National Defense
Strategy. And I cannot say that the witnesses were able to
identify significant changes. There have been changes made to
other parts of the budget, but I cannot identify any specific
changes from the strategy change in Navy aviation programs.
So for both of you, could you describe how you believe the
Department of the Navy aviation programs have been changed to
reflect the new NDS? General Rudder?
Lieutenant General Rudder. I think when we talked last
year, the NDS was still in write, but we were tracking it with
our two adversaries, our two competitors. And we were already
planning to develop and field programs to meet that. For
example, we were already fielding our first F-35 squadron,
which is one of our largest long-range strike that fits into
the NDS long-range strike. We were in the process of--and we
had already, last time we talked, fielded the MFA 121 to Asia,
our first F-35 squadron. We took it full-up round out of Yuma
and immediately deployed it forward into Asia.
This year, we have two more squadrons that are operating.
One just got back from its first combat deployment. And
currently when you look at the USS Wasp out there right now,
you have got 10 F-35's that are on that deck, and they are
steaming to the South China Sea and providing presence and
working with our Philippine counterparts. So that long-range
strike is down range.
What we did a little bit this year is because we have an
agreement with the Navy to support them with their carrier
operations is what you saw is a little bit of a change, a tweak
between our F-35B and our F-35C numbers where we are
endeavoring to buy 10 F-35C's. That is so that we can support
the carrier deployment schedule. The Navy has their first
deployment with VFA 147 in 2021, the MFA 314 will be the second
Marine Corps squadron. It will be the second F-35C deployment
and the 2021 and the 2022. So in that case, we kind of adjusted
that a little bit.
We did look at ramping up Sage 53K, and we are kind of
going to hold steady on that right now. But we are still
tracking to do that. That is for a protective maneuver, NDS
protective maneuver. That and the MV-22 is what is going to be
the last tactical mile, if you will, for distributed operations
for logistics distribution.
Senator Hirono. So are you saying that we are sending more
assets or replacing more assets or having more assets ready to
go into the Indo-Pacific AOR?
Lieutenant General Rudder. I think the other things that we
have tried to do is--there are three kind of new things on
there right now. And it has to do with adversaries. We know
that for the NDS, we have to do and practice our adversary
requirements greater. So we have some F-5's in there that we
bought, and we are also getting ready to pull the trigger on
more experimentation with our unmanned expeditionary system. So
all these are coming together as protective maneuver, strike,
and also the unmanned systems.
Senator Hirono. Admiral?
Rear Admiral Conn. I cannot say this was driven by the
National Defense Strategy, but I think it is reflective of what
the words are in it. If you look at the weapons that will IOC
inside this FYDP, LRASM this year, small diameter bomb next
year, high altitude ASW weapon going on our P-8's going after a
submarine. That is also in 2020. MALD, miniature air-launched
decoy--that plays an important role if we are going to do some
missions in the South China Sea. AARGM-ER, all those weapons
that have greater lethality, greater range are IOCing inside of
the FYDP. And then JSAL-ER is just outside the FYDP.
The National Defense Strategy talked heavily about
readiness, and I think we have had that conversation and the
investments we made, not just asking for money, but looking at
ourselves in the mirror for process capabilities and our
people, what do we need to do better and using industry to help
ourselves in that process.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Perdue. Senator King?
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to talk about Marine Corps ground modernization.
Where are we, General--I guess ``General'' applies to both of
you guys. Whoever wants to respond--on the ACV and the JLTV? Is
the ACV a unique thing to the Marine Corps? That is a unique
product.
Lieutenant General Berger. It is.
Senator King. And where does it stand in its development
process?
Lieutenant General Berger. It is in testing as we are
sitting here this morning. It went to a milestone C last
summer, passed that fine. And then I think in January,
Secretary Geurts looking at the progress that was made on 1.1
testing against actually 1.2 criteria, it was moving so fast
and doing so well, they merged the two together into a single
one.
Senator King. Good progress. We are beyond requirements and
prototypes.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. In fact, I was up at the
production plan up in York 2 weeks ago. They are ramping into
production. I was very satisfied with the progress we are
making there. And we did an operational assessment before we
made the milestone decision. So we got good, independent test
feedback. We are in initial production right now. We have
actually cranked a lot of the feedback from the operational
assessment into the production line from the start, which I was
very happy to see. And then we will go into an independent
IOT&E cycle as we continue to ramp up the production rate.
Senator King. And the JLTV--where are we in that process?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Partnered with the Army. The
Marine Corps is kind of on the front end of that buy. That has
gone through an OT cycle.
Senator King. Are the two vehicles, the Army and Marines,
the same?
Secretary Geurts. They are common vehicles.
Senator King. Good.
Secretary Geurts. As the Chairman mentioned, they are
adjusting their production rate a little bit on the back end.
That is okay. It does not impact us. We will take all the
capacity we can get and field that as quickly as we can.
General Berger can talk operationally, but from an acquisition
and sustainment standpoint, that would be a great vehicle to
replace all our Humvees as soon as we can.
Senator King. We are well along that pipeline.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. It is a full-rate production
decision. Right now, it is scheduled for May.
Senator King. Good.
Ground-based radar, the GATR, and the ground-based air
defense. Are they unique to the Marine Corps, or are those also
joint with the Army?
Secretary Geurts. Right now, sir, they are unique, although
I would say they are getting some interest. They are
progressing again well. We have DONe initial----
Senator King. Just so the Army does not come in and say
they need to develop their own radar system. You are at the
apex of this. I hope we do not have to develop separate radar
systems for two sets of people on the ground.
Secretary Geurts. Correct, sir. My favorite form of R&D is
rip off and deploy. So if they have got something we can adopt,
we will. We have DONe that in a number of, I would say, smaller
ground elements. On the vehicle side, we are well-teamed on
JLTV, and we have had conversations with them on the radars.
Senator King. Good. Rip off and deploy I like. Hold onto
that principle.
General Berger, we have talked about people. We have talked
about systems on the ground. How about logistics of getting
your men and women to the battlefield? How do we stand on ship
to shore and also onshore? How are you feeling about the
logistics?
Lieutenant General Berger. Of course, some of it is going
back to the future, the way we were trained and operating 20
years ago. But the past 18 years of operating out of forward
operating bases where you could pile as much sustainment as you
want and protect it and operate from there, that fit the
operating environment of the Middle East. It does not fit the
operating environment that is our primary theater now.
So we are going to need more connectors, a family of
connectors, I think going forward because connectors to us
before today was a way to move from ship to shore. But
connectors now are ship to shore, shore to ship, shore to
shore, and we need the vertical. We need the surface. We need
it all. If we are going to disperse and be able to operate in a
distributed manner and sustain that force, our view of what
connectors is is going to have to broaden.
Senator King. And it seems to me we are also going to have
to think about a contested environment, GPS disruption,
communications disruption. Is that part of your thinking in
terms of designing these systems? The cyber part of this--the
other side has a pretty high level of capability. That is
something we are going to have to be thinking about it seems to
me.
Lieutenant General Berger. It is the Commandant's number
one priority, is command and control in a contested environment
for the reasons you just stated, Senator. We have to write it
into our requirements, every one, all of our systems. If there
is a system that we have that cannot function under an
adversary's pressure, then it is not going to last very long.
It is going to go quiet.
Senator King. I understand at the Naval Academy, they are
now back to teaching celestial navigation.
Rear Admiral Conn. I was not fortunate enough to go through
the academy, sir, but I think I have read that in the article.
[Laughter.]
Senator King. But I think there is an important point
there, that to the extent we rely entirely on electronic
devices, if our adversaries can disable those devices, I do not
want people not figuring out how to get from point A to point
B.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I think we have also got to not
only think of a contested environment at the last tactical
mile. I think as the Secretary mentioned yesterday, you can be
in a contested environment just trying to get off the pier. And
so we are looking across--you know, obviously, how the threat
presents itself can change, but we are thinking about the
threat in a different way, not just once we cross some line in
the ocean, that is when the threat will now be on us. With
cyber and some of these other threats, their ability to impact
you much earlier and differently in the fight is something we
are really looking closely at across both the Navy and the
Marine Corps.
Senator King. Mr. Chairman, let the record show that
Secretary Geurts paid attention to Secretary Spencer yesterday.
[Laughter.]
Senator King. Thank you.
Senator Perdue. I do have a follow-up question on the GATR.
The GATR, compared to other systems that are being developed,
though, has an air traffic control dimension. Does it not?
Specifically because of the Marine requirement. I do not think
the other systems have that. It is irrelevant, but I mean, that
is a major part of what you are trying to develop. Is that not
true?
Lieutenant General Berger. That is correct.
Senator Perdue. With regard to the data links, I am very
interested in how you managed to protect the hardening of that.
But I want to come back to what you just said. General
Berger, I think you have said this in a hearing or in a private
conversation. The days of sailing across the ocean, piling
stuff on a beach, and getting into a fight on our terms at our
time, those times seem to be past us. It is a time now where
you have to fight your way to get in the fight I think are your
words.
Talk to me a little bit about sealift. This looks like to
somebody outside that this is a big investment that you only
need when you need it, and it is hard to maintain it when you
are not using it. Talk to us about how you manage that
requirement, which we see is so important, and how you would
protect it as it gets to the fight.
Lieutenant General Berger. There is a broad view of
prepositioning for the Army and the Marine Corps and the Navy,
some of which is a prepositioning in set locations that you may
or may not choose to harden, and that lessens what you would
have to bring in.
And the second part of that is an afloat maritime
prepositioning capability that both again the Army and Navy and
Marine Corps have. We both think we are going to have to relook
that going forward because that was built on a premise that you
would have secure, benign ports that you could drive up next to
in your 38-foot draft vessel and unload, as we did in Desert
Shield/Desert Storm, and just keep cycling them in. That is a
different operating environment. We need to be able to do those
kind of things at sea to a connector. And it may be then on to
another connector. Some will be prepositioned forward either
afloat or ashore. And then the rest that is brought in--the
distribution of that sustainment is varsity level stuff.
Senator Perdue. I have one last question, and this is for
each of you. As you look at the 2020 budget, what are the risks
in that budget? Let me try to explain what I mean.
We all know that when you put a budget together, there are
those things that you take risks in in order to fulfill the
mission, whether it be in a business or in the military. In
this environment, without going classified, can you talk about
that? We will ask that question again in a classified
arrangement eventually, but for today, can you talk about what
is at risk in this budget that we need to know about?
Secretary Geurts. Sir, maybe I will start and then
certainly allow my teammates here to jump in.
I mean, certainly there are some high profile decisions
that were made in the budget, one of them being retiring a
carrier at its midlife. Some of them were slowing down some
acquisition programs, a ship-to-shore connector being one of
them because of some challenges in that program.
Senator Perdue. I am sorry. Was that a budget restriction
or was that just the technical delay in developing that
capability?
Secretary Geurts. It was a realization of where that
capability was. And so it was not a conscious decision we did
not need them. It was a decision that we had not ordered the
previous production ones. But you are always putting at risk
sometimes--you know, can you make it through that production
gap? And so we had to balance a lot of the pieces. And so some
were fighting risks. General Berger, could probably talk about
what we did on the AAV and some of the legacy systems.
And so the art of this is understanding how soon can you
get rid of a legacy piece that you have to sustain and supply
and all that, which by definition has some usable capability
but may not be the capability you want going to the future and
making hard decisions about I may retire that even though it
still has some usable capability left, but if I do not, I have
no ability to generate that 2.0 force. So you saw us making
some of those decisions in the ground vehicles. You saw us make
some of those decisions in large capital assets like the
carriers. You are seeing us make some of those decisions in
some of the C4 systems. My job as the acquisition guy is to
inform the warfighter what those balances are, the risks that I
can deliver in the future versus the risk of not having the
thing you want to get rid of so that we can make informed
decisions.
And so I would say generically that large risk is in
retiring legacy as soon as you can otherwise you can never
generate the dollars and resources available to then modernize
because over time you will just put all your money into keeping
the old car in your driveway and never get enough money to buy
the new car you really need for the mission going forward.
Rear Admiral Conn. The only thing I would add is there is a
capabilities discussion and a capacity discussion, sir. I agree
with you. Capability is probably best in a classified session.
I would say the capacity discussion, in terms of where we
are accepting risk, is reflected on the CNO's unfunded list for
the capabilities for MILCON to high priority weapons, sonabuoys
that we put out a lot of in recent years. So that is where I
would look to see where the risk is and get in front of that.
Senator Perdue. Yes, sir.
Anything else?
Lieutenant General Rudder. I think I would just, I think,
tag onto what Secretary Geurts says. You know, when you make
balancing acts with the budget, one thing that Admiral Conn and
I have agreed to is we are going to fill our readiness accounts
to the max extent right off the bat, the max extent executable
for that particular year because readiness is what the marines
and sailors deserve on the deck.
The other thing that we look at is we look at our legacy
systems, for us, the 53 Echo, the legacy Hornet, the risk that
we take to make sure that they are funded and the readiness is
up and they can maintain the capabilities, deployment cycles
that we are asking them to do every day. We take risk at the
speed in which our vendors can give us the aircraft that we ask
for and the speed at which we can bring on new technology. And
the F-35 and the 53-K is just two of those examples where we
need to ramp those in and by 2030 be out of the 53 Echo and be
out of the legacy Hornet. And so that is the balancing acts we
do each year with the budget.
Senator Perdue. Senator Hirono?
Senator Hirono. Just a few more.
So, Mr. Secretary, are you saying that not refueling the
Truman is because it did not meet the capability need in the
future?
Secretary Geurts. No, ma'am. I guess what I was saying was,
as we discussed in the last hearing, we had to make decisions
based on cost of maintaining legacy equipment versus
opportunities to modernize. And the Truman is a quite capable
aircraft carrier, survivable. As we mentioned, carriers will be
a part of any future Navy as we see it. But it does have some
limitations and it does not have some of the growth potential
that the Ford class gives us. And so that was an area where we
consciously took some risk to enable us to move towards a 2.0.
Senator Hirono. I think a lot of us--and maybe I am just
speaking for myself and possibly Senator Wicker. We have
concerns about not refueling the Truman. That is a major asset
as far as I can see. So further discussions probably will occur
along those lines.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hirono. Admiral Winter, the head of the F-35 Joint
Program Office, JPO, laid out a strategy to modernize the F-35
by transitioning the F-35 software to an open systems
architecture with new capabilities being released every 6
months. That is a really fast pace. I do worry about whether
the software will be adequately tested and whether aircrews
will be adequately trained.
So for Admiral Conn, is the F-35 modernization program that
I just talked about on the correct path with going to an open
system with such speed with which we are going to change the
software?
Rear Admiral Conn. On the right path, yes. If I figure from
a deployment perspective, aircrew, our training in that
aircraft to go on deployment, there is a certain time when you
chalk the line, depending on how complex that change may be
where you do not go on deployment with it because if you cannot
train to it, you are not going to be able to execute those
capabilities. But having that potential to update on that
periodicity is interesting.
Now, I do not think all these 6 months you get a major
change every time, and so you put out a major and then a fix
and then a major and a fix. But I just reiterate whatever the
cycle is, you have to be able to train to the capabilities that
come with that upgrade before you deploy.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. As you know, on our submarine
force--it is probably our most mature--I am doing rolling
software and hardware updates as the planning battle rhythm. We
have learned some good lessons in terms of the right speed for
that. And so I would say having the software fixed and choosing
to deploy it in the aircraft are two different decisions.
And so I fully support their ability to continue to get the
software upgraded. It is a conversation with the operational
commanders on when do you actually put that into deploy the
aircraft and fully support Admiral Conn's we have to train
before you put it out there in the fleet.
Rear Admiral Conn. The Secretary put it more eloquently
than I did.
Senator Hirono. I understood you. Do not worry, Admiral.
Thank you.
Senator Perdue. Senator King?
General, I think we have exhausted our questions for the
committee, but I am encouraged by the participation of the
committee.
I want to give you just a piece of information to take back
to your troops as we finish up this preparation for the NDAA,
and that is this: There are five Members of this Subcommittee
who are involved in the CR debacle. Senator Hirono and I are
two different parties, but we are likeminded about that. Talk
is cheap. But we do have 2 years--that did not happen by
accident--that we actually proved that it can be DONe. Last
year, we actually got the full defense authorization DONe and
the defense appropriating DONe before we had the problem with
funding the last 25 percent of our government.
But I want you to know and I want your troops to know that
we are committed to try to fix this devastation. It has been
here since 1974, and it is not going to be fixed easily. But it
can be fixed.
We are staring down the barrel this year. We are halfway
through the fiscal year, and we have not started the
appropriating process at the level where we need to, have not
even finished the authorization. Today we have 36 legislative
days between now and 31 July. 36. And if we do not get it DONe
by then, then all hands on deck because when we come back from
the theoretic State break work period of August, there are only
10 work days left in September. So we know that is not
realistic. So we are pushing all the buttons to try to get the
House and the Senate to face up to this 31 July interim date.
Senator King?
Senator King. Mr. Chairman, I completely agree with you,
and I think we can do it. We proved last year that we could. I
will leave it to you to deal with the other end of Pennsylvania
Avenue because that is part of this discussion.
Senator Perdue. No question. But I think we are all aligned
on that. I think the Democratic Party, the Republican Party,
and the White House are all aligned that CRs are bad.
But the problem is because of political gridlock here,
sometimes we back into it as an easy release valves. I have
never had a release valve in any budget I ever put together. I
do not think you guys have many release valve. This is a
release valve that Congress has, and we have got to stop it.
So I just made a comment, no promises, but just a comment
for your troops because I know. I was on the Truman just this
week and we had these conversations. I know what it does to
morale. I understand it is devastating to all the pipeline and
the supply chain for maintenance, as well as procurement.
So last comment. Thank you very much for your testimony,
your service.
Good luck in your confirmation hearings, General.
And God bless you all. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Roger F. Wicker
navy advanced helicopter training system (ahts)
1. Senator Wicker. Secretary Geurts, in my role as Chairman of the
Senate Commerce Committee, I am leading inquiries regarding aircraft
safety standards and certification processes as a result of recent 737
MAX 8 accidents. FAA's safety and certification standards can be
arduous and cumbersome, but are established to protect the public and
assure the U.S. national airspace remains the safest and most efficient
in the world. As such, I am encouraged that the Navy's Advanced
Helicopter Training System (AHTS) acquisition strategy requires that
the air vehicle be non-developmental, commercially derived, and already
certified to meet modern day FAA Part 27 instrument flight rules (IFR)
safety standards.
In the interest of assuring the safest training environment for the
Navy, will you commit to this committee that the Navy will retain the
current acquisition strategy requiring the TH-XX candidate aircraft to
be FAA Part 27 IFR certified to current safety and certification
standards in order to be eligible for contract award?
Secretary Geurts. The Navy is committed to ensuring the TH-XX
awardee's aircraft solution be FAA Part 27 IFR certified to current
safety and certification standards. Consistent with this theme, the TH-
XX solicitation establishes a requirement that each offeror included in
the competitive range shall provide a copy of the FAA IFR Certification
(FAA Form 8110-9) at time of final proposal submission. The failure of
an offeror to provide a timely FAA IFR Certification will result in a
non-compliant proposal and cause the offeror to be ineligible for
award. The Navy does not intend to relax this minimum solicitation
requirement.
2. Senator Wicker. Secretary Geurts, given the significant cost
associated with sustaining the current TH-57 training helicopter fleet,
and near-term risk the aging system poses to meeting pilot production
requirements, it is critically important that the Navy field a
replacement training helicopter without delay.
I ask that you brief my staff and the Armed Services committee
staff on the TH-XX acquisition strategy and timeline, and make us aware
of any significant changes to the acquisition strategy or schedule
throughout the evaluation and contracting process.
Secretary Geurts. The Department of the Navy briefed the Senate
Armed Services Committee Professional Staff earlier this year on the
AHTS program including the acquisition strategy and schedule. We would
be pleased to offer the same briefing to your staff. The TH-XX program
continues steady progression towards meeting an aggressive timeline and
has experienced no significant changes to the acquisition strategy or
schedule. The Request for Proposal was released on-time, industry
proposals were received on-time, and the program anticipates awarding
the contract for TH-XX in the first quarter of fiscal year 2020,
provided there is no continuing resolution (CR). As an fiscal year 2020
new start program, operating under a CR would impact the AHTS program's
ability to award the contract.
f-18 radar upgrade funding
3. Senator Wicker. Lieutenant General Rudder, I am pleased to see
that the US Marine Corps F-18 radars are being upgraded with new active
electronically scanned array (AESA) technology. However, the funding
line does not seem consistent with the stated fielding objective of
September 2022. The President's Budget funds only 12 radars in fiscal
year 2020 and extends the procurement beyond the FYDP. Given this
funding plan, how will you meet the fiscal year 2022 fielding goal for
all 98 aircraft?
Lieutenant General Rudder. We agree that based on current
information and updated requirements, the PB20 OSIP 21-00 FYDP
procurement plan does not reflect our updated procurement plan. Since
submitting the fiscal year 2020 budget request over a year ago, we have
gained additional information on vendor production capability and
capacity, and identified efficiencies in RDT&E. We also have a better
understanding of the immediate need to rapidly upgrade the F/A-18's
RADAR prior to Final Fit. Armed with this new information, we have
raised the priority of this upgrade and identified funding within
Marine Aviation to increase the number of RADARs purchased in fiscal
year 2020. From here, we must continue to increase our procurement over
future fiscal years in order to meet our Q4FY22 fielding goal. This
capability is needed by our F/A-18 community and the Marine Corps to
support the NDS against peer competitors.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
ch-53k
4. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Rudder, is there any
heavy lift helicopter that has the capabilities of the CH-53K King
Stallion? Are you confident that this program will deliver the
capabilities the Marine Corps needs for the heavy lift mission?
Lieutenant General Rudder. The CH-53K King Stallion will be capable
of delivering the vertical Battalion Landing Team (BLT) at a range of
110NM from ship to objective. This 110NM metric has been established as
the optimal range of our modern aviation platforms, such as the MV-22,
the UH-1Y and the AH-1Z. Today's legacy CH-53E is limited in its
ability to perform at this range. The enhancement in lift and range
delivered by the CH-53K fully leverages the capability of the Aviation
Combat Element (ACE) and thereby the entire Marine Air-Ground Task
Force (MAGTF).
5. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Rudder, I understand that
the King Stallion has roughly 3 times the lift capability of the legacy
CH-53E's. How will this game-changing upgrade transform the Marine
Corp's operational capability on the battlefield?
Lieutenant General Rudder. The CH-53K King Stallion will be capable
of delivering the vertical Battalion Landing Team (BLT) at a range of
110NM from ship to objective. This capability is essential to ensure
the Aviation Combat Element (ACE) takes advantage of other modern
platforms designed, built, and delivered to operate at an optimized
range of 110NM. The increase in lift and range delivered by the CH-53K
will increase the range of lethality of the future MAGTF.
6. Senator Blumenthal. Secretary Geurts, the fiscal year 2020
request for the CH-53K dropped from the planned 9 aircraft to 6
aircraft in the current budget. Given your urgent need for this
aircraft, and that the industrial base does not react well to declines
in production ramps for new programs, would it be beneficial to the
Marine Corps if Congress were to authorize and appropriate 2 additional
CH-53K's this year to maintain a consistent annual production rate?
Secretary Geurts. Thank you for your interest. I support the
President's Budget of six aircraft in fiscal year 2020, and believe
this budget provides the best balance of delivering needed capability
to the U.S. Marine Corps while ensuring we have an achievable
production profile.
combat equipment
7. Senator Blumenthal. Secretary Geurts, can you provide any
examples of improvements to flight gear and body armor you are fielding
to improve fit and functionality for women?
Secretary Geurts. The Department is constantly striving to improve
the quality of our gear to ensure not only success on the battlefield,
but more importantly survivability. We are working to lighten weight,
improve mobility, and increase protection against direct fire and
fragmentation effects for our Marines. Resultant changes benefit the
entirety of the Marine Corps population but are particularly helpful to
female Marines. The Enhanced Combat Helmet, for example, provided
significantly increased protection without adding weight. System
designs are also enabled by feedback during the development of
requirements to improve fitting Personal Protective Equipment (PPE),
Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment (OCIE), and other
product characteristics and functionality. Once a validated requirement
has been established, the Marine Corps emphasizes direct feedback from
Marines--male and female--in determining what qualities and features
are most important to Marine combat effectiveness through user
evaluations, surveys, and fit studies. The Marine Corps presents these
requirements and desired features to commercial industry to find the
most technologically advanced materials and designs in order to provide
improved protection and mobility for all Marines. The Plate Carrier
(PC) is the primary body armor system for the Marine Corps, replacing
the heavier and bulkier Improved Modular Tactical Vest. This transition
to the PC reduces the system weight by 5.5 lbs. over legacy PPE, and
provides a better fit for female Marines. We are currently developing
the PC Generation (Gen) III, which is less bulky, lighter in weight,
and provides a smaller overall footprint than the current PC while
maintaining the same soft armor coverage and protection level. The PC
Gen III accommodates three new front/back plate sizes and a new side
plate developed for shorter stature male and female Soldiers and
Marines. PC Gen III is 25 percent lighter than the current PC while
providing equal protection and greater mobility compared to our current
system. Also developed with female Marines in mind, our body armor
lightweight plate program will provide additional scalability with
sufficient protection against most threats and reduced hard armor
burden on individual Marines, 14.9 to 8.7 lbs. (42 percent lighter).
For load bearing equipment, the Marine Corps is developing the Pack
Adjustment Modification (PAM) that will integrate with the current USMC
Pack to provide better adjustability for varying torso lengths. The PAM
includes a frame interface with adjustment, redesigned hip belt, and
redesigned shoulder harness. All of these changes improve the overall
fit, comfort, and ergonomics of the USMC Pack for our Marines.
8. Senator Blumenthal. Secretary Geurts, a leading cause of injury
among servicemembers is ill-fitting Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
and combat gear. Women disproportionately incur such injuries. What are
you doing to ensure the next generation of combat equipment is better
suited for women?
Secretary Geurts. In 2013, the Marine Corps received the results of
a comprehensive anthropometric survey of Marines conducted through the
Army's Combat Capabilities Development Command Soldier Center. This
survey incorporated 94 directly-measured dimensions, 39 derived
dimensions and three-dimensional scans of 1,301 male and 620 female
Marines. This effort provided the large body of data needed to inform
the Marine Corps design and engineering needs, and is the basis of the
physical measurements used to inform the design of PPE, OCIE, and
clothing to support the individual Marine from small-statured (2nd
percentile female) to large-statured (98th percentile male). The Marine
Corps has a standing Improved Personal Protective Equipment System
(IPPES) Integrated Product Team (IPT) to develop requirements for the
next generation of PPE. The Army is an active participant in the IPPES
IPT, and both Services continue to work hand-in-hand in research and
development efforts for individual combat, PPE, OCIE, and uniforms,
particularly with regard to female Marines and Soldiers. The Enhanced
Combat Helmet, Plate Carrier Gen III, Lightweight Plate, and Pack
Adjustment Modification as previously described are examples of
improved fit, which will specifically benefit female Marines.
9. Senator Blumenthal. Secretary Geurts, in the past, there have
been issues with getting new equipment to our servicemembers prior to
deployments so they deploy with the same equipment used in training
before deployment. This is critical to preventing injuries and ensuring
readiness. As you develop this equipment, how will the Marine Corps and
Navy ensure the new equipment is available not only for deployments,
but also while conducting pre-deployment training stateside?
Secretary Geurts. The Marine Corps fields new weapon systems based
upon the Commandant's Fielding Priorities. The fielding plans for new
systems and equipment undergo a comprehensive and collaborative review
process by the Deputy Commandants for Plans, Policy & Operations and
Combat Development & Integration, and the Operating Forces (OPFORs) to
ensure they meet the needs of the OPFORs and are informed by the
current operational tempo and the requirements of our deployed forces.
As examples, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle is being fielded to the
School of Infantry before fielding to the Marine Expeditionary Forces
to facilitate early training. In response to an urgent need, the
Networking On-The-Move-Airborne Increment 2 was fielded directly to the
Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force-Crisis Response.
marine corps future mission
10. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Berger, what strategic
advantage does MARSOC provide to the Geographic Combatant Commanders
that we would be lost if the Raiders (MARSOC) were disbanded?
Lieutenant General Berger. Operationally, I would defer to SOCOM
and the Geographic Combatant Commands to answer with details on this
issue, but would note that Raiders fill approximately 10 percent of
their assigned missions. From a man, train and equip perspective,
MARSOC forward deployed forces bring an organic and fully integrated
capability for operations and all-source intelligence fusion at the
lowest levels that allows a comprehensive and holistic approach to
problem solving in all environments to effectively conduct the whole
spectrum of special operations. These capabilities are extremely
effective operating against both Violent Extremist Organization (VEO)
networks, as well as near peer competitors. These capabilities can be
tailored based on the anticipated missions, but the force can be
rapidly altered and specifically organized and trained as situations
and mission sets evolve. Further, bringing with them their base culture
as Marines, Raiders find a way to be highly successful and effective in
what are often ambiguous environments. Demand for their integrated
capabilities and expertise in these strategic impact operations
continues to increase. From an operational perspective, Raiders have
invariably gravitated toward the highest priority campaign activities
within INDO PACOM, CENTCOM, and AFRICOM--the three regions comprising
MARSOC's current regional orientation. Efforts in these three regions
have helped shape and support larger Joint Force efforts and advance
Service-level opportunities for integration and interoperability in
support of both the Counter VEO mission as well as contributing to
great power competition. We can address further specific operational
details of MARSOC's current missions via classified medium if desired.
11. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Berger, how do you see
MARSOC's role in great power competition and the National Defense
Strategy?
Lieutenant General Berger. Understanding that SOF is not designed
to go toe-to-toe with large Armies, there are many ways MARSOC can
support, before and during, potential conflict with near peer
competitors. MARSOC forward deployed forces bring an organic and fully
integrated capability for operations and all-source intelligence fusion
at the lowest levels that allows a comprehensive and holistic approach
to problem solving in all environments to effectively conduct the whole
spectrum of special operations. These capabilities can be tailored
based on the anticipated missions, but the force can be rapidly altered
and specifically organized and trained as situations and mission sets
evolve. As such, MARSOC can give a high degree of flexibility to the
SOCOM Commander for the employment against specific mission sets,
including in the great power competition cited in the NDS.
Specifically: 1. MARSOC, along with the greater SOF enterprise, bridges
the gap between covert capabilities from the interagency and the larger
conventional forces. 2. MARSOC enables a deep understanding of the
operational environment across the interconnected network of
transregional threats at all levels of warfare against global,
regional, and local competitors. 3. Raiders are specifically educated
and trained to work with indigenous partners. 4. MARSOC, and SOF writ
large, provides specialized unilateral capabilities not easily
replicable by conventional or other agencies to deter, counter, and
defeat global or regional powers. 5. MARSOC provides a creative and
adaptable perspective and culture to the joint force to understand and
resolve complex, dynamic, and uncertain challenges.
f-35
12. Senator Blumenthal. Secretary Geurts, does the Department of
the Navy remain committed to fully support procurement of the F-35B and
F-35C until the current program of record is complete for 200 aircraft?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, the Department of the Navy remains fully
committed to support procurement of the F-35B and F-35C until the
Program of Record is achieved. The President's fiscal year 2020 budget
request rebalances the Marine Corps aviation portfolio, deferring
several F-35B aircraft into future LRIP contracts in order to balance
concurrency management while taking advantage of emerging future
technologies. The Marine Corps increased its procurement of F-35Cs over
the FYDP to 28 F-35Cs (up from 19 in the fiscal year 2019 request) to
ensure the service would be able to transition its F-35C squadrons on
schedule. This decision provides the Service flexibility as it
continues to determine the best mix of tactical aircraft as operational
requirements develop and change. The Navy, in the fiscal year 2020
request, increased the F-35C procurement quantity over the fiscal year
2019 submission by one additional aircraft. With just over 100 F-35Bs
and F-35Cs delivered to-date, continuing to deliver the
transformational capability provided by the F-35 to our Navy and Marine
Corps front-line forces as soon as possible remains a top priority.
13. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Rudder, could you
describe in some detail the enhanced capabilities the F-35B provided on
this recent combat deployment compared to the AV-8 Harrier it replaced?
Lieutenant General Rudder. Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 211
(VMFA-211) returned this Spring from a deployment with the 13th MEU,
executing missions in three different theaters, flying 173 combat
sorties for 1,205 combat flight hours, and dropping over 75,500 pounds
of ordnance in combat--all with an average mission capable readiness
rate of 72 percent. The operations were conducted with little
interference from adversary fighters or indications from air or ground
assets. The F-35s were able to support multiple combatant commanders
while deployed in complex operating environments and gave those
commanders more versatility in their assigned missions due to their 5th
Generation Capabilities.
14. Senator Blumenthal. Admiral Conn, in February, the Navy
declared Initial Operational Capability for the F-35C with a planned
deployment in 2 years, bringing a 5th Generation tactical air
capability to the Carrier fleet for the first time. What attributes do
you currently think are most important to maintain lethality and
survivability in the next 10 to 20 years?
Admiral Conn. Creating and maintaining battlespace awareness across
all platforms, not just 5th generation tactical aircraft, is the most
important capability to maintain lethality and survivability in the
next 10 to 20 years. There isn't a singular platform able to maintain
situational awareness to all spectrums (infrared, electro-optical, or
radio-frequency); therefore, all platforms must share information to
create a lethal and survivable kill chain. We must continue stable
investments in long range, net-centric weapons which are able to attack
fixed and moving targets on land and sea while maintaining stand-off
ranges to near peer threats. These weapons need commonality across
several platforms to remain economically feasible and must be
survivable in the future fight.
15. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Rudder, with the Air
Force's addition of 4th Gen F-15EX's to this year's budget, we have
learned that this is at the directive of the Secretary of Defense to
the services to pursue a mix of 4th and 5th Gen aircraft for future
buys. Does the Marine Corps plan to purchase any additional 4th Gen
Tactical Aircraft like the F/A-18E Super Hornet?
Lieutenant General Rudder. We conducted an in-depth analysis in the
fall of 2018 prior to submission of the PB-20 budget working with OSD
to explore this as a potential option for the Marine Corps. Our
analysis demonstrated that the Marine Corps is on the right path with
an all 5th Generation force. An investment in a new 4th generation
platform would not meet the warfighting requirements to support the
National Defense Strategy and would in fact be more expensive for the
Service both in terms of dollars and manpower for a new aircraft type
in the near and long term. A mix of F-35B and F-35C aircraft allows for
a single training pipeline, supply system, and maintenance support
structure.
[all]