[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]