[Senate Hearing 116-148, Part 2]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-148, Pt.2
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2021 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 4049
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 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 4 AND 11, 2020
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2021 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM--Part 2 SEAPOWER
. S. Hrg. 116-148, Pt. 2
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2021 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 4049
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 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 4 AND 11, 2020
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http: //www.govinfo.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-188 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, JACK REED, Rhode Island
Chairman JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
TOM COTTON, Arkansas MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota TIM KAINE, Virginia
JONI ERNST, Iowa ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona DOUG JONES, Alabama
RICK SCOTT, Florida
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
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 4, 2020
Page
Navy Shipbuilding Programs....................................... 1
Members Statements
Statement of Senator David Perdue................................ 1
Statement of Senator Mazie K. Hirono............................. 5
Witness Statements
Geurts, The Honorable James F., Assistant Secretary of the Navy 6
for Research, Development, and Acquisition.
Questions for the Record......................................... 41
March 11, 2020
Marine Corps Ground Modernization................................ 43
Members Statements
Statement of Senator David Perdue................................ 43
Statement of Senator Mazie K. Hirono............................. 44
Witness Statements
Geurts, The Honorable James F., Assistant Secretary of the Navy 46
for Research, Development, and Acquisition.
Smith, Lieutenant General Eric M., USMC, Commanding General, 47
Marine Corps Combat Development Command; Deputy Commandant for
Combat Development and Integration.
Questions for the Record......................................... 73
(iii)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2021 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2020
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Seapower,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
NAVY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator David
Perdue (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Subcommittee Members present: Senators Perdue, Wicker,
Tillis, Hawley, Hirono, Shaheen, Kaine, and King.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATE DAVID PERDUE
Senator Perdue. The Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on
Seapower convenes this morning to examine the Navy shipbuilding
programs in review of the defense authorization request for
fiscal year 2021 and the future years defense program.
This is our Subcommittee's first meeting of the year, and I
look forward to continuing our tradition of working in a
bipartisan manner this year. Ranking Member Hirono, thank you
for your continued leadership. She and I visited the Hawaii
facilities last year, and she has been a stalwart with regard
to the Navy and the Navy requirements.
We welcome our three distinguished witnesses: the Honorable
James F. Geurts, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
Development, and Acquisition; Vice Admiral James W. Kilby,
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfighting Requirements
and Capabilities; Lieutenant General Eric M. Smith, Deputy
Commandant of the Marine Corps for Combat Development and
Integration. Gentlemen, thank you so much for your service and
for being here today.
Today the world is more dangerous than anytime in my
lifetime. I agree with the National Defense Strategy that today
we are facing five key threats across five domains, China,
Russia, North Korea, Iran, and global terrorism has not abated.
The domains used to be land, air, and sea. Today we have to
be prepared to compete in land, air, sea, cyber, and space. As
we speak, our country's adversaries are plotting to undermine
us, overtake us, and in some cases eliminate our very way of
life.
Our military remains the envy of the world, but the
competition is picking up and we cannot be complacent.
Thanks to President Trump's leadership, we reset defense
spending in 2017, and we are beginning to rebuild the military
after many years of delay. But the hole is deep. Work has just
begun. I commend our witnesses for submitting a budget that
continues the trend of better funding the readiness accounts
that support today's Navy and Marine Corps.
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 295 battle
force ships, and we have a chart to illustrate where we are
today.
[The chart follows:]
Senator Perdue. The blue line is the fiscal year 2020 plan
to 355 ships. If you look at where we are today, the year
2021--that gets us to 305, and after that, we do not have a
plan today. We will talk about that in just a minute. So there
is a dramatic shortfall if we take the status quo today. Now, I
know nobody is suggesting that today, but we do have a
situation where we really do not have the updated shipbuilding
plan from the Department of Defense.
It appears to me the Department of the Navy's proposed
budget is sufficient to support a fleet of about 300 ships
today. The budget proposal for fiscal years 2021 through 2025
does not keep pace with inflation, which means that growing the
Navy much at all, much less to the 355 ships we need to meet
all the threats we face is financially unrealistic.
An example of the financial challenge is 10 fewer ships are
planned for procurement in fiscal years 2021 through 2025 as
compared to just last year, including one less Virginia-class
submarine in fiscal year 2021. I find this situation personally
unacceptable given the NDS [National Defense Strategy]
requirements and what we know our adversaries are doing. I
believe the need for a larger, more capable fleet is clear.
I think it is time we rethink how we fund our Navy and
shipbuilding enterprise. Today, we spend roughly $750 billion
on our military. Each department of the military gets roughly
one-third of what is left after we put 14 percent away for
overhead. So, that means that the three major services get a
third, a third, a third. I am personally not confident that
that is consistent with the NDS, particularly with the NDS's
requirement to face up to the growing threat from what China is
doing in the Indo-Pacific region.
Our current National Defense Strategy is a maritime
strategy for sure. As former Secretary Mattis stated, I am
skeptical that the current one-third funding level for the
Department of the Navy is enough to meet that goal. If we are
to remain the global leader above, on, and under the seas, we
must get serious about building the fleet we need.
To this end, I believe many promising initiatives are
contained in the SHIPS [Servicing the Homeland by Increasing
our Power on the Seas] Implementation Act that Senator Wicker
introduced last month. I look forward to working with Senator
Wicker and Senator Hirono on the proposal for this year's NDAA
[National Defense Authorization Act]. Options to improve
industrial base stability and fund the Columbia-class submarine
program, at least partly, outside of the Navy's budget deserve
serious consideration.
However, it is difficult to have a discussion on the future
fleet, including the associated costs and schedules without a
30-year shipbuilding plan, which by law was required to be
submitted to Congress with a budget last month.
In addition, I understand the Department has been
reassessing the fleet size requirement over the past 2 years.
Based on earlier comments from Navy leaders, I expected this
review to be completed by late 2019. Without it, this
Subcommittee will struggle to understand just how new platforms
are envisioned to integrate into the fleet.
Which brings me to China, and we have all had individual
conversations about this. I am going to show one more chart,
and I think this highlights the issue.
[The chart follows:]
Senator Perdue. The problem is this is not a quality/
quantity conversation. This is we are the 800 pound gorilla
below the seas. We know that. Above the seas, we have got a
great 230-year tradition, but we are not large enough. China
right now--the fleet is on a very different trajectory from
ours, as you can see. China is the red line above. This is
public, declassified numbers. The blue line was our 2016 plan
to get to 355 by 2034, 14 years from now. China will end up
north of 450 roughly. So the old concept that our quality is
better than theirs, we can fight our ships better they can--
that may be well true, but at some point in time, quantity
actually begins to win out.
The Chinese currently have 350 battle force ships and are
projected to have 425 by 2030. In contrast, last year's
shipbuilding plan showed our Navy on a path to reach 355 by
2034. There is no shipbuilding plan this year in the budget
document yet, and the budget documents reflect the fleet size
of only about 306 ships. So, we are sitting today at 350 for
China and 306 for the United States Navy.
Gentlemen, I know you are in uniform and you are a
responsible secretary, and I know you share this opinion. That
is totally unacceptable. There is no way, given the fact that
we not only have responsibilities in the Indo-Pacific region,
but our Navy is required to be around the world today. We need
allies' help and we need a serious rethink about what we are
asking our Navy to do within the NDS, as it relates
particularly to China and this one chart.
If we look at what Russia is doing with their submarines
today, it adds even more complexity to this conversation.
I would observe shipbuilding and fleet size trends and
therefore the Navy to some extent seem to be going in reverse
in this budget request as compared to the Department's previous
plans.
The Department of Defense needs to be clear with Congress
and the American people--I am saying Department of Defense. It
is not just a Navy problem. It is a Department of Defense
issue--about the threats and their proposed plans. Article 1,
section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to
provide--and I quote--``and maintain a Navy.'' We have always
done a good job of that. It is the Department's responsibility
to give us the information we need to carry out this duty, and
that is not currently happening yet.
We are also hearing about affordability and the best
balance of resources in hearings this year. I applaud that
effort to adequately fund personnel, maintenance, and other
supporting functions. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact
that the Navy must be bigger, we must get bigger, and we must
find a way to pay for it because if we do not, make no mistake.
The Chinese will only accelerate the expansion of their
maritime influence around the globe, creating fait accompli
dilemmas at every turn, which come at the expense of United
States interests and those of our partners and allies. The
stakes are real. Combine that with BRI [Belt and Road
Initiative] and made in China 2025, the ports that they have
these proprietary loans in in South America and all over
Africa, we have to be able to identify that threat as real
today.
The Subcommittee will continue to work with the Navy and
Marine Corps to build a larger more capable and flexible fleet
while at the same time demanding the best use of every taxpayer
dollar.
I look forward to our witnesses' testimony today and the
answers to our questions.
I now recognize Senator Hirono, our ranking member.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAZIE K. HIRONO
Senator Hirono. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your
very comprehensive opening statement.
Yes, the global threats today are pervasive and complex,
and yes, from the standpoint of our Subcommittee, we do
question how we are going to get to a 355-ship Navy.
So I would like to also welcome our witnesses to the
hearing this morning. Thank you for your service to the nation.
I particularly want to acknowledge the professional service
of the men and women under your commands.
We are also grateful for our military families for the
vital role they play in the success of the men and women of our
armed forces.
Mr. Chairman, of course, it has been a pleasure so far
working with you as we confront the issues facing our sailors
and marines and their families. The Navy and Marine Corps face
difficult decisions as they seek to balance modernizing the
fleet, maintaining a technological advantage over our
adversaries, supporting ongoing operations, and sustaining
today's readiness.
The threats we face around the world require us to consider
the best ways to get the Navy and Marine Corps the resources
they need. However, 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. This year we have the benefit of an early budget
deal, and I hope that we can move quickly to pass an NDAA for
fiscal year 2021.
At today's hearing, we will explore various aspects of the
Navy's shipbuilding program. These programs play a critical
role in supporting and advancing our country's strategic
interests in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region, including of course
the bases in Hawaii.
With that in mind, this Subcommittee plays a crucial
oversight role as we work to improve our acquisition
stewardship to ensure we are getting good value for every
shipbuilding dollar that we spend.
The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) last published an
updated force structure assessment in 2016. These assessments
are important planning documents that inform procurement
decisions for the Navy. Although the Navy had promised a new
force structure assessment this year, we now understand that
the Secretary of Defense has taken an interest in this document
and that it is unclear when we will get the updated version.
It is also unclear when we will get the 30-year
shipbuilding plan that is required annually by title 10 of the
U.S. Code.
Even without the guidance from these two documents, this
Subcommittee is well aware of the Navy's ongoing challenges
facing our surface, subsurface, and maintenance programs. The
Navy is using multi-year procurement authority to modernize the
fleet more efficiently. Congress has approved the use of this
authority to procure attack submarines and Aegis destroyers,
two platforms that still comprise the largest inventory
shortfall compared to the goals outlined in the 2016 Force
Structure Assessment. Currently, the Navy is 15 boats short of
the attack submarine goal and 14 destroyers below the goal for
large surface combatants.
As far as submarine programs, the Navy recently signed a
multi-year procurement contract for block 5 of the Virginia-
class attack submarine. This contract provides authority to
purchase nine boats by fiscal year 2023 with the option to buy
a 10th boat, if the Navy has the resources and if contractors
improve performance on the program. The fiscal year 2021 budget
request only includes funding to purchase a single Virginia-
class submarine. This decision has the potential to put stress
on the defense industrial base and jeopardize the Navy's
ability to exercise the option for a 10th boat.
In response, the CNO has made funding for the second
Virginia-class submarine in fiscal year 2021 his number one
item on the Navy's unfunded priority list. I hope we can hear
more from our witnesses on this issue today.
I am also interested in hearing from Secretary Geurts about
the vital role our public Navy shipyards play in maintaining a
ready and capable fleet. I want to, once again, thank the chair
for coming to see for himself, visiting the Pearl Harbor Naval
Shipyard.
I am encouraged that the Navy has finally gotten serious
about investing in this critical infrastructure, our shipyards,
that has been neglected for far too long. I look forward to
hearing from you this morning about how the fiscal year 2021
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.
Secretary Geurts?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES F. GEURTS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION
Secretary Geurts. 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 2021 budget request.
Joining me here today are Vice Admiral Jim Kilby, Deputy
Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and
Capabilities, and Lieutenant General Eric Smith, Deputy
Commandant for Combat Development and Integration.
With your permission, sir, I intend to just provide a few
brief remarks for three of us.
Senator Perdue. Yes, sir.
Secretary Geurts. We thank the Subcommittee and all of the
Congress for your leadership and steadfast support of the
Department of the Navy. Your efforts to fully fund the fiscal
year 2020 budget of 12 ships helps provide the stability,
predictability in funding that enable us to build and sustain
the naval force the nation needs and, in doing so, execute the
maritime component of the National Defense Strategy.
Since the start of fiscal year 2019, we delivered 11 new
battle force ships to the fleet, including most recently the
USS Tripoli, our newest large attack amphibious ship or large
deck amphibious ship. Today with the USS Tripoli delivered, we
have 78 ships under contract and 46 in construction. We expect
to take delivery of 12 more ships this fiscal year and award
contracts for an additional eight ships this year.
As we continue to modernize the fleet, we have also focused
on ship and aviation maintenance, delivering higher aviation
mission capable rates, improved on-time deliveries of surface
ships for maintenance, and reduced maintenance backlogs in our
nuclear-powered fleet.
We achieved key milestones in the USS Gerald R. Ford,
returning her to sea after a post-shakedown availability and
qualifying all the aircraft on her air wing, readying her for
deployment, while launching the future USS John F. Kennedy
ahead of schedule and at a 16 percent reduction in labor hours
from CVN 78.
We are on track to begin full construction of Columbia in
October 2020 with an 83 percent detailed design complete at
construction start. That is the highest level of completion in
detailed design we have had in any modern shipbuilding program.
Our use of agile and innovative contracting approaches,
which have leveraged the many authorities Congress had given
us, have enabled us to deliver these ships, aircraft, and
weapons at over a $25 billion savings to the taxpayer. We thank
you for the great support and working with us to achieve those
outcomes.
Although our budget reflects hard choices we had to make,
given the flat top line, our 2021 request builds on these prior
investments in improved acquisition outcomes in order to
provide the best balanced force in the support of our National
Defense Strategy for the resources available. It continues key
investments in advanced technologies in modernization and
prioritizes the recapitalization of the ballistic missile
submarine force. It supports the sustained readiness recovery
to deliver credible forces now, as well as increased spending
on lethality and modernization to ensure the readiness for the
future fight. It includes the procurement of 44 new battle
force ships within the future years defense program. As we all
know, a healthy industrial base is critical to meeting this
demand, and we greatly appreciate the support Congress has
given us to stabilize and enhance that industrial base in our
shipbuilding programs.
Thank you for the strong support this Subcommittee has
always provided our sailors and marines and their families, and
thank you for the opportunity appear before you today. We look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Geurts, Vice Admiral
Kilby, and Lieutenant General Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement by The Honorable James F. Geurts, Vice Admiral James
W. Kilby, and Lieutenant General Eric Smith
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 fiscal year 2021 budget
request. First, we would like to thank Congress and this Committee for
your leadership and steadfast support of the Department of the Navy
acquisition and research programs. Your efforts to fully fund the
fiscal year 2020 request for 12 ships helps to provide the stability
and predictability in funding that will enable us to build the Navy the
Nation Needs, the maritime component of the National Defense Strategy.
Dominant naval force and a strong maritime strategy are the primary
engines of our National Defense Strategy. As we continue to face rapid
change in the global security environment, including greater global
trade and greater unpredictability, our national security posture must
likewise change to adapt to the emerging security environment with a
sense of urgency and innovation. This requires the right balance of
readiness, capability and capacity as well as budget stability and
predictability. It requires us to deliver relevant, effective,
capability to our Sailors and Marines, and requires a constant focus on
and partnership with the industrial base. They are a key element to our
national security.
The character of war has changed, and so must our approach to
developing the world's most lethal military force. We are no longer
fighting against the great powers of the 19th and 20th Centuries, and
conflict is no longer limited to the domains of land, sea and air. The
rapid pace of technological innovation means our adversaries have
unprecedented access to new tools and technologies. To maintain
overmatch means our Navy must maintain warfighting readiness to enable
the operational reach, resilience and sustainment that will enable the
best Naval forces in the world to operate forward where and when we
choose. We are currently on year three of a transformational journey to
increase readiness recovery, improve acquisition outcomes and deliver
greater lethality, which has seen marked improvement in speed and scale
of acquisition, maintenance avails, and recapitalization efforts. These
improvements are enabling the Department to better achieve our
objectives of building a more lethal force with greater performance and
affordability. We will continue to focus our efforts on four key
priorities: deliver and sustain lethal capacity, increase agility,
drive affordability, and develop the workforce.
deliver and sustain lethal capacity
Since the start of fiscal year 2019 we have delivered 10 relevant
and capable ships to the Fleet including an Arleigh Burke-class
destroyer, a Virginia-class submarine, five Littoral Combat Ships, two
Expeditionary Fast Transport ships and one Expeditionary Sea Base.
Today, the Navy has 79 ships under contract with 47 ships in
construction. We expect to take delivery of 12 more ships in fiscal
year 2020, and plan to award an additional eight ships this year.
Ship maintenance continues to be a priority focus area for the
Department. We are grateful for the strong support we received from
Congress as we work to leverage data analytics to provide better
predictability and maintenance of our ships, and identify and close
performance gaps. In particular, we appreciate your support for a pilot
program for private contractor shipyard maintenance in the Pacific.
This approach will improve our ability to contract well in advance of
an availability start, absorb ship schedule changes from operational
demands, and address changes in availability scope. We began executing
this authority in February, and our 2021 budget request continues to
capitalize on this opportunity by extending the pilot. Predictable
stable funding in this area is crucial to incentivize private yard
growth.
To support our focus on sustainment, we established a Deputy
Assistant Secretary (DASN) for Sustainment to develop, monitor and
implement policy and guidance that will enable the Department to better
plan, program, budget and execute our sustainment mission. DASN
Sustainment will oversee and manage Navy and Marine Corps sustainment
and life-cycle management policies, allowing the Department to improve
and align the complex drivers of maintenance and modernization
completion--that in turn will increase our output to the Fleet.
Navy-wide focus continues on making the USS Gerald R. Ford ready
for operational use. Going into 2020, CVN 78 will be deployed for 50
percent of the time certifying and testing systems and training the
crew, while also being used for pilot generation, which is a critical
need for carrier airwing readiness. We established a civilian and
government team of experts to work with the shipbuilder to get Ford's
seven remaining Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWEs) completed prior to
the end of the post deployment test and training phase. All 11
elevators will be completed by April 2021, which is the end of the
current phase. The Ford will be the most capable aircraft carrier ever
deployed and our Navy and Industry partners are focused on delivering
this capability to the Fleet.
increase agility
Delivering the right capabilities at the right time and sustaining
our competitive advantage as a naval force requires an integrated,
enterprise approach to business process improvement and modernization.
We are moving beyond transactional ways of doing business and towards a
fully integrated enterprise, linking our requirements and acquisition
processes and integrating these processes with industry to become more
agile, accountable and efficient. An example of a fully integrated
effort is the Frigate program, where an interactive Conceptual Design
process included a robust dialog with industry, which fed into the
requirements documents and development of the RFP. We will be better
able to compete and win by expanding that integration and continuing
those efforts at scale and at speed.
We conducted our first Wartime Acquisition Support Plan (WASP)
industry engagement with the leaders of traditional and non-traditional
companies onboard the USS Gerald R. Ford. This collaborative engagement
allowed our acquisition workforce and program managers to gain valuable
insights and recommendations on industry surge capabilities to support
the Navy's growing requirements. We will continue these regular
industry engagements to build our response capability and ensure we are
ready as a Navy to anticipate surge capacity in our industrial base and
respond to any contingency.
In addition, we continue to take deliberate actions to challenge
bureaucracy. In 2019, the Department cancelled 28 percent of our
acquisition-related instructions and streamlined the remaining 72
percent. A thorough review of SECNAV 5000.2F--the primary instruction
implementing the defense acquisition system--eliminated duplicative
processes and resulted in a 65 percent reduction in page count. By
removing the bureaucratic obstacles that slow innovation, we are
becoming a more agile organization, better-focused on delivering
mission requirements to the Fleet.
drive affordability
Building and sustaining our Navy requires creative and aggressive
contracting methods to achieve the right capability. The Department has
achieved over $25 billion in savings through the use of agile
procurement and more advantageous contracting approaches. For example,
we executed the two-carrier buy (CVN 80/81) contract with Huntington
Ingalls Industries--which accounted for over $4 billion in savings. We
achieved additional savings through Contractor Support Services
reductions, process improvements, and Multi-Year Procurements for
programs such as the DDG 51, Virginia-class Submarines, and SM-6.
Innovative contracting methods including block buys and smart
negotiations supported a seven-fold increase in the number of Other
Transaction Authority (OTA) contract awards, two times the number of
active Cooperative R&D agreements, numerous prize challenges, and
multiple cases of using fiscal year 2018 pricing to accelerate fiscal
year 2019 awards.
Last year the Department executed over $121 billion in contracts, a
12 percent increase over obligations in the previous fiscal year, to
approximately 20,000 industry partners. This work was awarded using
18,000 fewer contract actions--all while reducing the contract
modification workload by more than 15 percent. Over 40 percent of the
work was awarded through competition, while exceeding small business
goals (18 percent actual vs. 14 percent goal) and awarding $16 billion
direct to small businesses.
build a workforce to compete and win
A key aspect to increased lethality and readiness is the
development of the workforce needed to compete and win. By focusing on
our public shipyard and acquisition workforce, we were able to drive
efficiencies in the system and better enable the execution of
Department priorities. Navy shipyards increased their workforce by 40
percent in the last 10 years, transforming how they train new employees
through the use of virtual and hands-on learning centers. The shipyards
standardized and reduced regional variability in processes across the
public shipyards, and developed ``safe-to-fail'' areas where artisans
can experiment with new and innovative techniques to improve
throughput. Through continued transformation efforts, the naval
shipyards have successfully reduced the duration of training for an
inexperienced worker, in some cases by as much as 50 percent.
For our acquisition professionals, the Department has issued a new
Acquisition Workforce Strategic Plan establishing the vision for
shaping the future acquisition workforce. We provided commercial online
training to expand training opportunities, increased experiential
learning through industry rotations, and conducted understanding
industry courses at public universities for over 300 members of the
acquisition workforce. The Navy is embarking on the development of a
Talent Management System to capture and leverage a data-driven solution
leveraging commercial best practices for the Acquisition Workforce to
develop, retain, and reward people to meet current and future
organizational needs. These efforts help ensure we have the right
people, with the right skill set to deliver critical capabilities to
the Fleet. We focused our Acquisition Workforce Funding to attract
talent that will infuse the civilian workforce targeting critical skill
gaps such as STEM and Information Technology. The Navy also leveraged
section 1111 hiring authorities to hire high quality acquisition and
technology experts with a focus on Supply Chain and Sustainment
challenges.
the fiscal year 2021 president's budget request
The President's fiscal year 2021 budget builds on these initiatives
in order to provide the best-balanced force in support of the National
Defense Strategy, enabling us to deliver the people, the platforms, and
the capabilities necessary to protect American interests around the
world. The budget builds on prior investments while making the
adjustments necessary to deliver greater efficiency and effectiveness.
The fiscal year 2021 request continues key investments in advanced
technologies and modernization of our current Seapower and Projection
forces, prioritizing the recapitalization of the strategic ballistic
missile submarine, the Columbia-class, which remains the Navy's highest
acquisition priority. A healthy industrial base critical to meeting
this demand, and the Department greatly appreciates strong
congressional support for our nation's vital shipbuilding program and
industrial base expansion. The fiscal year 2021 budget supports the
sustainment of our readiness recovery to deliver credible ready forces
now, and the aggressive pursuit of increased lethality and
modernization with the greatest potential to deliver non-linear
warfighting advantages. This includes the prioritization of force
design and the delivery of Naval Expeditionary forces capable of
imposing cost with distributed, lethal power, and the delivery of
capable capacity within the constraints of our available resources.
Given the budget topline constraints, the fiscal year 2021 budget
prioritizes a more capable and lethal force over a larger force that
would be less capable, less ready and less lethal. It includes
procurement of 44 battle force ships within the Future Years Defense
Program (FYDP), and shows a realistic approach to planning the future
force within projected budgets. The plan remains mindful of the need to
keep the shipbuilding industrial base loaded at an effective level that
encourages industry investment in capital improvements, capital
expansion, and a properly sized world-class workforce.
Sustaining that force structure through the maintenance and
modernization will be the key to ensuring those assets can meet
operational demands over their design service lives. The Navy continues
to execute a number of initiatives that will facilitate a more
adaptable and reliable industrial base for ship repair, while providing
a foundation to support the workload forecasts of our industry
partners. These include improvement in processes to plan and schedule
the right work; more realistic assessments of the cost and duration of
work; awarding contracts earlier; making more efficient use of existing
industrial facilities and drydocks, and preparing for the future by
investing in industrial equipment and personnel training to promote a
healthy industrial base. Continued implementation of these essential
steps will reduce the maintenance backlog affecting our ships today,
and to enable sustainment of the Naval Fleet of the future.
summary
Thank you for the strong support this Subcommittee has always
provided to our Sailors and Marines. The Department of the Navy
continues to instill affordability, stability, and capacity into our
programs in order to deliver capability to our warfighters faster and
be as effective as possible within our resources. With Congress'
support, we can ensure the Department's strategic deterrence,
readiness, lethality and capacity will continue to deliver superior
naval power around the world both today and tomorrow.
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. 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.
The Fiscal Year 2021 President's Budget (PB) supports the funding
required to begin lead ship construction and 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. 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 2021 President's Budget request also funds Continuous
Production of Missile Tubes to support procurement of Common Missile
Compartment material for the 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. Also included in the fiscal
year 2021 budget are many development efforts to make submarines more
capable.
The Navy will build on past success with the fiscal year 2020 award
of the Block V multi-year procurement (MYP) contract for the
construction of nine ships, with options for additional ships. Starting
with the second ship, these submarines will introduce the Virginia
Payload Module and all Block V ships will have Acoustic Superiority.
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 use the $123
million provided 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 began 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.
aircraft carriers
CVN 78 completed Post Shakedown Availability (PSA)/Selected
Restricted Availability in October 2019, culminating with a highly
successful sea trial. During the PSA, the Navy and our industrial
partners completed production and certified four AWEs, repaired the
ship's propulsion system, completed upgrades to the Advanced Arresting
Gear (AAG) and corrected over 96 percent of the sea trial
discrepancies. The ship is now in an 18-month Post Delivery Test and
Trials (PDT&T) phase where the crew certifies the fuel systems,
conducts aircraft compatibility testing, exercises the flight deck, and
tests the combat systems. We will also complete production and
certification of the remaining seven AWEs during PDT&T. The Navy
continues to see progress in the testing of new systems aboard USS
Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). AWEs have been cycled over 5,400 times,
including 1,500 at sea, and are performing as designed. CVN 78
successfully completed Aircraft Compatibility Testing (ACT), with over
200 launches and recoveries of different type/model/series aircraft
during its at-sea period in January. Successful completion of ACT is an
important milestone towards achieving Flight Deck Certification
expected in March 2020. The ship is expected to conduct several
thousand launches and recoveries between now and completion of PDT&T.
Readying USS Gerald R. Ford for deployment is a Navy priority and the
Department is working collectively with the Navy shipbuilding industry
to transition CVN 78 into Fleet operations. The John F. Kennedy (CVN
79) was christened on December 7, 2019, launched 2-months early on
December 16, 2019, and is 68 percent construction complete. When
compared to CVN 78, CVN 79 is performing at a 16 percent man-hour
stepdown. CVN 80 construction is three percent complete by construction
man-hours and CVN 81 has commenced material procurement. Additionally,
CVN 80 is on schedule to meet its first major construction milestone,
keel laying, in the second quarter of fiscal year 2022.
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. The RCOH is refueling the ship's
reactors, modernizing its capabilities, and repairing ship systems and
infrastructure. CVN 73 successfully undocked in September 2019 and the
RCOH is 68 percent complete with re-delivery planned for December 2021.
CVN 74 RCOH advance planning efforts remain on track to commence RCOH
in January 2021. CVN 75 will begin RCOH in fiscal year 2025.
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 to 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 2021 President's Budget
requests funding for the procurement of two ships of the MYP contract.
The $520 million increase in fiscal year 2020 Advanced Procurement
funding will be used to procure Long Lead Time Material for fiscal year
2021 Flight III ships and to bolster the surface combatant supplier
base.
Complementing the DDG 51, the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class guided missile
destroyers provide multi-mission surface combatants designed to provide
long-range, offensive surface strike capabilities. The DDG 1000 ship is
on track for final delivery at the end of March followed by continued
testing and a PSA in support of achieving Initial Operational
Capability (IOC) by September of 2021. DDG 1001 commissioned on January
26, 2019, is currently undergoing combat system installation and is
expected to complete in July of 2020 following further combat system
activation and test. Construction on DDG 1002 is over 87 percent
complete at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works with HM&E delivery planned
for December 2020.
In the fiscal year 2021 budget request, the Navy has budgeted $46
million of R&D funding for the Large Surface Combatant (LSC). As part
of the Future Surface Combatant Force, LSC will fill all the roles and
missions of a DDG-51 with additional capability and capacity critical
to the future fight. LSC will enable the ability to launch large
missiles with extended ranges, and provide a new hull form and
electrical/propulsion plant for increased efficiency and survivability,
while reestablishing service life allowances for future growth to pace
the threat. The LSC will reduce combat system development risk by
utilizing mature technologies that leverage the DDG 51 FLT III Navy
standard program of record combat system elements and reduce
engineering system development risk by land based testing of the
propulsion and electrical system integration prior to detail design.
Fiscal year 2021 funds will be used for the maturation of requirements
analysis to draft a Capabilities Development Document, develop a new
LSC land-based technology development plan, and initiate a
collaborative government and industry effort necessary to develop the
LSC preliminary design.
The Navy partnership with industry will include both design and
shipbuilding contributors driving to a stable requirements baseline,
and a ship that will have been designed for producibility as well as
flexibility.
small surface combatants
Reemergence of a Great Power Competition and the pivot to the Indo-
Pacific requires a more capable Small Surface Combatant for operations
in contested environments. FFG(X) is the evolution of a ship design
with increased lethality, survivability, and improved capability to
support the National Defense Strategy across the full range of military
operations as part of a more lethal Joint Force. FFG(X) Capability
Requirements are mature and reflect the needs to support the National
Defense Strategy's ``Blunt'' and ``Contact'' layers to deny adversary
aggression and manage conflict escalation in our global operating
model. Existing Fleet requirements and detailed analysis have been
refined through early engagement with industry in a collaborative
Conceptual Design process that completed in June 2019. The FFG(X)
program is managing development risk by combining proven ship designs
with mature, best-of-breed Government Furnished Equipment designated
combat system elements. The Navy is confident in the capability FFG(X)
will deliver to the Fleet. FFG(X) is in a full and open competition
source selection for the Detail Design and Construction Contract, which
ensures competitive pricing and drives best value capability. Contract
award is expected by the end of fiscal year 2020. The fiscal year 2021
budget procures the second ship of the class and continues RDT&E
efforts to deliver critical warfighting capability to the Fleet on
time. This supports the steady profile growth of the program, which
will see increased annual procurement starting in fiscal year 2023.
The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program has delivered 21 of the 35
total planned ships. The program plan for these ships is: four
dedicated test ships; eight Surface Warfare (SUW) ships; eight Anti-
Submarine Warfare (ASW) ships; and 15 Mine Countermeasure ships. The
initial four ships designated as test assets will complete testing and
decommission by the end of fiscal year 2021. The Navy is beginning to
backfit an Over the Horizon Weapon System (OTH WS) on all LCSs 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. Starting with the
deployment of USS Montgomery (LCS 8) in June 2019 , a total of nine LCS
will have completed their inaugural deployments to 7th, 5th or 4th
Fleet by the end of fiscal year 2021, providing a significant increase
in contact layer assets for Fleet Commanders which will continue to
grow as the remaining ships are delivered to the Fleet.
amphibious ships
Amphibious warfare ships are a cornerstone of the Nation's global
forward presence. They continue to play a pivotal role in responding to
world crisis and supporting a broad range of missions across the
spectrum of conflict. Today, these ships are persistently forward
deployed, competing below the level of armed conflict while living
within the range of enemy fires, building partner capacity, and
deterring enemy aggression. Partnered with industry we are committed to
delivering the most capable multi-mission amphibious warfare ship on
the planet.
America-class (LHA 6) will replace the decommissioning LHA 1 Tarawa
and aging LHD 1 Wasp-class ships. USS America (LHA 6) recently deployed
as the centerpiece of the America Amphibious Readiness Group/Marine
Expeditionary Unit with the F 35B operating from the flight deck. USS
Tripoli (LHA 7) delivered on February 28, 2020. The ship will focus on
moving the crew aboard and prepare for commissioning and sail away
later this year. Fabrication has begun on LHA 8, with 26 units erected
that will support a 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.
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 LPD 28 is
65 percent complete and planned for delivery in September 2021, while
the LPD 29 is 25 percent complete and planned for delivery in the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2023. 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 Flight II, integrating more high-level
capabilities. The Navy awarded the first Flight II ship, LPD 30, in
March of 2019 with a planned delivery in the second quarter of fiscal
year 2025. Additionally, the Navy intends to place LPD 31 on contract
by fall of 2020. The future amphibious force structure and composition
are being evaluated as part of the larger ongoing Integrated Naval
Force Structure Assessment.
light amphibious warships
In support of tasks within the range of military operations, which
includes Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment (LOCE) and
Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO), the Navy will commence
with Concept Studies to evaluate the next generation medium lift intra-
theater amphibious platforms and logistics ships. These studies will
primarily focus on commercial designs tailored for military application
to enable maneuver, mobility and naval sustainment (Refuel, Resupply,
and Rearming) for our integrated naval forces conducting distributed
maritime operations.
connectors
The Ship to Shore Connector (SSC) program provides the capability
to rapidly project assault forces within the littoral operational
environment to accomplish Unified Campaign Plan missions and ensures
the Joint Force Commander's ability to conduct amphibious operations
maneuvering over-the-beach, over ice, mud, rivers, swamps and marshes.
The Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) 100 class craft are the
functional replacement for the legacy LCAC craft, which began reaching
end of their service life extensions 2015. The Department remains
committed to maintaining this critical non-displacement craft
capability with the LCAC extended SLEP (E-SLEP) initiative and the SSC
program despite its recent developmental setbacks and commensurate
reductions in procurement quantities quantitates in fiscal year 2020
and fiscal year 2021. The Navy continues to work with our industry
partners on a joint technical assessment to remediate issues discovered
in the September 2019 Builders Trials. The fiscal year 2021 budget
request reallocates funding from the SSC program to E-SLEP to improve
and upgrade these versatile platforms, and ensure the connection
between the combat power and logistics sustainment of the sea bases to
the expeditionary forces. The Navy is also replacing its aging Landing
Craft Utility fleet in the LCU 1700 program which will restore LCU's
complementary heavy lift payload in a more rugged, reliable, and
affordable independent operations capable non-displacement platform.
auxiliary ships, expeditionary, and other vessels
Expeditionary support vessels are highly flexible platforms that
are used across a broad range of military operations supporting
multiple operational phases. The Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB) is part
of the critical access infrastructure that supports the deployment of
forces and supplies to provide prepositioned equipment and sustainment
with flexible distribution. The Navy took delivery of the USNS Miguel
Keith (ESB 5) in November 2019. The ESB 6 and ESB 7 Fixed Price
Incentive contract was awarded in August 2019 with planned deliveries
in fiscal year 2022 and fiscal year 2023. The Expeditionary Fast
Transport (EPF) program provides high speed, shallow draft
transportation capability to support the intra-theater maneuver of
personnel, supplies and equipment for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Army.
EPF 11 delivered in December 2019. EPF 12 and EPF 13 are under
construction with deliveries planned in fiscal year 2020 and fiscal
year 2021, and EPF 13 and EPF 14 awarded in March 2019. An enhanced
medical capability in support of Distributed Maritime Operations is
planned for EPF 14.
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 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. T-AO 205
is 76 percent complete and planned for delivery in June of 2021. The
two follow-on ships of the class, are 32 and 19 percent complete,
respectively.
The Department began construction this fall on the Navajo, a
combined towing, salvage, and rescue (T-ATS) ship. T-ATS is based on
existing commercial towing offshore support vessel design, and will
provide ocean-going tug, salvage, and rescue capabilities to support
Fleet operations. The Navy will exercise contract options for the 2
fiscal year 2020 ships later this year, and the fiscal year 2021 budget
request increases T-ATS procurement for a total of two ships.
strategic sealift
The Navy has begun the first steps in executing its sealift
recapitalization plan called Sealift that the Nation Needs. This three-
phased approach includes the Service Life Extensions of select Surge
Sealift vessels, acquiring used vessels, and a new construction
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. The fiscal year 2021
budget request increases resources for operations and sustainment to
improve current readiness, maintains service life extensions, increases
used vessel acquisition for a total of two in fiscal year 2021, and
maintains investments for new construction sealift industry studies and
preliminary design of the flagship T-AKR(X) Strategic Sealift vessel.
sustainment, modernization and service life extensions
The Navy has undertaken a multipronged approach focused on
increasing accountability and improving productivity in both public and
private shipyards. In our public yards, the Navy is growing the
capacity of the shipyards to meet the workload demand, improving the
training and productivity of the workforce, and making the needed
investments in our shipyards to ensure they can support our growing
needs. In the private shipyards, the Navy has focused on improving the
completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of planning; working with the
Fleet to adjust maintenance schedules to level load the ports, revising
acquisition strategies to improve stability and predictability, and
streamlining Navy inspection points to improve efficiencies.
The fiscal realities facing the Navy make it imperative to maintain
our in-service ships to achieve their expected service lives and
maintain their relevant combat systems through modernization efforts.
The Fiscal Year 2021 President's Budget includes funding for the
modernization of three destroyers to sustain combat effectiveness,
ensure mission relevancy, and achieve the full expected service lives
of the AEGIS Fleet. 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 removing the
service life extension on the DDG 51 class; extending the services life
of the most capable ships in the cruiser fleet while removing the four
cruisers that have the least effective ballistic missile capability;
and delaying the accelerated retirement plan for the mine
countermeasure ships by one year.
shipyard infrastructure optimization plan (siop)
Maintaining and improving public and private ship repair
infrastructure capacity is essential to conducting required maintenance
of a growing Navy. Planned Naval Shipyard investments and completion of
Naval Shipyard optimization analysis are a necessary step to improve
public shipyard productivity and performance. The Navy is outlining a
strategy for the optimal placement of facilities and major equipment at
each public shipyard, including a 20-year investment plan for
infrastructure to ensure we can continue to support the world's finest
naval force now and into the future, The plan focuses on three major
areas for each of the Navy's four public shipyards: dry dock
recapitalization; facility layout and optimization; and capital
equipment modernization.
Phase II of the SIOP is well underway with the development of the
shipyard digital twins, the commencement of requisite facility
engineering studies and the environmental planning activities at Pearl
Harbor Naval Shipyard. The Area Development Plans (ADP) for the four
public shipyards are scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2022,
with the program moving into the execution of the SIOP upon completion.
Concurrent with the ADP effort, SIOP is moving forward with fact-of-
life dry dock projects and other facility and capital equipment
investments required in meeting the demands of the Navy's Fleet
Commanders. The SIOP is also rapidly developing a first-of-its-kind Dry
Dock Production Facility for Pearl Harbor to demonstrate the
efficiencies that will be gained by moving the work closer to the ship
in a state-of-the-art industrial facility. These efforts represent a
substantial capital investment to ensure that America's shipyards will
continue to keep our Navy in peak fighting condition for decades to
come.
unmanned surface and undersea vehicles
Unmanned systems continue to advance in development and will 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.
This year in the surface domain the Navy will commence low-rate
production of a modular Mine Countermeasures Unmanned Surface Vehicle;
award a contract for the first prototype medium unmanned surface
vehicle (MUSV) to provide distributed sensing capacity to the surface
force; continue evaluation of the Marine Corps' long range unmanned
surface vessel (LRUSV); and award large unmanned surface vessel (LUSV)
conceptual design contracts while continuing to mature and demonstrate
the necessary technologies leading to a unmanned capability to provide
distributed lethality as a part of the Future Surface Combatant Force.
Additionally, the Navy will award a Multi Award Contract Indefinite
Delivery/Indefinite Quantity to provide the key enabling technologies
for the unmanned surface Family of Systems.
In the undersea domain, the Navy has commenced fabrication of Orca
Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (XLUUV). Competitive RFPs will be
issued in fiscal year 2020 for initial production of Snakehead, the
Large Displacement UUV, and for production of a Medium UUV that
supports both the submarine launched Razorback environmental sensing
mission, as well as the Maritime Expeditionary Mine Countermeasures
UUVs mission.
In support of these new capabilities, the Navy is also investing in
enabling technologies, such as autonomy, command and control, 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 new authorities granted by Congress over the
past few years, such as middle-tier acquisitions and acquisition
agility legislation. This affords 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 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. AEGIS combat system
capability continually evolves to deliver additional warfighter
improvements to the AEGIS Fleet. AEGIS Combat System Baseline 9
delivers 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)1 Air and Missile
Defense Radar (AMDR) for DDG 51 FLT III ships 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.
Utilizing open architecture that takes full advantage of evolving
technology to rapidly deliver real-time, reliable, and actionable
information to the warfighter, the Department continues working towards
breaking the paradigm of hardware-software dependent deliveries. Using
virtualization technology, the AEGIS virtual twin system, a prototype
of the AEGIS Virtual Combat Management System, is able to run AEGIS
Weapon System code in a fraction of the original hardware space. The
AEGIS virtual twin successfully executed its first live-fire engagement
this past year. Additionally, the Navy successfully tested the Virtual
Laboratory on Ship (VLOS), a virtualized Undersea Warfare Combat System
(AN/SQQ-89 A(V)15), during a weeklong underway period. VLOS represents
another important step forward in the Navy's efforts to speed combat
system element development and software upgrades.
The Department continues to aggressively pursue affordable systems
that are employable from multiple platforms. Leveraging the investment
in AMDR, scaled variants of the AN/SPY-6(V) are planned to replace the
AN/SPY-1 radar on select existing DDG 51 FLT IIA ships to become the
primary Air Search Radar for carriers, amphibious ships and the guided
missile frigate (i.e. EASR). The use of a common core technology and
support strategy enables significant life cycle efficiencies in
maintenance support, training, and overall cost for the Navy's primary
surface ship radars.
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 program mitigating
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 SM-6 Block IA successfully
achieved IOC in October 2019. The Navy awarded a five-year MYP contract
for up to 625 SM-6 missiles in December 2019. The fiscal year 2021
President's budget continues funding for the upgraded SM-2 Block IIIC
and the SM-6 Block IB missiles as rapid prototyping pathway middle tier
acquisition projects. SM-2 Block IIIC leverages investments made in SM-
6 Block I and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) Block II to enhance
performance against numerous threats and to increase depth of fire. The
SM-6 Block IB seeks to provide an extended range capability in response
to Joint, Fleet and Navy Urgent Operational Needs by integrating a new
government developed rocket motor onto an existing SM-6 Block 1A
seeker.
ESSM provides another layer to the Navy's defensive 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.
directed energy
In fiscal year 2020, the Navy provided Congress its path forward
for shipboard integration of High Energy Laser (HEL) systems and the
risk reduction plan to continue to improve technology while growing the
industrial base for these systems. Initial capabilities, such as Solid
State Laser--Technology Maturation (SSL-TM) on USS Portland (LPD-27),
have been fielded for shipboard experimentation and integration. This
type of operational experimentation is valuable for the Navy's long
term consideration of other ship classes as host platforms for laser
weapons. In the fiscal year 2021 budget request, the Department will
continue advancing capabilities of laser weapons to meet ship defense
missions. The Department is also collaborating and partnering with OSD
and other Services to mature these advance technologies to defeat more
challenging threats and shape future acquisition of these systems.
ground-based long-range precision fires
The Marine Corps' highest ground modernization priority, a Ground-
Based Anti-Ship Missile (GBASM) capability, will provide anti-ship
fires from land as part of an integrated Naval Anti-Surface Warfare
campaign. This forward-deployed and survivable capability will enhance
the lethality of our naval forces and will help to deny our adversaries
the use of key maritime terrain.
The Marine Corps' GBASM solution is the Navy Marine Expeditionary
Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS), consisting of an unmanned Joint
Light Tactical Vehicle-based mobile launch platform, called the
Remotely Operated Ground Unit for Expeditionary Fires (ROGUE-Fires),
and Naval Strike Missiles (NSM). The NSM is identical to the Navy's
Over the Horizon Weapon System deployed on the Littoral Combat Ship and
will provide the Marine Corps with a missile capable of sea-skimming,
high-g maneuverability, and the ability to engage targets from the
side, rather than top-down. This maximizes lethality and missile
survivability. Enhancements made to the High Mobility Artillery Rocket
System and the development of the Ground Launched Cruise Missile will
further strengthen the capabilities of the entire naval fires
enterprise.
Senator Perdue. Thank you, Secretary Geurts.
Again, I am going to remind the people that just walked in
we have a call vote at 10:30, and the ranking member and I have
agreed with the witnesses to take a 10-minute recess at 10:30,
run and vote, come back. That way everybody can choose their
schedule accordingly.
I am just going to ask a couple questions to start with.
Thank you for that brief and very comprehensive summary.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, Section 231 of
Title 10, U.S. Code requires the Secretary of Defense to submit
a 30-year shipbuilding plan with the annual budget materials
submitted to Congress.
You know, let me put a little perspective on this. I
recognize the challenge that DOD is in. You are in a period of
time where you are focused on readiness, recapitalization, and
also rationalization. You have the first audit in the history
of the DOD. We are finding money that has been going into
obsolete programs now getting reprogrammed. I respect that and
I thank you guys because I know all of you have been involved
in that.
Secretary Geurts, what is the status of the shipbuilding
plan and that perspective and when should we expect to receive
it?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. So as the Secretary of Defense
has talked about in testimony and follow-up communications with
Congress, he is committed to a battle force of at least 355
ships.
Senator Perdue. Which for the record, if I remember the
numbers, is about $28 billion a year to get there. Right per
year?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. It depends on the kind of
makeup of the fleet.
I think in a positive, we are seeing great interest by the
Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense in
recognizing the importance of the maritime strategy and making
sure that we have got a strategy that he is comfortable with
that enables us to achieve, as best we can within resources,
the outcomes to the challenges you outlined. There is no doubt
there are plenty of challenges.
We are working with his staff. He, as he has indicated to
Congress, will release it when he is comfortable with that
level of analysis. I cannot communicate exactly when that will
be. I can just tell you we are having healthy dialogue. Again,
in a positive, he wants to make sure he has put his own eyes on
it and that we have leveraged all the thinking within the
Department given the criticality of that shipbuilding plan.
What I would also say is in any shipbuilding efforts we
have done, in all our studies, and our sense of the different
courses you could take in the shipbuilding plan, all of that
rests solely on the foundation of our 2021 budget. We are
committed--again, we had to make some hard choices. But our
2021 program is not at risk of any of those. It is really how
are we going to address the gaps you have put on it----
Senator Perdue. Let me address that. First of all, I am not
going to shoot the messenger, but the Secretary of Defense is
here this afternoon and that response that he will get it to us
when he is ready is unacceptable. We have a due date. You do
not allow your soldiers and marines and sailors to do that. We
cannot allow that here. It is a law, and so we are going to
have that conversation later. We understand where that plan is,
but it should be here.
I want you to comment on this graph and talk about the
delta and how we get there. To get to 355--and we are now
backing up from that it sounds like--is $28 billion a year. Now
we are back into like a $20 billion plan for shipbuilding, and
25 percent of that, as I understand it, is for the nuclear
capability triad, the commitment that has been put up as the
top priority. So that really begins to handcuff what you are
able to do.
Are these numbers accurate? I mean, I know the numbers are
accurate, but do you support directionally that China has this
sort of building advantage? They already have an advantage
today. They are at 350 versus our 295, as we sit here today.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I would certainly say our
pacing threat from China is their ability to scale and produce,
leveraging their very strong commercial marketplace. A number
of the efforts that we, I think, have worked and need to
continue to work is: how do we bolster the industrial base for
shipbuilding across the country? I would----
Senator Perdue. Sorry to interrupt, but I would argue
that--I have got just a second or 2 left. I would submit that
the Chinese have already recognized this delta here, and they
do not see us doing anything about it. That is why they put out
their Made in China 2025. They never tell you what they are
going to do unless they have decided that you do not have the
wherewithal or the will to stop them. They are looking at this.
By the way, you have to divide our numbers by two roughly
because we are committed to resources in the other half of the
world besides the Indo-Pacific. So our combatant commanders in
the Pacific are very aware of this.
My question to the Navy is what is the answer. Tell us what
you need. Let us figure it out, but we have got to get to an
answer. It cannot just be, well, we will submit a plan when we
are comfortable with it because there is no plan here that
anybody is going to be comfortable with until we figure out how
to close this delta.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. We will continue, I would
suspect, in the dialogue here at the Subcommittee, and we will
bring in how are we creating competitive strategies, betting
integrating the Marine Corps and the Navy, and then better
acquisition outcomes for the dollars we have, how do we deliver
the right ships at the right time with high levels of
confidence. We are in that pivot period now. Congress has given
lots of good tools. The SHIPS Implementation Act provides some
additional tools, which will be extremely beneficial. We look
forward to working with you on--it is going to take us working
together to close that gap.
Senator Perdue. Well, we are committed to do that. What I
am asking is tell us what you need. Let us wrestle with what
the realities are. But we cannot just bury our heads about this
chart.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Business as usual will not get
us to close that gap.
Senator Perdue. We recognize what you are up against.
Senator Hirono?
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Well, Secretary Geurts, whenever you come and testify, you
continue to reassure us, and as the chair said, we do not want
to shoot the messenger. But it is very clear that Congress has
an intention to move us to a 355-ship Navy, and that is not
where we are heading. We get all of these I do not know what,
you know, explanations, you are making things a lot more
efficient, your acquisition program, et cetera. But we are
still not told how we are going to get to 355 ships. So that is
the thing. You see it is very frustrating for us to sit here
and go through this year after year.
Okay. So I want to focus again on modernizing the public
shipyards because even as we get to a 355-ship Navy, most of us
have talked about how important it is to maintain what we
already have. If our shipyards do not have the kind of
modernized situations, including for Hawaii, you know, we need
a new dry dock, we need a production facility because our
workers there have to travel--they have to go all over the
place to get the parts that they need to repair the submarines
and everything else. We need a production facility. That was
taken out of the--the one that was the planned was taken out of
the budget, and the hope is that the new one is going to be
built at the same time frame as the previous one was going to
be built.
So I want to know if the fiscal year 2021 budget fully
funds the shipyard modernization plan. That goes for all four
shipyards. All of the shipyards are in this together. I am not
just talking about the Pearl Harbor Shipyard. I am talking
about all the other three shipyards. We all need to be going
together. So is there money in the fiscal year 2021 budget to
fully fund the modernization plan?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, Senator Hirono. In fiscal year 2021,
we have got roughly half a billion dollars, $448 billion
specifically, towards that shipyard optimization plan. That is
a combination of military construction, recapitalizing
equipment, and then working on our planning for the future. The
Navy is committed to recapitalizing the shipyards.
We started first by bringing on the workforce we needed,
and that workforce is doing a tremendous job. We are at about
36,000, north of that, workers. We brought them on earlier
than----
Senator Hirono. Oh, Mr. Secretary. So the question is, if
the modernization plan is being fully funded. The amount that
you are telling me--does that fully fund the modernization
program going forward from fiscal year 2021--for fiscal year
2021?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, Senator Hirono. For the requirements
we have right now, it fully funds us. We have a large program
to come, but for 2021 that is fully funded.
Senator Hirono. All right.
Are you considering any changes to the plan to accelerate
specific capability expansion or specific productivity
enhancements in view of the ship maintenance problems you are
facing?
Secretary Geurts. So as we build--as you know, we are
building digital models of all the shipyards to identify where
the biggest bang for the buck is in terms of how do we get more
efficient with the workforce we have in place. As those studies
and area plans come together, we will look to accelerate where
we get the biggest return on those investments while
understanding we have some large capital projects, dry dock
replacements we are going to have to do as well.
Senator Hirono. So it might be instructive for us to know
specifically what kind of things that you are doing to expand
your capability, the capability at our shipyards. I mean, it is
one thing to be told verbally, but I would like to know
specifically. So what have you done? To me having a production
facility, that is a very concrete way to effect efficiencies.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. If I can just kind of walk
around the world----
Senator Hirono. Not today.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. We are happy to go in
whatever level of detail you like.
Senator Hirono. Okay. For a number of years now, the Navy's
long-term goal for fleet size was a 308-ship fleet, and after
publication of the CNO's last Force Structure Assessment, the
goal was reset to 355 ships. Of course, we are very much on it
because we have to put that number into the law, and I can
thank the former chair of this Committee for making sure that
that is in the law.
The chair has already mentioned that we do not have the
information we need. The plan that was supposed to be submitted
to us is not before us, and we would like to know what you all
have in mind. So I just want to add my concern to that
expressed by the chair, that we need the reports that should be
coming to us.
So I indicated in my opening statement the Navy recently
signed a multi-year procurement contract for block 5 of the
Virginia-class attack submarine, and there is an option to buy
a 10th boat if the Navy has the resources and if the
contractors improve performance on the program. I think you get
that we are very concerned about only one submarine being
produced. So I am concerned that the window of opportunity for
exercising the option to buy a 10th boat may pass, but I am
also concerned about what criteria the Navy would use to award
the 10th boat if additional funds were provided.
So my question to you is, Secretary Geurts, if Congress
were to authorize a second Virginia-class boat in fiscal year
2021, what criteria would you use to decide whether the
contractor team that is currently in place has earned an award
for the 10th boat?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. When we talked previously, I
was concerned about execution, and I was concerned about
putting Columbia at risk, which is our highest priority. Since
that time, the company and the program has showed much improved
performance. At this point, it is not an execution issue for
me. It is a pure affordability issue. If the funds were there,
I would have no reservation with putting those funds on
contract and adding that 10th ship to the multi-year. So at
this point, it is not a criteria to add it other than a pure
affordability issue, which is why we had it number one on our
unfunded priority list.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Perdue. With the witnesses' forbearance, we are
going to declare a 10-minute recess, go vote. Before we do
that, I want to thank Senator Kaine and Senator Shaheen for
their steadfast support of this Subcommittee. They are always
here. They are always interested and always involved. Thank you
guys for being here.
[Recess.]
Senator Perdue. We will call the Subcommittee hearing back
into session.
Senator Kaine and Senator Shaheen are on the way back.
While we are waiting on them, I will ask Senator Hirono if she
wants to ask her next question, and then we will go to one of
the other Senators when they come back just to keep our
momentum going here. Senator Hirono?
Senator Hirono. Mr. Secretary, 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 chosen not to request any
production for the SSC program in fiscal year 2021. Can you
give us a status report on this program?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. We have been working with the
contractor there. We had had some delays in developmental
testing. We worked our way through most of those and feel
pretty comfortable now with the vehicle itself. Then we had a
number of vehicles that we had not gotten into production in a
timely fashion. So we are committed to the program. The fiscal
year 2021 quantity just reflects the fact that we were a little
further behind in production than we had anticipated, and now
that we have negotiated that contract, which we will put on
contract here in the next month or so, that will allow us to
continue to get into production and then set us up well for
increasing production as we get into 2022.
Senator Hirono. So you will request some money for 2022.
Based on what you are having to do often, it is clear that
you have to work directly with the contractors not just in this
case but with a Virginia-class submarine contractor. So you
have people on your team that can do this, to be able to
perceive problems before they occur with the pace or anything
else with the quality so that they can get in there and work
with the contractor so that we are not adding time and money to
the production?
Secretary Geurts. Absolutely, ma'am. So I am very proud of
the Department of the Navy team. We have a high level of
technical competence. We work closely with the contractor. It
is a shared risk-shared reward. In some cases, we will bring
government equipment on there if we can do that more
effectively. But both in the case of the ship-to-shore
connector, Virginia, all the others, we work very closely with
the contractor and we make reality-based decisions.
So I am not going to continue producing something that is
not ready to produce. We made some hard decisions in this
budget in Triton and a couple other programs where we were not
where we needed to be. What I do not want to do is double down
on the risk and create more concurrency. I would rather, as we
did in 53-K, stop, get the program on the right footing, and
then execute smartly on that program.
Senator Hirono. As you are dealing directly with the
contractors, do a number of them talk about how hard it is for
the suppliers? Because we have a decreasing number of suppliers
for all the parts that they need. Is that an aspect of what you
are addressing somewhere along the line?
Secretary Geurts. Absolutely, and in many cases because a
prime contractor cannot see all the rates at a subcontractor,
we will actually negotiate some of those facets with the
subcontractors to try and drive costs down.
I would say one of my largest concerns--we talk industrial
base at final assembly, which is an important issue such as
shipyards or an aircraft production. Industrial base at the
supplier is even more critical. I have hired a full-time supply
chain expert, and we have created a whole supply chain set of
expertise across all of our programs. To Senator Perdue's
observation, on China, they are also competing with us and
against us in many of the supply chain areas. Supply chain
integrity--really understanding that supply chain, what it
costs, where we have fragility, where we have opportunity is a
critical thing we have been focused on for the last 2 years or
so. We are starting to see that really add benefit to us.
Senator Hirono. I am glad you are doing that and I commend
you for it because, as we talk about our contractors, we
sometimes forget that there are thousands of people in the
supply chain that need to be supported also.
Secretary Geurts. I can just follow up just briefly to that
point. For an aircraft carrier, we have about 10,000 folks,
great folks down at Newport News on aircraft carrier
construction, RCOH. For that program alone, we have 2,000
suppliers of over 50,000 people in 46 States. We need both to
be balanced. What Congress has done to bolster supply base last
year on DDG-51--there was money for that and on the submarine
programs and on the carrier programs--has been critical so that
we are not caught in single-point failures or areas where we
cannot scale supply base at the same rate we are trying to
scale the larger program.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
I do have one short question for Admiral Kilby. The Aegis
destroyers and attack submarines represented the largest
inventory shortfall compared to the goals in the 2016 Force
Structure Assessment, with the actual Navy fleet 15 boats below
the attack submarine goal and 14 destroyers below the goal for
large surface combatants. Admiral Kilby, is there any chance
that the demand for these two types of ships will go down in
the new force structure assessment?
Vice Admiral Kilby. Ma'am, I see a need for both those
classes of ships. As we work through this with the Department
of Defense (DOD), I think quantities could change on the
margins, but by and large, it will be consistent with past
force structure assessments is my belief.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Perdue. Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the Chair and
Ranking, we participate in this Committee, as Senator Shaheen
said, because we are assigned because we have vested interests,
but you guys run a good committee and these are important
witnesses to have.
I want to thank Senator Hirono. She hosted me at the Pearl
Harbor Shipyard 2 weeks ago. It is really good to see the
shipyards other than those in Virginia because you get a sense
of the extent of the need and the challenge you have.
Secretary Geurts, I have a lot of questions, but in 5
minutes, I will do a couple of things.
You at DOD were ordered to do reprogramming to put money in
the counter-drug account that would then be used for wall
construction, and I want to focus on that a little bit. I think
all of us would highly prefer that the money we give to the DOD
stays in the DOD account, is not used for a non-military
emergency, and then we battle it out and reach an accord on
what the wall and money should be. I do not like using the
DOD's budget as the piggy bank.
My understanding is in that reprogramming what the Navy did
in the shipbuilding seapower space was basically took $911
million out of one LHA amphibious ship and an expeditionary
fast transport. Explain the decision-making behind, if we have
to reprogram, why I am going to take out the LHA and why I am
going to take out the expeditionary fast transport.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Obviously, those were decisions
made at the SECDEF level. He has got a site picture larger than
just the Navy site picture on priorities in importance.
In the case of the LHA, we value that ship greatly. We
actually in the 2021 budget accelerated that from an fiscal
year 2024 construction to fiscal year 2023. Congress had
appropriated money and given us incremental funding authority
relatively early to that need. Our challenge in the future
budgets will be to place that money back in the program so we
can deliver that LHA.
Senator Kaine. Just before we get to the expeditionary fast
transport, the LHA is a platform that has high utility for
marines. Right? I am often in a hearing like this saying on
shipbuilding and ship repair, the Navy and Marines are like in
the same place. Are they not? We are not leaning too far one
way or too far the other. But that is a platform that has very
high utility for marine use.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Maybe I will ask General Smith
to give his perspective.
Lieutenant General Smith. Thanks, Senator. Your first
comment about are we tied leaning one way or another, I would
say that the cooperation and collaboration on the naval team is
as good as it has ever been. Jim Kilby and I literally do not
walk down the hall without checking with what each other is
doing.
LHA-9--any LHA--the ability to project power forward, the
ability to carry the F-35B has been extremely importantly
demonstrated a couple of times here in the last few years with
the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Colonel Chad Nelms, and the
31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, Colonel Bob Brody. We put
multiple F-35B's on those platforms. That does get the
attention of the pacing threat.
We are committed to the LHA-9, and the Navy has been, as
part of the naval team, very, very clear that that is a
priority because that supports the fleet commander. The Marines
do not operate independently. We operate in support of fleet
commanders.
I have every confidence that that funding gets restored and
that we move forward on LHA-9. As the Secretary said, the Navy
has accelerated from 2024 to 2023, and we will have to fund
that in the out-years to get it on track to deliver that
capability to the fleet commanders and the joint force
commanders.
Senator Kaine. How about the expeditionary fast transport?
Talk about that one a little.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. That was an additional ship to
our requirement, and so I think when the Secretary of Defense--
I am not going to speak for him. He had to make some hard
decisions.
Senator Kaine. My assumption is he has got to make hard
decisions, but he is not making them with no menu of
recommendations. I mean, you would rather not have to reprogram
any of those dollars, but you have to say, well, okay, if we
are going to have to give up $900 million or whatever it is,
you make some recommendations.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Our job is to identify the
options that are out there and then put the context in there.
The thing we will have to work through that we watch very
closely is the industrial base. That one is going to be
particularly challenging on the industrial base side, but we
will work our way through that.
Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, could I ask one more question.
Actually I have about 30 seconds left.
Senator Perdue. Yes.
Senator Kaine. I will try to make it quick.
I have heard some differing accounts, including today, of
not including the second Virginia sub in this President's
Budget. I have heard just straight out financial challenge, you
know, resource constraints. I have heard we are more focused
now, as we need to be on a long-term--and you have talked about
this. We have had a long-term shipbuilding plan. We need to
have a long-term ship maintenance plan, and we have enough
maintenance needs for the ships that we have that maybe that
starts to carve into some of the new contracts. I have also
heard that maybe industry could not do two ships in a year. I
am a little confused about what is the reason, and it could be
more than one of those things. But could you enlighten me?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. As I have spoken about
previously, I was concerned about the submarine industrial base
to keep on a two Virginia cadence as we brought Columbia on.
Senator Kaine. Without Columbia, the two Virginia thing is
fine. But you are adding payload modules----
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. We are adding more complexity
to each Virginia, and when we were struggling to get two
Virginias out a year before we added the payload module on
Columbia, I was concerned that we had the enterprise where it
needed to be. What I did not want to do is get to the point
where we could not, we had no outs, and we overloaded the yard
and put Columbia at risk.
The company and the submarine team have worked very closely
together. We restructured that multi-year program to get at
those execution issues, and I would say confidently they have
stemmed the tide from what I would say is eroding performance
to being able to deliver now.
So from my perspective, it is not an execution issue, it is
a pure affordability issue given all the other trades we have.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Senator Perdue. Senator Wicker?
Senator Wicker. Well, thank you very much. I am delighted
to be back in the Subcommittee room with a bunch of talented
legislators who understand the need and also with these
witnesses today.
As a matter of fact, I will tell Senator Kaine I toured the
Tripoli, an LHA that is about to be underway, at Ingalls
Shipbuilding in Pascagoula on Friday with the Chief of Naval
Operations and his team. It is a thing of beauty down there,
the things they are doing to increase productivity, to listen
to the shipyard workers about their ideas about efficiency, and
rely on just centuries and centuries of collective experience
there.
I do have to get these questions in, and so I want to be
precise with them.
The budget request includes four amphibious ships in the
future years defense program, three San Antonio-class LPDs, 31,
32, and 33, and the large deck ship, LHA-9, which Senator Kaine
was talking about. I was pleased to see procurement of LHA-9
accelerated.
Last year, this Subcommittee asked the Navy to review
alternative acquisition strategies for amphibious ships to
leverage multiple ship contracts, which have saved billions of
dollars and provided much needed industrial base stability,
including for destroyers, submarines, and aircraft carriers. In
this review, the Navy reported significant savings could be
achieved by procuring various combinations of amphibious ships.
How important to the Marine Corps is it to maintain a
stable industrial base for amphibious ship construction? This
is for General Smith. Can you describe the importance of these
four amphibious ships?
Then for Secretary Geurts, can you elaborate on the review
that I just mentioned, as well as the Navy's findings
particularly related to these three LPDs and the one LHA-9? If
you can, speak to the timeline for awarding the funding of the
ships. Would there be benefits of procuring these four ships
together? Would the Navy support permissive legislative
authorities that would enable such an approach?
Lieutenant General Smith. Senator, so I will defer to the
Secretary on the shipyards and the shipbuilding capacity
although I am on my way to HII here in the next month or so. I
had to can to cancel a trip there due to some scheduling
conflicts, but I am on my way down there.
The import of those ships--the importance of those ships is
vital to what we provide to the fleet. So when the Commandant
talks about expeditionary advanced base operations, people will
often confuse and forget that the best expeditionary advanced
base is an amphibious warship that moves because while it may
move 17 or 20 or 25 knots an hour, that is real capability and
that is a real defensive capability. The importance of those
four ships or of those amphibious warships, the traditional
amphibious warships, is vital to what we are able to provide to
the joint force commander as part of the joint force maritime
component command that Admiral Kilby and I will do and fight
together with. Highly important, sir.
Senator Wicker. Up to 3,000 troops at full capacity.
Lieutenant General Smith. That is correct, sir. It is the
melding of the kit, the equipment, and those fantastic marines
that are on board, along with their sailors that are able to
really project power and cause a dilemma for the adversary.
Senator Wicker. The F-35 lands right on it.
Lieutenant General Smith. Absolutely, sir.
Senator Wicker. All right. Secretary?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I think there is a tremendous
potential, as we did in a report to Congress and as we have
looked at it even further, to doing a block buy of the three
LPDs and the LHA. We see that savings, you know, depending on
exactly how we do it, to be in the 8 to 12 percent range, which
would be a billion dollars back of taxpayer savings, and so we
are looking at that closely. We are also executing the advance
procurement long lead funding that has been appropriated with
the incremental authority. The things that I have seen in the
draft of the SHIPS Implementation Act in terms of giving us
more authorities to do smart procurement will be tremendously
beneficial to us, and we will look forward to those
authorities, should they come in the act.
Senator Wicker. Good.
Admiral Kilby, you have 8 seconds, but maybe you could take
a little longer, to speak to the current inventory of
destroyers. I believe we have roughly 67 DDG-51's. We need an
extra two at Rota, Spain. Do we not?
Vice Admiral Kilby. Yes, sir. The combatant commander has
asked for two destroyers to be moved to Rota, Spain. The Navy
has acknowledged that and is considering that. We have a
strategic lay-down process which vets where our ships go based
on requirements from the combatant commanders.
But to your point, the DDG flight 3 is a ship we must have
in the Navy because of its attendant radar, the air, the
advanced missile defense radar is key to pace our adversaries,
as Senator Perdue laid out earlier. That is a key combination
for us in the future.
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Perdue. Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here and for your service.
I want to first go to the issue--and I apologize. I have
missed some of the questions, but the issue that Senator Hirono
raised in her opening statement about the importance of the
shipyard optimization plan. With the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
of interest to both Senator King and me, we have seen very
directly what those investments mean for the shipyard. Our
workers there have what they call a declaration of excellence.
I do not think there are any workers anywhere in the country
that are any better than they are, but they have been held back
by some of the investments. Now that those are being made, they
are even more efficient than they have been in the past. There
is a new paint blast and rubber facility that is going in that
they are very pleased about because it is going to make them so
much more efficient. The additional dry dock capacity is going
to give us the capacity to get the subs back out into the ocean
where we want them to be. I just want to underscore what
Senator Hirono said about the importance of that plan and
ensuring that we continue to make progress in making those
investments.
Along those lines, I am not going to ask you to comment
because I am going to raise this for Secretary Esper this
afternoon. But the President's emergency declaration is taking
$3.8 billion from 2020 funds that are going for projects that
the military and Congress have said we need and we want to--we
have already signed off. I think there is some legal question
about whether what the President has done is constitutional,
and many of those systems that funding is being taken from are
for the Air Force and the Army, but certainly the P-8A Poseidon
is one of those that is going to affect the Navy.
I just want to register the fact that I think this is a
real problem. We have seen it last year and this year, and we
have billions of dollars that are already sitting on the
sidelines to build this wall that the President is committed
to. So why he is taking this additional funding this year is
beyond me. But I will leave that at that and ask if you could
address the decision to reduce the procurement of the two
Virginia-class subs. I know that several people have raised
this. But as we think about our capability gap with Russia and
China, that is the number one capability that we are looking
for, and yet the Navy is only asking for one of those.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. To your first point, I do not
know if you know, my dad went to sea on a submarine built at
Portsmouth, on the John Adams. So he spent many years
underwater thanks to the workers out there, and so it is near
and dear to my personal heart, as well as with all the
shipyards. Again, I did a groundbreaking at Norfolk. We did a
groundbreaking last year there. I was just out at Pearl 3 weeks
ago. It is a national treasure that we have got to preserve.
We have done a lot for the workforce. Now we have got to
get the infrastructure where it needs to be, and we have a lot
of funds laid in there at Portsmouth to go do that.
I am also--just a little bit of a side note--amazed at the
innovation as we enable the workforce to have the resources to
innovate on their own in the efficiency. Folks ask me if I am
worried about our ability to keep up with the workload when we
get back to 66 submarines. Not at all because we have got a
very good junior in terms of how long they have been in the
workforce--that means they are going to be there for a while.
We just have to give them the right infrastructure and tools to
go off and do amazing things.
The second Virginia to me is a pure affordability issue
when we have had to balance everything we have got in there. As
I had mentioned previously, it is no longer an execution issue
in my mind. We have the capacity to do it. The changes that
have been made, the partnerships, the new way of doing business
we are seeing out of Electric Boat and Newport--they have
proved they can do it and they are capable of doing it. Now to
us it was just a pure affordability, which is why it was our
number one unfunded priority. I would not have recommended to
the CNO putting that on the list if I could not have executed
it.
Senator Shaheen. Great. Well, hopefully we will get it
funded.
I want to switch to another issue. But can you speak to
what steps are being taken to ensure that the procurement for
all future waterside security barriers complies with
congressional language? As you know, we are looking at
additional new innovation to address the security barriers for
our ships when they are in port, and I wonder if you could
speak to where we are in that process.
Secretary Geurts. Let me get back to you with some exact
details. I do not have those all here. I will assure you it is
in our interest, one, to have the capability and, two, ensure
that there is confidence we are doing it in compliance with all
the regulations and best practices.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Perdue. Senator King?
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Geurts, I want to quote the admiral sitting to
your right. He said the flight 3 DDGs are a ship we must have.
My concern, which will not be surprising to you, is that you
have knocked out I think four ships in the future procurement,
row K through 2022 on multi-year. My concern is a gap, and you
take those ships out. We are talking about a new large surface
combatant. We all know they take longer than we expect. Help me
understand this decision because China is vastly expanding
their fleet. The DDG is the workhorse of the Navy. The Pacific
is a big ocean. Explain to me the decision to cut back on those
DDGs.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I will kind of give you mine
from an overall perspective and invite Admiral Kilby to jump
in.
I would agree with Admiral Kilby. If we are going to
compete and win at a global scale, it is going to be on flight
3. DDGs are going to be a firm backbone for that.
With the multi-year engine 2022, two or three budget cycles
ago, we kind of were moving quickly into a large surface
combatant. If you notice in the budget, we have taken a little
bit more strategic, I would say, pause on that in terms of
making sure we have got all the things we need to do in
prototyping and understanding of the detailed requirements
before we transition into that.
I have not decided yet on what our contracting strategy
would be for those destroyers after 2022, but my strong sense
is that will be another multi-year procurement.
Senator King. Multiyear will save the taxpayers----
Secretary Geurts. While I have not formally declared that,
I can see a scenario where we would not for the remaining
destroyers, as we understand when the large surface combatant
comes in play, we would not do a multi-year or some similar
kind of arrangement. We do not want to get that transition
point wrong. I think we need both capabilities, but we are not
going to put the flight 3 destroyers at risk for the large
surface combatants.
Senator King. But you are proposing those cuts in flight 3.
How come?
Secretary Geurts. Right now it is, given the flat line
budget and all the other pressures, we had to balance that
risk.
Senator King. But this does not affect this year's budget.
Does it?
Secretary Geurts. No, sir.
Senator King. So we are talking about cutting ships in the
future, and that is a future year budget.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. So in 2021, we have got two
ships in 2021. We are executing the destroyer that was added.
So I think we are good industrial base in 2021. The reductions
were in the FYDP as we continue to look at how to balance all
that with the resources available.
Senator King. At that time.
Secretary Geurts. At that time.
Senator King. Well, those are decisions that will be made
in the future.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir.
Senator King. Admiral, do you still want those flight 3's?
Vice Admiral Kilby. Yes, sir, I do. But I want to echo what
Secretary Geurts said. When we put the budget together, we
followed four priorities: Columbia first, readiness recovery,
lethality, and then capabilities we could afford. So, we tried
to balance those out and create the best program we could to
meet those demand signals.
Senator King. But I am sure you are aware there are
industrial base issues. Continuity is critical here. I know
both of the yards are gearing up, hiring people to meet the
demands of the Navy. This is not something you can just turn
off and on like a switch.
Secretary Geurts. Absolutely, sir. Again, we are trying to
be very thoughtful on the industrial base. We are going to have
to work very closely. You know, as we get in a little bit later
in the budget, Columbia will be, of the existing SCN, about 33
percent of it. If we fund all of Columbia within that SCN
account--and so that is going to mean some hard choices and
we're going to have to balance capability, industrial base, all
of those different things. Some of the things that Senator
Wicker has proposed in the Implementation Act, in terms of
giving us faster use of those tools, I think can help us
because if we do a multi-year contract, that can provide some
stability from the year by year, which I think could help
stabilize the industrial base.
Senator King. Let me turn for a moment to the large surface
combatant. When do you expect to start engaging with the
industry?
Vice Admiral Kilby. So I think we have started to engage
with industry on that. Again, there was a pause to push that
slightly to the right. So we have set that up--and this is
really Secretary Geurts' lane--a detailed design contract and
then a follow-on contract in 2028. So I think we are poised to
try to apply the same lessons we learned from frigate with
that.
But I also agree with Secretary Geurts that there is a very
real need to get after that and to continue to produce flight 3
just because of the pacing threat of what, Senator, you talked
about earlier.
Senator King. What concerns me is if we have a gap in
flight 3's and a large surface combatant takes longer, you end
up with a capacity shortfall that in a crisis could be a
disaster.
Vice Admiral Kilby. So from a requirements perspective, I
think, sir, what we are trying to say is the flight 3, I think,
will be a consistent platform for us well into the future until
we are sure we have the large surface combatant in hand.
Senator King. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, can I ask one more quick question?
Senator Perdue. Absolutely.
Senator King. I think I am scheduled to go down and see the
Ford in a couple weeks. How are we coming?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I will be with you.
Senator King. When are we ready to go?
Secretary Geurts. So the Ford has been out since we
finished the PSA. It has been out to sea roughly 50 percent of
the time. We have qualified all the different aircraft types in
the air wing on Ford. It is performing magnificently out there.
It is a first in class. A first in class is hard. What I look
forward to is you and anybody else that we can get out there,
which I am confident we will continue to make opportunities,
talk to sailors and get their perspective. I mean, you can hear
from me. You can hear from generals and admirals here, but it
is really in the sailors' eyes. They are really excited. It is
really reassuring to see how excited they are. We did 211
launches and catapults.
Senator King. They know best.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir, absolutely. I look forward to
getting you and anyone else out there to hear from them. Again,
we are growing. We put a lot on their backs. They have got to
learn how to train. They have got to build some of the standard
operating procedures. But the capability that ship brings now
in enabling us to do lots of things in the future is also
fairly eye-watering.
Senator King. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate
it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Perdue. Admiral Kilby, I want to go back to the
long-term plan. I respect all these short-term constraints and
the problems you have. But you guys are charged to do both. I
want to relate to the conversation we had yesterday briefly. In
the 2016 Force Structure Assessment, the Navy stated to fully
resource these platforms specific--and I quoting--demands with
very little risk in any theater while supporting enduring
missions, ongoing operations, and setting a theater for prompt
warfighting response, the Navy would require a 653-ship force.
Now, that 653 relates to the current shipbuilding plan of 355.
Secretary Modly said that--he gave us sort of a hint in
this Force Structure Assessment that is coming. He said
publicly that a requirement of somewhere around 390 is probably
going to be a number that could be an, in his words, achievable
force level which the Navy could aspire.
I have a couple questions around this. It gets complicated.
But from the 390--and I am postulating here--if that is the new
number, what is the 653 comparable number to the 390. If 653
relates to 355, what is the new aspirational number at the top?
The reason I am bringing that up, it goes back to we keep
looking at this as a monolithic debate between China. This
chart makes it look like there are only two near-peer
competitors. That is not true. We are responsible today, given
the operational requirements we put on our Defense Department,
to have our Navy in places all over the world, the Indo-
Pacific, as well as the Atlantic, Mediterranean, everywhere,
and we see what China is doing there. We have to almost think
about this in two theaters. Do we not?
The question I have is this. What is the number that
corresponds to the 390? Could you also, as you answer that
question--you almost have to look at in equivalent units. We do
not know how many DDGs versus carriers versus submarines versus
the Columbia-class. I mean, it is almost an equivalent unit
conversation. But it is even more. But you said something
yesterday that really resonated with me, Admiral. It is the
lethality per boat.
We know the INF has restricted us in terms of our ranges.
That now is no longer the restriction. You mentioned munitions
and you talked about lethality being one of the top four
priorities. Could you bring that in as part of the dimension
around how we answer this question? I am not beating you up
again on being the messenger about we do not have a
shipbuilding plan. I am trying to get at give us some idea of
what we are working towards so we can start working with the
administration and other members to help you.
Vice Admiral Kilby. Yes, sir. So let us just take that in a
couple of different pieces. The 650 number or so is based on
the combatant command demand signal for ships, which is high.
All our combatant commanders want ships to satisfy their
OPLANs.
Senator Perdue. By the way, sir, just to be clear--I should
have said this. The 355 and the 653 were pre-NDS. I think it is
a major point. A follow-on question is, is that consistent with
the NDS? I have a suspicion it is not, and I think we are
seeing early indications from Secretary Modly that that might
not be the case. Sorry to interrupt.
Vice Admiral Kilby. So just breaking that down, 653 was the
combatant commander operational plan requirement. If we just
aggregated all of those together in a number, that is what it
would be. When we produce a Force Structure Assessment, we look
at the likelihood of having all those things happen at once. We
accept risk when we propose a force structure size--that will
not happen all at once, and so 355 was a result of the 2016
Force Structure Assessment. A lot of other analysis from other
groups that looked at that and came up with a force mix that
aligned to be able to counter the world and the most vexing
problems we saw at that time.
So what has changed? We have a new National Defense
Strategy. The Navy has a new operating concept of distributed
maritime operations. The Marine Corps has a new operating
concept of littoral operations in a contested environment. So
we have worked very hard over the last several years,
particularly I would say in the last 15 months, to come
together as a naval force to say how would we attack this very
difficult problem that you have outlined on your graph.
So some trends that we have seen are we need to address the
logistics part of this problem, not just unmanned, which we
have talked about in previous force structure assessments. We
are not ready to count those ships yet. We have not proven that
technology. We owe you that test and certification plan. But we
know we must go there.
This intermediary number of ships, these logistics ships,
smaller amphibious ships, smaller logistics ships to support
these two operating concepts could be, trending that we have
looked at, places we need to go in the future. That does not
necessarily reverse engineer all the other classes of ships we
have had for the very consistent and still current reasons that
we see in the future that we need to have attack submarines,
large surface combatants, frigates that are very capable, and
aircraft carriers.
So all that together creates a force mix based on what we
think we need to do to satisfy the National Defense Strategy.
So all that study is what we are presenting to the Secretary of
Defense and what we hope we come back with you shortly.
Senator Perdue. When will that be presented to him? When
will we see that?
Vice Admiral Kilby. I think it is an ongoing effort. I do
not have a date for you on when----
Senator Perdue. That is when you marry the naval
requirements to really support the NDS. That is something we
have not seen.
Vice Admiral Kilby. Yes, sir.
Senator Perdue. So that is the first time. I look forward
to that. I would love to work with you guys on that.
Can you also add--and I am over my time, but can you
briefly add the lethality question to that? A single boat, if
you increase its range and number of munitions, if that is
possible--does that not come into the calculus of how many
total combatants you have to have?
Vice Admiral Kilby. It does. General Berger is very
consistent with us when we get together and talk as a naval
force. He said you have to consider the adversary's position,
what they have achieved, what we think they are going to
achieve. So that lethality piece is a key mix, and sometimes we
get caught on numbers of ships, which is very important, but
the capability they bring is equally important. The Navy has
gone over the last several budget cycles, with the support of
Congress, to increase the lethality of our ships.
Senator Perdue. So I am sorry. But that will be
incorporated in this new force assessment.
Vice Admiral Kilby. Yes, sir.
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
Senator Hirono?
Senator Hirono. So when you talk about increasing the
lethality of the ship, does that also include the resilience of
the ship, the survivability of the ship? Because the more stuff
we put on the ship, the more expensive. So survivability. Is
that also a concern of course?
Vice Admiral Kilby. So I will start, ma'am. Lethality is a
fundamental shift that the Navy and the Marine Corps have taken
over the last couple of years based on the threat that,
Senator, you talked about. So we went from a Navy that for the
last 28 years, we have been focused on power projection to
support the war that we fought. Right? So shifting that to be a
sea control force--a sea control force means you have the
offensive capability to push back the adversary's navies and
other force joint elements. So that is a different mix of
capabilities and platforms. So the survivability piece that we
build in our ships I am very confident in, that those standards
that are, one, characterized by our technical community but
then built by our shipyards are key to our success in the
future.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. If I could just add to that.
So another way to think about survivability, you have got
to be able to take a punch. It is also are there new
technologies--and we talked directed energy, we talked lasers--
to allow you to not have to use up your missile inventories to
defend your ship. You can use other technologies that preserve
your offensive capability and more cost effectively avoid your
enemy's ability to attack you. So if they are spending $10
million or $100 million missiles to get after us and I can
knock those down very cheaply and I can save my weapons, punch
back, or make a move, that is how the two kind of play. So if
you are survivable, you are more lethal. If you can survive and
preserve your weapons, then you create new dilemmas for your
enemy.
Senator Hirono. Admiral, I am glad that you acknowledged
that the unmanned ships that you are really exploring, that you
are not ready to count those as part of the 355 ship inventory.
Good. There is a lot more testing and proving we have to do.
I just have one short question for Secretary Geurts. Last
year, your prepared testimony indicated that operations in a
contested environment meant that the Navy's logistics fleet
will need to include smaller, faster, multi-mission transports.
This year, your prepared testimony on page 13 says--and I
quote--the Navy will commence with concept studies to evaluate
the next generation medium-lift intra-theater amphibious
platforms and logistics ships. End quote.
So does this mean that no progress has been made in
implementing these concepts or sorting through alternatives, as
you mentioned them last year?
Secretary Geurts. Ma'am, the way I would characterize is
last year, since our 2016 FSA, we have not put the study that
we needed to put into the logistics side of the fleet. How do
we support this distributed operations? So as the Marine Corps
and the Navy work together on the operational side to define
better the requirement, we are now putting in place, working
with industry, given that broad requirement--I will say need.
We do not have it down to specifications. What can we bring to
the table from a material solutions standpoint? Our 2021 budget
has money in there so we can start delivering material ideas to
consider.
So we have been working it from a study phase. We had no
money in the 2020 budget. I just knew we were moving at it. We
moved in the 2021 budget to put funding to get after it.
Senator Hirono. All right. Thank you.
Senator Perdue. Senator King?
Senator King. Admiral, you are the commander of the fort.
You are in the GIUK gap. A hypersonic missile is launched from
Murmansk. It will be to your ship in about 14 minutes. Can you
defend yourself?
Vice Admiral Kilby. If I have a carrier strike group with
me, I can. It is not just the Ford. It is the elements of the
carrier strike group that make that up. So those are the flight
3 destroyers we are talking about and the capabilities to----
Senator King. Without getting into classified material, do
we have a defensive system to confront a hypersonic missile
traveling at 6,000 miles an hour?
Vice Admiral Kilby. I believe we do, and I look forward to
briefing you later on this month and both committees on those
technologies, sir, at a higher classification level.
Senator King. Thank you. I think that is a very important
question in terms of the viability. To follow up on Senator
Hirono's question, a ship is not lethal if it is on its way
down.
Secretary Geurts, you mentioned directed energy, a much
more economical rather than $50,000 or $100,000 or $200,000 a
shot for a bullet. Where are we in terms of research on
directed energy? Are we at any place where it might be deployed
on some of our larger ships that have large electronic
capacity?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. We talked large surface
combatant. Some of the reasons DDG flight 3's are quite
capable--we may need more capacity to generate energy. That is
one of the things we are looking at.
I could also tell you--and I had an old saying, you know,
laser engineers all lie because I have been putting lasers on
airplanes and stuff for a long time, and we have always been 2
years away from it for the last 30 years.
We are now putting them on ships. I was out on the USS
Dewey. We got laser dazzler. They are going on fleet ships that
will be forward deployed.
Senator King. These are destructive lasers. These are not
little green spots.
Secretary Geurts. So we start with dazzlers. Right? So we
are going to do that. So that is one element. So we will get
that out there. That actually is a very useful warfighting
capability. On the Portland, we are putting a laser on there so
we can go test it at high power. Then we have got on our
destroyers now another laser coming forward that we can
integrate with a combat system.
So we are beyond now proving that the technology exists. We
are putting it on ships now. The trick is how do you integrate
that into the combat system and how do the sailors on that ship
fight that system in the right way. That is the learning we are
doing by putting it on fleet ships and getting it out there on
the water.
Senator King. A similar question about a technology that
always seems to be 2 years away. Where are we on railguns?
Secretary Geurts. That one is still out there. We are
testing kind of trying to get to our goal of how fast can we
shoot over a period of time. We are testing out at White Sands
right now. We have got a test set up there. Seeing some
promising results. That integration of that system is a little
more evasive that we are going to have to continue to work
through there.
Senator King. But the work, the R&D, is being done.
Secretary Geurts. The R&D is being done.
Then there is kind of a third area what I will call
hypervelocity projectiles. So can I use 5-inch guns with new
projectiles that allow me to create very effective low-cost
ways to take down an enemy's higher-cost hypersonic type
weapons. I think there is promise in there. We are doing a lot
of testing in that realm as well.
Senator King. We always think of our competition and great
power competition as ships and bullets and guns and troops, but
I think a lot of the competition is in R&D and innovation. We
have got to be the most innovative and agile because we are in
an entirely different competitive situation than we were even
10 years ago.
Secretary Geurts. Absolutely. If you look at our 2021
budget, I mean, it is a lot of pressures. Our R&D is up. That
came at a price in some of our procurement, and that is the
trade we made so we can get ourselves modernized and pivoted
towards kind of the new technology.
Then separately--and I am happy to come brief you in a lot
more detail--rebuilding, restructuring our S&T enterprise and
creating much faster, cleaner pathways to get new ideas whether
they are from the fleet or from a small business or a non-
traditional academic, creating a pathway to bring those into
programs much more quickly than long, laborious, valley of
death journeys that many have had to go so far.
Senator King. I thank you and compliment you for that
because that is essential. Time is the other factor in this
competition. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir.
Senator Perdue. Admiral Kilby, it is easy from the outside
to look at statistics. I do not mean to do that but I have a
question about the Columbia-class because I am afraid of the
gap between the extended life that we are putting on the Ohio-
class and the time frame of bringing the Columbia-class on.
That potential gap is what I am going for.
In light of recent lead ship presentations, the performance
is not very good. I know that was before the three of you were
in your jobs. But a total of $8 billion more than the initial
budget was required to construct these ships. Each lead ship
experienced cost growth of at least 10 percent, and three of
them had 80 percent of more cost revisions up. It is funny.
None of them went down. That does not happen in the real world
either, by the way.
Each lead ship was delivered to the fleet at least 6 months
late. This is what I am concerned about, is time, and of the
eight lead ships delayed, more than eight were delayed more
than 2 years.
So what comfort should we have in the Columbia-class? I
think it is the third largest program--the second or third,
anyway--in DOD. They are going to carry 70 percent of the
nuclear payload of the triumvirate well into this--for most of
this century.
So the question is, what confidence should we take away
from the new direction in terms of our supply chain, our
vendors? We went to 17,000 15 years ago, vendors for
submarines, down to 3,000. Whether it is you or the Secretary,
either one.
Vice Admiral Kilby. Yes, sir. I will start and just assure
you that I have happened to be back in the Pentagon for a
couple budget cycles in a row. Columbia remains our number one
priority. It is me when I put together the budget. It is me
when we consider issues. It has got our single focus to ensure
that ship deploys in 2031.
Senator Perdue. Now that you have been in and looked at it,
are you pretty confident it is on target to do that?
Vice Admiral Kilby. Yes, sir. But I think we need to watch
it, and we need to keep the structure we have and the focus and
prioritization to meet that commitment for our nation. So that
will continue.
I just wanted to give you our assurance this is not a
recent change in our behavior. That consistency helps us look
at issues and work with Secretary Geurts and the staff. We have
been up to visit Groton and all the facilities down in Newport
News. I have been there, and the CNO has been there. So it has
got our attention.
Senator Perdue. So the consistency of funding I know has
been there. Two things. One is tell me how CRs affect that
consistency of funding each year because I am concerned about
the supply chain base, the productive base that is actually
going to help you do the 2031. Then as a carry-on to that, how
confident are we that the maintenance facilities are going to
be able to handle the new Columbia-class?
Vice Admiral Kilby. So I will ask Secretary Geurts to help
me here. But what I wanted to tee up for him before that is the
single focus and consistency on this program and our
acknowledgement that we have to meet that commitment.
Senator Perdue. Good. Thank you. So he passed you the CR
question.
Secretary Geurts. Yes. So we will need to start
construction at full speed----
Senator Perdue. This year.
Mr. Geurts.--this year, and so you already have a
legislative proposal for us to get incremental funding
authority for the first two ships. We are negotiating those
right now with Electric Boat. I feel very confident where we
are sitting right now. So we will be ready to roll. If we are
in a CR, then----
Senator Perdue. Even if we do that, if we are in a CR in
the fourth quarter of this year--it looks very likely at this
point--will that not delay that?
Secretary Geurts. I am confident the Department will bring
this on as an anomaly, given its importance. I ask the
Committee's support in working that through and approving that
as an anomaly, should we get in that case.
In terms of what allows me to feel more comfortable about
Columbia than other lead ships, a couple different things. One,
the design maturity of this. One, I would say Jim has not
changed the requirements on the ship for a long time. We have
steady requirements. We have steady funding, two really good
ingredients.
The third is we are not going to start construction with a
design we have not completed. So we are on path to have 83
percent of the detailed design complete before we start
construction. To put that in perspective, in Virginia, it was
43 percent; in Ford, it was 27 percent. So we will have the
highest--in my opening remarks, when I say the highest degree
of design completion before construction start.
Now, what did concern me when we talked Virginia was were
we going to overload the industrial base by trying to do too
much too fast. That was how we restructured that multi-year
because the one thing that could still cause us issues is if we
overload the waterfront. We have put in detailed reviews before
start construction of any of the Virginias in the multi-year,
and we have negotiated terms in the contract that we can move
those construction starts and deliveries around to make sure
that we do not have a hard conflict because, again, Columbia
will be the priority.
Having said that, Virginia is the thing that gives us the
best chance of success because we have stood up the workforce.
It is an experienced workforce, and we are taking all of that
into Columbia.
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
The maintenance of those two boats, Virginia and Columbia,
going forward?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. So, again, we have a lot of
common equipment between Virginia and Columbia. So in that
shape, we will be in pretty good shape. A lot of commonality on
the missile side. But we have got to, again, continue to focus
on it so that we have--a lot of the SIOP we are doing is
putting in place the structure at the shipyards so that they
can both take the Virginia payload module. So we have had to
extend facilities and dry docks for the longer Virginia payload
module, as well as Columbia. We are on track for that right
now.
Senator Perdue. Senator Hirono?
Senator Hirono. No. Thank you.
Senator Perdue. Senator King, do you have another?
Senator King. I do not think I am an advocate one way or
another on this, but I have always been a little nervous about
the winner-take-all structure of the frigates. What is your
thinking? I know there has been some discussion about it, but
it just strikes me that if one yard gets all 20 and in terms of
timing, in terms of risk, in terms of competition, it might
make some sense to divide that contract. Where are you guys on
that now?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. So as part of the competition,
without getting into great levels of details, prior to that RFP
are provisions for a technical data package. As part of the
NDAA, we have got to be in a position to recompete that
contract after the 10th ship. In my thinking, the first
priority is run a good, fair, credible, defendable competition
to pick the right ship for the fleet. We are on or ahead of our
schedule with that. I am feeling comfortable with that.
As we then choose that, we will look to see what a follow-
on strategy may be.
Senator King. Dividing the contract is still an option is
what you are saying.
Secretary Geurts. What is that, sir?
Senator King. Dividing the contract is still an option?
Secretary Geurts. Potentially. My preference and where I
think the Navy is really sitting, though, is it will not be
kind of like LCS and pick two different designs.
Senator King. Oh, yes.
Secretary Geurts. So there are certainly advantages like in
DDG-51, having two yards being capable of producing it and
creating competition like that. We are just in the Columbia
years where we are trying to keep the DDG-51 line running. We
are trying to bring up the frigate line. We are trying to
produce Columbia. We are trying to attack the Virginia. It may
be an affordability issue of how soon we could bring on a
second yard because unless you get significant quantity, it
will not be cost effective.
Senator King. Are all the frigate competitors different
designs currently?
Secretary Geurts. They are all based on parent designs, but
they all have unique designs.
Senator King. Thank you.
Admiral, do you have any thoughts on that?
Vice Admiral Kilby. My only thought, sir, is the frigate
from a requirements perspective is a key component of the
future for us. You know, that ship--the way we have worked with
the acquisition community and industry is we are introducing a
lot of common equipment that already exists like a smaller
version of the advanced missile defense radar I think is an
exemplar of that. So key for us in the future to this greater
force that works together, and I think because of the size of
it, we will be able to build more of them potentially and help
this operating concept called distributed maritime operations.
Secretary Geurts. Sir, if I might. You know, the Ph.D.
level on this for all together is--whereas I see all the
studies we have done since 2016, it talks to having a broader
variety of capabilities and potentially platforms, and so you
are not sending a high end platform to do a low end job or a
low end platform to do a higher end job. The Ph.D. level
acquisition approach we are working our way through is how can
I provide these two and the fleets they represent a wider
variety of capabilities but do that at an affordable cost that
can maintain a supplier base.
I think there are elements to it. That is going to be what
we are going to have to really work hard together over the next
couple years. So we cannot just have one-trick ponies, but we
can have 57 different ponies all completely unique. What we
have done to kind of separate the combat systems and put common
systems across our platforms helps. It helps from a maintenance
standpoint. It helps from a training----
Senator King. It is interchangeable and modular.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I would say the theme for
Admiral Kilby and I and General Smith and I is better
integrating requirements and acquisition planning so they are
not done in hand-off, you know, kind of in vacuums where it is
transactional because we can create better acquisition outcomes
by--creating much more integrated teams looking at that frigate
is a good example. I think as we add these new types of ships,
we have got to be very thoughtful as we approach that.
Senator King. You will be happy to know that Plato would
agree who said that justice consists of doing what you are best
fitted for.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir.
Senator King. We are talking about that for the Navy. Thank
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Perdue. I love being around Ph.D.'s like you all
the time.
Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony today. Unless we
have any other questions, we have a few for the record that I
would like you to respond to. But I want to close with this.
We are sitting with the United States Navy right now that
is 55 ships by my math short of our number one peer competitor,
and that does not count what Russia is doing beneath the seas
with the Sev technology and putting as many boats as there are
in the water.
Admiral, I know you are going to be with us later this
month talking about aircraft carrier efficacy in a classified
environment. I look forward to that. In that conversation, I
would really hope that we could get to the offensive strategy
of the Navy as well. I have heard a lot of conversation today
about how we defend. I hear this a lot from the Navy, and it is
centered around the aircraft carrier capability. I get that. I
am not challenging that at all. But I am concerned about that
we are so out-sticked today in terms of range, in terms of
quantity of munitions, and so forth that it adds a dimension to
this quantitative review that we are throwing up on the chart
here that we are headed toward a world in a very short period
of time in the planning period that we have to build these big
ships of 15 years of being 80 ships in deficit just to China.
So this is a big equation. I appreciate you guys being on the
wall. We look forward to working with you and use us as a
resource.
Yes, sir. Senator King?
Senator King. Mr. Chairman, I would add there are
disturbing indications in various parts of the world that China
and Russia are starting to cooperate.
Senator Perdue. Well, they are already members of the
Shanghai Cooperative Organization, as are two other nuclear
powers. There are four nuclear powers.
Senator King. That takes that chart and makes it look a lot
worse.
Senator Perdue. Yes, sir. Two of those we consider allies.
So this is a very dangerous world out there.
Thank you guys. This is a--I hate to use it. It is a sea
change, but this is a real change in attitude. We see it here.
We want to make the continuity of funding and the continuity of
this relationship work. This Subcommittee is charged to do
that. So tell us what we need to do. We will provide the
oversight. I am not happy that we do not have the shipbuilding
plan. I understand the circumstances, but we will have that
conversation later this afternoon. Thank you all for being
here. I appreciate it.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
waterborne security barriers
1. Senator Shaheen. Secretary Geurts, in both the fiscal year 2019
(Public Law 115-232, Section 130) and fiscal year 2020 (Public Law 116-
92, Section 126) National Defense Authorization Acts, language was
included that set requirements for the performance, certification and
the awarding of future contracts for waterborne security barriers at
Navy ports. What has the navy done to comply with these requirements?
Secretary Geurts. The Navy is fully complying with the National
Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA) for fiscal years 2019 and 2020, which
prohibit Navy from obligating or expending funds to procure legacy
waterborne security barriers for Navy ports, with exceptions for
exigent circumstances and existing barrier refurbishment. The Navy is
researching and testing maritime security systems with improved
functionality, capability and/or efficiency. We are in the process of
analyzing this research and test data to inform how Navy will update
the operational and functional requirements for future barrier systems
and develop an acquisition strategy for the next generation. In the
meantime, if the Navy determines there is a need to procure barriers
beyond the exceptions noted in the NDAA, the Secretary of Navy will
submit a waiver as required by the NDAA, to include a requirements
document, a certification of capability level, an acquisition strategy
and certification that any contract will be awarded in accordance with
full and open competition requirements of 10 USC 2304.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 AND
THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2020,
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Seapower,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
MARINE CORPS GROUND MODERNIZATION
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator David
Perdue (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Senators Perdue, Ernst, Hawley, Hirono,
Blumenthal, Kaine, and King.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAVID PERDUE
Senator Perdue. Call the hearing to order.
The Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower convenes
this morning to examine Marine Corps Ground Programs in Review
of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2021 and
the Future Years Defense Program.
We welcome our two distinguished witnesses this morning,
The Honorable James F. Geurts, Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Research, Development, and Acquisition. Good morning, sir.
Secretary Geurts. Good morning.
Senator Perdue.--Lieutenant General Eric Smith, Commanding
General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Deputy
Commander for Combat Development and Integration. Good morning,
sir.
Lieutenant General Smith. Good morning.
Senator Perdue. The purpose of this hearing is to review
the budget request in the context of how the Marine Corps is
adjusting its ground modernization strategy to support the
National Defense Strategy. Today, the world is more dangerous
than any time in my lifetime. I agree with the National Defense
Strategy that today we're facing five key threats in our
national security: China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and global
terrorism. We face these threats across five domains: land,
air, sea, cyber, and space. As we speak, our country's
adversaries are plotting to undermine us, overtake us, and, in
some cases, eliminate our very way of life.
Our military remains the envy of the world, but the
competition is picking up, and we cannot be complacent. There
is no doubt the threats posed in our potential adversaries--by
our potential adversaries apply to Marine Corps ground units,
particularly the roughly 21,000 marines stationed or deployed
west of the International Date Line. I am particularly
interested in the extent to which the Commandant's planning
guidance has driven a reallocation of resources in this budget
request, including in the key areas of ground-based long-range
precision fires, command-and-control systems for degraded
environment, air and missile defense, unmanned systems, ground
mobility modernization, and emerging capabilities. I also look
forward to hearing how the Marine Corps intends to modernize
and field new equipment to meet the challenges faced on future
battlefields.
This subcommittee will continue to work with the Marine
Corps to build ground capabilities ready to defend U.S.
national interests, and will continue to demand the best use of
every taxpayer dollar. I look forward to our witnesses'
testimony and the question-and-answer period that we have
before us.
I now recognize Ranking Member Senator Hirono.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAZIE K. HIRONO
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
I welcome our witnesses, Secretary Geurts--was it only 2
days ago?
[Laughter.]
Senator Hirono.--we're back--and General Smith, to this
hearing. This is to focus on the request for Marine Corps
ground modernization programs, and we think that your
testimony--well, I thank you for your testimony and for your
service to our country.
As the National Defense Strategy states, the primary
challenge facing our Nation is the reemergence of long-term
strategic competition with Russia and China, and this shift in
strategic direction has important implications for our marines.
The men and women who serve in the U.S. Marine Corps are vital
to global operations critical to our national defense, and we
must ensure they remain ready and capable of addressing
contingency--contingencies at a moment's notice.
Last year, General Berger released his Commandant's
Planning Guidance offering his strategic vision for the Marine
Corps. This guidance supports the National Defense Strategy and
makes clear that the highest priority of the Commandant is the
future-force design of the Marine Corps. To support this
effort, the Marine Corps will closely scrutinize and eventually
divest legacy defense platforms and capabilities that do not
support the Commandant's Planning Guidance. This new force-
design effort ultimately impacts many of the Marine Corps
ground modernization priorities that we will discuss today. I
hope our witnesses can provide this committee with an update on
these efforts.
Of course, once the Integrated Naval Force Structure
Assessment, FSA, is released, it will provide insight into how
the Marine Corps will operate as it faces the challenges of the
future. Like many of my colleagues, I hope we will have that
planning document from the Defense Secretary's office in the
near future.
The readiness of the Marine Corps remains a priority for
this committee, which includes making sure our marines field
combat-effective equipment that is in proper working order. To
that end, the fiscal year 2021 budget request makes targeted
investments in the ground combat portfolio of the Marine Corps.
The budget includes a total of 2.9 billion for Marine Corps
procurement, and nearly 1.3 billion for research, development,
test, and evaluation ground systems funding. Secretary Geurts,
as you testified last week before the House Armed Services
Committee, you said, quote, ``The Marine Corps ground portfolio
has shown significant progress over the last 5 years and is a
top performing portfolio in the Department of the Navy.
Programs are consistently meeting or delivering ahead of
schedule, putting capabilities into the hands of the marines in
the field today,'' end quote. That is good-news story, and I
encourage our witnesses today to share with this committee the
lessons that you all have learned.
One of the most important Marine Corps ground modernization
programs is the amphibious combat vehicle, ACV. The ACV is an
8-wheeled armored personnel carrier that will provide improved
lethality and survivability to marines, and it will replace the
assault amphibious vehicle, AAV, which has been in operation
for over 40 years. Guess we got our money's worth.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hirono. The Marine Corps had originally planned to
procure two increments of the ACV; however, the initial vehicle
demonstrated increased capability, and the Marine Corps made
the decision to combine all variants into one family-of-
vehicles program. I think that's probably a--that was probably
a very wise money-saving as well as very efficient way to make
the decision. Thank you. The fiscal year 2021 budget request
includes 479 million to procure 72 full-rate production ACVs. I
would welcome an update from our witnesses on the status of the
ACV program.
The Marine Corps is also pursuing the joint light tactical
vehicle, JLTV. This is a joint Army and Marine Corps program
designed to replace the high mobility multi-wheeled vehicle,
better known as Humvees. The JLTV provides increased protection
while ensuring vehicles are within the weight constraints to
enable expeditionary missions. The fiscal year 2021 budget
includes 382 million to procure 752 vehicles. I assume you're
on track for that.
In addition to the major ground vehicle modernization
programs, the Marine Corps has prioritized funding in the
fiscal year 2021 budget request for the expeditionary ground/
air task-oriented radar, G/ATOR, as a replacement for legacy
radar systems. The Marine Corps plans to procure eight of these
systems this coming fiscal year. The budget request also
supports improvements to the high mobility artillery rocket
system and funding for research efforts to address the long-
range precision-fire capability gaps that exist between U.S.
Forces and our adversaries.
What I have highlighted--while I have highlighted some of
the efforts that the Marine Corps is pursuing to field the
capabilities the future force requires, the Marine Corps must
also maintain legacy platforms that remain critical to
addressing current threats. I hope that you will inform this
committee how you are managing risk by reducing and divesting
of legacy platforms while prioritizing funding for new
capabilities that will be fielded to the force.
I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you.
Senator Perdue. We now have time for statements from our
two witnesses today.
Secretary Geurts.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES F. GEURTS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION
Secretary Geurts. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Perdue, Ranking Member Hirono, distinguished
members of the subcommittee, thanks again for the opportunity
to appear before you to address the Department of the Navy's
fiscal 2020--or 2021 budget request as it applies to the marine
ground systems.
Joining me today, again, is Lieutenant General Eric Smith.
He is the Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Combat
Development and Integration, and we look forward to testifying
in front of you today.
With your permission, I have a few brief opening remarks
that I'd like to put in the record for the two of us.
Senator Perdue. Yes, sir.
Secretary Geurts. We thank the subcommittee and all of
Congress for your leadership and stead support of the
Department of the Navy. Our 2021 budget submission delivers
ground vehicle and weapons readiness while modernizing to
deliver a more lethal force in support of 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.
As mentioned by Senator Hirono, the Marine Corps ground
portfolio is a top-performing portfolio in the Department of
the Navy. It's showing consistent delivery of equipment on or
ahead of schedule, on or below budget, with performance above
what we have as our threshold requirements. I'm very proud of
the hard work both from the requirements side, from the
acquisition side, and from our operating forces, as we've all
worked together to get this portfolio where it needs to be so
our marines always have the best equipment to do the job we're
putting on their shoulders.
To highlight a few programs: last fiscal year, the Marine
Corps leaned forward in fielding the JLTV, in partnership with
the Army. We reached our initial operating capability 10 months
early. We have over 500 vehicles fielded. That partnership with
the Army has been particularly strong and particularly
beneficial for the Marine Corps and, I think, also for the
Army. That program is in really, really good shape.
The amphibious combat vehicle continues to execute on its
baseline schedule and is going to enter initial operational
test this fiscal year, with a full-rate production decision
scheduled this fall. Recently, we completed all the live-fire
testing for threshold performance on that vehicle, and we have
met those threshold requirements already. So, that program is
in good shape.
The G/ATOR radar, we've fielded 10 of those systems. We're
continuing to field those. We've made it through full-rate
production decision. We're also working closely with the joint
forces to ensure that it's fully integrated, and, to the degree
that that radar can help other services in some of their
requirements, we're partnering closely with those other
services.
Our highest ground modernization priority is our ground-
based antiship missile. That couples this JLTV, in an unmanned
form, with a Navy strike missile. Again, leveraging things that
are already developed so we don't have to spend money
redeveloping things that already exist. This capability, when
employed--or deployed with our marines forward, gives them the
opportunity to both protect our forces as well as extract a
cost on our enemy, should they decide to do so.
These and the many other programs reflect a lot of hard
work across the community and show the value of increased
integration between the Navy and the Marine Corps--the Navy,
Marine Corps, and the rest of the joint team, and the
acquisition and requirements teams, who, together, have been
delivering these transformative capabilities into the hands of
our warfighters.
Continued budget predictability and stability will be
necessary to maintain this positive momentum. Thank you for the
strong support this subcommittee has always provided our
sailors and marines and their families. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. We look forward to
answering your questions.
Senator Perdue. Thank you, Secretary.
General Smith.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ERIC M. SMITH, USMC, COMMANDING
GENERAL, MARINE CORPS COMBAT DEVELOPMENT COMMAND; DEPUTY
COMMANDANT FOR COMBAT DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION
Lieutenant General Smith. Sir, I think Secretary Geurts
will--has spoken for both of us, in all candor, sir. I'm just
excited about taking your questions and give you some----
Senator Perdue. Well, that----
Lieutenant General Smith.--answers, because we have some
truly good-news stories to tell you on how we're best utilizing
the dollars that you're gracious enough to support us with.
Senator Perdue. Well, it sounds like it, but I never give--
I never want to do one of these hearings without giving the
three-star in the room and opportunity to talk.
[Laughter.]
Senator Perdue. So, thank you, sir.
Lieutenant General Smith. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Perdue. We'll start with that, General Smith. I'd
like to talk about China. I know last week you brought it up in
a couple of answers to several questions. It looks like the NDS
is requiring, as Secretary Mattis called before he left, a
maritime focus because of the way China has developed and
because of the geography involved. You talked a little bit
about their aggressive behavior, particularly in the first
island chain. I was--I had the great opportunity--I was very
blessed to participate in a flyover, part of a FONOP in the
South China Sea late last year, and I was so impressed with
what was going on there, both Marine personnel as well as Navy
personnel. It was just a first-class operation. These young
people are the best we have. It's amazing. I want to
congratulate both of you on that.
I have a question, though, about how the Marine Corps
ground programs support the NDS and the Navy in this
reposturing toward the mission with China, and particularly in
the first island chain.
Lieutenant General Smith. So, sir, thank you for that.
As you noted in your statement, sir, we've got about 21,000
marines west of the International Date Line now, and that
number fluctuates on any given day, based on exercise
schedules, et cetera. So, we are currently present in the first
island chain throughout the Pacific, the South China Sea in
particular. Those marines are there now. They're there
conducting exercises, such as Balikatan, Cobra Gold, et cetera,
and so, the Commandant's vision and focus is that you have to
be inside that first island chain, which we already are, in
order to impose a cost on any adversary. Any, and what we are
trying to do, sir, is ensure that those marines, as they are
forward deployed inside the weapons engagement zone of any
adversary--in this case, you're talking about the first island
chain--that they're organized, trained, and equipped to
actually impose a cost on any adversary. So, when we talk
about, sir, things like the amphibious combat vehicle or the
ground-based antiship missile, paired with a stripped-down,
lightened, joint light tactical vehicle that is robotic, that
fires a antiship missile, those types of capabilities are
redundant command-and-control architecture that can be
independent from the overarching architecture. When we have
those capabilities resident with us at all times within either
the first island chain or anywhere within the Pacific, that is
a threat that has to be reckoned with by a threat, as opposed
to--we would have to return to, for example, a base, pick up
heavier, bulkier equipment, which is the legacy equipment that
Senator Hirono discussed, and return to a potential fight. We
can't do that. We have to take it with us, have it with us at
all times. That's the concept, sir. I think the programs that
have been listed by yourself and Senator Hirono are exactly the
kind of programs that are robust, resilient, and lethal, that
the Marines have and are beginning to field within that first
island chain. This budget will allow us to fulfill that
obligation to those young marines and sailors that are out
there right now. They're just not as well-trained, equipped,
and organized as they might be with this continued steady
funding.
Thank you, sir.
[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Geurts and
Lieutenant General Smith follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by Secretary James F. Geurts and Lieutenant
General Eric M. Smith
introduction
Great power competition has fundamentally altered the manner in
which the U.S. Military must operate in the maritime domain. Our
competitors have carefully studied U.S. Forces for the past two decades
and built a force specifically designed to counter American maritime
power and influence. Consequently, they have rapidly expanded their
capabilities to deny U.S. Forces freedom of access within critical
maritime terrain and are increasingly motivated by pursuits of
political, economic, and military hegemony in key regions.
The National Defense Strategy acknowledges this increasingly
complex global security environment, and the Department of Defense has
focused on strategic competition. Joint Doctrine Note 1-19, Competition
Continuum, posits that, rather than a world either at peace or at war,
there is ``a world of enduring competition conducted through a mixture
of cooperation, competition below armed conflict, and armed conflict.''
The Navy and Marine Corps, therefore, are revising our organizations,
training, and equipment to best support long-term strategic competition
across the competition continuum. Integrated American Naval Power
remains focused on deterring and, if necessary, defeating peer
adversaries in a contested environment through persistent forward
presence and action in an all-domain battlespace.
Our first priority remains deterrence, as the cost of competition
will always be less than the cost--in both blood and treasure--of armed
conflict. When called upon, however, the Navy and Marine Corps will
fight forward together for sea control and sea denial, forcing
potential adversaries to react to our naval efforts.
Over the past 18 months, multiple wargames have concluded that the
best way for the Marine Corps to support the naval and joint force is
to persist as ``stand-in forces'' inside the range of adversary fires,
to maintain contact with our allies and partners overseas, and to
compete below the level of armed conflict. Combined, these actions
complicate an adversary's decision calculus. Should deterrence fail,
these forces will be postured to blunt the enemy's actions and impose
costly and disruptive dilemmas on him. To do so, the Marine Corps seeks
to arm its Fleet Marine Forces with long range precision weapons which
can strike enemy ships at extended ranges to assist the Navy in sea
denial. Additionally, the Marine Corps will pursue command and control
systems that allow our weapons to fire based on information obtained
from joint U.S. assets across the battlespace. These systems will also
ensure that information obtained by the Marine Corps' ``stand-in
forces'' can be passed to any U.S. strike asset across the joint force.
This capability is called ``any sensor, any shooter'' and supports the
entire joint force.
In order to create this new warfighting construct, the Marine Corps
must realign our efforts and resources to pursue capabilities that
provide the best counter to peer adversaries. With the assistance of
the United States Congress, the fiscal year 2021 budget request will
invest in the modernization for a more lethal force in support of the
National Defense Strategy and the Commandant's Planning Guidance. Key
investments include ground-based long-range precision fires; command
and control systems for a degraded environment; air and missile
defense; unmanned systems; ground mobility modernization; and emerging
capabilities.
ground-based long-range precision fires
The National Defense Strategy, as well as emerging naval concepts,
identifies 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. To support this requirement, the
Marine Corps is committed to fielding ground-based weapons with
sufficient range and precision to provide operationally effective
surface-to-surface fires in the land and maritime domains.
The Marine Corps' highest ground modernization priority, a Ground-
Based Anti-Ship Missile (GBASM) capability, will provide these anti-
ship fires from land as part of an integrated Naval Anti-Surface
Warfare campaign. This forward-deployed and survivable capability will
enhance the lethality of our naval forces and will help to deny our
adversaries the use of key maritime terrain.
The Marine Corps' GBASM solution is the Navy Marine Expeditionary
Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS), consisting of an unmanned Joint
Light Tactical Vehicle-based mobile launch platform, called the
Remotely Operated Ground Unit for Expeditionary Fires (ROGUE-Fires),
and Naval Strike Missiles (NSM). The NSM is identical to the Navy's
Over the Horizon Weapon System deployed on the Littoral Combat Ship and
will provide the Marine Corps with a missile capable of sea-skimming,
high-g maneuverability, and the ability to engage targets from the
side, rather than top-down. This maximizes lethality and missile
survivability. The first live-fire test of NMESIS took place in
December 2019 and a second live-fire demonstration with a guided NSM is
planned for June 2020.
To increase lethality, the Marine Corps' ground-based long-range
precision fires will consist of a variety of capabilities that
complicate the adversary's decision-making processes and ability to
defend themselves. In line with this concept, in fiscal year 2019, the
DoD's Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) initiated development of a
Ground-Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) capability that will provide
increased range to complement NMESIS. The Marine Corps will work with
SCO to continue design and development of a mobile launch platform in
order to prototype and field a Marine Corps ground-based, long-range,
land attack cruise missile capability for employment by its rocket
artillery units. Prototype launchers will undergo firing and endurance
testing through fiscal year 2022, with the aim of fielding a battery of
launchers to an operational unit in fiscal year 2023. This capability
will add additional firing capacity to the Integrated Naval Force in
support of both maritime and land operations in any theater.
The Marine Corps is also expanding the operational capacity of the
High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS); a battalion will stand
up within 2d Marine Division during fiscal years 2021 and 2022 which
will bring HIMARS capacity to two Active battalions and one Reserve
battalion. HIMARS provides the capability to employ the lethal Multiple
Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Family of Munitions (MFOM), which was
developed and is also employed by U.S. Army HIMARS and MLRS equipped
units. The MFOM includes GPS-guided precision munitions and will
include the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) now in development. The
PrSM will enable rocket artillery units to accurately engage land and
maritime, stationary and mobile, targets at ranges significantly
greater than currently fielded munitions.
The combination of the above weapons fielded to the Fleet Marine
Forces will provide the naval force with precise, lethal, offensive,
surface-to-surface fires that enable sea control, sea denial, and the
prosecution of landward objectives.
command and control for a degraded environment
Fleet Marine Forces require a sustainable, defendable, and
resilient Command and Control (C2) network. This network is part of the
Naval Tactical Grid and supports Joint All Domain Command and Control
(JADC2), providing timely, secure, and persistent information exchange
while enhancing battlespace awareness to dispersed tactical units.
Critical to that effort is the ability to coordinate and synchronize
distributed fires and sensor systems to inform decision makers so that
they can take decisive and timely action at the speed of relevance.
Assured C2 capabilities enable and enhance combat effectiveness as well
as protect forces operating from remote, globally deployed locations.
Command and control in a degraded environment requires a layered
approach with the ability to adapt to changing electromagnetic
environments beyond the line of sight. This layered network approach,
coupled with a command philosophy that allows commanders at all
echelons the freedom to make decisions while operating within their
higher commander's intent, provides a resilient, dynamic C2 structure
that harnesses new and emerging technology to support decision
superiority.
Tactical Communications Modernization (TCM) provides crypto-
modernized radio systems to meet National Security Agency mandates.
High Frequency (HF) radios have been prioritized for modernization in
order to support naval concepts in a spectrum contested environment.
These new radios, coupled with advanced waveforms in development,
provide a more robust, resilient, and secure radio frequency networks
that support dispersed forces operating inside the range of adversary
fires.
Networking On the Move (NOTM) provides Fleet Marine Forces with a
robust, over-the-horizon and beyond line-of-sight, digital C2
capability while on-the-move and at-the-halt. NOTM provides maneuvering
forces with the ability to seamlessly conduct digital C2 through
access, collaboration, and exchange of tactical voice, video, and data
while using a full suite of Combat Operations Center tactical software
applications and services to support decision-making, fires, and
increased multi-domain situational awareness from anywhere in the
battlespace. NOTM provides access to three external network enclaves
(NIPR, SIPR, and Mission Specific) via wideband satellite (Ku, Ka-
currently developing X-band) communications services, and it bridges
aerial Link 16 networks to ground forces to increase lethality of
dispersed forces. Mounted and dismounted users are connected to these
network enclaves via Type 1 encrypted wireless local area networks.
NOTM is purpose built to support our naval and joint concepts that
require our forces to fight distributed while allowing commanders the
ability to effectively command and control forces in a contested all-
domain environment.
Terrestrial Wideband Transmission System (TWTS) provides high
capacity, beyond the line of sight and line of sight communications via
tropo-scatter capabilities in a space-denied, terrestrial-only
environment. This family of systems provides more flexible, scalable,
and maneuverable terrestrial capabilities that also allows landing
forces terrestrial ship-to-shore communications, retransmissions, and
relays. Furthermore, the line of sight system will be augmented by free
space optics communications which has line of sight low probability of
intercept, low probability of detection, and anti-jam characteristics.
Marine Corps Wideband Satellite Communications Family of Systems
(MC-WSATCOM FoS) is a comprehensive, integrated, and sustainable
solution designed to address current and future warfighting capability
needs using military and commercial SATCOM systems in an electro-
magnetic spectrum contested environment. The MC-WSATCOM systems will be
fully interoperable with joint and naval wideband SATCOM systems, and
will provide the capabilities enabling C2 in Expeditionary Amphibious
Base Operations.
Combat Data Network (CDN) provides firewalls, servers, and data
infrastructure components that allow tactical and deployed forces to
connect to the Defense Information Systems Network, Theater, and Marine
Corps Enterprise Networks. Critical applications and services, as well
as artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms, will be
hosted on the CDN to operate in a disconnected and degraded environment
until connectivity is restored to enable replication and high data rate
information sharing.
G/ATOR is a state-of-the-art, ground-based, short-to-medium range,
expeditionary radar system designed as a single materiel solution to
satisfy air surveillance, air defense, ground counter-fire and counter-
battery, and potentially air traffic control mission requirements.
Block I achieved Initial Operational Capability in February 2018 and
Block II did so in March 2019. Full Operational Capability will be
achieved in fiscal year 2025. G/ATOR detects the most formidable air
threats to our forces and will out-pace our adversaries 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 manned and unmanned aviation
missions in support of the fleet. CAC2S eliminates the current
dissimilar legacy systems and adds capability for aviation combat
direction and air defense functions. It provides a single networked
system that integrates Marine manned and unmanned aviation operations
with joint aviation C2 agencies. The Marine Corps intends to fully
field CAC2S by fiscal year 2021.
air and missile defense
In great power competition, forward bases and legacy infrastructure
will likely be vulnerable to an enemy strike; therefore, the Marine
Corps must ensure our forces possess the capabilities required to
mitigate those threats for themselves, the fleet, and the joint force.
Additionally, naval forces around the world face risks posed by
adversaries with ready access to low-cost asymmetric capabilities--
whether traditional rockets or unmanned systems--that can strike our
forces. With the increasing lethality of these low-cost systems as well
as long-range precision fires, air and missile defenses provide
critical capabilities for the Marine Corps to protect personnel,
equipment, and installations and to persist as the Nation's ``stand-
in'' naval expeditionary force.
The Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS) family of systems
is the Marine Corps' primary program for providing short-range surface-
to-air fires and electronic attack capability. The MADIS is being
developed in three versions: a JLTV-integrated version, a light
version, and an installation version. In July 2019, the light MADIS
successfully defeated a hostile Iranian unmanned aerial vehicle in the
Strait of Hormuz.
The Marine Corps also continues to pursue the Medium Range
Intercept Capability to provide a defense against cruise missiles. A
demonstration in August 2019 at White Sands Missile Range successfully
evaluated the integration of the Israeli Tamir missile and Battle
Management Control system with the Marine Corps' CAC2S and G/ATOR.
unmanned systems
Given our adversaries' abilities to strike with increasing range,
precision, and lethality, we must reduce exposure of our Marines
wherever possible and correspondingly increase our reliance on unmanned
systems. These platforms and payloads will be pivotal on the future
battlefield. The ability to flood an adversary's decision-making and
targeting processes with an array of low signature, affordable, and
risk-worthy platforms in the air, on the ground, and on the surface
will greatly expand the survivability and capabilities of Marines
operating within the adversary's weapon engagement zones.
For two decades, the Marine Corps has relied on unmanned aerial
systems to provide reconnaissance for our ground forces, and the Marine
Corps will continue this investment in the future. On the ground, the
aforementioned ROGUE-Fires system is an example of employing an
unmanned system to increase Marine Corps ground forces' lethality.
Another program that will support Marine Corps operations in the
future is the Long Range Unmanned Surface Vessel. This surface vessel
will provide an autonomous platform for precision fires against sea and
land targets as well as the launch and recovery of smaller unmanned
aircraft, unmanned surface craft, and unmanned underwater vehicles for
reconnaissance, surveillance, hydrographic survey, and mine detection.
In 2019, the Long Range Unmanned Surface Vessel completed the Advanced
Naval Technology Exercise-East Super Swarm Exercise and demonstrated
the ability to launch autonomous systems, keep station, and conduct
autonomous navigation while avoiding hazards on a route from Norfolk,
Virginia to Cherry Point, North Carolina. With our budget submission
for 2021, the Marine Corps will seek to procure three vessels to
conduct further evaluation and demonstration.
These unmanned systems will not replace manned platforms but will
team with them to maximize and expand our ability to sense and shoot
across the domains. The further integration of aerial, ground, and
surface unmanned systems across Fleet Marine Forces will provide the
warfighter enhanced capability to operate sensors, deliver fires, and
shorten the naval and joint force kill-chains.
ground mobility modernization
The distribution and maneuver of Fleet Marine Forces ashore will be
a key enabler of operations to sense, engage, and defeat adversary
forces occupying the maritime domain on land, in the littorals, and in
blue water. Capabilities for the warfighter must include vehicles that
can operate in complex urban terrain as well as in austere
environments. To this end, our ground mobility modernization programs
remain healthy and critical to providing protected mobility, enhanced
maneuver, and flexibility to support the full range of future
operations capabilities.
In 2019, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) program progressed
into a Family of Vehicles approach. The fiscal year 2021 budget request
will further the success of the program by continuing to fund the
procurement of the personnel variant and the development of the mission
role variants (MRV) for command and control and medium caliber cannon.
Procurement of the MRVs is planned for subsequent years. As a power
projection enabler and key source of dual domain protected mobility,
the ACV aligns with the National Defense Strategy and the Commandant's
Planning Guidance.
Paralleling our efforts with the ACV, the Marine Corps achieved
initial operational capability with the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
(JLTV) program in August 2019 with the fielding of vehicles to 3d
Battalion, 8th Marines and select elements in the training base. The
program is currently planned to fully replace the High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) by 2030. The fiscal year 2021
budget request prioritizes the fielding of vehicles to all Active
infantry battalions and designated supporting units, which will occur
by fiscal year 2022. The vehicle's design includes the capacity to
power, host, and integrate current and future capabilities, such as
GBASM and MADIS. Additionally, the Ultra-Light Tactical Vehicle (ULTV)
will be fielded during this period. This vehicle lends tactical units a
lower cost, flexible platform across a broad array of terrain sets and
mission sets to include logistics, command and control and maneuver.
emerging capabilities
Key warfighting investments along with the increased readiness of
our force lay the foundation for the Marine Corps' fulfillment of its
requirements in the National Defense Strategy. Continued and critical
investments in science, technology, research, and development will
further enhance the ability of the Fleet Marine Forces and the naval
team to impose costly and complex dilemmas on adversaries and will
enable those forces to deploy in new and more lethal formations.
Capitalizing on the transformation which began in fiscal year 2020,
the Marine Corps continues to reallocate resources from legacy
capabilities that do not meet our future requirements to modernized
capabilities aligned specifically with the National Defense Strategy
and Defense Planning Guidance. In concert with the Office of Naval
Research, the Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency, and the
Strategic Capabilities Office, the Marine Corps is aggressively
pursuing the development of disruptive capabilities in the areas of
signature management, artificial intelligence, autonomy and robotics,
expeditionary logistics, and long range precision fires in order to
increase the survivability and sustainability of our expeditionary
advanced bases within an adversary's weapon engagement zones.
conclusion
Your United States Marine Corps remains a key component of the
Nation's naval expeditionary force-in-readiness. As we undertake an era
of new challenges, a new force design coupled with emerging
capabilities will be critical to creating the competitive overmatch
desired by the National Defense Strategy and to supplying the joint
force with an ``any sensor, any shooter'' capability that persists
within an adversary's threat rings. The Marine Corps is not embarking
on this mission alone. Through the Integrated Naval Force Structure
Assessment, collaboration on naval warfighting concepts and doctrine,
and joint wargaming and experimentation, we will build a naval force
design that integrates capabilities across the warfighting domains,
defines how we operate, and results in solutions that are creative,
relevant, and resilient.
Your Marines, alongside our Navy shipmates, remain ready to defend
our Nation, and with advances in our training and education
establishment, they will continue to evolve and to build the critical
skills necessary to maximize our capabilities on the battlefield. Your
continued support for the warfighter with full and on-time funding,
your assistance in realigning our efforts and our resources for great
power competition and peer conflict, and your thoughtful oversight will
ensure your Integrated American Naval Power remains ready, relevant,
and prepared to deter and defeat current and future threats.
Senator Perdue. I'm sorry. We're having a little bit of a
problem with our timing. We're going to limit this to 5-minute
rounds, here. So, I'm going to assume--we have plenty of time.
We don't have a vote until noon, so these guys are going to
have a full boat, here.
With that, though, I'll move to Ranking Member Hirono and
her questions.
Thank you.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Over the past few years--this is a question for General
Smith--this committee has heard testimony detailing the
increase in lethality gaps between the U.S. Military and our
near-peer competitors. So, we actually are supposed to be
decreasing the gap, but the gap is increasing. The National
Defense Strategy also highlights this disparity and makes
addressing the lethality of our forces a priority. Can you
identify the investments the Marine Corps made in the fiscal
year 2021 budget request that will allow the Corps to address
gaps in lethality and effectively compete with a near-peer
competitor?
Lieutenant General Smith. Yes, ma'am. Our number-one
current unfunded priority-list item is the ground-based
antiship missile. And----
Senator Hirono. Is that what? I'm sorry. The ground-based--
--
Lieutenant General Smith. Ground-based antiship missile----
Senator Hirono. Okay.
Lieutenant General Smith.--which is the naval strike
missile. We're often asked, ma'am, What are marines doing with
an antiship missile? The response for us is actually fairly
simple. We are the littoral combat force present within the
Pacific, and in--and specifically in the first island chain. As
that force, we already can fire, in our coordination with the
Army off of our high-mobility artillery rocket system, HIMARS--
we can fire an Army ATACMS missile that goes out couple of
hundred miles. It makes sense to us that any force that is the
littoral combat force should have a weapon system that can
place a threat on an enemy ship. So, that ground-based antiship
missile, which is highly mobile, small, fits on the back of a
joint light tactical vehicle, which we'll test fire this June
after a successful test in December of a--we would call it a
slug, but it's an inert round. We actually tested that
successfully in December. We'll do the live missile in
California in January--I'm sorry--in June. That capability
causes any threat to have to take a step back and consider that
there are potentially dozens of these forces scattered
throughout the Pacific--means that the sea lanes, in support of
distributed maritime operations, are no longer free and open
for them.
Senator Hirono. So, if this missile is so important, why
was it not included in your fiscal 2021 request?
Lieutenant General Smith. Yes, ma'am. So, some of it,
ma'am, was ARC'd, and some of it is--we now have the
capability, after a successful demonstration in December, to
actually go forward. What we're trying to do--we did fund it,
parts of it. What we've asked for with the unfunded priority
list is, we have to plan for success. I believe we're going to
have it in June. When that happens, I'll be able to accelerate
the procurement of about 36 of these missiles by a year from--
--
Senator Hirono. Oh.
Lieutenant General Smith.--from 2023 to 2022. That allows
me to field this capability much faster than it otherwise would
have.
Senator Hirono. That's good.
So, the Chairman asked you some questions regarding what's
happening with, basically, China in the first island chain, and
you say that you have a presence there. How many troops--or how
many people do you have in this part of the world, in the Indo-
Pacific region? Did you say?
Lieutenant General Smith. So, on any given day, ma'am,
there's about 21,000 marines west of the International Date
Line.
Senator Hirono. Marines, okay. So, do--does that mean that
you have an obvious physical presence in this part of the
area----
Lieutenant General Smith. Ma'am, absolutely.
Senator Hirono.--in the Indo-Pacific region? Have you ever
had any encounters with Chinese forces in the first island
chain----
Lieutenant General Smith. Well, ma'am, I would----
Senator Hirono.--that you can talk about?
Lieutenant General Smith. Yes, ma'am. I would not say
``encounters with forces.'' I--my previous job, just about 8
months ago, was the commanding general of the 3rd Marine
Expeditionary Force based in Okinawa, Japan. So, those 21,000
marines west of Date Line were the ones I commanded. Today, one
of them is my son, who is forward deployed there now, so I have
a little back-channel source of information to find out how
we're really doing there.
I would not say ``encounters.'' Certainly, we've seen very
public accounts of unprofessional passages of ships and
aircraft from the Chinese against our aircraft and ships. As
far as personal encounters, we certainly see Chinese
representatives at exercises, where they often send observers.
They've been invited, in the past, to Rim of the Pacific
exercises, based out of Hawaii often.
Senator Hirono. Yes.
Lieutenant General Smith. But, no encounters, per se, for
marine ground forces there in the first island chain.
I would offer, ma'am, very quickly, that the best place for
me to be was in any of our--and I'll just say this publicly--in
any of our partner nations, the best place to be was somewhere
about 2 weeks after a Chinese delegation left, because we would
come in and actually offer training, assistance, and support.
That was very different from the encounter that many of these
countries had with Chinese delegations, which were much more
forceful and less helpful.
Senator Hirono. Okay. That's good to know.
Regarding the ACV--so, the initial variant exceeded the
capability requirements, which is unusual, I would say. So,
Secretary Geurts, what lessons, if any, can the Marine Corps
apply to future acquisition programs, based on the ACV
acquisition strategy?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. I applaud both the
requirements testing and acquisition team. What they did was,
in our initial operational assessment of the basic variant,
they tested that variant all the way to the next-increments
level of capability and thought, proactively, that had, you
know, we been successful, as we were, that would enable us to
immediately go to that next increment, as opposed to having a
costly second development program and then retrofit and retro-
----
So, by proactively, I would say, being opportunistic, and
if we're going to compete--to the Chairman's point, if we're
going to compete, we have to be very opportunistic. They were
opportunistic in preplanning, ``Hey, let's test to the next
level, let's not be afraid of it not working''----
Senator Hirono. Okay.
Secretary Geurts.--because if it works, that opens a whole
new acceleration path for us.
Senator Hirono. So, are you going to apply that test to the
next level to other acquisition----
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hirono.--programs?
Secretary Geurts. We've been----
Senator Hirono. Is that what you're saying?
Secretary Geurts.--working very closely with the
operational test community. On the Navy side, we had a missile
program, and we worked in advance. If a missile was successful,
we could suspend testing early, which saved us 75 missiles and
a lot of money, because it was successful. Even on ACV and
live-fire, we did some testing on the initial vehicle. That
testing proved successful. That allowed us to cancel a test,
where we would have had to blow up a low-rate initial
production vehicle. Now we have another vehicle for the Marine
Corps.
So, it's all about closing this distance and thinking
forward of the problem, not reacting.
Senator Hirono. Yes. I commend you for that. So, you have
other examples where you've pushed things, the testing, so
that----
Secretary Geurts. Absolutely.
Senator Hirono.--you get the results you want without
expenditure of unnecessary funds. Thank you.
I don't know where--oh, here. I should pay attention.
Thank you very much.
Senator Perdue. Senator Ernst.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, gentlemen, very much for being
here today, and, of course, we do regret the loss of our
gunnery sergeant and captain over the weekend in their fight
against ISIS, and our prayers will be, of course, with their
families.
General Smith, I'd like to start with you, please, sir. The
Marine Corps uses unpredictable deployments into INDOPACOM to
keep our adversaries really on their toes, which is a good
thing, and reaffirm and build relationships with our regional
partners. Our competitors--our near-peer competitors pay
special attention when the marines deploy with all the
equipment they would need for an offensive operation,
regardless of the simplicity or the routine nature of your
missions. So, how is the Marine Corps currently leveraging the
use of technology--specifically, an area I'm interested in,
autonomous technology--with conventional deployments to change
the calculus and, of course, the--disrupt the decisionmaking
cycle of our adversaries? If you could detail that for me,
please.
Lieutenant General Smith. Yes, ma'am. Well, first, on
behalf of Major Dan Yoo, who's the Commander of Marine Special
Operations Command, I know he would personally tell you thank
you for the condolences on the loss of those two Raiders.
Ma'am, an example--a specific example would be--we run an
evolution every year, sometimes twice a year, called ANTX, the
Advanced Naval Technology Experiment--Exercise--pardon me. We
did one at Camp Lejeune, just this last July, where we
demonstrated a capability called LRUSV, long-range unmanned
surface vessel. It's a 33-foot rigid-hull inflatable boat
that's completely autonomous. We sent it from Norfolk all the
way down the intracoastal waterway to Camp Lejeune, about 200
miles. It was completely autonomous, no people on board,
controlled, actually, from Norfolk. When it got to the
intracoastal--or to Mile Hammock Bay off Camp Lejeune, it
launched what we call ``swarming technology,'' small Coyote
drones, that can then go in and either lethally strike a target
or observe a target. So, as we field that kind of capability,
that's the kind of capability that we will then provide to
those forces forward underneath the command of Lieutenant
General Stacy Clardy, who is my replacement out in 3rd Marine
Expeditionary Force, so that these lighter, more lethal,
resilient capabilities, as we develop them--our rogue fires,
vehicle-firing, and naval strike missile--we would take those
with us on exercises so that the things that are in the--we
call them Quadcons--40-foot shipping containers as we move to
an exercise, that complicates an adversary's calculus, because
if you don't know what's in that, it could be weights for a
weight room or it could be a lethal strike missile; it could be
drone technology or underneath that canvas could be MREs and
water. That's how you calculate--or cause cost imposition,
because now an adversary has to observe everything. As we begin
to get lighter and more distributed, in support of distributed
maritime operations, with ships and personnel and smaller
units, you impose a intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance, ISR, tax on an adversary because you spread
out. Any of these capabilities could be lethal to them.
Senator Ernst. Right.
Lieutenant General Smith. Does that help answer----
Senator Ernst. Yes. It does, actually. If you could, a
little bit further, that LRUSV--right?--long-range unmanned
surface vehicle----
Lieutenant General Smith. Surface vessel.
Senator Ernst.--okay. Vessel. Excuse me. Okay. Got to get
the Army out of me. Okay. So, with that new technology,
autonomous technology, I understand using that along our coast
here, but what about operating in a degraded environment? Do
you think that that has the capability to do that and perform
just as well as it did here?
Lieutenant General Smith. Yes, ma'am. It does. The
technology, as you said, is not that complicated. It is--it's
truly--it exists now. It's--I say Buck Rogers. None of the
marines know what I'm talking about.
[Laughter.]
Senator Ernst. I get it.
[Laughter.]
Lieutenant General Smith. Yeah. But, it--this is not way
out. This is technology that exists today. So, transforming
that into something that is useful in international waters----
Senator Ernst. Yeah.
Lieutenant General Smith.--is not difficult at all.
Autonomy, most ships now operate off autopilot for the vast
majority of the time, as do aircraft. But--so, not a hard lift,
and not a hard technological challenge to make these things
happen. Not easy, and doesn't require no research, development,
and technology dollars, but certainly not something that is a
5-, 10-, 20-year project. This is--technology exists now, and,
under the leadership of Mr. Geurts, we'll be as creative----
Senator Ernst. Yeah. Thank you.
Lieutenant General Smith.--as we can in our experimentation
so we can get these things online and out to the warfighters as
quickly as we can do that.
Senator Ernst. Yeah. Certainly. I appreciate that very
much. It's something that, in my subcommittee, in Emerging
Threats and Capabilities, we continually are looking at ways
that we can lessen the--lessen the risk that will put our
marines, our sailors, our airmen, and our soldiers into--so, I
appreciate that. That's good to hear about.
Can you describe the Marine Corps efforts to streamline
information-sharing across the joint force? Would we come out
on top in a potential conflict in the Asia Pacific?
Lieutenant General Smith. Ma'am, I'll start, and pass to
Secretary Geurts.
So, for information-sharing, the overarching concept, the
Air Force is currently leading an effort called JADC2, Joint
All-Domain Command and Control. The goal is, we--you'll hear
the term ``any sensor, any shooter.'' What that simply means is
that a marine who's in the first island chain who observes or,
using a UAV, observes, or using a radar, our G/ATOR radar,
observes a target, should be able to pass that information
seamlessly to an Air Force F-35A or a Navy destroyer or frigate
and/or a long-range Army unit firing PrSM. So, that capability
underneath JADC2 is being tested and experimented. All the
services--I do a almost-weekly meeting with the other service
three-stars to make sure that all of us feed into a joint all-
domain command-and-control network that then has machine-to-
machine discussions, machine-to-machine learning, so that we
can truly have a ubiquitous command-and-control network that's
out there, and then what the Navy has to produce underneath
that, the naval grid, is when we are cut off from that
overarching grid as a distributed maritime operation forcet. We
would have the ability to still command and control within our
own naval network. We're working that very closely with
Lieutenant General Lori Reynolds and Vice Admiral Kohler.
Senator Ernst. Right. Yeah.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, ma'am. I think--"autonomy,'' we
think of sometimes in vehicles. We've got to think of it in the
information. So, as we go from small teams widely dispersed,
they don't have the time to do all the information sorting,
and--so, getting the right information to the right person at
the right times, and then also transforming from many marines
flying one vehicle to many vehicles flown by one marine. So,
getting away from a hands-on element and doing more of a
mission, ``Okay, you swarm of UAVs, go do this mission for me''
is where you're seeing that transformative thing. The--kind of,
the rip-off-and-deploy kind of R&D is out there. Our ANTX, we
had 1,700 participants.
Senator Ernst. Wow.
Secretary Geurts. Three-hundred technologies have either
gone into programs or are maturing out of that. So, again, it's
getting the user at the point of need, closest to the problem,
and we're seeing a lot of benefits from that.
Senator Ernst. Excellent.
Well, thank you, gentlemen, very much, Secretary, General.
I appreciate it. Interoperability is key, and I know our law
enforcement agencies started doing that right after 9/11. It's
about time that our DOD get on board, as well. So, thank you
very much. Appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Perdue. Senator King.
Senator King. Secretary Geurts, my first question I thought
of when you were testifying about the success of these programs
is, How did you do it? You talked a little bit to Senator
Hirono about testing, but did you also lock down requirements
early and--I mean, give me a--an outline of how you
accomplished the--something which, frankly, hasn't been going
that well in some of the other services.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Again, it comes on the backs of
some programs that didn't do so well, so that caused us, I
think, to take a step back. My experience, whether it was at
SOCOM or here with these programs, is, the closer you can link
end-user and acquiror and technologists into a much more
integrated--having a conversation, and getting to integrated
processes versus transactional processes----
Senator King. Right.
Secretary Geurts.--the better you are. So, if you have a
very transactional--somebody writes a requirement and then
hands it over the fence to somebody that go--puts a bid out,
then hands it over the fence to a contractor, that hands it
over the fence to a tester--one, that takes a long time, and,
two, it's not----
Senator King. If it's not----
Secretary Geurts. You're trying to manage downside risk----
Senator King.--right at the end, you've got to start all
over again.
Secretary Geurts. Yeah. You don't leverage opportunity that
way, because opportunity has a hard time traveling through
those gaps. I think the end reason the success was huge, we had
a very focused program executive officer with a very empowered
using team, and they worked together seamlessly. They each had
their roles, but they worked seamlessly, with one end in mind:
get marines the best equipment as fast as we could.
Senator King. Did you have the same people throughout the
process?
Secretary Geurts. We had many of the same people, but I
think it--I know we get in the debate of, you know, do we keep
people there forever?
Senator King. Right.
Secretary Geurts. I--there's a balance to that.
Senator King. Sure.
Secretary Geurts. I think we had the same----
Senator King. But, it does help to have some----
Secretary Geurts.--we had the right culture----
Senator King.--continuity.
Secretary Geurts. Yeah. There's continuity in the motions,
continuity in purpose and culture. Some of that's driven by
having the right leadership there for the whole journey, and we
had some key leaders there for the whole journey. But, more of
it's a mindset.
Senator King. Finalizing requirements and getting 80
percent of the solution instead of 100 percent, I take it, is
helpful.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Being very----
Senator King. With the past programs, the requirements keep
shifting, the manufacturer keeps having to reinvent things as
they go along.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Being very pragmatic of not
chasing--you know, the programs that tend not to work well is,
you have the big-bang theory, and you work for a long time to
then prove if the big-bang worked or not, as opposed to doing a
much more--faster, incrementally funding. I think the 80-
percent theory is going to go back to--you know, from my SOCOM
days, it's 20 percent, five times as fast, and just being able
to quickly create iterations that then, at time of war or
crisis, you can pull away.
Senator King. A new weapon that's still in the development
stage doesn't do much good in a conflict.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I think the other trick is----
Senator King. General, do you want to----
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir.
Senator King. I think the General wanted to----
Lieutenant General Smith. Mr. Secretary, if I may.
Secretary Geurts. Yeah, go ahead.
Lieutenant General Smith. Sir, just one other example. For
example----
Senator King. Is your mic on? I'm sorry.
Lieutenant General Smith. Sir, it is.
Senator King. Yeah, okay.
Lieutenant General Smith. I'm using my Texas quiet voice.
Sorry, sir.
Senator King. I didn't know there was a Texas quiet voice.
Lieutenant General Smith. Well, I'm from North Texas, sir.
So----
Senator King. Oh, okay.
[Laughter.]
Lieutenant General Smith. So, sir, an example. When we've
tested out the amphibious combat vehicle, the Marine Corps also
made a commitment. We said, ``We're going to take an entire
infantry battalion,'' 1st Battalion, 7th Marines--we took them
out of our training exercise and employment plan, which is
deployments and major exercises, and said, ``Your mission for
the next year is, you are the testbed.'' One single battalion.
Because, otherwise, sir, if you move it from unit to unit, the
same marines learn the same initial----
Senator King. Right.
Lieutenant General Smith.--challenges, and, over 3 months,
if you asked them, 6 months into a test, the things they
worried about the first 2 weeks would have been found to be
insignificant. So, we carved out an entire battalion, 800
marines, for an entire year to do that test and eval. So, you
got a steady state of feedback from lance corporal staff
sergeants----
Senator King. Well, I want you guys to bottle this
throughout the Defense Department, because we've had a lot of
fits and starts and unsuccessful development, particularly on
the vehicle front. So, please share this information.
Secretary Geurts, do a little white paper, how to do
procurement right.
Changing the subject. Is the G/ATOR program going to be at
all useful with regard to hypersonics? Do you think that is at
a--is that going to be--well, I think I stated it. Is it going
to be useful in that situation?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Maybe in a different forum we
can go into a little more detail with you. Happy to give you
some information in that. But, certainly, it is a extremely
powerful radar. In the initial fielding, we didn't populate all
of the antenna array, so there is still some opportunity to
grow that. We wanted to get the initial capability out there,
kind of to----
Senator King. Well, I think one of our----
Secretary Geurts.--previous point.
Senator King.--most urgent strategic challenges is
hypersonics, particularly to the fleet, and so, I hope we can
stay on that.
Command and control, cyber risk. Centralizing command and
control makes all kinds of sense, but it presents a fat target
to a cyber-enabled enemy. I take it--I am assuming that the
development of these new systems takes cyber risk very much
into account.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Part of our operational
testing----
Senator King. The right answer was yes. I like----
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Yeah. It's--it--part of our
operational testing, we do that. Now, is it suitable? Is it
effective? Then, how does it fare in the cyber realm?
Senator King. Thank you.
Thank you, gentlemen. I'm hoping to get back. I've got a
few more questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Perdue. Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary, General, for being here.
Let me also take this opportunity to offer my condolences
to the families of the two marines that you lost this past
weekend--on Sunday, I think it was--and to say that we're
grateful for their service, and grateful for yours.
General, if I could start with you, let's talk about
intermediate-range missiles, if we could for a second. The FY20
NDAA prohibited funding for the procurement or deployment of
intermediate-range missiles. If FY21 NDAA contains a similar
prohibition, can you talk to us about what that will mean for
your ability to field the long-range fires that you need for
your sea-denial mission?
Lieutenant General Smith. So, sir, I--what I can talk
about, if it answers your question--I think it will--is, what I
actually have to have is the ability to reach out--and I'll be
cautious in the open setting, but to reach out hundreds of
miles to place ships at risk. It can't be something very short.
Hundreds of miles. Because if you look at the expanse of the
Pacific, our current issue--and Senator Hirono raised it--is
being, we would say, out-sticked in range by the opponent,
which we cannot allow. If the opponent can reach me at 1,000
miles and I can reach at less than 1,000 miles, that is highly
problematic for a force who doesn't live inside the weapon. We
operate inside the weapon in the engagement zone, but we are
not permanently large-based, if you will, inside that. So, we
have to have the ability to reach out hundreds of miles.
Senator Hawley. That's helpful. Thank you.
Can you clear up something else for me, General, in this
same--in a similar vein? The ground-based antiship missiles,
the ground-launched cruise missile, your testimony, if I read
it correctly, seemed to treat those as distinct capabilities.
But, I was under the impression, in the public reporting, and
also, General Berger's testimony last week suggests that the
ground-launched cruise and the antiship capability--I'm sorry,
that the ground-launched cruise missile, the GLCM, will have an
antiship capability. Am I confused about that? I mean, can you
help me there?
Lieutenant General Smith. I'm pretty leery about saying
that a Senator is confused, so I'll be careful there, sir.
[Laughter.]
Lieutenant General Smith. Sir, you're not. The ground-
launched cruise missile, or GLCM, is a task that the Deputy
Secretary of Defense has passed to the Marine Corps to have an
operational capability very quickly for something that reaches
out--again, I'll just say hundreds of miles. That is a separate
fielding, testing, and evaluation program now. The naval strike
missile, which we call a ground-based antiship missile--but,
that is an existing technology now. The Navy already shoots it.
So, for us trying to field a capability rapidly to show that
General Berger's planning guidance has the teeth that it does,
we'll pair that missile, which is existing now, with a JLTV. We
call it a rogue-fires vehicle, a robotic vehicle. We'll pair
that immediately. So, that ground-based antiship missile
capability is currently naval strike missile. The ground-
launched cruise missile or any other system ideally can be
fired off of that same platform. So, the platform is the
platform. It's agnostic as to what it fires.
Senator Hawley. Gotcha. That's helpful. Thank you.
I've heard some concerns that some of the Corps' long-range
precision-fires programs might be redundant to programs that
are under development currently by the Army. Can you just
respond to that?
Lieutenant General Smith. Sir, I just testified last week
with General Murray, who is the commanding general of the Army
Futures Command. I would say they're not redundant, sir. There
are always overlaps, which are wise, so that we have the
ability to pick up missions. The Army is working on some
longer-range fires through their, either, PrSM or their other
systems--precision strike missile. We both share information.
In fact, I believe much of what we gain from ground-launched
cruise missile, as the lead for the Department of Defense on
that, will actually wind up being passed to the Army. It may be
a little too heavy for us. One of the keys for us, as the
littoral force, is the light, highly mobile force. We have to
calculate how much stick we carry with us, versus how agile I
have to--I can be, to get on board either aircraft or naval
craft to move rapidly into and around the Pacific. A longer-
range system may be ideal, but too heavy for me. So, as General
Murray and I, as the Army and the Marine Corps, balance,
coordinate, I'll have the shorter range, but more mobile; he
would have longer range.
Senator Hawley. Got it.
I'm going to come back to a topic that you touched on with
Senator Ernst, I think it was, the JADC2. Can you tell us more
about the Marine Corps's role in the development of JADC2?
Lieutenant General Smith. So, sir, the Air Force is
actually developing the concept of JADC2. We'll do a--an
experiment, here--the Air Force will conduct it, here, in about
3 weeks, out in Nellis. Each of the services will provide
systems that they currently use. The key, here, for us, sir,
would be that--the concept of joint all-domain command and
control--any sensor, any shooter--what we want to have happen
is, the systems which we already use to pass data, those
radios, or whatever, systems, the form factors that fit each of
the services and ignitions, have to be able to feed into that.
So, the experimentation is, we will provide things, like
perhaps V-22s or perhaps, in the future, an F-35, to make sure
that the systems that we're procuring can feed that system,
that data transmission is the key, sir, not a specific--any
specific box or any specific thing that must feed JADC2. The
services will all be able to do it with the systems that they
have that meet--match their specific operational requirements.
So, it's really data transmission, sir.
Senator Hawley. That's really helpful.
Mr. Secretary, do you want to add anything to that?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I think, as General Smith said,
we need to be careful this doesn't--you know, we issue
everybody a unique box to operate on that network. That--one,
that will be expensive; and, two, it will take a long time to
get through all the aircraft integration and ship integration.
I think the sweet spot we're looking for is, What are the
standards and the architecture? Kind of like, you know,
wireless, you don't have to have a different phone for every
wireless network. That's the way we had to do it in the past,
because technology, in the past, wouldn't allow you to get
there. So, there's an operating concept, and then we've got to
mechanize it so it doesn't become either time- or cost-
prohibitive.
Senator Hawley. That's helpful, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Perdue. I'd like to follow up on two things.
General Smith, you said the Marine Corps has to be light. I'm
worried about the sealift. We talked about that before. In this
new environment, particularly with China's development, where
they've deployed more ships in the last 30 months than they
have in the prior 30 years, seems to me that you guys are going
to have to fight your way to the fight. It's encouraging you've
already got forward deployed 21,000 in the first chain. I'm
very interested in these anti-ship capabilities you have from
the ground. The question--talk to me about the JLTV and how it
plays into this, but also the range. The missiles that we have
now, for the longer range that we know that China has off their
ships to combat what you're trying to do, are we really going
to have the range in this capability that you've been talking
about, or is that going to have to come from airborne or
another ship, I mean, to create that confusion?
Secretary Geurts. Sir, and it, I think--we may well tag-
team this one a little bit. What is unique--and, as you're
seeing the Department pivot towards a competitive strategy--you
know, on--in the past, the Navy and Marine Corps worked well
together, but, you know, kind of, two sometimes separately-
operating subsidiaries. What's changing in this strategy is,
how do we leverage what the Marine Corps--they have access,
they have placement--to have different effects and create more
dilemmas for the enemy than just a pure competitive 1V1
strategy. So, you know, the length and missile ranges are
important, but placement's also important.
Senator Perdue. So, I wanted to follow up on that. I'm
sorry to interrupt. But----
Secretary Geurts. Yep.
Senator Perdue. But, do you also leverage the other
services' capability to----
Secretary Geurts. Absolutely. So, JADC2--so, again, any
sensor, any shooter can become--if you create that fabric,
where any sensor can connect to any shooter, and I can have a--
let's say, a--you know, a marine on the first island chain can
get a target back to a DDG-51 with an SM-6 that's got a lot of
range, or maybe a conventional prompt strike, you start really
changing the geometry of the battlefield, and then it becomes
less about comparing, ``You have two of these, and I have three
of these.'' Then it becomes the really integrated strategy.
That's very, very different competitive strategy than a just
red-versus-blue, you know, who can shoot first, who can shoot
longer. Because now the complexity and the cost you impose can
be exponentially increased without an exponential increase in
resources.
Senator Perdue. So, I'm very interested in the Nellis
demonstration. It's the second one. We had one in December on a
JDC2. But, I'm also concerned about how that integrates with
ABMS, which is what the Air Force is really trying to do as a
platform upon which you guys are going to sit. What are the top
priorities that you're trying--from your position and
responsibility, General, what are you most concerned about
that? I understand the concept. I'm also envisioning the
vulnerability. I met with a bunch of your marines in Australia,
2 years ago. I asked them, ``Well, what happens when you don't
have GPS?'' Said, ``Sir, here are our physical maps. I mean,
we--there are always contingencies.'' The thing I loved most
about what he said, ``Sir, we just will get it done. That's the
marine way.'' So, can you talk to me about the vulnerabilities,
as well as the joint platform and how the services are
integrating right now? I asked each one of you service heads of
what--of your responsibility at your level, What--how are you
integrating with these other players?
Lieutenant General Smith. Yes, sir. If I may also, briefly,
sir. So, when--Secretary Geurts, when he was talking about the
range, I would also say that a naval strike missile from the
shore--what we're trying to do is cause intractable problems
for an adversary. So, if you think that you're going to avoid
an FFG or a DDG out in an open area in the sea, and you want to
hug the coastline, that's probably not going to work for you
now, with a force that can fire X-100 miles from the shore
regarding the JADC2 concept, sir, and ABMS, the advanced battle
management system. So, we are concerned that we not put all
eggs into one basket and everybody have the same form factor,
as you said, sir.
So, our concern with the overarching network, put all your
eggs in one basket and then guard the heck out of that basket,
we understand that we will be operating in a denied and
integrated environment. There are times when we will be cut off
from satellites, when we'll be cut off from GPS, we'll be cut
off from PNT, precision navigation and timing. So, we are
exploring--and I'll be cautious in this forum, sir, but we are
exploring things that will now allow us to do terrestrially-
based precision navigation timing, take it with you, establish
it yourself. We've actually had that in the past, in the first
Gulf War. It's very old technology, but the concept remains
valid. Being able to take that with you so that I can produce
something, when cut off, inside of the sphere I'm operating,
that others could tie into--all that, sir, will tie back to the
joint all-domain command and control.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. If I can just one--I mean, to
show the power of where the Navy and Marine Corps team sees
this, we've--this year, we've increased the S&T funding aimed
towards the Marine Corps by 27 percent. So, we are--you know,
this concept is so powerful, from our perspective. We are
realigning resources to make sure we've got the technology we
need to, to take this concept forward.
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Great.
Thank you, to the witnesses, for your service and for being
here today. I'm sorry I missed the first part of the hearing. I
was at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Syria that was
pretty intense.
Just a few questions. These may have been covered, but I do
want to get into them.
Last week, I met in my office with a Virginia company,
BWXT. They were recently awarded a contract, through the
Strategic Capacities Office, to explore building a small
nuclear micro reactor in the 1-to-5 megawatt range. The idea of
these--this is looking at to sustain bases here in the United
States or potentially for use in forward operating bases, but
the idea is, you know, whether the Marine Corps is looking at
the possibility of incorporating this kind of technology in any
kind of a broader applicability, especially in remote island
chains or places where, you know, energy is particularly
difficult to deliver.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I think--I'll--maybe that in
two or three broader themes. We are absolutely looking--if
we're going to operate effectively forward in small teams,
you've got to be self-sustaining. So, whether that's power or
water or whatever the resources you need, particularly in a
contested environment, being able to logistically resupply,
kind of, you know, red-ball, the way we've done it in some of
our most--is not going to work.
Senator Kaine. Yeah.
Secretary Geurts. I would say, you know, in the mini
nuclear power, that's an emerging concept.
Senator Kaine. Right.
Secretary Geurts. We'll certainly leverage it greatly as it
matures. But, we are looking--you know, whether it's how to
make ships more efficient, how to lighten the load so we don't
have to move as much stuff forward, and then how to be self-
sufficient, all very important to us.
Senator Kaine. That's great.
In your testimony--your written testimony, Secretary
Geurts, you described, under a section on emerging
capabilities, quote, ``disruptive capabilities and
expeditionary logistics.'' I'm sure you've been asked, before I
got in, about, you know, what kinds of things are you thinking
about in this disruptive capabilities, what are some of the
kinds of emerging technologies you're looking at that you think
could help you?
Secretary Geurts. So, some of it will be in this
disruptive, self-sufficiency realm, some will be in disruptive
ways to logistically resupply autonomous--rapid autonomous
resupply. I think there's a whole host of things. Last year, we
did four of these major experimentation exercises, where we
bring out--we had 1700 participants----
Senator Kaine. Excellent.
Secretary Geurts.--we bring out emerging technology and
then put it in the hands of the users, and many times we found
solutions or a problem we didn't know we had, and many times we
found unique problems we need to think about.
I don't know, Eric, did you want to add to any of that?
Lieutenant General Smith. Sir, I would just say, in the
disruptive mode, if an adversary is expecting to see a certain
supply chain, he's expecting to see battery, water, and fuel
transport, because X-level----
Senator Kaine. Right.
Lieutenant General Smith.--of transportation signifies X-
sized unit and possible X-intentions. But, now I'm doing that
on my own, which, I've said before, we're doing some work with
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab in malleable batteries and
the ability to generate power with a little bit of water and a
little bit of heat, and then sustain that. When I was at the
3rd Marine Expeditionary Force last year, we had simple things,
additives for gas so you can turn what we would--you'd never
put in your vehicle here, but that's available in, perhaps, a
less-developed nation, that I can add to that and make that
fuel usable in our vehicles, the ability to pull water--
obviously, we have desalinization capabilities, reverse osmosis
water purification units. Those kind of things cause a
different signature. We talk about signature management a lot,
sir, for how you come electronically. There's a couple of kinds
of signatures. There's electronic, and then there's physical.
Senator Kaine. Right.
Lieutenant General Smith. We're doing things to challenge
both of those and shrink them so we appear different than we
actually are.
Senator Kaine. One of the questions, General Smith, I
wanted to ask you--it's kind of in this innovation area. As
you're looking at innovation, there's also, sort of, new ways
of fighting. As you explore that, is it likely that the Marines
may train in new environments? You know, you have such great,
sort of, fixed training bases that serve so many wonderful
purposes, but, as you're looking at the possibility of future
fights being a little bit different, do you have the training
infrastructure you need, or are you looking at new or different
training environments?
Lieutenant General Smith. So, Senator, I truly do
appreciate that question. The Commandant's vision--and he
started last year with this particular budget--internally, he
reprioritized, when he became Commandant in July, for a budget
that was somewhat fixed by the time he became Commandant, a few
hundred-million dollars, and focused it on training and
education under the leadership of a guy named Major General
Bill Mullen, who has a lifetime in training and education. What
we've done is, we've begun to train those individuals, those
marines and officers, now so that when they receive these
capabilities--longer-range precision fire or new technologies--
they can actually use them.
Senator Kaine. Right.
Lieutenant General Smith. They can do virtual constructive
training, which we coordinate pretty closely with the Army on,
so that we can tie simulators together, so that we can have our
ranges all instrumented, so we can do playback. You shouldn't
have to run the range 47 times if you can run it a couple and
then watch the films, as any professional athletic team----
Senator Kaine. Right.
Lieutenant General Smith.--does. We're working and doing
that out at 29 Palms. We can always use more range space,
because there is a point, as you know, Senator, where a marine
does have to get behind a Javelin antitank----
Senator Kaine. Right.
Lieutenant General Smith.--missile and fire it, and so,
we're always conscious of both the noise we make and--et
cetera, on ranges. But, we still need those instrumented
ranges. If that answered your question, sir.
Senator Kaine. Yeah, it does. Thank you.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. I just--you know, in
innovation, sometimes we get too focused on discovery. A key to
a really effective application of technology is the absorption
rate.
Senator Kaine. Right.
Secretary Geurts. So, these new ways to be able to absorb
technology faster, train it, create the tactics, and make it
useful is critically important.
Senator Kaine. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Senator Perdue. Thank you, Senator Kaine.
Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you both for being here today, and for your service
and the service and sacrifice of all of our marines.
I want to start by offering my condolences to the families
of the two marine Raiders that were killed this week in support
of Operation Inherent Resolve. Gunnery Sergeant Diego Pongo and
Captain Moises Navas died Sunday while they were serving on a
partner mission with Iraqi forces south of Irbil in Iraq. Last
year at this hearing, we discussed a report that questioned
whether MARSOC was still a relevant force. Now, a year later, I
would submit that the sacrifice and actions of these Marine
Corps Raiders, like Captain Navas and Gunnery Sergeant Pongo,
demonstrate exactly the opposite of irrelevance and show the
fallacy of opinions saying MARSOC is irrelevant.
I am a staunch supporter of MARSOC--I remain a staunch
supporter--and its continued contributions to our national
security, and I hope that officials at the Department of
Defense will share that view.
I would like to ask about female body armor. We've
discussed this issue from time to time. General Smith, I wonder
if you could provide an update on the Marine Corps efforts to
design, develop, procure, and sustain this kind of protective
gear for women. As you well know, the Marine Corps has been at
the lead and the forefront of efforts to expand opportunities
for the dedicated women, as well as men, who come forward to
serve the country. I introduced the Female Body Armor
Modernization Act, along with my colleague Senator Ernst,
Senator Duckworth, McSally, which would improve equipment for
our female warfighters. I wonder if you could give us an
update.
Lieutenant General Smith. Sir, I can. As I've said earlier,
Major General Dan Yoo, who's the commander at MARSOC--not here
today, but Dan's a good friend, and he would very much
appreciate your comments, and as do we all, sir, on the two
Raiders.
Sir, you know, body armor--one of the things that I'll
start this with--and I've stated this before, as the father of
a marine, and I'll tell young marines, ``I care about your
comfort, but I care about your protection and survivability a
whole lot more than your comfort.'' So, what we've done, sir,
is, we've gone from what we used to consider--we call it ``5 to
95"--we would try to fit every marine from the 5th percentile
to the 95 percentile. Because we've got some really, really big
marines, and we've got some really small marines. In fact, we
just commissioned Hershel Woody Williams, who was not allowed
to go to the Marine Corps, even though a Medal of Honor
Recipient on Iwo Jima, because he was too short. So, some of
our small-stature marines, doesn't always mean women. I mean,
smaller. Again, Woody was not allowed to join the Marine Corps
until they lowered the height standards.
We've gone to 2 and 98, so we've taken those who don't--
just by formfitting, sir, not just small, medium, large. We
have to be a little be a little more creative and conforming.
We've gone from 15,000 who were--fell outside the 5-to-50--5-
to-95--down to about 3300; 297, exactly, are--as of today--are
below--we can't best-fit on the small-stature marines. So,
we've really shrunk down the number of marines, large and small
stature, who are not best-fitted, just by modifying our outer
tactical vests, our plate carriers.
The one thing that I just spoke to General A.J. Pasagian
about, who's our head of Systems Command, is, we are working
with moving from ceramic to a plastic. Because the ultimate
goal, sir, is conformal body armor. Conformal would mold to
anyone's body style. That's a pretty big lift, at this point,
sir, to still provide protection against multiple strikes. We
have not gotten there, sir, but we have not stopped
experimenting. But, the sizing factor has taken us from, again,
15,000 who were outside, down to about 3300, 297--frankly, most
of which are female--but, 297 of our shortest-stature marines
are now outside that, down from about 2500. I take the number--
I'll take for the record, sir, on the number, but it is now
297.
Senator Blumenthal. Yeah. If you could provide any more
information you think is relevant, take----
Lieutenant General Smith. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Blumenthal. You know, Senator Kaine and I are both
fathers of marines. I don't know whether he's mentioned that.
But, I really first became aware of this body armor issue when
my own son was serving in Helmut Province and came to learn
that our male marines did not have body armor protecting them
below the waist, and worked very hard with then-Secretary of
Defense Ash Carter to make sure that that body armor was
delivered more expeditiously so that marines in the field would
be better protected. I know that the Marine Corps has been very
attentive to this issue for both males and females. I thank you
for that focus, because you're absolutely right, comfort is not
the objective in these situations. Obviously, mobility and
dexterity and agility are. I think our military has been at the
forefront of this effort.
I'm going to submit, for the record, some questions on the
CH-53K. I know you're on top of that, Secretary Geurts, and as
you are, Lieutenant General Smith. I very much appreciate your
being here today and answering my questions.
Thank you.
Secretary Geurts. Yes, sir. Just briefly--and happy to
answer your questions--53K has really made a lot of progress
over the last year. A lot of hard work by the marines and by
the contractor and by our team, and so, I'm very happy with the
progress that program has made over the last year.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I think that aircraft could be,
you know, enormously beneficial in so many areas. I'm thankful
that we're making progress.
Thank you.
Senator Perdue. Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Secretary Geurts, I was very interested in your discussion
about your integrated strategies. Is it that--China, one of our
near-peer competitors, they have numbers of assets that we
can't keep up with, in terms of--or we can't match, I should
say--even if our technology is better with regard to our planes
and ships, et cetera. So, is this one of the reasons that you
are pursuing this integrated strategy on realigning your
resources?
Secretary Geurts. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hirono. So, this is a relatively new kind of a
process that your strategy--you're pursuing?
Secretary Geurts. It is. I mean, we've always been joint,
previously, and the Navy and the Marine Corps have worked well
together. But, when you're in a competitive situation, you're
really trying to be competitive, and, to use one of Senator
Perdue's terms, you're competing uphill versus competing
downhill, you are looking for every opportunity. You've got an
abundance mindset, and so, we have an abundance of marines in
the first island chain. Why are--you know, how do we maximize
that abundance to the greatest effect for the overall team, not
just to make them successful? How do they become part of
something larger? Likewise, if the Navy's got a Navy strike
missile, we have a--we've already done that, we can hand that
over. Or if the Army's building a JLTV, we can leverage that.
So, it's really leveraging opportunities and taking a really
competitive mindset, as opposed to a preventative mindset.
Senator Hirono. So, in order to pursue your integrated
strategies, it requires a lot of coordination across the
services. So, what would be a--what are some of the
challenges--major challenges you face in trying to get
everybody on the same page and to maximize your capabilities?
Secretary Geurts. I'll speak some and invite General Smith.
I mean, a lot of it's--you've got to be transparent, right?
You've got to create relationships so that you can identify the
opportunities on the front end, not trying to engineer them on
the back end. Because once programs are set and requirements
are set and, you know, you've got a program director, that
becomes very challenging. On the other hand, like JLTV, if the
Army is going to make that investment, we have a couple of
unique requirements for the Marine Corps. If we work those in
early, not a big deal. If you try and engineer them in after
the fact, could be a bigger deal.
Senator Hirono. So, when you talk about relationships, at
what level are you talking about, relationships?
Secretary Geurts. I would say at any, but maybe General
Smith can talk about, in his relationship, particularly with
the Army, on the marine ground equipment.
Senator Hirono. General?
Lieutenant General Smith. Yes, ma'am, very briefly. So,
General Murray, at Futures Command, and his deputy is a guy
named Lieutenant General Eric Wesley, who's down in Suffolk,
Virginia. We're coordinating and then, at the one-star and
colonel level, it's daily. So, for a very small example, ma'am,
the joint light tactical vehicle, our requirement to place a
vehicle in what we call ``forward V,'' forward vehicle storage
on an amphibious vessel, 96 inches. If you're taller than 96
inches, you don't fit. So, when you do that requirement with
the Army, that is hard and fast, because we're not moving
steel. When we tell the Army that up front for joint light
tactical vehicle--truly joint--the Army says, ``Okay, maybe
they wanted something that goes to 110 inches,'' but we
cooperate and collaborate down to 96 inches. High mobility
artillery rocket system, we fire the exact same missiles, the
same sled, the same vehicle. Those are the kind of things that,
as we coordinate early, everything from modular handgun to body
armor to the future squad weapon, all that has to be discussed
before you go into, kind of, low-rate production. We're doing
that on all those systems--ammunition. Those are hugely
helpful. Those systems, those relationships are literally at
the program manager through the three- and four-star level on a
daily-up-to-quarterly basis at the senior level.
Senator Hirono. I appreciate that. It's not easy for
services that pretty much were much more self-contained to now
be having to--I suppose, to be transparent about what the
larger goal is----
Secretary Geurts. It's codependence. You have to get
comfortable with codependence. That's----
Senator Hirono. Yes.
Secretary Geurts.--not generally--and you have to have an
air of humility. We have to set the example from the top all
the way down to the bottom, and hold that standard.
What I would say is, though, with a mission mindset, and
everybody is--if it's about competing and our national
security, that is the number-one thing that will overcome human
natural instinct to want it, own it all, and create the idea
themselves.
Senator Hirono. I think that's the kind of change,
basically, that I'd really like to see, not only described, but
being effective.
So, as we talk about modernizing the--your equipment and
your military platforms, I found the discussion about body
armor very interesting, because I don't know who helped you to
develop--I'm looking at the General now--develop this kind of
new armor to fit the--and, you know, all of the new technology
that you are having to go to. So, I take it that you are much
more involved with the private sector, partnerships with small
businesses, et cetera, to come up with the innovations that
you're seeking. So, is that a--is that happening?
Lieutenant General Smith. Yes, ma'am. I'll pass Secretary
Geurts on the partnership with industry, but General Pasagian
and his people that work down in Quantico--when I go to a
townhall and discuss with them--there'd be a few hundred
people, and I'll ask them, ``If you've got to--if you have
somebody in the Marine Corps that you love--a son, a daughter,
somebody you love--raise your hand.'' There's always 30, 40, 50
hands go up, and so, they're committed, and they--as Senator
Kaine, myself, Senator Blumenthal, we have children in the
Marine Corps. Now there's skin in the game. People are
committed to finding the solution that best protects the lower-
body-extremity armor that was produced by Dr. Carter as the
SECDEF, those kind of things.
But, I'll defer to Secretary Geurts on the industry piece.
But, we're being as creative as we can, because--I mean,
those are our marines. We have to--we can't let going home at 4
o'clock change some lance corporal who's out there right now on
the first island chain just saying, ``Man, I wish I had a
better piece of equipment.'' They get that. They're committed
to it. If they weren't, in all candor, I'd get rid of them.
Senator Hirono. Just very briefly, because I have run out
of time.
Secretary Geurts, are you actively pursuing these kinds of
partnerships, in terms of----
Secretary Geurts. Absolutely. We talked about our----
Senator Hirono.--looking to them----
Secretary Geurts.--exercises. Happy to----
Senator Hirono.--technologically----
Secretary Geurts.--last year, we had $16 billion that went
directly to small business out of the Department of the Navy,
a--biggest small-business year we've had. So, they are a driver
of innovation. It's up to us to create the relationships and
the business processes that leverage them.
Just briefly, on the Small Business of Innovative Research.
We've been working on that end-end process, because the small
business--getting cash fast is really important. We take in our
128 day from idea to on contract right now. We're going to 28
days. If we can get to that kind of responsiveness, then we'll
become an attractive place to do----
Senator Hirono. Yes.
Secretary Geurts.--business for these smaller innovative
companies.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Perdue. Senator Kaine.
General, you know, it's hard to look at the Ukraine and
Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and these active hotspots around the world,
and you see a lot of new things happening in close combat, like
tandem warhead RPGs, you know, highly advanced antitank
capabilities of our adversaries. You've got to believe some of
this is Russia finding its way in there. Maybe Iran. But,
whatever, how does this threaten, you know, the anti-armor--or
the armor upgrade packages for the M1A1, the LAVs, and the new
ACVs? I mean, what are we doing to adapt to this increasing
capability of these--what we see already in the current
battlefields out there?
Lieutenant General Smith. So, sir, we coordinate very
closely. The Army normally has the lead for what we call APS,
active protective systems, things that, when an RPG is fired at
any vehicle--it doesn't even have to be an armored vehicle--
could defeat an inbound round, an inbound warhead, or an
inbound larger-caliber round. So, we do coordinate with them. I
will say, though, sir, for us, as the lightest force, when you
start getting to active protective systems on vehicles, adds a
significant amount of weight. That weight is always a concern.
As you--agility, mobility is also a protective mechanism for
us. So, the ability to move quickly to go where you are not
expected to go causes the enemy to have to, again, change and
look at the entirety of the battlefield, vice, ``Well, he's so
heavy, he's going to be on this road, so we can mine this road
or focus on this road.'' If I can be anywhere, that really does
spread it out, sir.
Senator Perdue. We really aren't changing much on the ACV
to accommodate these adaptations we see in it currently?
Lieutenant General Smith. Sir, I would say that we're
always looking for a system that is light enough to be
employable, to give protection, but there will come a point,
sir, if we continue to add, we would turn the amphibious combat
vehicle into an amphibious tank----
Senator Perdue. Yes, sir.
Lieutenant General Smith.--and that would be
untransportable to shore, it would not mobile enough to suit
our needs. So, it's a constant--you know, historically, sir,
it's the Knights at Agincourt. You don't want to be so heavy
you can be knocked off your horse and killed by a pike.
Senator Perdue. The reverse question, obviously, is, Russia
and China are both dealing with this same issue in reverse. The
active protection system--it looks like Russia's really doing a
lot more research, and you see some of that in the field
already. Are we doing--are we trying to--obviously, we are,
but, I mean, what are we doing to try to keep up with their
increase, you know, protection of their big vehicles, as well?
Lieutenant General Smith. So, sir, I would tell you that
we're constant--I would say, in the--in this setting, sir, I
would say we are constantly looking for munitions that will
defeat active protective systems. Openly, sir, we can say
everything from the timing of multiple rounds going in to the
methodology by which that round impacts and spreads its kinetic
energy, we're looking at that all the time, and experimenting,
sir. That's--respectfully, sir, I probably wouldn't go a whole
lot further----
Senator Perdue. Yes, sir.
Lieutenant General Smith.--here.
Senator Perdue. I understand.
Lieutenant General Smith. But, be happy to come back in a
other setting, sir----
Senator Perdue. Yes, sir.
Lieutenant General Smith.--and show you what we are working
with.
Senator Perdue. We may well try to do that, and combine
that with the Navy. We have another need to do it on the Navy
side, too, particularly with regard to the ranges and the
lethality of the weapons, because that really does affect the
number of our ships and submarines that we actually have to
have. This 355 number keeps popping up, but our increasing
lethality and the way that we fight the force is changing so
dramatically in this current NDS strategy.
That's all I have, Senator Hirono.
I want to thank Secretary Geurts and General Smith. Thank
you so much for your candor and, obviously, your
professionalism in answering these questions. If there were
questions, if you'll just submit it to the committee, that
would be greatly appreciated.
With that, we stand adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
expeditionary fast transport ships (epf)
1. Senator Shaheen. Secretary Geurts, we frequently hear about the
how it is team effort for the Navy and Marine Corps to operate
efficiently and effectively around the world. I know this hearing was
held to discuss Marine Corps ground modernization, but I would like to
hear your thoughts on how we quickly move Marine Corps assets to where
they are needed.--It does not do anyone any good to spend money on
modernizing Marine Corps ground assets if we cannot get them to the
fight.--San you comment on the Navy's plans to ensure it has the
maritime mobility assets required to effectively move this modernized
force to where it is needed including traditional amphibious ships,
smaller agile expeditionary fast transport ships (EPFs) and other non-
traditional assets?
Secretary Geurts. The Navy's Amphibious Ready Group (ARG),
comprised of amphibious warships with an embarked Marine Expeditionary
Unit (MEU), is the cornerstone of maritime mobility for the Marine
Corps. The ARG carries a modernized force and possesses the ability to
respond quickly to Combatant Commanders' needs. In addition to the ARG/
MEU mobility construct, the Navy provides other platforms for current
strategic lift and support in littoral environments, as well as
developmental programs for mobility needs for Expeditionary Advanced
Base Operations (EABO). The amphibious fleet was designed to support
large-scale Marine Corps combat operations in the littorals. The Marine
Corps' Force Design efforts are changing what the equipment-set and
personnel requirements of the Corps will look like in order to achieve
National Defense Strategy and Title 10 responsibilities. As such, our
supporting vessels such as amphibious warships, EPF, ESBs, MPF, and LAW
are all necessary to meet the demands of a more technological, agile,
expeditionary, and lighter Marine Corps.
2. Senator Shaheen. Secretary Geurts, can you address the EPF that
was cut due to reprogramming and provide a preview of what might be
included in the Navy's new force structure assessment?
Secretary Geurts. In determining the sources for the reprogramming,
the Department of Defense used a deliberate and objective approach to
select programs that were considered to be either early or excess to
need, particularly if not requested in the Fiscal Year 2020 President's
Budget. The EPF ship added to the Fiscal Year 2020 President's Budget
was determined to be in excess of programmatic need and therefore
identified as an offset for the reprogramming. On February 27, 2020,
the Secretary of Defense directed a DOD-level comprehensive review and
analysis of the Navy's future fleet force structure. Additional
wargames, simulations, and detailed analyses will be conducted over the
coming months looking at all types of platforms, and those results will
be provided to the Secretary of Defense in the summer.
enhanced night vision goggle-binocular (envg-b):
3. Senator Shaheen. Lieutenant General Smith, as the USMC continues
to modernize its ground forces to maintain combat overmatch capability
in a rapidly evolving threat environment, I am particularly interested
in how you are modernizing the capabilities of the individual marine.
As you may know, under the Enhanced Night Vision Goggle-Binocular
(ENVG-B) program, the Army is accelerating deployment of dual-tube
image intensified, thermal imagery fusion display goggles that
integrate rapid target acquisition and augmented reality to provide
ground forces with unprecedented situational awareness and combat
effectiveness. Under a three-year contract awarded in 2018, the Army is
procuring an initial order of approximately 10,700 ENVG-B systems in
supported of a Directed Requirement. Within that contract, there is
provision for the USMC to procure approximately 3,200 ENVG-B systems,
as well.
I am advised that the USMC is not utilizing this contract authority
to procure high performance, cost-effective ENVG-B systems and has
instead embarked on a path to procure a system known as the Squad
Binocular Night Vision Goggle (SBNVG), which I understand is a lower
performance, less capable option that will be fielded later than ENVG-
B.
Against this backdrop, I am concerned that by foregoing procurement
of ENVG-Bs, the USMC is missing an opportunity to fully leverage an
existing production line and state of the art technologies in an
integrated system that would best promote the safety, security, and
combat effectiveness of our marine ground forces.
I would appreciate it if you would personally review this matter
and provide the Committee with a detailed response as to why the USMC
is not procuring the ENVG-B system and instead procuring SBNVG systems.
Your response should include an assessment of the respective system
capabilities, acquisition objectives, timelines for deployment, and
cost effectiveness analyses.
Lieutenant General Smith. The Marine Corps made a resource and
capability informed decision to procure the Squad Binocular Night
Vision Goggle (SBNVG) as the most mature, capable, and readily
available system to provide an immediate and significant improvement to
night vision capabilities for our infantry marines. At the same time,
the Marine Corps is participating in and providing significant support
to the Army's development of the Enhanced Night Vision Goggle-Binocular
(ENVG-B) and the Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS). We view
the SBNVG as a bridge capability to the more advanced capabilities that
will be provided by the Army systems once mature. The majority of our
marines within the rifle squads are still utilizing the AN/PVS-14
monocular night vision device that was first fielded in 1996 and last
fielded in the mid-2000s during the height of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
This device has become antiquated with commercially available devices
providing a more than 40 percent increase in performance. The Marine
Corps received $217 million ($43.4 million each year fiscal year 2019-
2023) from the OSD Close Combat Lethality Strategic Portfolio Review to
rapidly procure and field a modern night vision capability by
leveraging commercially available technology. Squad Binocular Night
Vision Goggle (SBNVG).
The SBNVG is a white phosphorous, dual tube, image
intensified binocular goggle with overlay thermal fusion provided
through an Enhanced Clip-On Thermal Imager (ECOTI). The thermal
capability provides night vision in blackout conditions and enhances
target detection. Feedback from experimentation demonstrated that the
SBNVG provides increased individual and small unit mobility with the
dual-tube BNVG and increased target detection with the thermal fusion
from the ECOTI.
The Marine Corps adopted the USSOCOM Visual Augmentation
System and Enhanced Clip-op Imager Capability Production Documents as
our service foundational requirement for an improved night vision
capability.
Leveraging a fully mature, combat proven (in use by
USSOCOM), and readily available capability, the initial solution
procured was the AN/PVS-31A with white phosphorous image intensified
tubes and the ECOTI. During fiscal year 2019, Marine Corps Systems
Command (MARCORSYSCOM) utilized a limited, accelerated procurement
effort utilizing DLA contracts to field over 1,260 PVS-31A's with ECOTI
devices to two infantry battalions, 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines and 2nd
Battalion, 5th Marines, in order to provide each marine within the
rifle company and their engineer platoon with an improved night vision
capability that significantly increases their lethality and night time
mobility. An additional 40 systems were fielded during fiscal year 2019
to School of Infantry-East in support of the High Performance Track
Program of Instruction.
In Sep 2019, MARCORSYSCOM awarded a follow on, IDIQ
contract for $249 million to Elbit Systems of America--Night Vision
(previously Harris Corporation) to procure up to 17,000 additional
SBNVG in order to equip all Active Duty rifle companies, combat
engineer squads, recon platoons, and MARSOC teams with the improved
night vision capability. This system has a unit cost of $13,970. In
fiscal year 2020, 1,285 SBNVG systems will be fielded to two additional
infantry battalions. In fiscal year 2021, 3,295 SBNVG systems will be
fielded to five more reinforced infantry battalions and one
reconnaissance company. Including the initial systems fielded in fiscal
year 2019, a total of 5,840 SBNVGs supporting 9 infantry battalions and
a reconnaissance company will have been fielded by the end of fiscal
year 2021. In the meantime, the Marine Corps continues to participate
with the U.S. Army on the development of future night vision
capabilities. Enhanced Night Vision Goggle-Binocular (ENVG-B).
ENVG-B is a white phosphorus, dual tube, night vision
goggle with digitally-fused thermal sensor capability. The battery pack
contains a processor that provides augmented reality to the goggle
(situational awareness and thermal rifle scope sight in field of view)
via wireless signal from the digital C2 device and the thermal rifle
scope.
The Marine Corps' SBNVG provides the same night vision
and target detection capability as the ENVG-B as both systems use the
same image intensified tubes and thermal sensors. The SBNVG provides
the capability via manual overlay fusion (the thermal sensor clips on
and can be removed when not needed). The thermal sensor in the ENVG-B
is permanently integrated and digitally fused with the image
intensified display. Although the SBNVG can provide an augmented
reality capability through the battery pack via the ECOTI, the Army's
ENVG-B will have greater technical growth because it is a fully digital
system, which better enables insertion of augmented reality data.
US Army Chief of Staff signed and approved the Enhanced
Night Vision Goggle-Binocular (ENVG-B) Directed Requirement based on an
urgent and compelling need for 10,000 systems at $235 million
($22,312.82 per system). A sole source contract award to procure the
10,000 systems was awarded on 14 June 2018. The Marine Corps supported
the Army's development and user evaluations for the Directed
Requirement systems with the numbers of marines requested by the Army.
We also tracked the programmatic details of this effort via the Army's
program office and continued participation in the Army's Soldier
Lethality Cross Functional Team (SL CFT).
In September 2019, the US Army achieved First Unit
Equipped by fielding 27 systems from the sole source, directed
requirement contract to 1st Infantry Division (Ft Riley, KS). These
systems are an initial increment of the ENVG-B capability and will
differ from the final configuration being pursued in the Army's ENVG-B
program of record effort.
In 1QFY19, the Marine Corps procured 195 of the Directed
Requirement ENVG-B systems (one reinforced rifle company) on the
initial sole source contract in order to conduct a side-by-side
evaluation with the SBNVG to assess the ENVG-B system's capabilities.
The Marine Corps is scheduled to receive the 195 ENVG-B systems in
4QFY20 and plans to conduct an evaluation in 1QFY21.
For the ENVG-B program of record effort, the Army is
executing a developmental contract with L3Harris and Elbit Systems of
America for up to approximately 90,000 systems ($1.1 billion), with a
planned First Unit Equipped in 2QFY22. The Marine Corps is fully
supporting this effort as well through marine participation in
development and evaluation events. We will then use the results of the
evaluation of the Directed Requirement ENVG-B and the information
provided from the program of record effort to inform a future Marine
Corps decision on procurement of the fully matured ENVG-B program of
record solution. Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS).
In 2019, the U.S. Army awarded a contract to Microsoft to
support a 24-month rapid prototyping effort for an end user, multi-
domain device that incorporates advanced situational awareness,
miniaturized night vision, synthetic training environments, and
artificial intelligence capabilities to increase the lethality of close
combat personnel. As envisioned, IVAS will provide a significant leap
in capability over what is provided by SBNVG and ENVG-B. The Marine
Corps is an active participant in the rapid prototyping efforts with
the U.S. Army and has provided 20 percent of the total number of
participants in IVAS events to date such as user studies, user juries,
and soldier touch points.
The Army is planning to begin fielding an initial
increment of the IVAS capability in late fiscal year 2021. Way ahead.
During fiscal year 2020, the Marine Corps will continue
to procure and field SBNVGs in order to provide an immediate improved
night vision capability to our close combat personnel.
At the same time, the Marine Corps will continue to
participate in and assess the ENVG-B and IVAS solutions for maturity,
suitability, and affordability to meet our operational requirements in
order to inform a decision on if, and when, to shift procurement from
SBNVG to one of these improved capabilities.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
female body armor
4. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Smith, can you provide an
update on the Marine Corps efforts to design, develop, procure, and
sustain PPE specifically designed for women?
Lieutenant General Smith. The Marine Corps fits our female marines
with the best personal protection equipment (PPE) available. The Plate
Carrier (PC) is the primary body armor system for the Marine Corps,
fielded in 2011.
Fit studies conducted by the Marine Corps throughout 2015 and 2016
showed that marines and soldiers (both female and male) preferred the
Marine Corps' PC to the Army's Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV)/
Female IOTV (FIOTV) in form, fit, and function. The Marine Corps
started development of the Plate Carrier Generation III (PC Gen III) in
2015 to reduce weight and improve the fit and mobility of PPE for the
individual marine. The Army subsequently moved on from the FIOTV in
2016 with the fielding of the IOTV Gen IV as females rated it more
acceptable when compared to the FIOTV. The IOTV Gen IV is nearly
identical in design to the PC Gen III. Concurrent to the development
effort of the PC Gen III, the Marine Corps released an update to its
fit attribute from the 5th to 95th percentile marine to the 2nd
percentile female marine to the 98th percentile male marine. This
change included approximately 15,000 additional marines and encompassed
all but 249 of the smallest marines and 3,394 of the largest marines.
To meet the updated fit attribute, the PC Gen III has eight vest
sizes available (XS, XS-Short, S, S-Short, S-Long, M, L, XL) for the
varying height of marines and three cummerbund sizes (SM, MD, LG) to
accommodate different waist circumferences.
Additionally, the PC Gen III provides the following system
improvements over the legacy PC:
25 percent lighter with same soft armor coverage and
increased ballistic protection.
1.5" shorter by removing excess material around the lower
waist providing greater mobility to short stature marines.
Excess bulk and material removed in shoulders to provide
a better rifle stock weld for shooting.
Additional padding added in upper chest, deltoids, and
top of shoulders to improve comfort.
More adjustment capability in shoulders, Side SAPI
placement, and waist circumference to allow for more customized fit.
Provides integrated inner vest and load bearing rig
capability to support vehicle crewman, reconnaissance, and military
police.
In addition to increasing the number of available sizes in the
latest Marine Corps plate carrier, the Marine Corps developed a
Lightweight Plate (LWP) as an alternative to the Enhanced Small Arms
Protective Insert (ESAPI) for protection against small arms threats.
The LWP reduces the weight of the ballistic plates by almost half when
compared to the ESAPI, significantly improving mobility while providing
similar protection levels. The Marine Corps also adopted the Army's H-
back style Improved Retention System (IRS) for the Enhanced Combat
Helmet thereby providing better compatibility for females with hair
buns. The IRS improves overall comfort, stability, and adjustability
for the marine.
5. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Smith, what is the
timeline for getting this vital equipment to the marines that need it?
Lieutenant General Smith. The Marine Corps is currently fielding
the new plate carrier and achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC)
in November 2019. The Light Weight Plate is undergoing First Article
Testing and is expected to achieve IOC by December 2020. The Improved
Retention System replaced the original X-back retention system for the
current Enhanced Combat Helmet (Gentex). The Gentex contract was
awarded in May 2017. FOC is scheduled for July of 2020. Currently, the
Marine Corps is funded to procure approximately half of the required
inventory to equip the force. The priority of fielding is to infantry
and infantry-like units. As females integrate into these units, they
will receive this specific equipment set. The Marine Corps is pursuing
the funding necessary to field the improved plate carrier across the
force and will continue procurement as funds are received. The Marine
Corps has multiple contracts in place that allow for the full
procurement of the new plate carrier and LWP. The contracts expire in
September 2023 and June 2024, respectively.
Also, as legacy PPE depletes out of the inventory and sustainment
stocks increase via Defense Logistics Agency support, units outside of
the infantry will receive the new plate carrier, to include female
members of those units.
6. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Smith, what additional
support do you need from Congress to address this issue?
Lieutenant General Smith. Congressional support for continuously
improving protection for our marines is always welcome. Stable funding
and continued emphasis with industry on supporting DOD efforts to
develop improved materials and designs for PPE are the areas that would
be most beneficial.
7. Senator Blumenthal. Secretary Geurts, can you update me on the
actions you have taken to address the female body armor issue for our
marines?
Secretary Geurts. The Marine Corps fits our female marines with the
best personal protection equipment (PPE) available. The Plate Carrier
(PC) is the primary body armor system for the Marine Corps, fielded in
2011. Fit studies conducted by the Marine Corps throughout 2015 and
2016 showed that marines and soldiers (both female and male) preferred
the Marine Corps' PC to the Army's Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV)/
Female IOTV (FIOTV) in form, fit, and function. The Marine Corps
started development of the Plate Carrier Generation III (PC Gen III) in
2015 to reduce weight and improve the fit and mobility of PPE for the
individual marine. The Army subsequently moved on from the FIOTV in
2016 with the fielding of the IOTV Gen IV as females rated it more
acceptable when compared to the FIOTV. The IOTV Gen IV is nearly
identical in design to the PC Gen III. Concurrent to the development
effort of the PC Gen III, the Marine Corps released an update to its
fit attribute from the 5th--95th percentile marine to the 2nd
percentile female marine to the 98th percentile male marine. This
change included approximately 15,000 additional marines and encompassed
all but 249 of the smallest marines and 3,394 of the largest marines.
To meet the updated fit attribute, the PC Gen III has eight vest sizes
available (XS, XS-Short, S, S-Short, S-Long, M, L, XL) for the varying
height of marines and three cummerbund sizes (SM, MD, LG) to
accommodate different waist circumferences. Additionally, the PC Gen
III provides the following system improvements over the legacy PC:
25 percent lighter with same soft armor coverage and
increased ballistic protection.
1.5" shorter by removing excess material around the lower
waist providing greater mobility to short stature marines.
Excess bulk and material removed in shoulders to provide
a better rifle stock weld for shooting.
Additional padding added in upper chest, deltoids, and
top of shoulders to improve comfort.
More adjustment capability in shoulders, Side SAPI
placement, and waist circumference to allow for more customized fit.
Provides integrated inner vest and load bearing rig
capability to support vehicle crewman, reconnaissance, and military
police. In addition to increasing the number of available sizes in the
latest Marine Corps plate carrier, the Marine Corps developed a
Lightweight Plate (LWP) as an alternative to the Enhanced Small Arms
Protective Insert (ESAPI) for protection against small arms threats.
The LWP reduces the weight of the ballistic plates by almost half when
compared to the ESAPI, significantly improving mobility while providing
similar protection levels. The Marine Corps also adopted the Army's H-
back style Improved Retention System (IRS) for the Enhanced Combat
Helmet thereby providing better compatibility for females with hair
buns. The IRS improves overall comfort, stability, and adjustability
for the marine.
expeditionary advanced base operations
8. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Smith, I am encouraged by
the Marine Corps' focus on great power competition and its efforts to
support distributed maritime operations. The Commandant outlined a
framework that will allow the Marine Corps to successfully support
distributed maritime operations in his planning guidance stating that
the Marine Corps, ``Must develop capabilities to facilitate sea denial
and sea control by forward postured or deployed naval expeditionary
forces with sufficient resilience.'' I agree, and I am interested in
better understanding the capabilities necessary to successfully conduct
Expeditionary Advance Base operations. In discussions about
Expeditionary Advance Bases you have spoken about the desire to move
relatively small and maneuverable units rapidly with long range
precision fires capabilities in a C2 degraded environment. What
capability gap concerns you the most when you think about this concept
of employment?
Lieutenant General Smith. As articulated in our budget submissions,
the Marine Corps has gaps in several areas critical to our ability to
facilitate sea denial through expeditionary advance base operations
(EABOs). Our most pressing needs include expeditionary long-range
precision fires; medium-to long-range air defense systems; short-range
air defense systems; and high-endurance, long-range unmanned systems
with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, electronic
warfare, lethal strike, and logistics capabilities. However, above all,
our most critical gap is a lack of maneuverability and mobility within
key maritime terrain. Closing this gap requires smaller, lower
signature and more affordable amphibious ships and distributable
platforms that enable littoral maneuver and provide logistical support
in a very challenging theater for the kind of operations envisioned in
our current concepts. The Marine Corps' Force Design 2030 report, which
was issued in March 2020, identified mobility inside the adversary's
long-range precision fire weapons engagement zone (WEZ) as a critical
competitive advantage and, as such, an operational imperative.
Specifically, this capability provides the following critical functions
central to the success of EABO concepts:
Smaller, low signature amphibious ships provide the means
to rapidly and effectively deploy distributed forces over operationally
relevant distances (e.g., up to 1,000 nautical miles) into key maritime
terrain. This type of low-observable operational maneuverability is
critical to the establishment of expeditionary advance base sites by an
initial blunt force against rapidly escalating enemy actions.
Once deployed, these smaller amphibious platforms enable
EABO forces to move seamlessly through littoral terrain (avoiding being
targeted by the enemy while continuously holding enemy capabilities at
risk). Just as importantly, they also provide EABO forces the means to
endure for long periods of time without external sustainment.
The crucial nature of this capability shortfall cannot be
understated. These smaller, low signature, more affordable amphibious
ships enable marines conducting EABO to persist and thus remain
effective as a blunting force inside the adversary's WEZ. While this
capability is not organic to the Marine Corps, it is central to our
ability to contribute to sea control and sea denial in a contested
littoral environment. Finally, the CH-53K will play a vital role to
bridge the gap between our Naval Surface Craft and Marines operating in
distributed environments throughout littoral regions.
9. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Smith, you mention
several initiatives in your testimony such as new radars and mobile
data networks, but could you expand upon how you plan to improve ground
based situational awareness tools that will allow for Marines at an
Expeditionary Advance Base, operating in a degraded C2 environment, to
have the battle field awareness engage a target at 350NM?
Lieutenant General Smith. Both current and future operating
environments are highly dependent upon a large number of sensors that
facilitate persistent wide area surveillance, point target collection,
monitoring of maritime avenues of approach, force protection, and
pattern of life development. In addition to the substantial stand-off
capabilities from space and theater assets to effect integrated fires,
these operations require a variety of maritime sensors capable of
providing over-the-horizon indications and warnings and timely cueing
to additional ISR assets or to naval fire support elements.
The Marine Corps will maintain battlespace awareness over
large maritime operating areas with rapid employment of sensors in
large numbers through remote delivery via unmanned and manned aircraft
and unmanned vessels.
We are working diligently to expand the sensing range and
fidelity of our terrestrial and airborne sensors, which not only
include unmanned hydrographic sensors and unmanned vessels, but also
include ground-based air defense and coastal surveillance radars.
Sensors (air, surface, subsurface, and ground) will be
interoperable to create a sensor mesh that will be further enhanced
with advanced technologies. The stand-in force will be equipped with
edge processing across all unmanned systems and sensors to reduce
cognitive load and to enable advanced geo-locational capabilities,
semi-autonomous operations, cross-cueing and tipping, automated target
recognition and tracking all linked into our battlespace awareness and
kill chain process to distributed decision makers and national/joint
targeting agencies.
10. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Smith, would you agree
that the CH53K would play a critical role in the mobility and
sustainment of Expeditionary Advanced Bases?
Lieutenant General Smith. The CH53K would, without question, play a
key role in the mobility and sustainment of expeditionary advanced
bases. Its range and payload improvements over our current heavy lift
helicopter make it an important component of a modernized and fully
integrated naval force. It is a modern fly-by-wire helicopter with
greater safety, survivability, and reliability compared to other joint
rotorcraft. These advantages allow the CH-53K to address the Marine
Corps' critical mobility and connector shortfalls from EABO concepts
while operating in a contested environment. The CH-53K has the ability
to provide more fuel, heavy equipment, critical supplies, and marines
at greater distances than any current or emerging rotorcraft. However,
the need for improved range and payload in our heavy lift squadrons
must be carefully balanced with our need to develop expeditionary long-
range precision fires; medium-to long-range air defense systems; short-
range air defense systems; and high-endurance, long-range unmanned
systems with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, electronic
warfare, lethal strike, and logistics capabilities. We believe this
balance is appropriately reflected in the Commandant's decision to
reduce the number of heavy lift helicopter (HMH) squadrons from seven
to five. Based on current analysis by our aviation subject-matter-
experts, five squadrons provide sufficient capacity to satisfy our
requirements as well as our future force described in naval concepts.
ch-53k
11. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Smith, testifying in
front of this committee last week General Berger emphasized, ``The
requirement for a heavy lift helicopter remains valid, in fact probably
more valid, considering the adversaries and competitors that we need to
face where you want your forward marines.'' Do you agree with General
Berger that the CH53K is vital to supporting Marine Corps ground
warfighting concepts?
Lieutenant General Smith. As the only heavy lift helicopter in the
DOD, the CH-53K contributes to a more lethal joint force and supports
both current and future Joint and Naval warfighting concepts by
providing agile maritime logistics connectors to the Joint and Naval
Force. The CH-53K has a unique ability to rapidly transition from
contact layer to blunt layer activities in a maritime high end fight.
12. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Smith, considering the
Marine Corp's refocus on amphibious operations and support to the
fleet, the ability to project ground forces from the sea is more
relevant than ever. How will the continued low readiness rate of the
legacy CH-53 fleet--and slow procurement of the CH-53K--impact the
capacity of our ground forces against a peer adversary?
Lieutenant General Smith. The CH-53E remains a survivable and
relevant heavy lift helicopter in the Marine Corps' role against a peer
adversary and will be flying in support of the operational forces
through fiscal year 2030. Continued investment in the sustainment and
modernization of the CH-53E will ensure the capacity of Marine Corps
Heavy Lift can support operational ground forces against a peer
adversary during the Marine Corps' transition to the CH-53K.
13. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Smith, in what other
ground based warfighting concepts does the CH-53K play a role?
Lieutenant General Smith. CH-53K addresses current connector
shortfalls and is a critical enabler of the execution of Expeditionary
Airfield Base Operations (EABO) by enabling distributed operations and
more logistical support than any rotorcraft in the DOD. The CH-53K is a
modern fly-by-wire helicopter with greater safety, survivability, and
reliability compared to other joint rotorcraft.
14. Senator Blumenthal. Lieutenant General Smith, what additional
mobility advantages can the CH53K heavy lift capability provide for
ground combat units?
Lieutenant General Smith. CH-53K provides a greater payload (36K
Max/ 27K KPP mission profile) than any current or emerging rotorcraft
at sea level and high altitude conditions at greater ranges to support
the rapid transition of Joint and Coalition forces from contact to
blunt layer activities in a contested environment. Specifically, CH-53K
is designed to carry a 27,000 pound external load 110 nautical miles in
high, hot conditions.