[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.