[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                     
 
                         [H.A.S.C. No. 118-45]

                     THE SUBMARINE INDUSTRIAL BASE

             AND ITS ABILITY TO SUPPORT THE AUKUS FRAMEWORK

                               __________

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD

                            OCTOBER 25, 2023

                                     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 




                           ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 54-722          WASHINGTON : 2024
 



             SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES

                   TRENT KELLY, Mississippi, Chairman

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia          JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JOHN GARAMENDI, California
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin            DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan               JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 SARA JACOBS, California
NANCY MACE, South Carolina           CHRISTOPHER R. DELUZIO, 
JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, Virginia            Pennsylvania
MARK ALFORD, Missouri                JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
Vacancy                              JIMMY PANETTA, California

                 Ian Bennitt, Professional Staff Member
              Phil MacNaughton, Professional Staff Member
                  Ethan Pelissier, Research Assistant
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative from Connecticut, Ranking 
  Member, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.........     2
Kelly, Hon. Trent, a Representative from Mississippi, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.................     1

                               WITNESSES

Houston, VADM William J., USN, Commander, Naval Submarine Forces, 
  Department of the Navy.........................................     6
Karlin, Mara E., Performing the Duties of Deputy Under Secretary 
  of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense...................     4
Raven, Hon. Erik K., Under Secretary of the Navy, Department of 
  the Navy.......................................................     5
Rucker, RDML Jonathan, USN, Program Executive Officer, Attack 
  Submarines, Department of the Navy.............................     7

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Courtney, Hon. Joe...........................................    43
    Karlin, Mara E...............................................    45
    Kelly, Hon. Trent............................................    41
    Raven, Hon. Erik K., joint with VADM William J. Houston and 
      RDML Jonathan Rucker.......................................    50

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    Tonnage of Submarines under Construction.....................    65

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Courtney.................................................    69
  THE SUBMARINE INDUSTRIAL BASE AND ITS ABILITY TO SUPPORT THE AUKUS 
                               FRAMEWORK

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
            Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces,
                       Washington, DC, Wednesday, October 25, 2023.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:35 p.m., in 
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trent Kelly 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT KELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
MISSISSIPPI, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION 
                             FORCES

    Mr. Kelly. The subcommittee will come to order. I ask 
unanimous consent, Joe, that the Chair be authorized to declare 
a recess at any time. Without objection, so ordered.
    Good afternoon and welcome to today's Seapower and 
Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing. This hearing will 
examine the state of the shipyard industrial base and its 
ability to support the goals of the AUKUS [Australia, United 
Kingdom, and United States] partnership, particularly Pillar 1, 
which culminates with the sale of Virginia-class submarines to 
Australia in the early 2030s.
    I can tell you I have had discussions with our senior 
Senator from the State of Mississippi, Senator Wicker, who is 
also the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, and 
this is of great importance to him also.
    I support the AUKUS framework. It holds generational 
opportunity for partnership with the U.K. [United Kingdom] and 
Australia through technology sharing and integrated deterrence 
in the Indo-Pacific. Most importantly, it sends a strong 
statement of unity against a growing threat in the region.
    The 2022 National Defense Strategy describes the People's 
Republic of China [PRC] as our most consequential strategic 
competitor for the coming decades. Just this weekend, 
intelligence leaders from all the Five Eyes appeared on 60 
Minutes to warn that China is one of the greatest threats 
democracy has ever faced.
    But of course, we have known this for quite some time. 
China's unprecedented military buildup and continued threats 
against sovereign territory throughout the Indo-Pacific are 
destabilizing the global rules-based order.
    AUKUS will serve as a critical tool for continued 
deterrence against the PRC. The U.S. network of alliances and 
partnerships is a strategic advantage that competitors cannot 
match. Preparation for future conflicts or deterring them from 
occurring in the first place will rely on our ability to expand 
and enhance military partnerships.
    Today's hearing will examine the shipyard industrial base's 
ability to support the eventual sale of Virginia-class 
submarines to Australia. To be frank, the industrial base has 
been challenged in recent years. Labor and supply chain issues, 
2 years of COVID [coronavirus disease], have strained our 
ability to construct two SSNs [nuclear-powered attack 
submarines] and one Columbia-class submarine per year as 
planned.
    Additionally, over one-third of SSNs are stuck in 
maintenance backlogs, reducing the number of operationally 
ready SSNs to meet day-to-day mission demands. In order to 
course correct, the Navy spent $2.3 billion from FY [fiscal 
year] 2018 to FY 2023 to build and strengthen submarine 
industrial base capacity.
    Moving forward, the administration initiated an additional 
5-year, $2.4 billion investment. The Navy is also leveraging 
concepts like strategic outsourcing, an example of which I saw 
firsthand at Austral USA in Mobile, Alabama. In partnership 
with Electric Boat, they are now constructing submarine modules 
on the Gulf Coast.
    Looking forward, it is critical to secure Australia's 
commitment of an additional $3 billion investment through the 
successful passage of AUKUS enabling legislation. Their 
financial input will complement our efforts, hastening the 
recovery process.
    This subcommittee worked at several measures in the HASC 
[House Armed Services Committee]-passed NDAA [National Defense 
Authorization Act] to support the AUKUS framework and our 
industrial base, including additional SIB [submarine industrial 
base] money and authorization of up to 13 attack submarines 
over the next multiyear contract. Congress plays a key role, 
and I will continue to work to ensure that this year's NDAA 
contains language to meet the objectives set forth in AUKUS.
    In sum, AUKUS will lead to a more integrated defense 
ecosystem that counterbalances the threats of strategic 
competition by harnessing collective capabilities. But we 
cannot accomplish this without a strong and stable industrial 
base.
    I look forward to hearing today why it is so important to 
pass AUKUS legislation, the Navy's assessment of current and 
future submarine construction, and what plans the Navy has for 
smart, strategic investments to accelerate timelines.
    With that, I yield to my friend and my partner on this 
Seapower Committee, former chairman and one of the most 
knowledgeable people about the industrial base in submarines 
probably in this Nation, Joe Courtney.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly can be found in the 
Appendix on page 41.]

     STATEMENT OF HON. JOE COURTNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
   CONNECTICUT, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND 
                       PROJECTION FORCES

    Mr. Courtney. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really 
just want to note at the beginning here your really intense 
focus on this issue.
    I have seen it here in the committee room where this--AUKUS 
has been discussed numerous times. But I have also seen you 
down in Austal Alabama, at the Austal Shipyard in Alabama, you 
know, really talking about the strategic outsourcing, which I 
think we are going to discuss here today.
    And I have seen it actually when you were over in 
Australia, really proudly representing our Nation in terms of 
talking about how this is such an important step forward for 
our alliance with Australia and the United Kingdom. This I 
believe is actually the first hearing where there has been a 
real central focus in terms of AUKUS and Pillar 1, which I 
would argue is the centerpiece of the agreement.
    And having, again, a great lineup of witnesses here today I 
think is really going to be important to flesh out a lot of 
issues.
    And again, just very quickly, I will be brief. It has been 
over 2 years since the AUKUS security agreement was formally 
announced, based on a shared commitment to a free and open 
Indo-Pacific fortified by three-way enhancement of critical 
defense technologies. The centerpiece, as I indicated earlier, 
was the recapitalization of Australia's undersea fleet.
    I would note the announcement on September 24 was very 
clear. It should be executed at ``the earliest possible date.''
    Immediately following the September 2021 announcement, 
David Ignatius, the longtime journalist covering foreign policy 
in the Washington Post, described AUKUS as ``the most important 
strategic move by the United States in decades.'' As we have 
seen a constantly evolving environment in the Indo-Pacific, I 
could not agree more with that statement.
    I had the opportunity to travel with some of our witnesses 
here today to Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego for the 
announcement of the optimal pathway back in March of this year, 
where three heads of government and three navies laid out the 
roadmap to implement AUKUS, again using ``the earliest possible 
date'' target.
    Since then, the administration and Congress have had 
various conversations to craft legislative proposals to enable 
the success of this agreement, specifically to authorize the 
transfer of submarines to Australia, accept Australia's $3 
billion investment in the U.S. submarine industrial base, and 
provide training for Australian personnel in the field of naval 
nuclear propulsion.
    So far we have seen in each chamber some action on these 
requests providing a framework for inclusion in this year's 
National Defense Authorization Act. I reiterate, as the 
chairman did, that it is critical that we get these proposals 
wrapped up and folded into NDAA and passed this year to 
implement those authorities.
    I look forward to hearing all the testimony here today and 
continued engagement on this issue. And with that I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Courtney can be found in the 
Appendix on page 43.]
    Mr. Kelly. I now will introduce our witnesses, and what an 
A list of witnesses we have today. We have Dr. Mara Karlin, 
performing the duties of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
Policy; Under Secretary Erik Raven, Under Secretary of the 
Navy; Vice Admiral Houston, Commander, Naval Submarine Forces; 
and Rear Admiral Rucker, Program Executive Officer, Attack 
Submarines.
    And with that, I will recognize the Secretary Raven or 
whoever you see fit to start.

 STATEMENT OF MARA E. KARLIN, PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF DEPUTY 
  UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    Dr. Karlin. Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member Courtney, 
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to speak with you today on our submarine industrial 
base and its ability to support this historic AUKUS 
partnership.
    Today I hope to reinforce three points. First, the defense 
ecosystem is a critical enabler of our 2022 National Defense 
Strategy. Second, AUKUS contributes to building a more robust 
defense industrial base ecosystem that contributes to 
integrated deterrence. And third, the submarine industrial base 
can and will support AUKUS.
    The 2022 National Defense Strategy describes the need to 
act urgently to build enduring advantages across the defense 
ecosystem. And as a subset of this, strengthening the submarine 
industrial base is a critical aspect of achieving our 
objective.
    AUKUS provides an important means to build a more robust, 
resilient, and dynamic defense industrial base that contributes 
to our Nation's integrated deterrence. Today I am joined by my 
esteemed Navy colleagues, who can speak to efforts to ensure 
readiness of the submarine industrial base to support U.S. 
undersea requirements, as well as our AUKUS commitments.
    The Department of Defense is acutely aware of the 
challenges we must address in the submarine industrial base to 
meet U.S. and AUKUS commitments and ensure we are postured to 
provide our warfighters the necessary capabilities to defeat 
any nation that would threaten the security of the United 
States or our allies and partners.
    To that end, on October 20th, the President transmitted to 
Congress a request for more than $3 billion in supplemental 
funding intended to support the submarine industrial base, 
funding that will accelerate submarine production and 
sustainment.
    Now, since the announcement of the optimal pathway in 
March, members of the newly formed Australian Submarine Agency 
observed submarine maintenance operations at Pearl Harbor Navy 
Shipyard, trilateral working groups collaborated on critical 
industrial base readiness issues, and the USS North Carolina 
became the first Virginia-class submarine to visit Australia as 
part of the optimal pathway.
    We are proud to have seen the first three Australian naval 
officers graduate from U.S. Nuclear Power School, and the first 
eight Australian sailors start their nuclear training. These 
milestones mark our commitment to this effort, but we know 
there is still much to be done.
    We look forward to collaborating with Congress to ensure we 
have the vital legislative authorities in place this year, as 
outlined in the legislative proposals put forth to the 
Congress, to realize this generational opportunity.
    The U.S. network of alliances and partnerships is a 
decisive strategic advantage that competitors cannot match. 
AUKUS has provided a lens into not only what military 
capabilities our closest allies need, but also what barriers 
exist which hamper pursuit of our collective security and how 
we need to adapt our approach to meet our national security 
objectives.
    Through the continued support of Congress to invest in our 
submarine industrial base, the close collaboration with our 
partners to leverage industrial capabilities, and Australia's 
historic investment into our submarine industrial base, we are 
ensuring the readiness needed to deliver on the full potential 
of our unrivaled partnerships.
    AUKUS will strengthen our military, boost our defense 
industrial capacity, and help us achieve our National Defense 
Strategy objectives. Together, AUKUS will fortify our combined 
capabilities and promote our shared goal of a free and open 
Indo-Pacific.
    We appreciate the continued support of Congress to enable 
us to implement the optimal pathway. Mr. Chairman and 
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to meet with you today, and I look forward to 
answering any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Karlin can be found in the 
Appendix on page 45.]

 STATEMENT OF HON. ERIK K. RAVEN, UNDER SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, 
                     DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

    Mr. Raven. Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member Courtney, members 
of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on 
one of our most sophisticated and integral national security 
programs, the submarine industrial base.
    I am excited to be here, in partnership with my colleagues, 
to illuminate the progress we have made in the SIB and to 
provide an update on the pivotal and complex AUKUS program with 
two of our closest allies, Australia and the United Kingdom.
    The subcommittee knows well that our Nation leads in 
undersea technology, and with your support the Navy has made 
incredible advancements in guaranteeing that we and our closest 
allies retain warfighting supremacy beneath the waves.
    Mr. Chairman, I think there is no better way to illustrate 
this than a chart that you have at your desk. And if you take a 
look at where we are today in terms of the tonnage of 
construction at private yards for submarines, we are about at 
100,000 tons today.
    That is double what we were just a few years ago. And in 
just the next couple of years, we will be doubling again. That 
is a clear commitment to our capabilities in the undersea.
    Mr. Kelly. Without objection, I am going to put this in the 
record.
    [The chart referred to can be found in the Appendix on page 
65.]
    Mr. Raven. Thank you, sir.
    Our plans are ambitious because the needs are demanding. 
The Columbia ballistic missile submarine [SSBN] remains our top 
acquisition priority. Our attack submarines serve a multitude 
of roles for our joint force. And bringing two of our closest 
allies into a historic military and technology-sharing program 
is a bold stroke at just the right time.
    We know that there is more work to do. Admiral Houston and 
Admiral Rucker will expand upon our construction and 
sustainment efforts that go hand in hand with this aggressive 
agenda. But I also wish to highlight just a few points.
    First, the submarine industrial base is more than our large 
shipyards. The SIB spans 16,000 suppliers in all 50 States. 
Navy investments in 194 suppliers in 31 States have already 
increased production, increasing capacity by 10 percent and 
adding 1,000 jobs. We have trained 4,000 Americans to build 
submarines, and more are in the pipeline.
    Second, as Dr. Karlin noted, the President last week asked 
Congress to approve a $3.3 billion supplemental to speed 
improvements in the SIB. This is on top of the $2.3 billion 
invested over the last 6 years, and the $1.6 billion already 
budgeted in the next 4 years. Early approval of this 
supplemental will speed the results we need to support U.S. and 
AUKUS submarine programs.
    Finally, fiscal year 2024 congressional approval of all 
four AUKUS DOD [Department of Defense] and State Department 
legislative proposals is essential to the success of this 
program. Let us remember that at its core, executing AUKUS is 
about changing the way we do business.
    Delays in moving out on AUKUS not only impact the 
warfighting capabilities of us and our partners, but also sends 
the message that bureaucracy is more important than bold 
action.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to 
testify before the subcommittee. I look forward to your 
questions and continuing to work with you on this important 
issue.
    [The joint prepared statement of Mr. Raven, Admiral 
Houston, and Admiral Rucker can be found in the Appendix on 
page 50.]

  STATEMENT OF VADM WILLIAM J. HOUSTON, USN, COMMANDER, NAVAL 
            SUBMARINE FORCES, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

    Admiral Houston. Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member Courtney, 
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for 
the opportunity to appear before you today and discuss the 
readiness and sustainment of our submarine force and support of 
AUKUS. Your support will contribute to the enduring overmatch 
of an undersea force ready and able to defend freedom around 
the globe.
    As the Under Secretary described, AUKUS provides a 
generational opportunity to deepen diplomatic, security, 
defense cooperation in the Indo-Pacific. Our alliances and 
partnerships remain our key strategic advantage. I would be 
remiss if I failed to tell you of the exceptionally close bond 
our navies and our undersea forces already share.
    We have a well-established and robust exchange program, and 
the in-depth integration with our partners in Australia and the 
United Kingdom is unmatched. Multiple British and Australian 
and American officers and sailors have served on each other's 
submarines for decades. I myself qualified for command in 2007 
on the Australian submarine Rankin.
    We coordinate water space, core submarine missions, and 
conduct joint exercises. AUKUS expands access in the Indo-
Pacific and builds on our existing partnerships with our 
strongest allies.
    Since May 2023 this year, when former CNO [Chief of Naval 
Operations] Admiral Gilday assigned me as accountable commander 
for submarine availability and completion in public shipyards, 
we have increased submarine operational availability from six-
zero percent to six-six percent, and we are continuing to reach 
our goal of eight-zero percent.
    We are focused on improving production, procuring 
materials, and efficiency, and planning to increase submarine 
readiness. Strong, resilient, and skilled maintenance 
capability is foundational to a robust and capable submarine 
force and our national defense.
    The undersea represents a strategic advantage for us and 
our allies. Working together we will only strengthen that 
advantage. Our nations are committed, our navies are committed, 
and our submarine forces are committed to further trilateral 
collaboration.
    We are leading the way in integrating the best each nation 
has to offer for design capability and technology to develop 
state-of-the-art submarines ready to execute missions promoting 
free and open Indo-Pacific.
    I want to thank the subcommittee for your steadfast, 
bipartisan support for the submarine industrial base and AUKUS. 
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

   STATEMENT OF RDML JONATHAN RUCKER, USN, PROGRAM EXECUTIVE 
       OFFICER, ATTACK SUBMARINES, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

    Admiral Rucker. Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member Courtney, 
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for 
the opportunity to appear before you today. Your continued 
support remains instrumental in helping the Navy and our 
industry partners with the needed improvements to deliver and 
sustain the submarines our Nation needs.
    As Dr. Karlin, the Under Secretary, and Vice Admiral 
Houston describe, AUKUS provides a generational opportunity to 
deepen diplomatic, security, and defense cooperation in the 
Indo-Pacific. In support of this, our submarine industrial base 
is supporting the largest submarine recapitalization effort in 
nearly 50 years of submarine production.
    The current, once-in-a-generation submarine construction 
rate, coupled with systemic challenges facing our industrial 
base, has resulted in the annual production rate of 1.2 to 1.3 
Virginia-class per year, compared to our goal of two per year. 
This rate, coupled with the Columbia-class serial production in 
FY 2026, pending congressional authorization and appropriation, 
is what we call 1+2 for the one Columbia and two Virginia-class 
per year.
    This 1+2 cadence increases the demand on our submarine 
industrial base. With the improvement efforts we have ongoing 
between the Navy and our industry partners, we are tracking to 
achieve this 1+2 rate by 2028.
    The Navy must sustain its submarine force by also building 
those new construction submarines. We developed a 15-year 
submarine maintenance strategy for our attack submarines, which 
includes key investments in FY 2024 budget.
    As Vice Admiral Houston mentioned, we are driving 
improvements in all aspects of sustainment, specifically 
planning, modernization, material, and execution. With 
leadership and support from Congress, in fiscal year 2018 the 
Navy began infusing funding into the industrial base to 
increase capability and capacity.
    We are executing a holistic strategy by investing in six 
key areas: supplier development; strategic outsourcing that you 
mentioned earlier, sir; shipbuilder infrastructure; workforce 
development; new technologies; and government oversight. In 
addition, our domestic industrial base will benefit from the 
industrial capabilities of our AUKUS partner nations.
    The Navy began executing these submarine industrial base 
efforts several years ago, as building facilities, growing 
workforces, and increasing the production rate takes time. Our 
dividends have not fully matured yet, but we are already seeing 
benefits, with much more to come.
    I want to thank the subcommittee for your steadfast, 
bipartisan support to the Navy, our AUKUS teammates, and our 
industrial base partners. Thank you, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    Mr. Kelly. I now recognize myself for questions.
    Dr. Karlin, it is interesting you mentioned the USS North 
Carolina being in Australia. I was there at that rotational 
base when, and got to visit with the captain and crew. And what 
a tremendous job they are doing, so.
    To the Navy, as you noted in your testimony, it has been 50 
years since we have ramped up submarine construction and 
infused equivalent volumes of complexity and work into the 
industrial base. It is no secret that currently we are not 
where we should be.
    Getting our production rates up to two Virginia-class per 
year, then further accelerating above two, is an ambitious 
task. How confident are you that we are on the right path to 
stabilize and grow our industrial base over the coming years to 
support our requirements at AUKUS?
    Mr. Raven. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. And 
you are correct, this is an ambitious plan. But we need to meet 
this rate, both for our U.S. requirements and to support our 
two key partners.
    What you have seen with the submission of a probably 
unprecedented supplemental to support our defense industrial 
base that was submitted by the President just last week is a 
sign of the serious commitment that we take to improving where 
we are to deliver on both our national capabilities and our 
partners.
    So we are taking this extremely seriously. I believe we do 
have the right plan tackling the areas that Admiral Rucker 
noted just a few moments ago. That we have circled in on these 
key areas as what we need to do to meet the production rates 
that we require.
    Mr. Kelly. Also, as I noted in my testimony, we are 
currently experiencing a maintenance backlog, and you talked a 
little bit about this, Vice Admiral Houston, if you can expand 
a little bit.
    What do you envision the mix of submarine maintenance will 
be between the private and public shipyards? Do you agree that 
a stable maintenance flow at the private yards is imperative to 
properly capitalize the expertise that their workforce has to 
offer?
    Admiral Houston. Yes, thank you, sir. It requires both a 
public and private mix, as you discuss. We cannot afford to 
sideline the private capability. We have experienced that 
before where it is very difficult to reconstitute that private 
capability to maintain and service submarines.
    So it needs to be a clear balance. And this is not just 
private yards doing entire submarine availabilities. This is 
private shipyards and private sources in local industry that 
can support the public shipyards with individual jobs and 
packages on those submarines. And it is absolutely critical.
    As Admiral Rucker outlined, those pillars that we are going 
after with material, outsourcing, planning, modernization, 
those are all critical. And the private industry-public 
partnership is absolutely critical to keeping us on track and 
maintaining the momentum we are achieving.
    Mr. Kelly. Under Secretary, do you have any comments, or is 
that good?
    Mr. Raven. I think he said it exactly right, sir.
    Mr. Kelly. And this question wasn't on my list, so it is 
always dangerous. I met with the British Ambassador to the U.S. 
recently, and we talked about the AUKUS as it relates to the 
U.K. We often talk about it as it is a two-legged stool, but it 
is a three-legged stool. And I have committed to, in the near 
future, to go and visit their industrial base and see how we 
can help and what problems and issues we have there.
    Can you talk about the U.K. part of the AUKUS as--it is not 
Phase 1, but you know, Tier 1 of the AUKUS agreement?
    Mr. Raven. Sir, both U.K. and Australia are incredibly 
important partners. And as I think Admiral Houston can 
elaborate on, our partnership with the U.K. has been extremely 
close over the past 70-plus years.
    Again, what AUKUS represents is more than just one 
acquisition program or a series of acquisition programs. It is 
about fundamentally changing and integrating three industrial 
bases in different parts of the world to produce maximum effect 
to serve our mutual national security efforts. And the U.K. and 
Australia are absolutely key parts of that.
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you so much, and I think that is as well-
articulated as I have heard it.
    Admiral Houston, did you have any comments?
    Admiral Houston. I concur, it is as well-articulated as I 
could. But I would say, if you look at the history of the 
undersea forces from the United Kingdom and the U.S. 
partnership with Dreadnought for their first nuclear-powered 
submarine to the Polaris Sales Agreement, to our partnership 
with Australia where they share a combat system, our 
heavyweight torpedo, they are contributing partners.
    And because of that exchange with all partner members, we 
are stronger as a undersea, and that is why it is our inherent 
advantage across these allies and partners.
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you. And with that, I yield my time and I 
now recognize the ranking member, Joe Courtney.
    Mr. Courtney. Great, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 
again to the witnesses for your opening remarks.
    Dr. Karlin, I would like to go back again to your comments 
regarding the legislative proposals that are pending right now 
here.
    And again, you itemized the authorities to transfer 
Virginia-class submarines to Australia, to accept Australia's 
$3 billion investment into our industrial base, and to train up 
Australia's shipyard workers in this new sort of proficiency at 
nuclear naval propulsion work.
    Again, these proposals which came over after the March 
event in San Diego are sort of spread out in different 
committees, but again, some of us who have been very close to 
this know that some of them have actually made impressive steps 
forward.
    House Foreign Affairs Committee approved 48-0 for the 
submarine transfer. And the other proposals also are very much 
alive and well. And NDAA certainly is available to be sort of a 
vehicle to sort of move them forward.
    In my opening remarks I mentioned again how back in 2021, 
the earliest possible date sort of target was thrown out there, 
and that was sort of reiterated again in March. Can you talk a 
little bit again about the pace of this enterprise in terms of 
just what is happening in terms of the strategic environment, 
particularly in the Indo-Pacific?
    Dr. Karlin. Absolutely, thank you for that. You know, it is 
serendipitous that we are having this hearing during the 1-year 
anniversary since the unclassified 2022 National Defense 
Strategy was released. And as you know very well, that strategy 
is very clear in terms of prioritization.
    The urgent need to sustain and strengthen deterrence 
focused on the People's Republic of China. What is so historic 
and so generational about this AUKUS effort is that we are 
bringing together a very close ally from the Indo-Pacific, a 
very close ally from Europe, we are bringing together.
    We are making sure all three have the most capable undersea 
capabilities and are going to be able to operate together to 
help ensure a secure and safe Indo-Pacific.
    And I will say that when we look around the Indo-Pacific, 
we see that there are some who don't want security and 
stability. Right, we have seen for example a number of kind of 
dangerous operational behavior, in fact, by the People's 
Republic of China.
    I think it is something like more than 250 or so 
unprofessional activities since 2021. That is really 
problematic. And knitting together these three countries to 
really show how much we care about security and stability in 
the region is crucial.
    It is hard, it requires a whole lot of effort by the 
executive branch and a whole lot of support by the Congress. 
But we can do big and bold things.
    Mr. Courtney. Well, your description of serendipitous I 
think is also additionally sort of highlighted this week with 
the Australian Prime Minister visiting Washington, where, 
again, this is obviously a big topic of conversation I know 
with the executive branch.
    And tomorrow there is going to be an opportunity for him to 
meet with a lot of Members in the House and the Senate to talk 
about this as well.
    Admiral Houston and Admiral Rucker, I mean, shipbuilding is 
a long game, as you both know very well. And again, in terms of 
the need for Congress to enact these enabling authorities is, I 
think, relevant to that whole process in terms of sending out a 
demand signal.
    And maybe one of you or both of you could talk about, 
again, that piece of the fact that Congress really needs to, 
again, authorize accepting the investment Australia is about to 
make into our, or wants to make into our industrial base. As 
well as send out a signal to the submarine industrial base that 
the horizon for work is very strong and investment in people 
and capital is definitely a secure decision.
    And again, maybe you can comment.
    Admiral Houston. Yes, I will start, and then I will have 
Admiral Rucker finish up on that. But I would just say that the 
message we send to our allies and the negative message that 
would be sent if we didn't enact these legislative proposals 
would be significant for us in the Indo-Pacific.
    It is absolutely critical that we execute on this. It is 
going to uplift our industrial base, it is going to uplift our 
undersea forces. And it uplifts all nations' ability to defend 
and have a stable Indo-Pacific region that is open for all 
countries.
    And so the continued support we get via these legislative 
proposals, which are absolutely critical to training, to 
accepting money, to do the information transfers we need are 
absolutely critical to benefitting all three countries.
    Admiral Rucker.
    Admiral Rucker. Yes, sir, thanks for the question. What I 
would say is it is an industrial base, a workforce, and 
reiterate the timing as well.
    If I look at the industrial base today, to answer the 
chairman's question earlier as well, we already have multiple 
U.K. companies supporting our Columbia and Virginia 
construction, providing parts that are vital to be able to 
build those ships.
    We have an Australian company that is already part of our 
consortium for doing additive manufacturing. So we are already 
making those leaps forward.
    Getting these legislative proposals across allow us to 
continue to strengthen and partner with their industrial base 
with our U.S. as well. In addition, if you look at the timeline 
on the optimal pathway Pillar 1, when we'll transfer--looking 
to transfer the first submarine based on the agreements in the 
early 2030s.
    Being able to get that Australian workforce trained in how 
we do maintenance so they can be as effective as we are, if you 
back off the timeline of the maintenance availability for that 
submarine, which takes a few years, and the planning takes a 
few years. And then you put the foreign military sales in 
place, we actually have to start that process late--no later 
than late next year or early 2025 for them to be part of that 
entire maintenance path to get the proficiency.
    So from a workforce perspective getting them integrated, 
from the joint industrial base uplift that will occur, and then 
everything Admiral Houston said from operations, those 
legislative proposals and the timing of them are critical to 
support the needs of all three partners.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. Well, thank you. I mean, I think that 
really kind of foot-stomps the need for us to really, as we go 
into conference, do as much as we possibly can to get these 
through.
    Secretary Raven, I really appreciate the fact that you 
brought the graph, which I put up on the screen here, to talk 
about the metrics of shipbuilding. Again, there is a lot of 
different ways that this gets calculated and a lot of different 
ways that frankly it gets reported.
    But I think based on my time and visiting shipyards, 
tonnage is kind of, when you boil it all down, is really I 
think certainly as reliable if not the most reliable 
measurement of volume of output and throughput that is 
happening in shipyards.
    So again, the graph that you showed and with the arrow that 
shows where we are today shows that we are not starting this 
process in 2023. I mean, there has been efforts made to already 
expand capacity, both in terms of job training and facility, 
supply chain.
    And again, just in terms of the way the graph shows how we, 
as you pointed out, have really doubled the tonnage in a 
relatively short period of time, where the supplemental 
investments will help again accelerate the process so that we 
will get up to a higher point.
    Mr. Raven. Yes, sir. Again, sometimes a picture says a 
thousand words. There is one other view that I can add to this.
    If you go back to the 1990s, where we are on cadence to 
build one Virginia-class submarine per year getting into the 
late 1990s, where we need to go in building two Virginia-class 
a year for U.S. needs plus one Columbia is approximately five 
times the construction capability that we need.
    And this supplemental is one key part, along with the 
investments that Congress has already made and the investments 
that are planned to getting up on that ramp. But it is a 
significant--it is a significant ramp. We understand the 
challenges and I think we have a strategy to get after it.
    If I could just add one more comment to the discussion that 
you just had on the urgency of the legislative proposals. If 
there is any perception that AUKUS is something that starts 
after passage of those legislative proposals, I want to address 
that right away.
    The execution of AUKUS Pillar 1 started 7 months ago with 
the announcement of the optimal pathway. We are heavily engaged 
with our partners today and for the past several months on 
making the moves necessary to execute Pillar 1 in the most 
efficient way possible.
    If there is one message that I get from the partners, 
especially on the ability to train Australians, bring them into 
our shipyards, whether it is maintenance or new construction, 
it is basically I think the legislative proposals are catching 
up to where we need to be.
    So there is a case for urgency because we are deeply 
involved in execution today, and we need these authorities to 
be able to move forward.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. Well, thank you for clarifying that 
point. And my last question is going to be again about the 
supplemental request that came over.
    Admiral Houston, again, you focused for a moment in your 
testimony about the repair and maintenance challenge that the 
Navy faces here. Again, it wasn't that long ago that some news 
outlets like Bloomberg News and The Wall Street Journal were 
reporting that the turnaround was 60--or that the availability 
of submarines was at 60 percent.
    Again, you clarified that even in the short period of time 
since some of those reports in the late spring, that number has 
moved in the right direction.
    The supplemental request includes a number of items very 
much focused on repair and maintenance in terms of funding 
parts, public shipyards for maintenance. But also moving 
forward, some of the investment in the public shipyards in the 
SIOP [Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program] program 
here.
    And again, if you could sort of describe how that 
supplemental fits in with your goal to get to 80 percent 
availability of submarines.
    Admiral Houston. Yes, Ranking Member, thanks for the 
question. So the key thing is is that we have gone from six-
zero to six-six percent. Only reason why we have fallen off 
six-seven is we were both at the commissioning of Rickover, 
which actually pulled us down because we added to the numerator 
and denominator at the same time.
    The thing I would add is is that it is roughly $700 million 
that we are going to put in parts, infrastructure, and all the 
things that we need to do. One of our key bottlenecks or one of 
our key delays, which the Navy is already invested in to get 
after, is Virginia-class parts. This will help with getting 
after that part backlog.
    Also as far as being able to outsource more work to private 
companies in the area, it is a tremendous uplift for us. Some 
of the infrastructure in the shipyards needs to be modernized.
    It is part of the Navy's SIOP plan. We're modernizing dry 
docks. We have dry docks that are no longer 100 years old. But 
it is absolutely critical, and we will be on path to reach 
eight-zero percent in late 2027, beginning of 2028, eight-zero 
percent operational availability.
    And I believe we are on track, and this supplemental 
certainly helps reinforce that. And without it, it puts it in 
jeopardy.
    Mr. Courtney. Great, thank you, Admiral.
    Yield back.
    Mr. Kelly. I now recognize one of the key partners in the 
AUKUS relationship and one of the best friends of Australia who 
has spent quite a bit of time there, Representative Gallagher.
    Mr. Gallagher. Thank you. First sort of a clerical issue. 
My understanding is the submarine industrial base 2025 study is 
done. I think some of our staff may have been briefed on it. 
But do we have access to the report, or rather can we have 
access to the report?
    Dr. Karlin. Indeed. I believe that some briefings have 
occurred and some additional briefings will occur to you and 
your staff. I think folks are just scheduling those right now.
    Mr. Gallagher. Could we get the actual report, though, 
itself?
    Dr. Karlin. I believe that they will be briefing you on the 
actual study. And I think they have--their plan is to brief you 
on the cost estimates from the study and to walk through the 
substance of it.
    Mr. Gallagher. Wait, so but presumably the study is like 
instantiated in like a physical document, right? Like could we 
just get the physical document at some point to read it? If we 
are assessing the health of the submarine industrial base, I 
think that would be like very helpful.
    Dr. Karlin. I believe the plan is to sit down with you and 
your staff and walk through materials related to it. And I 
would note that that did inform the numbers that were in the 
supplemental.
    Mr. Gallagher. Okay, I guess, in addition to being walked 
through the material, could I just have the material to read 
the material?
    Dr. Karlin. I can take that back. I think as of now, the 
plan was to brief you all using materials, to be clear.
    Mr. Gallagher. Okay.
    Mr. Kelly. If you could, if you could take back that we 
would like the actual report, I think that is very helpful.
    Mr. Gallagher. Yeah, I don't speak for the rest of the 
committee. I understand things through like reading them as 
opposed to the briefings. Again, I think it would be in all of 
our interest to have the actual document and read it. And it 
could be like in controlled, classified whatever form. Okay.
    Dr. Karlin. Thank you.
    Mr. Gallagher. I have now wasted a minute and a half on 
that.
    The Chinese military report released just last week 
projected that China's sub force would grow to 80 boats by 
2035. Under our current planning and execution assumptions, how 
many American subs will be in the fleet by 2035? I don't know 
if that is for Mr. Raven or Vice Admiral Houston.
    Mr. Raven. Sir, I will have to look up exactly that year.
    Admiral Houston. Representative Gallagher, my approximation 
would be about five-five by that time.
    Mr. Gallagher. Fifty-five by that time.
    Admiral Houston. Yes, sir. And we will validate that number 
for you.
    Mr. Gallagher. Fifty-five relative to eighty. You could 
argue that ours will still be far more capable at that time. 
But still, that is a concerning trend.
    Admiral Houston. Representative Gallagher, there is no 
comparison between our submarines and China. It is a totally 
different power projection. The majority of Chinese submarines 
are diesel, ours are all nuclear, highly capable, multimission. 
Our submariners are world-class. It is not a comparison.
    Mr. Gallagher. I completely take that point. I guess this 
is a broad argument that is made if you just look at the 
overall PLA [People's Liberation Army] Navy, which is already 
bigger than ours, the rejoinder is that ours is far more 
capable, which is true. But at some level, like the numbers do 
matter, right.
    Or at least if you analyze the empirical record going back 
the last 2,000 years, no technologically superior but 
numerically inferior navy has ever defeated a technologically 
inferior but numerically superior navy. So that is the concern 
at the heart of the question if our fleet size continues to 
shrink. That is more of a statement than a question.
    We are here talking primarily about Pillar 1 of AUKUS 
today, right, which is incredibly important, if not the 
centerpiece of the whole effort. But even in the most 
optimistic scenario or timeline, I mean, when would Australian 
subs come online under Pillar 1?
    Mr. Raven. Sir, it is a commitments-based process where as 
Australia advances in its capability to maintain, train, and 
support submarines, we are looking at the 2030s for a sovereign 
capability for Australia.
    Mr. Gallagher. 2030. So if we are worried about a near-term 
deterrence crisis, right, if we think is the sort of window of 
maximum danger in the 2020s, and we don't know, admittedly, we 
don't know what lurks in the mind and heart of Xi Jinping.
    I think the opportunity really in the short term is under 
Pillar 2 of AUKUS. And obviously, undersea capabilities is one 
of the working groups under Pillar 2.
    Maybe Dr. Karlin, could you talk a little bit about what 
you see as the biggest opportunities under Pillar 2, the 
specific capabilities you are championing, and what are the 
roadblocks to fully realizing the promise of Pillar 2?
    Dr. Karlin. Absolutely, thank you for that. So just on 
Pillar 1 I would note, particularly in light of the earlier 
questions on the urgency of the legislative proposals, there is 
a crawl, walk, run effort on making sure this optimal pathway 
is a reality.
    And as you know very well, there are some countries who 
want AUKUS to fail. They are doing what they can to sow 
disinformation into the environment----
    Mr. Gallagher. There is at least one country that wants it 
to fail, yeah.
    Dr. Karlin. And they are trying to divide us from our 
allies and partners and wondering if we can do bold and 
ambitious things like AUKUS. So that is of course Pillar 1. 
Pillar 2 I think you are exactly right. You know, Pillar 2 has 
perhaps gotten a bit less attention than Pillar 1, but it is 
indeed just as important.
    It is really looking at how you are knitting together these 
three countries, including their industrial bases, in making 
sure that we are delivering capabilities for the warfighter in 
a timely way. We have already seen some important exercises and 
activities to date.
    What I would say, though, is, you know, our ability to knit 
together our industrial bases, our ability to really encourage 
innovation, that is going to be dependent on our ability to 
have an export control system that is as dynamic as possible. 
And that is part of the reason for that fourth legislative 
proposal.
    As you know, it's really not a zero-sum game anymore. Our 
innovation ecosystem will learn as much as the Australian and 
U.K. innovation systems from one another, and that 
collaboration will work in all of our interest.
    Mr. Gallagher. I have gone over my time. ITAR 
[International Traffic in Arms Regulations] reform, ITAR 
reform.
    Mr. Kelly. I gave you your time back that you lost. I now 
recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman. And I would like to 
thank everybody for being here today. We seem like we are going 
to get back on track, and forgive my tardiness.
    But I just want to follow up where Ranking Member Courtney 
had started, and this is about workforce capacity.
    Now, when we start looking at what we have done over the 
course of the last half dozen years to build up the capacity, 
and I love the chart showing the ebbs and flows, the one thing 
that I will point out, forget the industrial base, who hates 
the ebbs and flows the worst are the men and women who go to 
work each and every day to build these.
    And it is what concerns us most for two reasons. One, the 
ability to attract the next generation, which is difficult at 
best, and I know we are getting at that. But you have a 
construction site of how to build these. And certainly bringing 
in a new partner, they have to build up that capacity.
    We were last August down in Canberra and further south to 
Adelaide to see what the capacity is now. We are all 
challenged, but certainly the Australians understand where they 
have to go, where they are today, to the facilities to build a 
nuclear sub. And then you have the maintenance, which we heard 
about, and all the readiness that goes with this.
    So when we talk about predictability, whether it is 
domestically, sending out the right signals that we are not 
just going to be here for a year and drop back down. Those ebbs 
and flows kills the industrial base from a business standpoint, 
but also trying to attract the next generation. And if I think 
I only have 6 years of production and then they are going to 
start laying off, I might not be looking here.
    So as we look at this, Dr. Karlin, and I think this would 
go to you, when we assess what Australia's workforce looks like 
today and where they need to be in order to, A, build them but 
maintain them, what is our assessment of where they are and 
where they need to be at those dates?
    Dr. Karlin. Thank you very much for that. And I will offer 
some thoughts, and my colleagues may wish to add. Not long ago, 
Australia's government put out its Defense Strategic Review. So 
that is kind of like a national defense strategy. And AUKUS was 
at the heart of it.
    And I think that that was a real kind of manifestation of 
just how seriously they are taking this. I was in Perth earlier 
this summer, saw a lot of the infrastructure investments they 
are making, and was able both in meetings in Canberra and in 
Perth to meet with the kind of local and the state government.
    And you can hear just how seriously they are looking at the 
workforce investments and how much they realize that they have 
got to make sure that that is a reality.
    You know, AUKUS was designed to be kind of a crawl, walk, 
run effort, and it is why it is so important to make sure that 
we have got as much movement as possible so that these 
investments can come together by all three countries at the 
right time so they can bear fruit.
    If you don't mind, sir, I might also see if my colleagues 
want to add to that.
    Mr. Raven. Thank you, yes, absolutely. The building of 
these capabilities fundamentally comes to people to do the 
work. And we have had challenges on our side, and Australia is 
at the beginning of their journey in building a skilled 
workforce. The good news is that they can learn from us.
    Especially as it comes to the legislative proposals, 
Australia has--we have a plan with Australia to take hundreds 
of their workers, bring them over here, be able to train them 
so they can go back and build the disciples in Australia so 
they can meet the, not only the quality, but show that AUKUS is 
something that is changing the security landscape in the Indo-
Pacific for Australia, and spread that word.
    So there is work to do, but I have a lot of confidence that 
Australia is on the right track to tackle those challenges.
    Mr. Norcross. If you could just touch base on a bit of a 
twist that when we step up to the nuclear facilities 
classification and being able to clear a workforce, which 
Australia has a certain level but certainly nowhere close to 
where it has to be. The challenges that they are going to face 
from a domestic workforce, and then their challenge, like us, 
bringing in many others from around the world to be part of 
that workforce.
    How are they going to address that challenge?
    Mr. Raven. We are working very closely with Australia and 
the U.K. to make sure that there is a common set of security 
principles that governs all the AUKUS security work.
    We are deeply engaged with also NCIS [Naval Criminal 
Investigative Service] is establishing a presence in Australia 
to manage a lot of the counterintelligence and other concerns. 
But certainly part of AUKUS, again, is going towards an 
integrated industrial base so that when we talk security, we 
are speaking the same language.
    Dr. Karlin. Sir, if I just might add, it is making sure 
that all three countries are at the right level on that 
security piece that Under Secretary Raven was highlighting.
    Mr. Norcross. We are looking forward to it, and it is even 
easier when we almost speak the same language. With that, I 
will yield back.
    Mr. Kelly. The gentleman's time is expired. I just want to 
be real clear, and I don't think it has been said enough, but 
it is really sensitive. They are nuclear-powered, 
conventionally armed submarines that are going to Australia, 
correct?
    Mr. Raven. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Kelly. And I now recognize Lieutenant General Bergman 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Raven, it is on your bio that you went to Conn 
[Connecticut] College?
    Mr. Raven. I did.
    Mr. Bergman. Across the street from that other school where 
people wear uniforms?
    Mr. Raven. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Bergman. Well, the reason I--it is a small world, 
because in 1965/1966, I spent my swab year at the Coast Guard 
Academy. And my first visual on a Navy sub was when we were 
doing sailing lessons on the river in a 10-12 foot dinghy 
trying to chase the subs up and down the river. So it seems 
like just yesterday in some ways that I, you know, you kind of 
dusted off some memories here, but.
    My question, when you are trying to do--to build something 
with other countries involved, no matter what it is, it could 
be ships, could be airplanes, could be, you know, whatever it 
happens to be, the coordination among the countries and the 
information sharing of best practices when it comes to that.
    And I guess I would just like to hear from any of you about 
how we have set up, even if it is just a framework right now, 
that to ensure the sharing of best practices so we don't waste 
two things: time and money. Whoever would like to respond to 
that, but how we are going to coordinate that sharing.
    Dr. Karlin. Sir, let me offer a strategic-level perspective 
and then turn to my colleagues. This is Australia and the U.K. 
We have literally stood shoulder to shoulder with them over the 
last 70 years. They have joined us in just about every conflict 
we have waged over the last 70-plus years. And our cooperation 
is exceedingly, arguably unprecedentedly, intimate.
    Mr. Bergman. Hold on, I don't want to interrupt you. I am 
kind of like Mr. Gallagher, only he reads better than I do. I 
am a kind of guy that walks around the shop floor and wants to 
see if the parts department is coordinating with the service 
department coordinating with R&D [research and development].
    I am not worried about the history, it's there. What I am 
worried about is the future as we design and build things is 
that we are looking forward, not--we got the history. What have 
we put in place, if anything, even if it is just a straw man 
right now, to ensure that as we get into this, the sharing 
occurs?
    Dr. Karlin. Absolutely. We have twice a year the defense 
ministers' meeting from all three countries to be able to talk 
about what is working with AUKUS and where----
    Mr. Bergman. Can I break it down a little closer? It is one 
thing for the defense ministers to get together, it is another 
thing for the people doing all the welding to get together. 
Could I put it down to that level?
    Admiral Rucker. Yes, sir. I can probably answer that 
question.
    Mr. Bergman. Okay.
    Admiral Rucker. The AUKUS Integration Office is in my 
building right one floor below me. About a month ago we put in 
the first Australian flag officer. There's Australian people in 
that staff already.
    Going back to additive manufacturing, the consortium that 
we stood up, I think some of you have been down to Danville, 
Virginia, where we've stood up the Center of Excellence, one of 
the Australian companies, it is called AML3D, is part of that 
consortium. They are already trading and coordinating on how 
they go about the technical data packages to improve how we 
actually do additive manufacturing, leveraging the lessons 
learned they have.
    In addition, I was the Columbia program manager prior to 
this job. And we set up software systems with the U.K. as we 
were building the Columbia and their Dreadnought class, to 
integrate and interface both the design, how we build them.
    And then the workers from Electric Boat, and the workers 
from BAE in the U.K., we have several hundred of Electric Boat 
over at BAE. They have an office and several hundred over with 
us. And they are fully integrated on how we weld, how we do 
non-destructive testing, and how we actually build the 
submarines.
    The intent is to do the same thing with the U.K. as the 
Under Secretary said, when we bring their workforce over, fully 
integrate in our procedures, processes in the public yards, as 
well as how we build the submarines at new construction.
    Mr. Bergman. Good. Well, again, I am the guy that walks 
around the shop floor. So, if there is something I can see in 
Danville or anywhere else, don't need to go to the U.K., don't 
need to go back to Australia. But I would be more than 
appreciative to talk to your line guys.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Kelly. I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Deluzio.
    Mr. Deluzio. Thank you, Chairman.
    Good afternoon. I think that is the time of day. Good to 
see you all.
    I want to continue some of the discussion on supply chain 
and additive manufacturing in particular. Pleased to see the 
Navy standing up the additive manufacturing Center of 
Excellence. I think it recognizes the need to expand the 
additive manufacturing supply chain if we are going to meet 
production goals of one Columbia-class, two Virginia-class 
submarines per year.
    I think the AUKUS-related production makes strengthening 
the industrial base even more urgent.
    So, my question to each of you, we are not meeting those 
goals yet. Do you agree that adding--the addition of the AUKUS-
related efforts means we ought to have a broader additive 
manufacturing supply chain strategy?
    So, if no, love to hear why. And if yes, love to hear 
strategy about integrating and scaling additive manufacturing 
supply chain beyond the Center of Excellence.
    Admiral Rucker. Yes, sir. I appreciate your question.
    The answer is absolutely we need additive manufacturing. 
Our normal, I would say, if you look across components on the 
ships, forgings, castings, fittings, valves, fasteners, we 
cannot meet the demand to be able to support building the 
submarines we need as well as supporting sustainment without 
going to additive manufacturing.
    We have estimated out. We have six materials that make up 
about 75 percent of our late material, both new construction 
and sustainment. Those are the six materials we are going 
after. Already this year we put the first part additive 
manufacturing on a ballistic missile submarine to ensure they 
could make their schedule.
    The second part, we have a critical valve that is needed. 
That valve was going to be 2 years late. We have reverse 
engineered it. It is being additively manufactured as we speak, 
and it will make it on that submarine by January to support its 
schedule.
    Right now we have 10 academic partnerships already, 4 
industry partners that are already learning how to make the 
parts for the submarine. With the money in the supplemental we 
will increase that to 12 industry partners. And with the money 
in the supplemental we will be able to get up to at least 100 
parts additive manufacturing on submarines.
    And by 2025, our goal, the big sub safe ones that are the 
hardest, to be able to put those on submarines by the end of 
2025.
    So, to your question, sir, you are spot on, we absolutely 
need the additive manufacturing technology.
    Mr. Deluzio. Are there headwinds or problems that this 
committee or the Congress needs to address to expedite the 
embrace of that part of the supply chain?
    Admiral Rucker. I would say there is no obstacles other 
than support the supplemental. In that supplemental one of the 
areas I think the Under Secretary said earlier kind of 
splitting out, there is a portion of the funding, about $2 
billion of that $3.3 billion is for going out to the supplier 
base. And a large chunk of that, about $300 million of that, 
goes to directly developing technologies.
    It is not just the additive manufacturing, it is also the 
non-destructive testing, how you inspect the part, so that we 
can get that done more efficiently. So, that supplemental 
continues to jumpstart.
    When we did the study back a couple years ago, that was one 
area. We underestimated the opportunity that was there. It is 
not science, it is engineering, and just getting scaling to be 
able to support the work we need to do.
    Mr. Deluzio. Anyone else have any thoughts they want to add 
on that?
    Mr. Raven. Sir, completely agree with everything that 
Admiral Rucker said. It is not just about strengthening the 
supply chain. It is not just about workers. It is also looking 
for those next-generation opportunities to improve shipbuilding 
efficiency.
    Mr. Deluzio. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Kelly. I thank the gentleman. He yields back.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 
DesJarlais.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Kelly. Excuse me. Dr. DesJarlais.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Chairman.
    The first question will be for Secretary Raven and Admiral 
Houston.
    The Australian government has offered to invest $3 billion 
in submarine industrial base to the United States as part of 
the AUKUS agreement. The funding would be in addition to 
billions in investments the Navy has already made.
    To what extent has the Navy and nuclear shipbuilders 
established a plan for how an influx of the industrial base 
investments would be used?
    And how well positioned is the Navy to conduct oversight of 
these funds?
    And then, finally, what is the Navy's strategy for ensuring 
such investments achieve their goals and objectives?
    Mr. Raven. Thank you for the question, sir.
    In terms of the state of the plan, we are having 
discussions with the Australians on the details of that plan. 
But in broad strokes it largely mirrors our priority 
investments across--across workforce, supplier development, 
supply chain, looking for these technology opportunities.
    And so, so we expect that those investments will help take 
us from the 2.0 Virginia-class production rate that we need for 
U.S. national needs to the 2.33 that we need to support AUKUS.
    Admiral Houston. And I will defer to Admiral Rucker, but I 
know Admiral Rucker has a detailed plan that he has worked out 
with PEO [Program Executive Office] AUKUS. And he can tell you 
exactly where all those outlies are.
    Admiral Rucker. What I would say, sir, echoing what the 
Under Secretary said, if you look across those categories, 
supplier development, strategic outsourcing, workforce 
technology, the Under [Secretary] mentioned those, but I will 
say on the oversight that you mentioned, sir, we started 
increasing oversight back in 2018 when we increased personnel 
at the Supervisors of Shipbuilding.
    The supplemental continues with that. As we continue to 
strategically outsource work, we are increasing the government 
oversight.
    As an example of that, it was mentioned earlier, we put 
starting large manufacturing at Austal. We have a memorandum of 
agreement that was signed between the supervisor for Electric 
Boat in Groton, and the supervisor that oversees Austal, to 
ensure we have the right manning on the deckplate, in partner 
with Austal, to uplift them to be able to do submarine 
production.
    So, that allows the Groton people to come down and teach or 
partner with the Gulf Coast supervisor, teach them how to do 
submarine. And then scale up as we scale work at Austal. So, we 
have a detailed plan on how to do that around the country.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Secretary Raven, is the plan for 
Australia to handle all the spent nuclear fuel requirements for 
both U.S. subs, transferred Virginia-class subs, and ultimately 
their own indigenous nuclear-powered subs?
    And, if so, do you believe they will be able to meet the 
timelines associated with each one?
    Mr. Raven. Yes, sir. Stewardship is an incredibly important 
part, not only to work out the details of--the nuts and bolts 
of what activities need to occur, but we really do view it as 
part and parcel of the responsibility to safely operate and 
maintain a nuclear-powered fleet.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. And to both admirals, AUKUS will 
require the production of at least three additional Virginia-
class submarines, adding both hulls and management 
responsibility to the Navy's shipbuilding portfolio.
    How has the Navy been prioritizing and resourcing AUKUS-
related efforts to meet this challenge?
    And what additional steps, if any, need to be taken to be 
prepared for implementing AUKUS?
    Admiral Rucker. Yes, sir.
    First of all, with the announcement that occurred earlier 
this year, the preparations in the 18-month study already 
started looking at the manpower that we need here in the U.S. 
That office was stood up. The team was already in place as we 
made the announcement. That team was stood up.
    In addition, working with the shipbuilders we have 
partnered with, as always, with them, received their input on 
what they need as part of that supplemental to ensure they have 
what they need to support both near term and also support the 
AUKUS.
    The Australian team has been very great working with our 
team to ensure their expertise and the benefits that they bring 
in some of their industrial base in terms of certain minerals, 
as well as capabilities, can then augment ours. And then we can 
work with them to uplift all three countries at the same time.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Admiral Houston, did you have anything to 
add?
    All right. That is all I have, Chairman. I yield back.
    Thank you all.
    Mr. Kelly. I now recognize the gentleman from California, 
Mr. Garamendi.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 
the hearing.
    There is little doubt in my mind that the submarine fleet 
is the most important of all of our boats, for a variety of 
reasons, and numerous hearings and the like. And the 
maintenance and availability of those subs has been a constant 
issue for the Readiness Subcommittee over the last several 
years.
    And I am looking at the $3.4 billion in the supplemental 
here; I'm going, okay, these were all things we have talked 
about, including the ramp-up of additional throughput of new 
subs, as well as the maintenance of the older subs. And the 
questions that my colleagues have put forth are certainly 
pertinent.
    But my mind is troubled. I just left the House floor not 
more than an hour ago, and I heard the new Speaker go on about 
the deficit, which was one of the principal points he raised in 
his opening speech and his first statements as Speaker, and 
about the necessity of reducing government expenditures.
    So, my question really is, why were these expenditures, 
$3.4 billion, not in the base budget sent to the Congress? Why 
is this supplemental?
    Mr. Raven. Sir.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Raven.
    Mr. Raven. Yes, sir. Thank you for that, that question.
    As you are well aware, the optimal pathway was announced in 
March of this year. And that is the point at which we 
understood better the path that we are on to help provide a 
support for SSN AUKUS, [and] in the longer term support both 
the U.K. and Australia's national defense needs.
    Over the intervening months, the Navy and CAPE [Cost 
Assessment and Program Evaluation] in OSD [Office of the 
Secretary of Defense] having been engaged in a variety of 
studies to better understand the stresses on the submarine 
industrial base, and how best to execute not only the AUKUS 
program but where we need to be for our own Virginia-class and 
Columbia programs.
    The result of that is a study which is being briefed to the 
Hill. And looking at the priorities of undersea capabilities 
and the challenges of where we find ourselves today. It was the 
judgment recommended from the Navy to the Secretary of Defense 
and to the President that our AUKUS and undersea commitments 
required an acceleration of those efforts.
    And that all stems from the outputs of the studies that we 
conducted over the spring and summer.
    Mr. Garamendi. I think we are going to hit a wall here 
pretty quickly. If the new Speaker is determined to reduce the 
deficit by cutting programs, the question will arise for this 
committee and the Appropriations Committee, how do these 
supplementals which add over and above the existing Department 
of Defense budgets and appropriation, how does it fit?
    Or, what choices must we make: more of this and less of 
something else?
    We are presumably, I think, if I am to take the Speaker at 
his word, we are going to come into a very serious discussion 
about cuts.
    Now, we can go on and on, and I probably--but I won't, 
about how long you have known that there was a problem in the 
submarine section of the Department of Defense. In fact, 
everything that is on this list has, frankly, been known for a 
long time. And using AUKUS as the reason for this new 
supplemental is in part, in my view, disingenuous because every 
single one of these we have discussed in previous years, let 
alone this year.
    So, I am just curious about the choices we are going to 
make and the determination of the Department of Defense, those 
of you here and others, to make choices. What are you willing 
to give up, if anything?
    I will let it hang there. I will yield back.
    Admiral Rucker. Sir, if I might just add one comment.
    We also do have substantial investments in our base budget. 
There is approximately $2.4 billion that has been provided by 
Congress over the last several years, and another about $1.6 
billion planned in the fiscal year 2024 and future budgets that 
get to exactly these sorts of investments.
    In addition to that, within the budget there is a plan for 
$2.2 billion in additional sustainment funding over the next 
several years.
    So, this is not a matter of simply seeking a supplemental 
to replace what is in the base budget, but our intention is to 
accelerate because of not only the capabilities that are 
essential to security in the Indo-Pacific, but also to be 
better positioned to execute this very important international 
agreement.
    And we are fully prepared to discuss the details of this 
proposal with you or your staff, or anybody who will make the 
time.
    Mr. Garamendi. Very quickly. I am very, very much aware of 
what we have done over the last few years, most of it done in 
the Readiness Committee and in this committee.
    Mr. Kelly. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Guam, Mr. Moylan.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Karlin, to support the AUKUS framework the 
international Virginia-class submarine fleet will require 
harbors in the Western Pacific where they can surface for 
maintenance and resupply. Considering that Guam currently 
homeports four Los Angeles-class attack submarines, do you 
expect Guam to become more strategically important as a result 
of the AUKUS agreements?
    And how would an ill-prepared Guam undermine our deterrence 
posture?
    Dr. Karlin. Thank you for raising that important issue.
    As you know, of course, Guam is a key node in the network 
we have in the Indo-Pacific in which we have tried to establish 
kind of diverse resilient basing across the region. So, Guam is 
currently a critical hub for our operations to project power, 
deter aggression, and provide warfighting advantage across the 
Indo-Pacific.
    We have got to have it. It has been very important. It will 
continue to be exceedingly important as we prioritize Indo-
Pacific security and stability, of which AUKUS is a key 
element.
    Mr. Moylan. I appreciate that. Thank you.
    Admiral Houston. And if I could add?
    Guam is absolutely critical for our submarine operations. 
It provides us immediate access to areas of concern in the 
Indo-Pacific.
    And to answer your question, the current plan is to have a 
Virginia-class submarine based there in 2025. We are improving 
maintenance. Pearl Harbor is designated as the lead maintenance 
activity. We are improving shore-based maintenance there. We 
have increased trainers. We are fully committed to Guam because 
of the importance it has for our region, for our Navy, and our 
national--our national defense.
    Mr. Moylan. I totally agree. Thank you.
    Next question, Admiral Rucker. A priority of mine is to 
build a resilient power grid on Guam, so that the civilian 
community receives reliable access to power in the wake of all 
these typhoons that we have.
    It is my understanding that Guam's power grid is also a 
priority of the Navy. Can you please explain why a resilient 
power grid on Guam is necessary to bring online the Virginia-
class attack submarine, and how a resilient power grid impacts 
force readiness?
    Admiral Rucker. Yeah, sir, I will defer to Admiral Houston 
who is involved in the operations, then I'll add to anything he 
has to say, sir.
    Admiral Houston. Yeah. Reliable power is absolutely key for 
our warships to maintain them, to be able to train, to be able 
to deploy them on time. That is why we are fully committed to 
the reliable power grid there. It is absolutely critical for 
us.
    Mr. Moylan. We are looking forward to working very closely 
with you. And I appreciate the commitment. Thank you.
    Admiral Houston. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Moylan. Also, Admiral Houston, I have received word--I 
have been working on to reestablish Guam as a hub for ship 
repair in the Western Pacific because this would both create 
jobs, well-paying jobs on Guam, and improve America's 
deterrence posture.
    In what ways would you improve shipyard capabilities, 
capacity on Guam, bolster deterrence, and stimulate a local 
economy?
    Admiral Houston. That is our plan to stand up the land-
based IMA there, the intermediate maintenance activity, 
currently with Pearl Harbor as the lead shipyard to train and 
develop personnel.
    But I would envision long term that they would be primarily 
personnel who live in Guam, just like in Pearl Harbor they are 
all from Pearl Harbor and from the Hawaiian operating areas 
where the workers come from.
    So, I think that will transition and provide very, very 
well-paying jobs. And that is the experience we have had with 
Pearl Harbor. The retention of workers at the Pearl Harbor 
Shipyard is very high, and they are very capable. And I think 
we would have that in Guam as we continue to develop it.
    Mr. Moylan. That would be very important and good for our 
community, so I appreciate it. Thank you very much to the 
panel.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Kelly. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the gentlelady from the State of 
California, Ms. Jacobs.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 
all for being here today.
    I was in San Diego earlier when President Biden formally 
announced the submarine deal and his commitment to reinforcing 
alliances with the U.K. and Australia. And I can't think of a 
better place for the announcement.
    And we are always happy to welcome you back to San Diego.
    I wanted to ask a question, Dr. Karlin. You mentioned that 
the DOD Indo-Pacific strategy is centered on three ideas: 
capable, forward, and together. You also mentioned that our 
allies and partners are our center of gravity in the broader 
national defense strategy.
    And we have heard a lot in this hearing about how 
Australia's investment in our defense industrial base can help 
with some of our own current gaps.
    But I was wondering if you could elaborate on what you 
meant specifically when you said, capable, forward, and 
together?
    And can you also discuss some of the challenges and 
successes working with our partners and allies in the region in 
developing a sophisticated undersea capability?
    Dr. Karlin. Absolutely. Thank you for all of that.
    So, our frame really has been thinking about what we have 
been doing in the Indo-Pacific, is, you know, to be more 
capable, more forward, and more together.
    More capable. That means we have got a combat-credible 
military with appropriate operating concepts, given the 
challenges we see, particularly in the Indo-Pacific.
    More forward. That means we have got to have a dispersed, 
resilient presence all across the Indo-Pacific. And, in fact, 
over the last year or so we have had historic agreements with 
Japan, Papua New Guinea, Australia, and the Philippines to help 
with that, that resilient and diversified posture.
    And then more together; right? We are stronger with our 
allies and partners. Of course, AUKUS is a fantastic case study 
here as well.
    And, you know, the path that we are on means that we will 
have Australia, the U.K., and United States with tremendously 
capable undersea warfare capabilities, operating together, our 
industrial bases working together. And that really is a game 
changer when we think about Indo-Pacific security and 
stability.
    Admiral Houston. Ms. Jacobs, if I could jump in.
    Beside just saying San Diego, where I commanded USS Hampton 
out of Point Loma, is the most beautiful place to operate out 
of. So, it is every submariner's dream there.
    I will say that we are so tightly aligned with our foreign 
partners in the Indo-Pacific, from Australia where I completed 
my command quals. We go down there every 2 years and operate 
our submarines with their submarines' command quals, integrated 
with our heavyweight torpedo combat system. But just pure 
operations, we operate with them, we do exercises, sensitive 
submarine reconnaissance missions.
    The Japanese, we have our primary operating base out of 
there with our submarine force CTF 74 [Commander, Task Force 
74], Group 7, operating out of there.
    And, for instance, we just pulled USS Kentucky, our 
strategic submarine, into Busan in Korea.
    So, our ability to operate with those navies and work with 
them is really our asymmetric advantage.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. I appreciate that. That is very 
helpful.
    I also want to talk about undersea capabilities. And, you 
know, I know there has been some talk about budgets and 
everything associated with that and, you know, making sure we 
are spending tax dollars wisely.
    And, obviously, our main focus here is today, and the 
traditional undersea deterrent, but I want to know how that 
fits in with some of the more forward-looking initiatives we 
have heard about recently coming out of the Pentagon, you know, 
in particular balancing this long-term strategy between crewed 
vessels and autonomous or AI [artificial intelligence]-driven 
vessels.
    So, could you share some insights on how the Department is 
considering this balance, not just for undersea operations but 
across various domains, and how this project Replicator that 
Deputy SECDEF [Secretary of Defense] has talked about fits into 
this strategy?
    Mr. Raven. Thank you for that excellent question.
    Where the Navy is going is a robust capabilities spread 
across both manned and unmanned platforms, operating in all 
domains, of which the undersea is one area where we hold a 
critical advantage.
    Where I see AUKUS fitting in is not only the advancement of 
our undersea capabilities by teaming even closer with our U.K. 
and Australian allies. But also, the Pillar 2 opportunities to 
advance technologies such as many of those that you have 
referenced in terms of, in terms of unmanned, but also getting 
into areas such as quantum computing, other undersea 
technologies.
    And so, the AUKUS partnership is key to advancing much of 
what you just spoke about.
    Ms. Jacobs. Great. Well, thank you. I look forward to 
continuing to welcome you all to San Diego to celebrate this 
great partnership.
    And with that, Mr. Chair, I will yield back with a note 
that the AUKUS Working Group should really be called the AUKUS 
Caucus.
    Mr. Kelly. The gentlewoman finally yields back a little bit 
early one time, and I don't have to gavel her down.
    Now, I now recognize the gentlewoman from the great State--
or the Commonwealth of Virginia, Ms. Kiggans.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And thank you 
all for being here.
    Over one-third of the Navy's 51 attack boats are in 
maintenance right now due to backlogs in repair in all four of 
the Navy's public shipyards. So, the Navy submarines are 
spending more and more time undergoing maintenance due to our 
lack of industrial capacity and spare parts. Spare parts 
inventories have been cut below critical levels, forcing delays 
in yard exits while ships wait for parts and skilled workers--
and skilled workers look for other employment.
    So, what is Navy leadership doing to increase the flow of 
spare parts to the waterfront to support maintenance 
availabilities?
    And how are we alleviating the U.S. repair backlog and 
getting our subs back to sea?
    Admiral Houston. It is a primary effort for the Navy. We 
have increased significantly over $600 million to buy Virginia-
class parts to address that backlog. That has been programmed 
in.
    We have increased public shipyard wages, especially in the 
Norfolk area, to ensure we access and retain the most skilled 
labor possible.
    We are outsourcing significantly. We are doubling the 
amount of outsourcing resource days we do across the public 
shipyards. We generally average about 100,000 resource days per 
year across the four public shipyards. We will double that to 
over 200,000.
    And then we are also continuing, as you know, to outsource 
entire availabilities. We've outsourced both Columbus and Boise 
in HII [Huntington Ingalls Industries] Newport News. And we 
have also outsourced an entire availability at Electric Boat 
with Hartford.
    So, we are using every lever we can to get at that backlog. 
That backlog represents seven submarines that once we address 
that by 2027-2028 that will have returned to the fleet and be 
able to meet our operational needs.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Okay, good.
    And the Hampton Roads area, which I represent, and Virginia 
Beach, plays a critical role in construction of the Virginia-
class submarines at Newport News Shipbuilding. I'm glad to hear 
the Commonwealth will continue to support the AUKUS agreement 
through the Navy's additive manufacturing Center of Excellence 
in Danville, Virginia, tapping into our rural workforce.
    We have got extreme workforce challenges associated with 
AUKUS. Electric Boat plans to hire almost 20,000 workers over 
the next 10 years, and Australia needing to build up their, 
their submarine repair and building workforce.
    And I read in the Navy's testimony that in order to meet 
the increase in demand associated with the proposed annual 
construction rate of one Columbia-class and two Virginia-class 
submarines by 2028, the workload equivalent will have to be 
five times what it is today.
    So, I guess, simple question. Where are the people going to 
come from?
    And I know we have a group of people in Pearl Harbor that 
you mentioned. You know, and it is roughly around 90, is that 
correct, that are there? We need a lot more than that, so are 
they coming from Australia, are they coming from, from 
domestically? Or just how are we incentivizing because that is 
a lot of people we are going to need?
    Admiral Houston. Yeah. So, for the public shipyards, Pearl 
Harbor is about 6,000 workers at Pearl Harbor Shipyard. Norfolk 
Naval is about a little over 10,000, 10,500.
    To get to the new construction question, which I think is 
what you are asking, what we are doing is we are outsourcing 
large components and a large amount of work outside, just the 
Groton Electric Boat area, and Quonset Point, and Newport News.
    We have a goal to reach 6 million. Admiral Rucker will go 
ahead and explain more. But we are up to over 4 million 
resource days per year being outsourced. And the way you do 
that is you outsource to the Gulf Coast and they build entire 
modules that can be shipped. And that is what it is because you 
are exactly right, you can't just rely on certain areas, it has 
got to be across the Nation. And we have more than 30 States 
involved in the industrial base. And it is absolutely critical.
    Admiral Rucker. Yes, ma'am. Great question.
    So, starting with you are in the Hampton Roads region, we 
have these, in addition to what you talked about at Danville, 
we have what is called State pipeline training pipelines. 
Hampton Roads, in partnership with Newport News and BAE, and 
other companies in the area, we established that. We have 
already seen an uptick in the number of people that are willing 
to come in and want to come in to that specific thing.
    The other States, Virginia is one of our top States where 
we have critical suppliers, along with Pennsylvania, New York, 
Massachusetts, California, and Ohio.
    Looking at what we are doing with those State pipelines, we 
have already seen over a thousand people just since we started 
a little over a year ago already come in. They have a 92 
percent retention and placement rate once they come in and go 
through our training systems.
    Right now in the region, in addition with Newport News, 
some of the funding is helping to increase their apprenticeship 
school. With that outsourcing of work, the combination of the 
workers around the area, and we've looked at expanding the 
radius from which they look, as well as the demographics in 
which they look.
    I'm sure you probably have seen billboards around or 
commercials during football games. Another thing is 
buildsubmarines.com. We have since translated that into 
Spanish, and we are going after a population that, frankly, we 
did not look at as well before. And we are expanding that up 
near Electric Boat. There's a whole region that we think those 
people can come, have good, high-paying jobs.
    And then also in the Hampton Roads region we are looking to 
expand that as well.
    So, a lot of things I would say from a national marketing 
perspective, that regional training center in Danville, and 
with the supplemental we intend to not only finish outfitting 
that, we broke ground a little, about a week or two ago that 
will increase the capacity there, but we will establish other 
ones of those around the country.
    And then with those State pipelines, bring together and 
reconnect the critical technology education centers, the CTEs, 
vocational schools, build those links that used to exist, we 
are reestablishing those to be able to reach out and touch all 
the way down to the elementary school to bring those people in 
and help with the workforce.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you. And hope targeting our veterans as 
well.
    And I am out of time so I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Kelly. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentleman from the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, and former chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. 
Wittman.
    Mr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us.
    For Admiral Rucker, I wanted to drill down a little bit, 
specifically about workforce. Listen, we can talk about 
resources, supplementals, all that stuff, that is great. But 
the bottom line is is you have to have people in the yards to 
build these boats.
    We know that we need 10,000 workers annually if we are 
going to get to a rate of building one SSBN and two SSNs a 
year. To me, we have to do that. In fact, I think we have to be 
in a cadence of 2.3 for SSNs because that is where we enjoy 
such a significant advantage now, and what we can do to 
maintain that in the future.
    The thing that is disturbing to me are the workforce 
numbers that we have seen both last year and this year. In 2022 
we added 4,855 tradesmen, while losing 3,384.
    This year we saw a marked improvement by recruiting 7,193 
tradespeople. We lost 3,313.
    The question becomes we can't do addition by subtraction. 
We cannot continue to lose individuals at that rate. So, the 
question is, is what do we do to retain the workers we have?
    What do we do, too, in the world where recruitment, 
especially based on wage, becomes significant?
    When I was at Electric Boat [EB] I drove by a Chick-fil-A. 
They had a sign out that said $18 an hour. We will give you a 
stipend for your education, you will have health benefits, paid 
time off. And you are inside serving chicken sandwiches in a 
nice comfortable environment.
    And then you drive down to the yard there at EB, where you 
are outside where it is cold, windy, you are working with 
steel. You are in a fairly severe environment. And there you 
are being paid less than that. And we expect to be able to 
recruit folks from that realm to go work at the shipyard.
    Now, to EB's credit and others, we are building facilities 
where we are putting people inside trying to make it more 
comfortable. But, still, we are not at a competitive level on 
recruitment. And we certainly aren't there by these numbers on 
retention.
    Tell me, tell me, how do we solve that problem? Because 
that is the first problem you have to solve. We can throw all 
the money we want to at the problem, but if you don't have the 
people there in the yards to build these submarines, I don't 
care what else we do, this enterprise fails.
    Admiral Rucker. Yes, sir. Appreciate the question.
    And I know you have the data that we worked to get to you 
yesterday.
    So, as you mentioned, sir, since we kind of amped up our 
workforce efforts, you got--talked about the numbers where 
those numbers you talked about this year, that 7,100, that is 
through September 1st. So, we are on track to get close to that 
10,000 by the end of the year, after last year only getting 
about 5,000.
    So, we have already seen the benefits from the efforts that 
we are doing.
    When I talked about earlier the population where Electric 
Boat and Newport News to get the people, they only looked at a 
certain radius. That radius has expanded up into Providence and 
some other areas where, as I mentioned, that Hispanic 
population there is a high propensity there. That is why we 
translated it into Spanish and we are looking. That distance is 
really only about a 30-minute drive.
    The wages, as well, I think you are familiar, sir, that 
Electric Boat raised their wages at Quonset Point last October. 
Since they did that, they have exceeded their hiring rates. So 
that takes kind of what we are doing to get after hiring. It is 
not just Electric Boat and Newport News, I would be remiss to 
say, it is the whole country, which is why we have this 
national marketing campaign in those areas where we have 
critical suppliers, and everywhere.
    From a retention perspective, I agree with you, that is 
something that we've brought outside consultants in. Electric 
Boat and Newport News have had the benefit over the years 
picking them to where they didn't have as much competition, as 
you mentioned, sir. It is a different world now.
    The data from before COVID-19 to after, where we really are 
seeing the challenge is in that first to second year where our 
attrition at the shipbuilders and some of the suppliers has 
over doubled. So, what we are doing is we are going after some 
of those wages, retention bonuses, engagement of supervisors to 
feel increased job satisfaction.
    And then, also, as they come in there be able to reduce the 
supervisor-to-worker ratio so they can get that mentoring early 
on, become part of the team, and then make meaningful work 
where they recognize the mission is bigger than just 
themselves.
    So, I will say it is a soft touch in addition to that wages 
and everything else, sir.
    Mr. Wittman. Let me ask, too, I think there are other 
things that we have to do. We have to be able to look beyond 
just the yards themselves. The yards have a, have a finite 
capacity.
    We also have to look at the suppliers. We talk about 
building the supplier bases. It's not just doing that, it is 
getting suppliers closer regionally to the places where they 
are supplying the parts for these submarines and making sure 
that we expand the production base by having others that are 
building component parts that can be assembled at other places, 
and then these panels put together and then sent to the yard.
    I mean, we already do that modularly. To me, being able to 
spread workforce out, because at some point you reach a 
critical mass where people can't park, it becomes less 
convenient for them to go to a massive center where there are 
tens of thousands of people coming into a yard. That is also 
another issue with retention.
    So, I know I am out of time. But I think those things the 
Navy has to look at.
    And I think, too, the Navy has to have conversations with 
local governments about what they will do and their plans for 
development around these shipyard areas. Because it is not just 
the things that the Navy can do, it is also quality of life 
things for shipyard workers. Is there a place for them to go 
eat? Is there a convenient place for them to park?
    I mean, those things have to be part of this. Because I can 
tell you, wherever else they go there are these nice, bright, 
shiny cafeterias with lots of food choices, easy parking. All 
those things matter in today's workforce.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Kelly. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize another Representative from the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, Ms. McClellan.
    Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to follow up on questions from Representative 
Wittman about how we are addressing some of the workforce 
issues.
    But I want to ask if you could go into some detail about 
how you might be using new technology to improve capacity of 
the workforce that we already have?
    Admiral Rucker. Yes, ma'am.
    As Representative Wittman said when he talked about quality 
of service, quality of life, those are huge benefits in your--
in Virginia right now. We are already working with Newport News 
and others. It is kind of already a great news story of things 
we are going after, the food and everything else.
    Part of that also is how we improve technologies. So, we 
are looking at robotics in some of the technologies with data 
analytics within the yard. Right now up at Electric Boat we 
have already been employing robotics. Down at Newport News also 
employing robotics. In sum, how they go through cutting, 
forming, welding, and then eventually being able to scale that 
to the larger stuff.
    As an example, down at Newport News one of the things they 
determined is they were having some quality issues with making 
the hull structures. It was because they were manually checking 
the dimensions after they welded it.
    They were able to bring in a track system with a robot that 
could automatically check it in situ as they were going. It 
increased their efficiency by over 30 percent, and reduced 
their quality from 10 percent defects down to less than 1 
percent.
    So, we are seeing the benefits of that automation, 
repeatability, not only increasing quality but also improving 
efficiency.
    Ms. McClellan. Thank you.
    And following up on earlier questions you received, can you 
provide a little more specific information on how you can 
increase build rates and use the Navy's plans to use funding 
from the supplemental, if we pass it, to help increased build 
rates?
    Admiral Rucker. Yes, ma'am.
    A good portion of the supplemental, about $2 billion of it, 
is stuff that is going out to supplier development, strategic 
outsourcing, some of that workforce development national.
    When you look across, as Representative Wittman said, some 
cases it is bringing the work to the people. In other cases 
where you get saturated, it's take the work to where the people 
are.
    In the case of the strategic outsourcing, we have about 20 
to 25 main vendors that are doing that large structural 
fabrication, vendors located in different States. Some of the 
money that the Congress already provided before back in 2019 to 
2020, today if we had not had that money there are portions of 
the submarine that we would not be able to build, some of the 
large forgings that go into the missile tubes and Virginia 
payload tubes, the superstructure that goes on top, those, the 
money that Congress provided allowed us to facilitize those 
vendors to be able to do that larger capability.
    That is something we are doing around the country. I think 
as the Under Secretary said and Admiral Houston said, today we 
are at 4 million man-hours annually that we have now pushed 
out. Our goal is to get up over 600--I apologize, 6 million by 
2025. That is essentially a half of a Virginia-class submarine 
that we will be pushing outside the yards annually to ensure 
that we disperse and take advantage of the workforce around the 
country.
    Ms. McClellan. Thank you for that.
    One of the things I have heard from the Virginia shipyards 
is that the Department can be slow in disbursing funding for 
submarine construction in the industrial base account to 
suppliers and contractors.
    What is the Navy doing to ensure this funding can go out 
more quickly?
    Admiral Rucker. Yes, ma'am.
    I think it was said earlier by some of the Representatives 
that when we understand the stability of the work and the 
prediction, we have economic order quantities and we do 
multiyear procurements. We have one of those coming up as we 
move forward into the next block of Virginias, as well as 
Columbia.
    We actually have a joint team from my organization and the 
admiral that owns the Columbia-class where they are working 
together with the shipbuilders to push out the largest volume 
ever that we have done in shipbuilding at one time to establish 
large, stable contracts, so that the stability with the 
workforce out there can understand, they can facilitize, hire 
the workforce, and get that stable, credible demand over time.
    As we go to do that, working with the suppliers we have--we 
worked with EB in Newport News. They have a quarterly supplier 
bulletin that they put out. And the Navy has helped with them 
to put information in there to better communicate with all of 
the suppliers. We have about 350 critical suppliers, 16,000 
total, that we push that information out so they have better 
visibility and transparency of the timing of what's coming so 
we can communicate and make sure we maintain that partnership.
    Ms. McClellan. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Kelly. The gentlewoman yields back.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, one of the 
bright new stars on this subcommittee, Mr. Alford.
    Mr. Alford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Ranking 
Member Courtney. Isn't it good to be back at work for the 
American people?
    Hey, thank you all for being here today. I really 
appreciate that.
    You know, the DOD recently issued a military report 
estimating the Chinese have more than 500 operational nuclear 
warheads, and are on pace to 1,000 warheads by 2030. I am not 
telling you anything you don't know.
    China continues to build towards its Type 096 ballistic 
missile submarine.
    I think we are all increasingly concerned about China's 
ability to ramp up its nuclear program. I am hopeful, along 
with the rest of this committee, that AUKUS continues to form 
into a powerful deterrent against China.
    Vice Admiral Houston, I was very much impressed with our 
meeting a couple of months ago in another setting. You, sir, 
have a great passion, level of knowledge. You have impressed me 
more than anyone I have met in this building. And I have got a 
question for you.
    Is our submarine fleet ready today to take on China if we 
needed to?
    Admiral Houston. Thank you for the compliment and thank you 
for the question, sir.
    We are absolutely ready. We are prepared. We train and we 
practice for all contingency operations. And the submarine 
force, our priorities are warfighting, people, and safety.
    And I can tell you down to the day every one of my 
operational submarines when it will be ready to deploy, if 
called upon.
    Mr. Alford. What is the biggest challenge we face?
    Admiral Houston. The biggest challenge I currently face is 
what we have been talking about with our maintenance backlog, 
it's getting those seven operational--those seven submarines 
that should not be in maintenance, getting them back to the 
fleet.
    And with the support that we have for the industrial base, 
the uplift that we can get from the Australia additive money 
here, will help reduce that backlog. And by 2027-2028 we should 
be, have those seven submarines back and be at 80 percent 
operational readiness.
    That is a key Davidson timeline. That is our goal. And that 
is what we are focused on on the undersea force right now.
    Mr. Alford. Well, again, thank you.
    Secretary Raven, the fiscal year 2024 House NDAA included a 
provision requiring the Navy to provide a report on the 
industrialization efforts and investments it is making into the 
next-gen nickel-zinc submarine battery.
    The recent supplemental appropriations request from the 
administration asks for approximately $3.4 billion for 
investments in the submarine industrial base.
    Out of these funds, can you please tell us what the planned 
investments are specifically for the submarine battery 
industrial base to ensure the Columbia-class submarines are 
delivered on time?
    Or would that be better addressed to someone else? Rear 
Admiral Rucker?
    Mr. Raven. Admiral Rucker can handle that.
    Admiral Rucker. Yes, sir.
    Today we have two main submarine battery vendors. The money 
that is in the supplemental has more than $20 million to be 
able to go after and continue the uplift of production at those 
submarine battery vendors.
    In addition, the nickel-zinc, my office, one of my offices 
owns that. We have transitioned that from I will say proof of 
concept into technology development as we look to when we 
should be able to integrate that technology onto the Virginia 
class. So it's kind of moved from the early stage of kind of 
tinkering with into actual technology development to integrate.
    Mr. Alford. Well, thank you. Again, thank you for your time 
and attention and your candid answers. And I appreciate your 
service to our Nation.
    Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Kelly. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the final, final person to ask questions, 
Ranking Member Courtney.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you.
    And before I do, just really quickly I do want to follow up 
on a mention that Admiral Houston made, that a week ago last 
Saturday, the 22nd Virginia-class submarine USS Hyman G. 
Rickover was commissioned and added to the fleet, and really 
months away from the USS New Jersey also being commissioned.
    And there are 13 Virginia-class submarines in the queue 
that, again, are in various stages of production at the two 
major shipyards. But, again, with the boost I think that is 
coming through with the industrial base funding over the last 
few years or so, we are going to see that tonnage chart pick up 
speed, and we are going to see, again, I think the sort of 
post-COVID production cadence get back on track. That is here.
    I would also just sort of note that in terms of the wage 
rates up in, you know, southern New England, the Metal Trades 
Council just signed an agreement with Electric Boat 2 weeks 
ago, a 5-year contract. Starting wage is $23 an hour. And, 
again, there is a really solid package in terms of retirement 
benefits and health, which far exceeds anything that a fast 
food or hospitality employer in the region is going to be able 
to offer.
    Not to speak of the fact that there is a really fast track 
for promotion for people who make that choice. And that's why 
they are at about 4,500 hires this year, which is the highest 
number ever in the 120-year history of that company. That is 
there.
    One last point I just want to make because it was in the 
press, Wall Street Journal again had a piece which talked about 
that, you know, maybe it is time for us to sort of just go back 
to diesel electrics as a way of sort of expanding the size of 
the fleet, which again has been asked about here today.
    And I think the last diesel went offline in the early 1990s 
maybe. But maybe, Admiral Houston, if you could just sort of 
address that issue as long as we have got you here today.
    Admiral Houston. Yeah. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    So, after World War II, Chester Nimitz, the fleet admiral, 
the Pacific Fleet commander, who happened to be a submarine 
officer, was approached by Admiral Rickover 75 years ago, and 
we embarked on nuclear propulsion on submarines. It gives an 
unmatched capability in the undersea.
    We have shifted solely to nuclear power because it gives 
that incredible capability.
    And as we talk about countries that could you go to diesel 
submarines, Australia is larger than the continental U.S., with 
a larger coast, surrounded by the Indian Ocean and the Pacific 
Ocean. It is very large distances. Nuclear propulsion gives 
undersea forces asymmetric advantages.
    That is why countries that have the most capable navies 
have shifted to nuclear power submarines. It gives you 
unmatched stealth, unmatched sustainment, unmatched combat 
capability. It is not a fair comparison.
    So, when you look at Nautilus, underway from 1955 to 1968, 
we have built more than 60 submarines, crewed more than 100 
nuclear crews. And we did this on the backs of a nation that 
had essentially won the Pacific war with 2 percent of the Navy, 
which was diesel submarines.
    So, clearly, the Commander in Chief of the Pacific, Admiral 
Nimitz, knew the benefit of nuclear propulsion. And it gives 
you that unmatched capability that we have today.
    And that is why it is so important for Australia, as they 
sought out for their national defense to have that asymmetric 
capability for the free Indo-Pacific region.
    Mr. Kelly. I told my ranking member, who used to be known 
as Two-Sub Joe, he is going to have to re-change his name to 
Three-Sub Joe in order to get to where we need.
    Listen, you witnesses did an outstanding job of painting a 
picture for America and for our colleagues here in the House 
and over in the Senate of the benefits of these things. And I 
thank you for your time, and I thank you for your 
professionalism.
    And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]


      
=======================================================================




                            A P P E N D I X

                            October 25, 2023

=======================================================================

      


      
=======================================================================


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                            October 25, 2023

=======================================================================

      

      
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    

    
    

      
=======================================================================


                   DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                            October 25, 2023

=======================================================================

      
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

  
    


      
=======================================================================


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                            October 25, 2023

=======================================================================

      

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. COURTNEY

    Mr. Courtney. Following the Congressional Budget Office's report on 
the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan, there was reporting that AUKUS 
would cause a 10-year dip in attack submarine inventory. Can you 
comment on that notion?
    Dr. Karlin. I defer to HON Raven to answer this question.
    Mr. Courtney. Following the Congressional Budget Office's report on 
the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan, there was reporting that AUKUS 
would cause a 10-year dip in attack submarine inventory. Can you 
comment on that notion?
    Mr. Raven. I do not agree with the assertion that AUKUS will cause 
a 10-year dip in attack submarine inventory.
    The Navy maintains a requirement to achieve an inventory of 66 SSNs 
and will continue to build to that number. More broadly, the U.S. 
Defense Industrial Base must meet a build rate of one COLUMBIA-Class 
and two VIRGINIA-Class submarines per year to meet U.S. national needs 
and sustain the existing submarine fleet. U.S. shipbuilders are working 
to meet this demand. The sale of three Virginia Class Submarines would 
require an annual VCS construction cadence of 2.33.
    Current shortfalls in U.S. submarine inventory and availability are 
the result of shortfalls in submarine production and maintenance 
relative to U.S. national needs, not AUKUS. The Administration has made 
significant investments to boost submarine production and maintenance 
to meet U.S. requirements, augmented by our Australian partners making 
a proportionate financial contribution.
    -In the FY23 President's Budget, the Administration proposed an 
additional U.S. $2.4 billion over fiscal years 2023-2027 in the 
submarine industrial base to increase construction capacity--above and 
beyond its annual investment in undersea platforms--to meet U.S. 
national needs.
    -In the FY24 President's Budget, the Administration also added $2.2 
billion to its submarine maintenance budget over fiscal years 2024-2028 
to improve Virginia class SSN maintenance.
    -Additionally, as part of the Optimal Pathway announcement on March 
13, 2023, Australia has committed to a proportionate financial 
investment in the U.S. submarine industrial base to accelerate delivery 
of Virginia class submarines, pending the enactment of authority from 
Congress for the sale of the SSNs and to receive these funds.
    -Most recent, on October 20th, 2023, the President requested from 
Congress $3.3B in supplemental funding to accelerate build and 
sustainment rates for attack submarines through initiatives in supplier 
development, shipbuilder and supplier infrastructure, workforce 
development, technology advancements, government oversight, and 
strategic sourcing. While this funding for our submarine industrial 
base is necessary to meet U.S. national needs, these investments will 
also support U.S. commitments under AUKUS.
    The U.S. is examining what additional investments are required to 
accelerate submarine production and maintenance to support both U.S. 
and AUKUS needs. Congress has been tremendously helpful in providing 
increased SIB funding and supporting these increases.
    Mr. Courtney. Your written statement notes that the addition of the 
Virginia Payload Module design equates to 1.25 legacy Virginia-class 
submarines, which equals a higher build rate in 2025. Can you expand on 
that point? Is there going to be added capacity in the Virginia-class 
program once we phase out of boats that are longer because of that 
module? And how does that impact the build rate per year?
    Admiral Houston. The introduction of VIRGINIA Payload Module (VPM) 
submarines adds approximately 1,600 Long Tons per submarine, which 
equates to approximately 1.25 legacy VCS. As VPMs progress through the 
construction process, the total tonnage required to achieve VIRGINIA 
class cadence at a two per-year rate requires increased throughput, 
resulting in a higher overall production capacity across the production 
system to achieve the 1+2 cadence (1 COLUMBIA (CLB) class SSBN and 2 
VIRGINIA class SSNs (VCS) until VPM boats are complete and the Navy 
transitions back to the standard VCS (Block VII).
    More broadly, the U.S. Defense Industrial Base must meet a build 
rate of one CLB submarine and two VCS per year to meet U.S. national 
needs and sustain the existing submarine fleet. In addition to the VPM 
submarines, one CLB class SSBN is approximately 2.5 VCS in terms of 
build resources (manning) and tonnage. As a result, producing 2 VPM 
submarines per year during the serial production phase of CLB will 
equate to approximately 5.0 standard VCS per year (2.5 + 1.25 + 1.25). 
Additionally, beginning in the early 2030s, pending approval from the 
U.S. Congress, the United States intends to sell Australia three 
Virginia class submarines, with the potential to sell up to two more if 
needed. The sale of three submarines to Australia during the 2030s 
would raise the overall construction rate for attack submarines from 2 
per year to 2.33 per year.
    Any additional capacity made available when the United States 
transitions to building VCS without a VPM would be available to meet 
the needs of the significant requirements on our submarine industrial 
base as described above.
    Mr. Courtney. The Navy has leveraged the private shipyards to 
reduce pressure on the maintenance industrial base and has achieved 
success in this effort, most recently with performance by Electric Boat 
with the USS Hartford. What is the Navy's plan for priate yard attack 
submarine maintenance beyond USS Hartford at Groton and USS Boise at 
Newport News?
    Admiral Houston. Navy intends to continue to execute private 
shipyard maintenance per the 15-year SSN maintenance plan and the PB24 
budget. To continue to work to improve submarine operational 
availability, the Navy continues to evaluate options following the USS 
Hartford at Groton.
    Mr. Courtney. Your written statement notes that the addition of the 
Virginia Payload Module design equates to 1.25 legacy Virginia-class 
submarines, which equals a higher build rate in 2025. Can you expand on 
that point? Is there going to be added capacity in the Virginia-class 
program once we phase out of boats that are longer because of that 
module? And how does that impact the build rate per year?
    Admiral Rucker. The introduction of VIRGINIA Payload Module (VPM) 
submarines adds approximately 1,600 Long Tons per submarine, which 
equates to approximately 1.25 legacy VCS. As VPMs progress through the 
construction process, the total tonnage required to achieve VIRGINIA 
class cadence at a two per-year rate requires increased throughput, 
resulting in a higher overall production capacity across the production 
system to achieve the 1+2 cadence (1 COLUMBIA (CLB) class SSBN and 2 
VIRGINIA class SSNs (VCS) until VPM boats are complete and the Navy 
transitions back to the standard VCS (Block VII).
    More broadly, the U.S. Defense Industrial Base must meet a build 
rate of one CLB submarine and two VCS per year to meet U.S. national 
needs and sustain the existing submarine fleet. In addition to the VPM 
submarines, one CLB class SSBN is approximately 2.5 VCS in terms of 
build resources (manning) and tonnage. As a result, producing 2 VPM 
submarines per year during the serial production phase of CLB will 
equate to approximately 5.0 standard VCS per year (2.5 + 1.25 + 1.25). 
Additionally, beginning in the early 2030s, pending approval from the 
U.S. Congress, the United States intends to sell Australia three 
Virginia class submarines, with the potential to sell up to two more if 
needed. The sale of three submarines to Australia during the 2030s 
would raise the overall construction rate for attack submarines from 2 
per year to 2.33 per year.
    Any additional capacity made available when the United States 
transitions to building VCS without a VPM would be available to meet 
the needs of the significant requirements on our submarine industrial 
base as described above.
    Mr. Courtney. The Navy has leveraged the private shipyards to 
reduce pressure on the maintenance industrial base and has achieved 
success in this effort, most recently with performance by Electric Boat 
with the USS Hartford. What is the Navy's plan for priate yard attack 
submarine maintenance beyond USS Hartford at Groton and USS Boise at 
Newport News?
    Admiral Rucker. Navy intends to continue to execute private 
shipyard maintenance per the 15-year SSN maintenance plan and the PB24 
budget. To continue to work to improve submarine operational 
availability, the Navy continues to evaluate options following the USS 
Hartford at Groton.