[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 118-77]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES HEARING
ON
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FISCAL YEAR 2025
BUDGET REQUEST FOR
SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
__________
HEARING HELD
APRIL 17, 2024
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-053 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
NICK LaLOTA, New York 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
Guertin, Nickolas H., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Research, Development, and Acquisition......................... 5
Heckl, LtGen Karsten S., USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps
Combat Development Command..................................... 5
Pitts, VADM James, USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for
Warfighting Requirements and Capabilities...................... 5
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Mr. Courtney................................................. 36
Joint Statement of Guertin, Nickolas H.; Pitts, VADM James;
and Heckl, LtGen Karsten S. Marine Corps Combat Development
Command.................................................... 41
Mr. Kelly.................................................... 31
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Garamendi................................................ 93
Mr. LaLota................................................... 93
Mr. Golden................................................... 94
Mr. Jackson.................................................. 94
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET REQUEST FOR SEAPOWER AND
PROJECTION FORCES
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, April 17, 2024.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:00 p.m., in
room 2212, 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 that the chair be authorized to
declare a recess at any time. Without objection, so ordered.
Thank you to our three witnesses for being here today to
discuss the Navy's fiscal year 2025 budget request for seapower
and projection forces. I would like to also thank the members
of the subcommittee for their hard work on this year's NDAA
[National Defense Authorization Act] and our staffs on both
sides of the aisle.
Today we face an increasingly assertive and powerful China.
To maintain America's command of the world's ocean, we must
expand our Navy and its capabilities in order to deter and
defeat the adversaries.
We have heard the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] talk
about keeping more players on the field, yet this President's
budget request sends a different signal, seeking to divest 19
ships, including 10 that haven't reached their expected service
life, and purchasing only 6. A diminished Navy emboldens
Beijing and undermines America's position as a global maritime
leader.
As our subcommittee grapples with critical challenges and
strategic decisions in this year's NDAA, our goal remains
clear: to ensure our Navy and Marine Corps team is equipped,
ready, and capable of defending freedom in the world's ocean.
The Navy recently undertook a 45-day review of its major
shipbuilding programs. To be frank, it is unclear exactly what
has been achieved. What is clear is that we need a deeper level
of self-reflection from the Navy. Today I hope to better
understand your strategies for improvement and how you plan to
recover schedules with industry.
We continue to face production challenges with our
submarines. The decision to include only one Virginia-class
submarine in the budget request does not align with the two-
plus-one cadence that was predicated under the AUKUS
[Australia-United Kingdom-United States] agreement. Sending a
strong demand signal is essential for maintaining industrial
capabilities and international confidence in our naval
production. Reducing our order from two boats to one in this
year's budget does not inspire confidence, nor does it forecast
stability to our industry partners or allies.
Turning to surface vessels, the Constellation-class
frigates have not been spared from setbacks. Originally slated
for delivery in September of 2026, the first ship's arrival has
now been pushed to December of 2027, with subsequent ships on
an equally tentative schedule. This delay represents a broader
trend of inefficiencies that we must address.
This year's 30-year shipbuilding plan presented two, rather
than three, future pathways, a step in the right direction, but
it is still sure to confuse our industry partners. If I were
industry, I would be scratching my head trying to decipher
these changing plans. It is critical that the Navy provide a
coherent strategy and clear headlights that industry can align
with and invest with confidence.
I am pleased to see the inclusion of LPD-33 in the budget
request, adhering to the 31 amphibious ship requirement
mandated by the NDAA. This is a positive step, and I hope the
Navy and Marine Corps can use block/buy authority provided by
Congress for the acquisition of future amphibs [amphibious
ships].
I would also like to restate that the future LSMs [Landing
Ship Medium] must be affordable and producible. We must also be
cautious about the tendency to pile on requirements in ship
design and production. History has shown us that this often
leads to increased cost and extended delivery timelines.
In closing, I look forward to transparency today,
addressing recent setbacks, and outlining proactive steps to
overcome them. Our national security and the lethality of our
naval forces depend on your commitment to resolving these
issues promptly.
And, with that, I turn it over to my good friend and
ranking member, Joe Courtney, for his opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly can be found in the
Appendix on page 31.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE COURTNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CONNECTICUT, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND
PROJECTION FORCES
Mr. Courtney. Well, thank you, Chairman Kelly. Again, I
want to thank the witnesses, Assistant Secretary Guertin, Vice
Admiral Pitts, and Lieutenant General Heckl for being with us
today. We had an opportunity to speak together last week, and I
thank you for your engagement ahead of today's hearing.
The Fiscal Responsibility Act, which passed in May 2023 to
avert a default on the full faith and credit of our Nation's
currency and bonds, mandated a 1 percent increase in the
Department of Defense budget request for fiscal year 2025.
Given what is going on in the world, this is a very tight cap,
and it has created tremendous downward pressure on all of the
services, including the Navy and Marine Corps.
At a time when there is strong consensus about the need to
strengthen our maritime and expeditionary forces, our
subcommittee has perhaps its most difficult task in years. It
is important to note, however, at the outset of this hearing
that the Navy's shipbuilding and conversion request cuts even
deeper than the FRA's [Fiscal Responsibility Act] mandated
budget cap. To be clear, the Navy's shipbuilding procurement
request is not for only a 1 percent increase. Rather, it
decreases that line item by 3.4 percent from the fiscal year
2024 enacted level that President Biden just signed into law
last month.
This request includes six battle force ships, a sharp
deviation from last year's Future Years Defense Plan and 30-
year shipbuilding plan. At the same time, 19 battle force ships
are being decommissioned, as Chairman Kelly just noted. Of
particular note, it seeks to reduce procurement of the
Virginia-class submarine program from 13 consecutive years of
steady two-per-year cadence down to just one submarine in
fiscal year 2025.
This decision to cut procurement in the Virginia program
contradicts our own combatant commanders that have emphasized
the need for more attack submarines to deter the intensifying
threats in the undersea domain. During our posture hearings in
the last month, we have consistently heard from combatant
commanders from INDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command], EUCOM
[U.S. European Command], and NORTHCOM [U.S. Northern Command],
Admiral Aquilino, General Cavoli, General Guillot, that their
requirements for attack submarines are far higher beyond the
number of boats in the Navy's inventory.
Equally concerning is that Congress has already
appropriated in the last 2 years nearly $1 billion in advance
procurement for the second submarine that the Navy now seeks to
eliminate. This unexpected change in demand signal has and will
cause serious reverberations throughout the industrial base in
friends overseas who, based on my conversations in those
arenas, are, frankly, incredulous. I have already shared those
concerns with you, and we will explore that in further depth
today.
The Navy's public justification for dropping a submarine is
that the sizeable investments in the submarine industrial base,
known as the SIB [Submarine Industrial Base] in the budget,
will offset its cut in procurement and fleet size. As a member
who has secured congressional increases in the SIB starting in
2018, I wholly support the Navy's embrace of that effort.
However, I reject the ivory tower theory that SIB investment is
a substitute for a consistent demand signal for orders and
business. The two enterprises have to occur in tandem.
Over the Easter break, I had the opportunity to meet with
several supply chain companies, and the message was clear.
Submarine industrial base investments, as welcome as they are,
don't pay the bills, and particularly for these firms that
doesn't -- particularly for those firms that don't qualify for
SIB assistance.
It is important to remember that cutting procurement going
back to the 1990s is precisely the reason why the submarine
industrial base has eroded over the last 30 years. Indeed,
Undersecretary Robert LaPlante testified to that point before
the House Armed Services Committee a few weeks ago. The decades
of financial trauma the industrial base has experienced due to
the Navy's consistently inconsistent procurement profiles is
still deeply seared in the supply chain companies and metal
trades unions that represent the welders, electricians,
machinists, and pipefitters that are hard at work today as we
sit here in this committee room.
Mr. Chair, I request unanimous consent to enter into the
record two letters from the International Association of
Machinists and the Metal Trades Department of the AFL-CIO
[American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations] that was addressed to President Biden, urging
sustainment of the two-per-year procurement of the Virginia-
class submarine program.
Mr. Kelly. Without objection, they are admitted.
Mr. Courtney. Mr. Chairman, I will end my remarks on a
positive note, which is that as someone who visits the
shipyards on a frequent basis, who goes to the job training
programs, who goes to the trade schools, who goes to the
comprehensive high schools that are expanding career pathways
in the metal trades, that goes to the job fairs, to me what I
see is that our industrial base is recovering from COVID, that
the numbers are going up, the retention is going up, and the
output is going up.
Again, this chart, which I brought with me, which I
apologize are a bit of a distance away, but it shows that four
Virginia-class submarines have been delivered in the last -- in
over a 14-month period, starting last year with Rickover, Mr.
Norcross' USS New Jersey, the Iowa, and the Massachusetts by
the end of this calendar year. And the USS Idaho was just
commissioned a few weeks ago, which Mr. Guertin was present for
that.
This is not a stagnating industrial base. It is an
industrial base which took a big hit during COVID, like all of
shipbuilding, but it is not stagnating. It is recovering, and
the hiring and the quality of the deliveries in terms of both
Rickover in New Jersey were almost at the highest level over
the whole course of the Virginia program.
So, again, I think, you know, we should be looking forward
and not dwelling too much on the past in terms of what is
needed, which our combatant commanders have articulated to us.
And, again, we look forward to working with the witnesses over
the coming days and weeks to get a good mark, so that we can
allow that positive momentum to proceed further.
Again, I just would also associate my remarks with Mr.
Kelly regarding the other platforms. I have talked too long
already. But, with that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Courtney can be found in the
Appendix on page 36.]
Mr. Kelly. Well, I forgot to congratulate my battle buddy
on being another year older a couple of weeks ago, and also on
the UConn victory for the national championship.
I now recognize today's witnesses. We have the Honorable
Nickolas Guertin, who is the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Research, Development and Acquisition. We have Vice Admiral
James Pitts, the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for
Warfighting Requirements and Capabilities, the N9, Office of
the Chief of Naval Operations. And Lieutenant General Karsten
Heckl, who serves as the Commanding General, Marine Corps
Combat Development Command, and the Deputy Commandant for the
Combat Development and Integration.
And, with that, it is my understanding there is just one
statement. I recognize Secretary Guertin.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICKOLAS H. GUERTIN, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND
ACQUISITION, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; JOINT WITH VICE ADMIRAL
PITTS AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL HECKL
Mr. Guertin. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Kelly,
Ranking Member Courtney, and the distinguished members of the
subcommittee. On behalf of myself, Vice Admiral Pitts, and
Lieutenant General Heckl, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to address the Department of the Navy's
fiscal year 2025 budget request for seapower capabilities.
We would like to thank this subcommittee for your
leadership and support of the shipbuilding, naval aviation, and
ground programs that maintain maritime superiority and the
defense of our Nation.
As the actions over the weekend have shown, support of our
allies remains reliant on a superior naval force strategically
postured to adapt to constantly evolving geopolitical
challenges and threats. USS Arleigh Burke and USS Carney
currently assigned to the European Command area of
responsibility successfully engaged and destroyed more than 80
one-way attack unmanned air vehicles and at least 6 ballistic
missiles intended to strike Israel from Iran and Yemen. We are
grateful for the professionalism and skill of our sailors and
marines and mindful of their sacrifices of their families at
home.
The investments that Congress made in previous budgets
enable our success. As we look forward to fiscal year 2025, the
actions of the Navy and Marine Corps team reassures
international allies and partners, deters potential
adversaries, and responds to those who threaten the lives of
our sailors, marines, and civilian merchant mariners engaged in
lawful international commercial activities.
The Department of the Navy remains focused on the pacing
challenge of managing strategic competition with the People's
Republic of China, Russia's illegal war of invasion of Ukraine,
the Houthi strikes of the Red Sea, and Iranian aggression
toward our allies.
The President's fiscal year 2025 budget provides the
resources necessary for the Navy and Marine Corps to continue
to implement the 2022 National Defense Strategy. This request
builds and sustains the right mix of capabilities to keep the
sea lanes open and free, deter conflict, and defend against
current and future threats. It aligns with the Secretary of the
Navy's priorities. The budget request enables a One Navy-Marine
Corps team to continue strengthening our maritime dominance,
building on our culture of warfighting excellence, and
enhancing our strategic partnerships.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
subcommittee today. Our mission begins and ends with providing
the best possible capabilities to the sailors and marines of
the fleet, and we look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared joint statement of Mr. Guertin, Vice Admiral
Pitts, and Lieutenant General Heckl can be found in the
Appendix on page 41.]
Mr. Kelly. I now recognize myself for questions, and this
is for all of the witnesses. Each or all of you can, or just
one of you can answer for all.
Considering the cumulative delays the Navy announced in its
45-day review across several shipbuilding programs, what
strategies is the Navy employing to mitigate delays broadly?
And are these strategies tailored to address unique challenges
of each class of ships, including supply chain issues and
workforce attrition?
Mr. Guertin. So I would like to start with that one, if you
don't mind, Chairman. So having led the 45-day study, along
with the commander of Naval Sea Systems Command, Vice Admiral
James Downey, we built a big team, brought in independent
people to make sure we weren't drinking our own Kool-Aid, and
really dug deep into where we were, so we could better inform
what we need to do differently.
Out of that 45-day study, we identified several areas that
we need to improve on, together with our partners in industry.
So we looked at things like the national design and engineering
workforce, the Navy employees, who understand marine
engineering and naval architecture, how we have let that
capability for intellectual capacity slide.
And I signed out several memos today directing action
against several of these things I am going to talk to you
today, and that was the first one. We need to get into a better
place, so we can understand how to interact fluidly, flexibly,
and efficiently with industry, so we do a better job of
building these ships.
The next is refine the acquisition and contract strategies.
Some of our contracts didn't provide the right balance of risk
and reward to industry and balance that with the needs of the
government. So I have asked my contracting officers to take a
hard look at the mechanisms we are using for incentive clauses
to better match what motivates their behavior and what balances
our risk between the two sides of that business agreement
between industry and government.
Another action memo I signed out today was to examine the
shipyard skilled labor, and think about it as a national asset.
These welders, pipefitters, electricians -- pipefitters, they
are vital to our ability to provide the resources the Navy and
Marine Corps are going to use to defend the Nation.
We need to stop thinking of them as fungible and think of
them as strategic assets. And we are going to be working with
industry closely to develop the pipelines and think about how
we do that work more artfully.
Then, the Navy's workforce posture, besides marine
engineering and naval architects, we also need to think more
seriously about things like contract officers. We don't have
nearly enough of them for the kinds of work we need to do. We
need a depth of experience and more players on that field to
mention some other aspects of the technical teams we need to be
able to do this work artfully.
And the last one that I signed out today was to look for
different ways of investments for improving performance and
minimize delays. Certainly, the shipbuilding industrial base
funding and some of the other resources that have been made
available by Congress that we are working with industry to
improve how we do that work has paid great dividends, but we
need to think deeper and harder about how we apply those
resources.
Mr. Kelly. Mr. Secretary, you did such a good job of
answering that question you answered my second part of my
question, so I thank you for that. We also met in my office and
talked a little bit with all of you guys about the great job
the men and women, and the buy-in they have, of being such a
great partner with our armed forces and cooperating to make
sure that they get to see the final product of the warships
that we produce and to see the sailors and marines who are
using those and are on the using end of that to take more
pride.
And if you can just -- do away with the rest of that
question, but if you can just talk a little bit about what we
are doing on the PR side to let these men and women who build
our Nation's warships, how valuable they are to this Nation.
Mr. Guertin. Chairman Kelly, that was a particularly
interesting and for me exciting conversation. And I can't make
any promises about which ships and where, but I am going to be
talking to the Secretary of the Navy about how we can take
better advantage of things, like when we do Fleet weeks, how
else or where else we might send those ships when they are on
those kinds of helping the community, helping the country
better understand that these sailors and marines on these ships
that are built by American hands are there to defend the Nation
and do a better job of helping the American people and the
people turning the wrenches and running the weld beads and
pulling the cables, so they can see the fruits of their labors
in actions with real warfighters. That was a great idea.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. My next question and
final question is, the 30-year shipbuilding plan includes an
assumption that the shipbuilders will produce future ships on
time and within budget. Yet as we have discussed, history has
shown that Navy ships routinely cost more and take longer to
build than expected.
What is the basis for the Navy's assumption that the
industrial base can reverse these entrenched trends, and what
are the consequences to the battle force if they are not
successful? What do you realistically think it will take to
ensure the Navy has the industrial base, including the
workforce, it needs to execute its existing programs?
Mr. Guertin. I will turn a little bit that over to my
partners here. But I do want to talk about the challenge we
have with getting the blue collar trade craft people out on the
waterfront building these ships, and in the second-tier
supplier shops, with also noting that we have loss of skills,
of working hands and minds in the engineering trades for
building the work products that these people need to do that
work.
Honestly, we are not over the hump on that, but we have
made some serious and effective investments in things like
workforce training, working with industry to help them see
where they need to invest their own resources to improve the
quality of work, so they can retain those workers. We are still
losing more people than is healthy on a year-by-year basis.
So though we have seen some moderation in the loss of
workforce, and I am hopeful for the future, but getting players
on the field at the waterfront with trade craft folk is a very
important part of making sure we get into a healthier place, so
we can stay on time and on budget. We are not all the way there
yet, but we have made some very good progress in that
direction.
Mr. Kelly. And, Mr. Secretary, just a final comment. I have
been on the receiving end of parades after being downrange, and
also on the receiving end, and to just see how much America
appreciates our warriors when they go downrange and serve, I
feel like those warriors have the same amount of respect for
those people who are turning wrenches and bending pipes and
doing all those things back here, our workforce, I just got --
we have got to figure out how to show them -- we would not have
won World War II without Rosie the Riveters, which we
recognize.
And so I will tell you, our warriors appreciate our
industrial base. I just think we, as Americans, have to make
sure that we tap into that patriotism, that the job they are
doing is just as important as the end user.
And, with that, I yield to my friend, Ranking Member
Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
know we have a lot of members here today, so I will try to move
quickly.
Secretary Guertin, as I said in my opening statements, in
fiscal year 2023 and 2024, Congress provided funding for long
lead time material through advance procurement for two boats,
and that should have, you know, been fully funded in fiscal
year 2025. And in your 2025 budget, you again have more AP
[advanced procurement] money. And, again, the theory, as it has
been explained to our office and to the professional staff is
that this is to sort of help the supply chain companies.
So I think you know that not every supply chain company
that feeds into the submarine program is an AP -- is an advance
procurement long lead supply company. I mean, a lot of the
other pieces of the submarine that are funded through just the
full funding of any vessel, you know, may not be in that bucket
of advance procurement.
So can you explain what happens to those guys who are not
AP supply chain companies when you have cut the hull from this
-- in this year's budget? Because there is going -- there is
going to be some people left out based on I think even a
cursory review of what was sent over.
Mr. Guertin. Chairman, there were some very difficult
trades that had to be made in putting together a budget. Again,
Admiral Pitts may be able to provide some more illumination.
But to your point, we are able to lay in money for advance
procurement, and it is critically important that we send a
strong advance signal and keep it as strong as we possibly can.
The supply chain actors that are perhaps not in that same
category, we will have to take a closer look at that one and
see what we can do to help that aspect of the industry as well.
Mr. Courtney. Well, again, that is not a very encouraging
answer for that cohort of folks that -- I guess the other
question that I think sort of screams out for an answer is
just, what happens to all of that spending -- sunk costs I
would describe -- that the taxpayer has already put into that
second boat? I mean, it is my understanding that a reactor
would be included in that -- in the long lead items and other
ship set. I mean, what I think people are trying to figure out,
is this just going to get sort of consumed by a future hull? Is
it going to be used for spare parts? Is it going to get sold on
eBay? I mean, no one seems to be able to answer that question.
Mr. Guertin. So, Senator, the intention is that they would
be used in future boats, so -- to keep that pipeline going. To
be honest, our shipbuilders are a fair bit behind We haven't
even gotten to the point yet where we are back to building two
per year, and we have been buying more than that since. So we
have a long ways to go to take advantage of that material in
future ship procurements.
Mr. Courtney. So, but again --
Mr. Guertin. The millennia --
Mr. Courtney. -- for someone listening to this exchange,
who is, you know, supposedly one of the ones benefitting from
the Navy's plan here, I mean, what that says is that, okay, so
in fiscal year 2025, you know, they are going to have work. But
if you are going to fold it into a future hull, then, you know,
basically they are -- it is like they are just going to fall
off a cliff in terms of the work is going to stop, whether it
is, you know, 2027, 2028, when you decide to have that work
consumed -- or that material consumed in a future hull.
So, you know, I appreciate the intent in terms of trying
to, you know, protect these folks, but I think the -- what I
think the people who, you know, have to analyze this as
businesspeople in terms of making investments. That is really
not the most encouraging reply.
So one last question to Admiral Pitts. You know, we have
known each other since you served up in Groton at the Undersea
Warfare Development Center, and I know submariners who have the
highest respect for you as a leader.
You know, in my comments regarding the testimony of the
combatant commanders this past week in terms of the fact that -
- what they are up against right now, particularly as Russia is
now deploying more cyber defense submarines, China is just
continuing, you know, its output there.
I mean, their characterization that their requirements for
attack submarines extend beyond the availability in the
inventory, I mean, that has been a refrain for many years. But,
I mean, if anything, it is almost getting more acute. Isn't
that correct?
Admiral Pitts. Congressman Courtney, thank you for the
question. Yes. The demand from our COCOMs [Combatant Commands]
is always consistent and is getting even more strident for the
need for our submarines as our submarines provide an asymmetric
advantage that we will take full advantage of from our Navy,
both peacetime and should crisis arise.
Right now we have a requirement for 66 submarines. And in
order to achieve those 66 submarines, we need to work with our
industry partners to be able to produce two submarines a year.
That is really the only way to achieve an ultimate outcome of
66 submarines, and then our continued maintenance work to get
our submarines in and out of maintenance, so that we improve
our availability of the ones that we have, is another aspect of
getting more players on the field.
Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Courtney. All right. Thank you. And, again, for the
record, we are hovering right now slightly above 50 in terms of
the fleet.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kelly. I thank the ranking member.
I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. LaLota.
Mr. LaLota. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for convening
today's hearing to discuss the Department of the Navy's fiscal
year 2025 budget request. Today I want to focus on two areas,
the submarine industrial base and our amphibious ship programs.
I am particularly concerned with the resilience of our
submarine industrial base. Despite recent expansions and
workforce growth, it faces a significant uncertainty from
proposed budget cuts to the Virginia-class submarines.
In parallel, our amphibious ship programs, including the
LCU-1700 and medium landing ship programs, are facing
significant challenges due to strategic reassessments and
delays. While our Nation tries to deter conflict with China, or
when it -- should it be necessary, these programs are essential
for our ability to project power and to support marine
operations globally.
Additionally, Chairman, I will be submitting questions for
the record to ensure my district's contributions to national
defense are addressed. I think it is crucial that our local
industries and workforce are recognized for their role in
fortifying our national security.
Assistant Secretary Guertin, good to be with you, sir.
Recently, as you heard from my good friend, Rep. Courtney from
across the aisle and across the Long Island Sound, he released
a memorandum on the status of the submarine industrial base,
and that memorandum included many things, including three good
high points: one, the upward trends on shipyard capacity; two,
upward trends in workforce and supplier development; and,
three, the negative consequences of cutting a Virginia-class
submarine from the budget.
Sir, are you familiar with this memo? And either way, do
you agree with these assertions?
Mr. Guertin. I am certainly very familiar with all three
aspects of this and deeply, having been in this business for a
while, as well as studying it intensely through this 45-day
review I mentioned earlier.
We have actually made some significant improvements in
capacity. We are not there yet. We need to get back to two
boats per year for submarines, and then even get past that up
to 2-1/3 boards, so we can honor our commitments with our AUKUS
partners. So we are making very good strides in that direction.
The improvements we are making to the ship industrial base,
including workforce training and investments in capacity, have
been bearing fruit, but we have a long ways to go.
As far as workforce, there is some really impressive work
going on in dedicated workforce training areas as well as work
that has been done with junior colleges and technical colleges
that are making --
Mr. LaLota. I need to cut you off real quick, because I
only have about 2-1/2 minutes left.
Mr. Guertin. Thank you.
Mr. LaLota. That is a great start to the conversation. I am
a ship guy to your sides as a helo guy and a submarine guy, but
I think it works in all of our fields. When you take power off,
it takes a lot more power to get back to where you were. And I
think that is the overall concern.
The overall concern is it seems like we, as a Nation, have
made investment into that industrial base, but now we think --
Mr. Courtney and I certainly think -- now is not the right time
to take the power off, because to get back to the power level
that we are at will take much, much more.
I want to switch gears in my two or so minutes remaining
and ask the general a little more about amphibs. General, can
you discuss how the delays and cost challenges in the
shipbuilding program, especially in the LCU-1700 program and
the medium landing ship program, which is critical but facing
schedule challenges, are affecting the Marine Corps'
operational strategies, sir.
General Heckl. Sir, thanks for the question. The bottom
line is that the LCU-1700 is going to be a vital intra-theater
connector. It has been a workhorse in the Marine Corps for
decades and decades. And we have just visited -- I was down for
the start of new construction on LCU-1710 at Austal. We are
excited about that, and we are confident -- obviously, we had
some issues with the previous vendor, and I am confident,
though, that we are on the right track here, and ASN RDA has
been working that hard for us.
So, and as far as the LSM, the medium landing ship,
absolutely vital to our intra-theater mobility and maneuver,
particularly for the standing force within the Indo-Pacific.
And that is going to be an absolute workhorse. So we are not --
right now, you know, we are delayed, but we are building a
littoral maneuver bridging solution that I am confident will
address the shortfalls. But we are getting the requirement
right.
Sir, as you know, we have chartered a couple of civilian
industry standard ships that we are experimenting with, and
then we will move out. But bottom line is, sir, once we make
the decision, we need to do -- we need to keep those -- the
LSMs producing on schedule.
Mr. LaLota. Thanks, General. We have heard the Marine
Corps' feedback. We take it seriously. We want to get this
right.
General Heckl. Sir, thank you.
Mr. LaLota. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Kelly. And with his time, I will just say there are no
strategic policies or pumping the brakes in shipbuilding. I
agree with both Mr. Courtney and Mr. LaLota on that.
With that, I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Norcross.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman. And thank the witnesses
for being with us today. I can't tell you how happy I am to
hear about the workforce coming from the chairman and ranking
member, because as we all talk about getting the equipment in
at the right time, and the longest lead item is the human,
right? To get a skilled individual.
One of the things that we have known for quite a few years,
the impact on the retention issue are the ebbs and flows that
go in some of these programs, particularly with shipbuilding.
So any pause in that gives us reason for the workers to go
somewhere else if they might get laid off. That is something
that we all understand.
In addition to those men and women who actually build and
construct these ships, these war boats, they have to build them
somewhere. So we know that private yards in Newport News, up in
Connecticut and Maine, some of them are in pretty good shape.
But the vast majority of them are from years gone by, some
upwards to 100 years old. I live right across from the
Philadelphia Yard and see the challenges that they are facing
with where they can build and repair ships.
So we have a Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program,
the SIOP. The one that -- the cost estimate for Pearl Harbor
went from 6 billion to 16 billion. Maybe they expanded the
scope or maybe they found conditions, but that is a tremendous
amount of money, but we need it. We have to put those in.
So, Mr. Guertin, if you could give us a -- sort of an
overall status of the shipyard conditions, and is it ready for
-- in the event that we do have an exchange, are they able to
repair ships? I mean, I know we have a tough time just doing
regular maintenance. And if they are coming back because they
are damaged, what is the condition of our yards?
Mr. Guertin. So the challenges we face with keeping the
ships we have at sea on the schedules we need, and using the
repair capability we have, is paramount to the work that we do.
The Secretary of the Navy is genuinely concerned with whether
or not we have sufficient capacity for ship construction and
repair in this country.
His initiatives associated with maritime statescraft,
thinking about how do we improve our position for being able to
build not just naval ships but commercial ships as well, is an
important part of elevating the overall capacity of this Nation
to build ships and have those skilled trade craft. Particularly
important.
Just a second on improving the resources we have with our
public shipyards. The SIOP Program is doing some amazing work
of taking care of some old infrastructure as well as
modernizing some capabilities and providing better throughput
that will improve our ability to repair and produce those
ships.
Mr. Norcross. So if you were to look at the conditions that
we have today, and you gave it a grade just like you used to
get in elementary school, what would you give our ability to
build these war machines from a shipyard perspective?
Mr. Guertin. The ability to build is in the public -- is in
the private yards, and their abilities are challenged for the
work that we have in hand, although I think we have some great
opportunities to improve that capability through both public
and private investments. But in terms of --
Mr. Norcross. So I misspoke.
Mr. Guertin. Yeah.
Mr. Norcross. When I say build, maintenance, the things
that we are so challenged on, and if we were to have an
exchange. What condition would you put our public yards in?
Mr. Guertin. To be perfectly frank, I am not sure I would
give us a great grade to be able to do more than the ship
maintenance that we have today. We are looking at how to
improve that capacity, but it is --
Mr. Norcross. Go back to elementary school. You got an A, a
B, C, D, and F. Where would you put us?
Mr. Guertin. Probably a C-plus.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Kelly. Now, from Texas, I recognize Dr. Jackson.
Dr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to our
witnesses, thank you for your dedicated service and focus on
providing our Navy and Marine Corps with the tools needed to
project our military across the globe. I applaud your
investments into aviation, surface, and subsurface forces in
the industrial bases which support these areas.
The Department of the Navy must be armed to bring the fight
and to be postured to deliver lethal blows at a moment's
notice. We must get the right forces on, under, and over the
sea to compete in the vast distances of INDOPACOM, to patrol
and show force in EUCOM, and to thwart Iranian proxy
instigations in CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command].
Recently it was reported that the Navy's fleet of CMV-22
aircraft were having issues with the ice protection systems.
The reality is is that we need these aircraft in the air
because they provide capabilities that we can't afford to be
without in future conflict. We need the V-22 aircraft to be
able to successfully operate in permissive -- in a permissive
threat environment at all times day and -- day or night and in
all weather conditions.
When the aircraft is flying to an aircraft carrier in the
middle of the ocean, the reality is there is nowhere else you
can divert to. You really need 100 percent mission success.
Admiral Pitts, how is the Navy addressing the issues with
the CMV-22 ice protection systems? And what upgrades will be
provided to address this issue? Is there any -- and is there
any additional authority or resources that this committee can
provide to ensure that these aircraft are upgraded
appropriately?
Admiral Pitts. Congressman Jackson, thank you for the
question. I know we have an excellent modernization plan to
execute as we get more and more of the MV-22s into inventory.
What I don't know exactly is the specifics to your question,
and I would request to take that as a question for the record.
Dr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you, sir. And that kind of
leads me to my second question, actually. As we all know, the
Marines fly the MV-22 variant, and the aircraft is, I believe
as you put it before, General Heckl, a game changer for our
military. Even our most capable aircraft still need to be
upgraded, however, and the MV-22 is no exception.
Since their initial design we have found numerous ways to
increase the capability and readiness of the aircraft, whether
it be through things like the nacelle improvement program or
the Osprey drive system and health information upgrades.
General, can you talk about the upgrades and safety
enhancements that are being budgeted for this year for the MV-
22 fleet and how important it is that we invest in upgrades
like the nacelle improvement program and the Osprey drive
system and health information upgrades.
General Heckl. Yes, sir. Thanks for the question, sir. You
know, I will tell you that you have cited most of them, but we
are also looking at possible property gearbox redesign in
Inpoquil. We are looking at property gearbox material component
upgrades as well. I would really defer the question to the
Deputy Commandant for Aviation, but as a V-22 guy, I know a
little bit about it.
But I will simply say, sir, that to your point about how
vital this aircraft is, I say it all the time, what other
aircraft can fly 1,000 nautical miles at about a 250-mile stop
and land without a runway? That is a big deal. And if you put a
Herc out in front of me, I am unlimited, right?
So, and I will tell you, sir, the V-22 that I took to
combat in 2008 in Iraq, the one we are flying today is leaps
and bounds ahead of what I had in 2008. So your point is well
taken. We continue to upgrade. The Marine Corps and
particularly the Deputy Commandant for Aviation will continue
to focus on that. Whether it is safety initiatives or
operational capability initiatives, sir, we will continue to
upgrade.
I don't know if that gets the answer, sir, but --
Dr. Jackson of Texas. No, sir. That is great. I appreciate
your comment on that. Thank you.
And, with that, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Kelly. Now from the Commonwealth of Virginia, I
recognize Ms. McClellan.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Secretary and Admiral Pitts, I have a question about
advance procurement, which, as you know, is a critical tool
that shipbuilders use to maintain steady supplies of needed
parts and equipment and to ensure the stability in the
industrial base.
And with that in mind, I have been deeply concerned with
the decision by the Navy to delay AP for the Ford-class
aircraft carrier, CVN-82, until 2027. I believe this could
severely disrupt the shipbuilding planning and construction
process and destabilize part of the aircraft carrier industrial
base.
Can you elaborate on why the Navy chose to delay AP and how
the Navy expects to support the industrial base through the
planned delay?
Mr. Guertin. So the point you are making about advance
procurement is critically important for us all to think about.
One of the things we also found in the 45-day study is that the
nature of the supply chain is substantially changed. The level
of time that we needed in the past has actually expanded, and
we need to think about how we do advanced procurement over a
longer period, say 3 years, in order to position ourselves to
be able to execute effectively when it comes to doing new
construction.
Admiral Pitts, do you have anything you want to add in on
that?
Admiral Pitts. Secretary Guertin, my addition would be we -
- I agree with Secretary Guertin that we have found that we
need 3 years of AP for our aircraft carrier advance
procurement, and our aircraft carrier is our most potent,
flexible flying airfield that we have in our inventory. So
thank you.
Ms. McClellan. Well, I will just add that in a recent
meeting that I had with the president of Newport News Shipyard,
she is pretty concerned about this decision and the impact it
will have on their planning ability and workforce. So I
continue to have that concern.
It was recently reported that the Navy has spent $1 billion
in operations in the Middle East to ensure the safety of
navigation in the Red Sea and disrupt Houthi attacks. Can you
explain how the Navy is looking to replenish weapons stocks and
elaborate on the importance of additional funding from the
national security supplemental that we will hopefully vote on
no later than Saturday for replenishing these stocks?
Mr. Guertin. I would like to thank Congress for getting to
that vote on Saturday. We desperately need that supplemental.
We have been doing the Nation's work and expending those
munitions, and we need to put them back where we found them.
There is other things going on in the supplemental that are
particularly vital to some of these other conversations we have
been having around improving the industrial base and getting
after how to improve our repair and construction capacity.
Admiral Pitts, anything else to add on that one?
Admiral Pitts. Yes, sir, Mr. Secretary. We need to
replenish our stocks, and we need to build our production to
refill our overall most critical weapons. What our teams did
over the weekend was incredible. They did a terrific job, and
it shows that the investments that we have made over the last
10 years have paid off, both in weapons and in training.
And there is three ways that we are going to refill these
stocks. One is the supplemental that the secretary asked for to
give us funding, so that we can start procuring. And we can
start recertifying some weapons that are just not useable today
and turn them into combat-useable weapons. And that will return
back to the fleet in a much shorter time period than the actual
production procurement itself. But we need both.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you.
Admiral Pitts. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. McClellan. The recent efforts to limit the impact of
Houthi attacks on marine routes illustrate a glaring mismatch
in our capabilities versus some of those of our adversaries.
Can you, in the 36 seconds left, tell us how the Department is
working to develop cheaper and more efficient systems that can
successfully deliver a defense at more sustainable and
affordable cost?
Admiral Pitts. Yes, ma'am. We are examining multiple
options. In the near term, it is kinetic options that we could
fit into this layered defense system. It won't replace our
longer range missiles, but it could fit into a layered defense
system to turn that cost curve, and longer term we are looking
at directed energy options.
Thank you.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Kelly. Now, also 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 today. Secretary Guertin, I
would like to follow up a little bit more, too, on the thought
process about the 45-day review of shipbuilding. We saw the
extended delays there.
But I also want to point to a letter from Secretary Del
Toro from March 1, 2024, where he said, "The acquisition
strategy of buying two aircraft carriers at a time has a
significant utility, both in cost and with learning curve and
skill development, and that with going to a 6-year center," he
said, "invariably costs more as far as learning for the labor
force, and it also costs more."
So let me get your perspective. In the proposal to go from
4-year centers to 6-year centers, give us what is the cost of
that. What is the additional cost in going to 6-year centers?
And how is this going to help us face the challenges that we
are facing with rebuilding a workforce in the shipbuilding
realm, especially when it is incredibly important for them to
develop skill sets that are pretty advanced.
And if you put them on a roller coaster ride, and you tell
the folks that are there now, "Sorry you are gone," and then,
"By the way, come back in 2 years, so you can build more
aircraft carriers," they are gone forever, and then you are
back with new workforce individuals that have to develop that
skill set again.
Mr. Guertin. So I will ask Admiral Pitts later to weigh in
on the challenges we face in terms of laying out the budget and
living underneath the Fiscal Responsibility Act. But to your
point, you know, stretching out those centers actually lays
into Representative Courtney's point about, you know, if we
stretch things out too far, then you end up with another valley
that you have to climb your way out of, particularly concerning
as we are going through this point now where we are trying to
get back to where we should be where the 45-day study
illuminated where we were, and we don't want to make it any
worse.
So very challenging environment in terms of getting to the
build centers we need, but sometimes we don't get everything we
want. So, Admiral Pitts, any other thoughts on that?
Admiral Pitts. Mr. Secretary, the only additional thought
is, given the resources that we were allocated, tough choices
had to be made, and that carrier was pushed out to fiscal year
2030. We still need the 3 years' AP, and our shipbuilding plan,
both the main plan and the alternate, still pick up either a 5-
year center in the alternate plan or 4-1/2-year centers
theoretically to be able to do two ship buys on the main
shipbuilding plan.
Mr. Wittman. Listen, I understand the difficult decisions
that you all face, but they seem to be counter to the rules of
math. And the way I understand them is you cannot do addition
by subtraction. So building 6, retiring 19, that doesn't get us
to 355. Extending build centers on aircraft carrier spends more
money, doesn't spend less money, makes it more difficult to
maintain a workforce, doesn't make it easier to maintain a
workforce, again, all things that are counterintuitive.
Secretary Guertin, I want to continue on the theme of
multi-year procurement for shipbuilding. We know multi-year
procurement for amphibious war ships was passed by this
Congress and the committee. We know the Department's
shipbuilding plan has one LHA and three LPDs.
Can you give us an idea about, what would the cost savings
be with that commitment to buy in a four-ship block those
amphibious ships?
Mr. Guertin. That is a great question. And thank you, also,
to Congress for giving us those authorities. We have been doing
very well with them in the places we have been able to use it.
We want to make sure we preserve that for the places that it
makes good financial sense as well as good operational sense.
We definitely have shown cost savings when we have done
multi-year procurements. Actually, we don't get into multi-year
procurements unless we can show cost savings. So that is a
powerful tool, and we use it to the maximum extent possible.
Mr. Wittman. Well, in this case, do you have a figure on
what the cost savings would be with the execution of this
multi-ship year buy?
Mr. Guertin. That was in my workups for this meeting, but I
don't want to give you a number off the top of my head and end
up getting it wrong. I think I will have to take that one for
the record.
Mr. Wittman. Well, assuming it would be significant
savings, I think it is going to be around $900 million, close
to $1 billion. It seems like to me that that would be incentive
itself to get this agreement executed as quickly as possible if
we are looking at making sure we are saving money and building
the ships that we need as a navy. So I would hope that you
would keep that at the top of your list of priorities in
executing this multi-ship year agreement.
Lieutenant General Heckl, I wanted to ask about the right
mix of the different characteristics that are needed in our
ships, and those are survivability, susceptibility, and
reliability of a vessel. And as you spoke about a little bit
earlier, LSM is in that place as you going through determining
what are the requirements, what do they need to be, how do we
make sure this is the right balance there. All of those things
are a challenge going forward.
You said you are having conversations with folks on the
industry side. Obviously, there has been conversations within
the navy, also, too, within the Department of Defense, within
CAPE [Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation]. Give
me your perspective about how close we are to getting to that
point where we are going to determine exactly what is the right
mix. And do you believe that where we are or where we will end
up is going to be the right place for the LSM?
General Heckl. Sir, thanks. I am aware we are over time,
Mr. Chairman, so I will be quick. First, I think amphibs are
kind of my bailiwick. I think what we heard from Ingalls was
about 914 on the multi-ship, just so you know.
Second, sir, you know, we have talked. I believe that we --
the work that we have done with ASN RDA [Assistant Secretary of
the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition] on the
medium landing ship, on the LSM, we have incorporated several
vulnerability and recoverability functions into that, so it is
very favorable. I am very, very happy with where we are.
I know there is a CBO [congressional budget office] report
out. I don't necessarily agree with the numbers they have
quoted in there, and I think that the estimates we have coming
out of ASN RDA and DASN [Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Navy] ship are going to be good, and we are pretty happy with
it.
So let's remember, we have got to have a combination of LSM
and amphibs, right, to really be forward, campaigning,
deterring. Presence is deterrence. You can't deter virtually.
You have to be there. And the LSM and the amphibs are going to
be key components to that, sir.
And I will yield. I will stop.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize about
going over.
Mr. Kelly. His time has expired.
I now recognize from California Ms. Jacobs.
Ms. Jacobs. I think you mean the great State of California.
Mr. Kelly. The great State of California, Ms. -- or is it
the great Ms. Jacobs from the great State of California?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for
being here. I represent San Diego, so everything we are talking
about today is very relevant to my constituents.
I wanted to first ask, the fiscal year 2025 Navy budget
continues to allocate significant funds towards some legacy
platforms, like the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, despite the
fact that, you know, publicly there are known vulnerabilities
to sophisticated missile threats from adversaries like China.
In contrast, we know that Constellation-class frigates are
equipped with the Mark 41 vertical launch system, which means
they can, you know, carry long-range Tomahawks and multi-role
SM-6s, which, you know, gives us the ability to go beyond the
reach of the Chinese defenses.
Given the strategic value of these capabilities
encountering China's advanced military technologies, I was
wondering, Secretary Guertin, if you could talk about why there
isn't a more pronounced shift in the budget to expedite the
deployment of Constellation-class frigates, which I think are,
you know, better equipped to ensure our operational flexibility
and survivability.
Mr. Guertin. So thank you very much for the question. The
Constellation is going to be a great ship. But as you might
have heard about when we did the 45-day study, we are behind on
getting that ship out. I was just up in Marinette, Wisconsin,
last week where we did the keeling for that ship, and it is
going to be a great one.
However, one of the things we have done with the Arleigh
Burke-class destroyers is we have been modifying them and
improving them as a part of their life cycle. In fact, that is
one of the things I hope to bring to my role as the Navy
acquisition executive is getting into a closer cadence for
incrementally and iteratively improving capability in those big
investments in those ships, so that we keep them viable,
warfighting capability for a very long time. It takes a long
time to build a ship, but it doesn't take very long to upgrade
software or load a new missile.
So even though the Arleigh Burke we have had -- we started
building them a long time ago, they are still viable. In fact,
the Arleigh Burke herself, even though she has got an older
version of AEGIS out in the Eastern Mediterranean, was firing
missiles and doing a great job. So keeping those -- that big
investment and building those ships viable by improving them
over time is a big part of the portfolio, and I am excited by
Congress' ability to give us the resources necessary to improve
that capability over time.
Ms. Jacobs. Got you. Admiral Pitts, anything you wanted to
add about the operational capabilities?
Admiral Pitts. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I would just say and
echo Secretary Guertin's comments that our Arleigh Burke
destroyers have incredible capability and are performing
beautifully on a day-to-day basis as we evidenced in the Red
Sea. And, in fact, we like their capabilities so much we are
looking at even the Flight 1s, of extending them, which is
another one of our keeping more players on the field and near-
term readiness and near-term capability of the fleet.
We have identified five Flight 1 DDGs [guided-missile
destroyer] that we are going to extend to get a few more years
of service life out of them, and we think it is -- that is a
tremendous return on investment.
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. I also wanted to ask -- I know my
colleague, Ms. McClellan, talked about munitions. I wanted to
talk about rearming ships at sea. Obviously, we know this is
going to be a crucial capability, and, you know, we need to
avoid strategic bottleneck of having to return to port for
munitions.
Can you talk about how the budget enhances these essential
logistics and munitions capabilities, ensuring the ships can be
rearmed quickly and remain engaged in operational theaters? And
do you feel like there is an adequate focus on these critical
areas that could decisively influence the outcome of potential
conflicts?
Mr. Guertin. Yes. Great question. Actually, rearming at sea
is a particularly interesting problem for my boss, the
Secretary of the Navy, and something he has been focused on in
helping us rediscover some earlier investments in how to do
that. And we are going to be testing that out later this year.
But, Admiral Pitts, do you have any other points on the
conversation related to investments in that area?
Admiral Pitts. No, sir.
Mr. Guertin. Okay. So, anyway, we are rekindling our need
to be able to do that functionality and are going to be
experimenting with it this year and making sure we can do that
fluidly.
Ms. Jacobs. Great. And with my last 20 seconds, I will just
make a note that I am excited that the Navy's fiscal year 2025
budget request includes the request for additional O&M funding
for your child and youth development programs to fund a
childcare workforce initiative.
This is huge for my constituents in San Diego. We have had
childcare wait lists of over 4,000 spots long just recently, so
I appreciate that you all are putting some resources toward
that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Kelly. I thank the gentlelady.
I now recognize for the last time on this subcommittee, but
someone who served on both Armed Services with me and
Intelligence with me, has been the China Committee chairman,
who has been such a great member to this body. This is probably
the last time I am going to have you in a hearing, but I am
going to tell you, Mike Gallagher was a great Marine, he is a
great member of Congress, and I don't know what he is, but I
will bet he will still be defending this Nation in whatever
capacity he leads.
And, with that, I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin,
Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. Gallagher. Wow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It always
pains me to give credit to an Army officer, but I have truly
enjoyed our collaborations through the years. And my time on
the Armed Services Committee has been the most rewarding of my
years in Congress. It has really, you know, been the focus. I
guess the China Committee has taken precedence in the last
year, but the stuff we have done on this committee has been
incredible and, really, bipartisan.
I want to recognize a proud Gallagher alum, Major Tom
Lacey, in the audience there. Congratulations on your
forthcoming deployment. Despite the fact that the Navy is
failing to fund nearly 5.7 billion in INDOPACOM requirements,
deterrence may actually be enhanced by your arrival in theater,
Tom. You are such a great Marine.
General Heckl, this will be your last appearance before
Congress. Thank you for your service to this country. Thank you
for stepping up most recently when the commandant had a bit of
a health issue, but we appreciate it. I have always appreciated
our interactions, and you are a great leader. I hope we get a
chance to work together in the future and wish your luck in
your next endeavors.
We have been -- I think in last year's NDAA we stood up a
commission on the future of the Navy. But despite the fact that
it has been statutorily authorized, and some commissioners have
been appointed, we still haven't -- this thing still hasn't
gotten to work.
Do you know how many days -- I guess, Secretary Guertin,
are you aware of the future of the Navy commission? Do you know
how many days it has been since that commission was set to be
established by law?
Mr. Guertin. No, Congressman. I am not familiar with that
one.
Mr. Gallagher. It has been 391 days. That is 391 lost
opportunities to get to work. And I get that there is mixed
views on the nature of outside commissions. I will tell you, I
got to work on one with Senator King related to cyber security
that was incredibly productive, that produced a lot of
recommendations that went directly into the National Defense
Authorization Act.
And I would suggest in light of the revelations of the 45-
day review, you know, with 36-month delays on Constellation, 18
month on Virginia, 12 to 16 on Columbia, 12 month on CVN
[aircraft carrier], I think it further underscores the need for
an outside look at the future of the Navy. This isn't a fault
of the executive branch. It is actually a fault of Congress
right now.
We have two commissioners that haven't been appointed by
the SASC [Senate Armed Services Committee] chairman, by the
minority leader, and I don't know what the heck is going on.
But we have got some good people that are ready to take an
outside look at the future of the Navy and I think would
actually provide some good supporting fires.
So I just would ask from your positions, whenever asked
about it, I get there might be skepticism and antibodies in the
building, but there is a reason we do commissions like this
from time to time. It is when, quite frankly, Congress is
exasperated, and we have had a series of choose-your-own-
adventure 30-year shipbuilding plans, we have had revelations
about delays, we have had the 45-day review, constantly
changing numbers. We just feel like more needs to be done to
map out the future of the Navy.
And I would just hope that the building, even with the
current composition of commissioners, even though it is not at
full strength, the Pentagon can still support the effort, and I
just would ask that you do. And I will be encouraging my
colleagues to do more.
Given that you referenced that you were just in the 8th
District of Wisconsin, in Marinette, and in light of the
frigate delays, I think what has troubled most of us who lived
through the LCS [littoral combat ship] experience and, you
know, were very -- remain very excited about the Constellation-
class frigate is the fact that at one point the Constellation
design shared about 85 percent commonality with the original
Italian FREMM design. Indeed, that was part of the reason that
Thinkentary won the award where the idea was to leverage a
proven design.
But the alterations have brought that commonality down
under 15 percent. Can you just explain to us how something like
that happens and what could be done to fix it?
Mr. Guertin. Senator, you are right. The Constellation is
going to be a great ship. We did start out with a handful of
government-furnished equipment that would go into that, things
that we have known, we have worked on, we have invested in. So
the capabilities that will come out of that ship will be
especially useful to the fleet and be a real workhorse.
As far as commonality of the original Italian design, we
had to look at that through the lens of what it was going to be
to be a U.S. Navy warfighting ship, including things like
managing vital power, egress, and that other aspects of the
minimal amounts of change that we were going to need in order
for it to be able to carry the warfighting capability we were
going to need for our Nation.
Mr. Gallagher. Minimal amount of change is an over 70
percent change from the Navy's perspective.
Mr. Guertin. We did our best to minimize the changes in
that FREMM design, but we did have to make sure that we were
attending to the needs of the United States Navy as a part of
that design.
Mr. Gallagher. Okay. Well, this is obviously going to be an
issue we are going to have to continue to tackle. I mean, the
frigate is designed to be the workhorse of the future fleet. We
need to be getting, I would say, not just a 2 year, but
eventually 4 in two different yards. That is the only way to
grow the size of the Navy.
And so I guess I will throw that hot potato to you, General
Kelly. Just another thing you can fix in my absence. But
hopefully I can continue to provide some supporting fires from
wherever I land.
Mr. Kelly. I thank the gentleman. And now from the great
State of Maine, Mr. Golden.
Mr. Golden. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, of course, thanks to
my fellow Marine, Mr. Gallagher. I look forward to working with
you right down to the very end here.
Mr. Secretary, before Congress passed the fiscal year 2024
Approps bill, the Administration requested two DDG-51s in the
PBR for fiscal year 2025. But now that the fiscal year 2024
Approps process is done, and Congress included 1.357 billion in
AP for a third DDG, how much additional funding would be needed
to fund a third DDG in fiscal year 2025 and get more flight-
through ships out to the fleet?
Mr. Guertin. I am not certain I have an exact number with
me.
Admiral Pitts, do you have anything that can illuminate the
discussion?
Admiral Pitts. No, sir. I don't have a number.
Mr. Guertin. We will have to take that one for the record.
Mr. Golden. For the record, please. I think we are well
over halfway there, just my kind of back-of-hand analysis.
But I guess this one is for the admiral. How many flight-
through ships have been delivered to the fleet to date?
Admiral Pitts. Congressman, I believe it is one, the Jack
Lucas.
Mr. Golden. One. And how important is it to field more
flight-through ships, given the radar technologies, the upgrade
there, particularly in light of some of the testimony from the
secretary in recent world events?
Admiral Pitts. Yes, sir, it is very important. We are going
to be -- relying on the additional SPY-6 radar and our AEGIS
Baseline 10 brings tremendous capability to our destroyer
fleet.
Mr. Golden. Thank you. I guess following up on the
questioning from Mr. Wittman, I am also interested in talking
about multi-year procurement for amphibs. I have seen this with
the DDG program and appreciated the stability and lower costs
that that type of an approach has given the Navy, as well as --
as well as the Congress.
You know, in light of what I was just asking about, like
what would it take us to get to a third DDG, it is not quite
like a dollar-for-dollar tradeoff. Like my staff had about a
900 to 1 billion savings if we were doing a multi-year
procurement on amphibs. So pretty close to the other half of
that DDG, not to mention that I think this committee has
essentially a missing sub that we have to find a way to put
back into this budget.
You know, given all of that, not to mention the stability
that it could provide to do a multi-year procurement, both --
just certainty for the Marines, for the Navy, for the people
that are going to be building those, I guess I am curious, what
is the hesitancy to issue an MYP? And, I mean, it is not like
you have to expend any kind of capital here in front of
Congress. We have already given you the authorization to do it.
Mr. Guertin. Mr. Congressman, we will -- we use multi-year
procurement as often as possible in places where we can show a
financial benefit. As the general said, you know, right, it is
about $900 million. All told, it happens over the course of
multiple years, and so we need to package that up and utilize
those resources, in complete transparency with Congress where
we have those savings, those benefits, and then we will have a
dialogue about where the best place is to apply them as we put
our budget submission together and have that back and forth
with you going forward.
Mr. Golden. Sure. I appreciate that. Just from my
perspective, sir, and I know, you know, there is more that goes
into it, but those lost savings just make our job harder here,
as you are looking for more subs, more destroyers, more
amphibs, not to mention I am leaving other ships out. So
hopefully the Navy will give that a good, hard look.
I don't have any more. Thank you.
Mr. Kelly. I would just say that the multi-year procurement
doesn't just add finances, it adds time, and time is more
precious than finances sometimes.
And, with that, I recognize the gentleman from Missouri,
Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Ranking Member
Courtney, and thank you for our witnesses being here today. I
really appreciate it.
The pace at which the CCP-led People's Republic of China's
military has grown over the last few years. It has been
shocking. I know I am not telling you anything you don't know
on that front. They have outpaced our shipbuilding capacity by
a great magnitude. And while I certainly believe our ships are
more technologically advanced, quantity often becomes a quality
of its own.
I know that there are DoD programs such as the Replicator
and Hellscape aimed at addressing the relatively numerical
advantages competitors may have in regions such as the Indo-
Pacific. However, this does not mean we should not fight to fix
our industrial base issues, specifically in shipbuilding and
submarine building.
Ranking Member Courtney, thank you for providing your
empirical data about the submarine industrial base to committee
members. It is great to hear that General Dynamics Electric
Boat hired more than 5,000 new workers in fiscal year 2023, and
it is on track on exceed 5,000 this year. I am also pleased to
see they have increased their yearly production to 1.4 boats,
up from 1.2, although that is still not good enough.
We must do more across the entire industrial base to
provide the right number of ships, planes, missiles, and
munitions to establish credible deterrence against hostile
competitors. This really boils down to what Chairman Mike
Rogers said yesterday in the Army budget hearing. We capped
defense spending at 1 percent in the FRA, forcing the DoD to
make cuts. This cap is why the Navy chose to only ask for one
Virginia-class sub this year and why the Air Force asked for
fewer F-35s.
The DoD is faced with tough choices and is robbing Peter to
pay Paul as they attempt to modernize, maintain readiness,
improve quality of life, on a 1 percent defense budget
increase.
With that, I move into my questions. First, for Mr.
Guertin, according to the Navy's website, at the end of World
War II, we had more than 800 surface warships and more than 200
submarines. During President Reagan's term, we had over 220
surface vessels, over 100 subs, and close to 600 ships across
the total Navy. This is at the height of the Cold War when the
U.S. had only one power to deter.
The fiscal year 2025 President's budget asked for funds to
field a fleet of 113 surface combatant ships, 12 aircraft
carriers, and 67 submarines.
Mr. Guertin, is 293 total ships enough to meet all the
demands of the Navy at a time when we must deter now two great
powers and keep sea lanes open while under attacks from
terrorists such as the Houthis in the Red Sea?
Mr. Guertin. Thank you for the question. I will defer to my
uniformed colleagues here about whether or not it is enough
ships, but I suspect they will say no. Certainly, the combatant
commanders have been asking us for resources, and we deliver
them as much as we can.
Getting back to your point about the number of ships that
we had, say, during the Reagan era, we also had many more
shipyards, both public and private. And that is one of the
problems that we face together, Congress and Government, about
getting the laydown of capacity, that we need to have a strong
military in the field, and especially ships at sea.
One of the reasons I am particularly interested in more
fully exploring the maritime statescraft strategy to increase
the Nation's capacity for building ships in general, so that I
can be in a better position to provide the military with the
men of war that we are going to need to do the Nation's work.
So, General or Admiral, do you have any other points to
make on that?
Mr. Alford. Admiral?
Admiral Pitts. Sir, thank you. The other point I would make
is, our most recent battle force ship assessment and
requirement report clearly states that we need 381 ships. So
the answer to the question is, no, we don't have enough at 291.
And that assessment was based on the defense planning scenarios
from our defense planning guidance and it aligns to the
National Defense Strategy.
Mr. Alford. If you did have the funding, I assume you would
ask for two Virginia-class attack subs in fiscal year 2025?
Admiral Pitts. Yes, sir. I believe that we would take the
two Virginia-class submarines. As we were building the budget,
we thought it was more important to spend most of our money on
the submarine industrial base, so that we ultimately achieve
one-plus-two production, and then one-plus-2.33 production, to
support both our requirements and our AUKUS commitments.
Mr. Alford. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen.
I yield back.
Mr. Kelly. I now recognize the gentleman from the great
State of Pennsylvania, Mr. Deluzio.
Mr. Deluzio. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Gentlemen, thank you.
I think I am --
Mr. Alford. Are you a Commonwealth, too?
Mr. Deluzio. I am a Commonwealth.
Mr. Kelly. I am sorry. I correct myself. The Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Deluzio. I am a Commonwealth. Very proud of that.
Number one, Mr. Guertin, I very much appreciate the good
point on shipyards in this conversation. It is a major piece of
us confronting our maritime strategy, so I appreciate the
attention and the investment that we need to be making. I want
to talk a bit about some of the supply chain, in particular
additive manufacturing.
I am going to pull out a quote the joint testimony here.
The quote starts, "The Navy has seen significant benefit for
investments made to date, including installation of multiple
additively manufactured components on in-service submarines."
My district has a resilient manufacturing ecosystem at
Neighborhood 91. It is a fully integrated campus around
additive manufacturing production. That is contributing to this
effort.
So my question, either for Admiral Pitts or Mr. Guertin,
tell us a bit more about what those successes are that the Navy
has seen, how additive manufacturing can play into bolstering
competition, and the supply chain building more resilience, and
the like.
Mr. Guertin. Additive manufacturing is a big part of how
our future can be shaped by being more competitive, because the
opportunities for building systems and components across a
wider market looms large.
We have been challenged to make sure that the components
meet the right physical properties when they are built in a
different way, but I think we have made some great strides in
our technical authorities for understanding what those
challenges are and how to make sure that those additive
manufacturing processes can attend to those stringent physical
requirements.
There are some other things that we need to think about how
we could take advantage of the technology to build some other
components that we currently have that are a big challenge and
being able to do here in this country, forgings, for instance,
and castings. Additive manufacturing at the right scale can be
a big help in that area.
Mr. Deluzio. Is the Navy driving this? Is it coming from
the contractor? Is it a mix of both? I am curious how much the
Navy is pushing for not just investment but to see more of the
supply chain embrace things like additive manufacturing.
Mr. Guertin. Ships are big, and sometimes they need big
parts.
Mr. Deluzio. Sure.
Mr. Guertin. And those require those large-scale structural
mechanisms for fabrication. However, with the limited amount of
available manufacturers to do that kind of work in this
country, we need to either rebuild that infrastructure or turn
to a different approach. And that is what -- we are trying to
do both of those things to see which one will get us the best
bang for the buck in that area.
Mr. Deluzio. Admiral, anything you want to add? Okay.
I will make one final point and question, I suppose.
Shipbuilding, in general, of course that doesn't happen without
workers. And we are seeing, you know, in the skilled trades
pretty similar dynamics play out, not just in shipbuilding
where, you know, struggling to find newer folks going into
these apprenticeship programs and the rest. How does the Navy
view that challenge? How are we meeting it? How are we working
with industry to make sure we have got the workforce to do this
work?
Mr. Guertin. We have been working both with industry and
with local communities, especially colleges that are helping
with people learning trades. I was at an opening of a training
center up in York County in Maine. There is some other
interesting work going on there to help improve the throughput
of people learning those trade craft skills, so that they can
get out to our shipyards and have those great jobs that have
great career opportunities that are opportunities to also be a
part of something bigger than themselves, be a part of building
this great Nation's weapons of war.
I am very excited about the opportunity, but I will say
that one of the things we have been asking our industry
partners to do is to think more seriously about how they
improve their workers in their companies and to invest more in
getting their environments to be more enjoyable places to work
as well as greater throughput in people getting out to the work
that we need for them to do, that we contract with them to do.
Mr. Deluzio. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Kelly. I would like to thank all of our witnesses here
today. Just as a final thought, I think we have the greatest
shipbuilders and repairers and maintainers in the world. But we
have to send them the right signal all the time. We have to
give them predictable schedules of both repair and building.
We can't send them mixed signals, and we can't tell them to
pause or put on the brakes or take a strategic pause. And we
have to use multi-year buys, understanding that it is always
not financial benefits that we gain, but sometimes it is the
benefit in time, to produce more in a short time, which in and
of itself is a financial benefit.
And, finally, Lieutenant General Heckl, I have been blessed
with the opportunity to travel with you multiple times, to be
engaged with you, and I thank you for your service to our
Nation in many, many roles. And like Mr. Gallagher over here, I
look forward to you continuing to do great things for this
Nation in a life past the Marine Corps.
And, with that, this meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
April 17, 2024
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 17, 2024
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
April 17, 2024
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GARAMENDI
Mr. Garamendi. For years, I had to push the Navy to finalize a rule
on procurements within the NTIB. It seems very often the Navy is
seeking loopholes and waivers to try and evade Buy-America
requirements, so I am glad to see that the Navy has finally implemented
the NDAA section requiring auxiliary ship components be procured from a
manufacturer in the NTIB. Why did it take so long? Can you ensure me
that the Navy is working to grow its purchases of American parts and
goods and not just look for cheap discounts elsewhere?
Mr. Guertin. The Navy's ability to build and maintain the fleet is
dependent on a healthy and resilient domestic defense industrial base.
In this vein, the Navy complies with all relevant domestic sourcing and
Buy American laws to leverage the use of U.S. manufacturers. Components
purchased by the Navy and its prime contractors from non-domestic
sources account for a small percentage (10% or less) of the cost of a
Navy ship. The limited use of global suppliers in naval shipbuilding
programs is beneficial, often allowing the Navy to leverage leading
commercial technologies and economies of scale, resulting in more
buying power and a more capable fleet. The Navy is in compliance with
10 U.S. Code 4864, "Miscellaneous Limitations on the
Procurement of Goods other than United States Goods", which limits
procurement of certain components for naval and auxiliary vessels to
the National Technology and Industrial Base (NTIB), consisting of the
U.S., United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Furthermore,
the Navy is compliant with domestic sourcing restrictions that impact
the T-AO, FFG, AS(X), T-ARC, and T-AGOS class and remains committed to
maintaining a healthy and resilient shipbuilding industrial base.
Mr. Garamendi. 10 USC 4851 requires that the Department of Defense
"consider the effects of such existing or proposed memorandum of
understanding or related agreement on the defense technology and
industrial base of the United State". Given that RDP Agreements
recently noticed in the Federal register include agreements with
countries that have a large, shipbuilding industry, has the Navy been
consulted about the impact that Reciprocal Defense Procurement
Agreements with partners would have on the shipbuilding industrial base
of the United States? If so, how has the Navy assessed the impact of
such agreements on domestic shipbuilders and suppliers? If the United
States signed a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement with a major
partner or ally, would the Navy use that authorization to grow its
purchases of foreign components as a `qualifying nation'?
Mr. Guertin. The Navy recognizes health and competition in our
domestic shipbuilding industrial base and supply chain are vital to
meeting our National Defense Strategy. As noted, the U.S. is - and will
continue to be - party to various international agreements and
reciprocal purchase agreements. The limited use of global suppliers in
naval shipbuilding programs is beneficial, often allowing the Navy to
leverage leading commercial technologies and economies of scale,
resulting in more buying power and a more capable fleet. Additionally,
these international agreements allow our domestic suppliers to sell
internationally to foreign partners, thereby strengthening our
industrial base.
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LALOTA
Mr. LaLota. Increasingly, there are reports of adversaries
threatening US allies through the use of sea and/or ocean-bottom mines.
This is certainly the case in the Black Sea where Russia has employed
mines along the Ukrainian coast. It is also expected that sea mines
would be a component of Chinese military plans should that country
attack Taiwan and Iranian-aligned groups looking to disrupt trade in
the Rea Sea or Persian Gulf. Does the US Navy anticipate employing mine
countermeasure (MCM) assets either during a hot conflict or post
conflict in these areas? If so, does the Navy currently have sufficient
organic assets to adequately service multiple areas simultaneously? It
is also my understanding that, based on Navy documentation, this gap is
to be addressed in part by using "Vessels of Opportunity" equipped with
mobile mission modules, in effect, using VOOs as a fleet multiplier.
Can you explain for the Committee the Vessels of Opportunity concept
and what capability is needed to make these non-combat platforms
mission viable?
Admiral Pitts. 1) Navy anticipates most MCM operations would take
place once air and sea control of an area has been established,
allowing for permissive operations of manned and unmanned systems
deployed from a host MCM platform. This is consistent with existing MCM
CONOPS and Fleet planning. MCM operations in a conflict is possible,
however, it would be a risk decision that joint and maritime task force
commanders would make. In such a scenario, platforms and remote systems
would most likely be assigned dedicated protection.
2) Navy can conduct MCM operations in multiple areas around the
world today by employing currently forward-deployed legacy MCM
platforms and Expeditionary MCM companies. Additionally, if necessary,
combatant commanders could surge assigned forces from adjacent
geographic command areas of operation to provide additional capacity in
a needed location. Navy procurement and deployment plans for the MCM MP
comply with NDAA direction to provide replacement capability and
capacity before retiring the legacy MCM platforms, which are currently
forward-deployed to multiple combatant commands. Navy procurement plans
also project the fielding of additional MCM MP onboard Independence LCS
platforms, providing the Joint Force additional capacity to support
homeland and other geographic areas. Plans also include a future
quantity of expeditionary MCM MPs that could be deployed from any shore
location or vessel of opportunity equipped with the correct logistical
support. The exact total quantity is pre-decisional but will result in
additional capacity to support several simultaneous MCM clearance
tasks.
3) Navy has employed the Vessels of Opportunity (VoO) concept for
MCM operations for decades - from various US Navy Afloat Forward
Staging Bases (AFSB), from Bay-class dock landing ships built for the
British Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA), as well as from other platforms.
Both components of the Navy's Modular MCM force (the ExMCM companies
and MCM Mission Package) have shown the ability to be employed from VoO
and ashore, consistent with the Fleet's released Non-traditional MCM
CONOPS. The flexibility of the modular MCM force to be employed from
multiple ship types or from ashore enables rapid MCM response to
maritime mining events in many areas. There is no correlation between
non-combat status and ability for a platform to be employed as a VoO.
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GOLDEN
Mr. Golden. Provide the amount of additional funding needed to
procure a third DDG in FY25.
Mr. Guertin. In order to procure a third DDG-51 FLT III ship in
FY25, the Navy would require an additional $1,431M FY25 Full Funding to
exercise a FY25 Option Ship. A third FY25 ship would require $2,789M,
but the Navy has already received FY24 Advance Procurement (AP) funds
of $1,357M for a third FY25 ship ($77.3M re-aligned FY23 AP funds and
$1.28B Congressionally added FY24 AP funds).
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. JACKSON
Mr. Jackson. What are the Navy's efforts to address CMV-22 ice
protection system material challenges and what upgrades will be
incorporated into this system?
Mr. Guertin. The Navy has been actively addressing the challenges
identified with the CMV-22's Ice Protection System (IPS) through a
series of mitigations and modifications. These efforts are aimed at
improving the system's reliability and performance. One of the key
issues identified in the Operational Test Readiness Review was the
unacceptable rotor damage caused by the IPS heater blanket and solder
tab failures. These components have been identified as the top
contributors to arcing and burning damage to the rotor blades and
spinner panels.
To address these issues, several mitigations and modifications were
implemented:
1) Spinner Dome: A solder joint reinforcement repair/modification
for all fleet aircraft was successfully verified in September 2021. An
engineering change proposal was signed off to move the solder joint
location to a low-strain area. A stiffener fastener and edge sealant
were added to prevent stiffener disbonding. The retrofit will occur via
attrition of the component with an expected completion in 2QFY29.
Spinner Dome supply improvement efforts involving both the vendor and
depot have also been completed.
2) Rotor Blades: In 2022, changes were incorporated into the blade
repair procedures via an Engineering Change Procedure. This was done to
enhance the reliability and effectiveness of the blade repairs, which
included reflowing and adding solder over a larger area for strength,
as well as the option to apply a braid to the wiring.
3) Software Fixes: Improvements have been made to the IPS health
check to reduce component burn-through. This is now part of the
baseline CMV-22 software. Another software fix, IPS 123, was released
in January 2021 and has reduced false alarms and improved fault
isolation and detection. Additional software changes are in work to
allow the operator to isolate specific Ice Protection Sub-System tests
to avoid system failures while conducting pre-flight built-in tests.
4) Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures (NATOPS) Operational
Procedure Update: An update to the ice protection system limitations
was incorporated into NATOPS in January 2021 which provided
clarification for partial mission capable systems and the associated
weather limitations. Additionally, changes to the Mission Essential
Subsystems Matrix were incorporated to separate Ice Protection core/
critical, de-ice, and anti-ice components to allow increased fault
fidelity, inform go/no-go decisions, and increase operational
flexibility.
[all]