[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 113-28]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
ON
BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
__________
HEARING HELD
APRIL 16, 2013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-757 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Thirteenth Congress
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JEFF MILLER, Florida ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
ROB BISHOP, Utah JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JOHN GARAMENDI, California
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
DUNCAN HUNTER, California Georgia
JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado JACKIE SPEIER, California
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia RON BARBER, Arizona
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey DEREK KILMER, Washington
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama SCOTT H. PETERS, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
PAUL COOK, California
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
Dave Sienicki, Professional Staff Member
Phil MacNaughton, Professional Staff Member
Aaron Falk, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2013
Page
Hearing:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013, Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the Navy... 1
Appendix:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013.......................................... 51
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013
FISCAL YEAR 2014 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' a Representative from
California, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services.............. 1
Sanchez, Hon. Loretta, a Representative from California,
Committee on Armed Services.................................... 2
WITNESSES
Amos, Gen James F., USMC, Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps.......... 8
Greenert, ADM Jonathan W., USN, Chief of Naval Operations, U.S.
Navy........................................................... 6
Mabus, Hon. Ray, Secretary of the Navy........................... 3
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Amos, Gen James F............................................ 126
Greenert, ADM Jonathan W..................................... 101
Mabus, Hon. Ray.............................................. 57
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck''.............................. 55
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Charts from ADM Greenert..................................... 179
CSBA charts.................................................. 181
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Bridenstine.............................................. 190
Mr. Langevin................................................. 185
Mr. Rogers................................................... 186
Mr. Wittman.................................................. 187
FISCAL YEAR 2014 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Tuesday, April 16, 2013.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon (chairman of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' MCKEON, A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES
The Chairman. Committee will come to order. Before we start
today, I think it is only appropriate that we pause for a
moment of silence in remembrance of the victims of yesterday's
Boston attacks.
[Moment of silence.]
The Chairman. I know the thoughts and prayers of everyone
in this committee and in this room are with the families and
those of who have lost loved ones and those who have suffered
injuries at this time.
Thank you for joining us today as we consider the
President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Department
of the Navy. I appreciate our witnesses' testimony here today
and their support of our naval forces. The Navy and the Marine
Corps team continue to serve in a stressed environment. And in
my estimation the fundamentals are unsustainable.
The sustained surge that the Navy continues to employ to
meet the combatant commander requirements have driven our force
structure to the ragged edge. Surface ship deployments of 7 to
9 months are the new normal. While the material readiness of
our surface forces has shown some improvement over the last
year, these improvements will be reversed as we begin to
implement sequestration.
As the Marine Corps they continue on a path of contraction,
reducing to a force structure of 182,000 Marines. Their
materiel readiness after a decade of war is at abysmal lows. At
this force structure level and with this materiel readiness,
the Marine Corps will be challenged to meet our global
commitments. And make no mistake about it, these challenges
will invariably lead to placing more and more of our service
members at risk in future conflicts.
Ironically, the sustained Navy force deployment model and
Marine Corps force structure reductions will be further
exacerbated with this administration's fiscal year 2014 budget
request. Instead of adding ships and force structure to reverse
this sustained surge, the Navy is preparing to accelerate the
retirement of ships and reduce the combat force structure to an
all-time low of 273 ships. This reduced force structure is in
contravention to even their own goal of 306 ships and calls
from the Independent Panel Assessment of the 2010 Quadrennial
Defense Review to support a Navy force of 346 ships.
And the Marine Corps continues their general reductions. It
will be further challenged as diminishing budgets threaten red-
line determinations. Further aggravating this diminution of our
force structure, Secretary Hagel has initiated Strategic
Choices and Management Review that is expected to report out
later this spring. This review will be used to inform the next
Quadrennial Defense Review and will serve as a seminal document
to inform other strategic documents and operational plans. Once
again we are allowing our budget process to drive strategy, a
dangerous direction for our Nation.
My friends, our fiscal decisions have real consequences.
Using the Department of Defense budget allocations as a tool in
a grand budget bargain will only serve to further shrink our
force structure. Our ability to project power in times of
global instability will continue to atrophy. The risk that our
marines and sailors will not return in times of future conflict
will continue to grow.
As America steps back, someone else will step forward. Now
is the time for real leadership. I hope to do my part and
reverse this general decline of our Navy and Marine Corps. I am
pleased that our committee led the way during last year's
legislative cycle and provided the authority to retain four
cruisers in fiscal year 2013 that were slated for early
retirement.
I look forward to continuing this restraint on the
administration to assure that our Nation is able to retain the
program service life of our naval fleet. I understand that our
committee, a reflection of our national ideals, is
appropriately assessing the direction of our military. I think
that we can lead from behind and quietly support weakening of
our military, or we can seek to retain a military force that
best serves the strategic interests of our Nation.
I would urge the administration to share in my vision and
ensure that our forces, if ever called to conflict, will not
just win, but will strategically deter future aggressors from
even trying to assess whether military conflict with the United
States is a reasonable alternative. We cannot fail in this
endeavor.
Ms. Sanchez.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon can be found in the
Appendix on page 55.]
STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, thank you
gentlemen for being before us, Mr. Secretary, Admiral, General.
In the interest of time I am not going to read the entire
opening statement that Mr. Smith had. But I would like to say
that today we are looking at the budget, the President's
proposal, which we believe is a responsible attempt to forge a
grand bargain on the budget.
Some are unhappy with it because it reflects about $119
billion worth of cuts between years 2017 and 2023. First, let
me remind you that this is a much smaller amount of cuts than
under the current sequestration program. And secondly, the
President's budget also allows Congress and the administration
to work together to make those cuts in a more flexible manner
than under the sequestration law that we live under right now.
And I also remind this committee that there were many who voted
for that Budget Control Act.
So it is really important for us to work together to make
sure that we have a strong military, to make sure that our
national security moves forward in these very trying times. But
it is our responsibility to work together to try to make sure
that we put the right amount of money to make sure that we are
looking at our people's need for this national security.
Let me just say that I think we have to admit that we are
not going to see increases in our defense budget in the coming
years. Not under the financial circumstances that our country
has. And we have been forced over the last 10 or so years, I
believe, with two wars going on, to have seen pretty much, many
increases.
I mean we didn't want to be in a war. We as Congresspeople
wanted to ensure, most of us, wanted to ensure that our men and
women in the field had the monies that they needed to insure
that we would do our, do their job, they could do their job and
we could bring them back. And Iraq finished last year.
Afghanistan is in the future of the next year for a finish.
And so in particular, I want to thank our Navy and our
Marine Corps, all of it, from the very top, all the way to the
young woman or man who is just getting into the corps or into
the Navy. And we will work very hard, I am sure in a bipartisan
manner, in this committee to ensure that you have the right
resources and that we have the right policies that we can move
forward and believe that our country is positioned correctly
for the future, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
And without objection we will include Mr. Smith's total
statement in the record.
We have here today with us Secretary Mabus, Secretary of
the Navy; Admiral Greenert, CNO [Chief of Naval Operations];
General Amos, Commandant of the Marines.
Mr. Secretary.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAY MABUS, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
Secretary Mabus. I always depend on CNO for all sorts of
things and this, this shows that, so let me start over.
Chairman McKeon, Congresswoman Sanchez, first of all, to
the members of this committee, thank you for your support of
the Department of the Navy, our sailors, our marines, our
civilian employees and our families.
General Amos, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and
Admiral Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations, and I could
not be prouder to represent those steadfast and courageous
sailors, marines and civilians.
No matter what missions are given them, no matter what
hardships are asked of them, these men and women serve their
Nation around the world with skill and dedication.
In the past year, the Navy and Marine Corps team has
continued to conduct a full range of military operations from
combat in Afghanistan, to security cooperation missions in the
Pacific, to disaster recovery operations in the streets of
Staten Island. Sailors and marines have gotten the job done.
As the United States transitions from two land wars in
Central Asia to the maritime-centric defense strategy announced
15 months ago, our naval forces will be critical in the years
ahead.
This strategy, which focuses on the Western Pacific, the
Arabian Gulf and continuing to build partnerships around the
globe, requires a forward-deployed, flexible, multimission
force that is the Navy and Marine Corps, America's ``away
team.''
Within this strategy, we have to balance our missions with
our resources. We are working in the Department under Secretary
Hagel's leadership on our Strategic Choices and Management
Review to assess how to deal with the budget uncertainty facing
the Department as we go forward.
He has directed us to review the basic assumptions that
drive the Department's investment in force structure, to
identify institutional reforms that may be required, including
those reforms that should be pursued regardless of fiscal
pressures.
As he said during his testimony before this committee last
week, ``Everything will be on the table.'' 2013 has been hard
because we began the fiscal year operating under a continuing
resolution that gave us little room to be strategic and to
prioritize, limiting our ability to manage the Navy and Marine
Corps through this new fiscal reality.
Thanks to your efforts and your congressional colleagues,
we have an appropriation for this fiscal year. But
sequestration is still forcing us to make across-the-board cuts
totaling more than $4 billion from our operation and
maintenance accounts and about $6 billion from our investment
accounts.
These cuts will have real impacts. We have prioritized
combat operations in Central Command and deployments to Pacific
Command. However, we have had to cancel a number of deployments
to Southern Command.
In order to maintain our priority deployments in 2013 and
2014 and meet the Global Force Management Allocation Plan,
funding shortfalls will cause our units at home to cut back
training and maintenance.
Pilots will get less flight time, ships will have less time
at sea, and marines will have less time in the field. It will
take longer for repair parts to arrive when needed. Our
facilities ashore will be maintained at a much lower level.
The Department's 2014 budget request is a return to a
measured budget approach, one based on strategy that protects
the warfighter by advancing the priorities that I have referred
to as the four P's: people, platforms, power and partnerships.
We are working to make sure our people are resilient and
strong after more than a decade of very high operations tempo
with programs like 21st Century Sailor/Marine.
With this, we aim to bring all the efforts on protection
and readiness, fitness, inclusion and continuing with service
together as a coherent whole.
This encompasses a wide range of issues from preventing
sexual assault and suicide to fostering a culture of fitness to
strengthening the force through diversity, to ensuring a
successful transition following 4 or 40 years of service.
In the Marine Corps, we continue decreasing manpower to
meet our new end strength of just over 182,000 by fiscal year
2016, but we are doing this in a way which helps retain the
right level of noncommissioned officers and field-grade
officers and their experience. We are also working to make sure
that our sailors and marines have the tools and the platforms
they need to do the missions they are given. One of the most
important of these is our fleet.
On September 11, 2001, the U.S. Navy had 316 ships. By
2008, after one of the largest military build-ups in our
Nation's history, that number was 278. In 2008, the Navy put
only three ships under contract; far too few to maintain the
size of the fleet or our industrial base. Many of our
shipbuilding programs were over budget or over schedule or
both. One of my main priorities as Secretary has been to
reverse those trends.
Today, the fleet is stabilized and the problems in most of
our shipbuilding programs have been corrected or arrested. We
have 47 ships under contract today, 43 of which have been
contracted since I took office, and our current shipbuilding
plan puts us on track for 300 ships in the fleet by 2019.
The way we power our ships and our installations has always
been a core and vital issue for the Department of the Navy. We
continue to lead in energy as we have throughout our history.
From sail to coal to oil to nuclear, Navy has led in moving to
new sources of power and each time it has made us a better
warfighting force.
Today, from marines making power in the field to
alternatives on land, on and under the sea and in the air, the
Navy and Marine Corps are powering innovations that will
maintain our operational edge.
Building partnerships, interoperability and capacity and
capability in our partners is a crucial component of the
defense strategy. The strategy directs that this be done in a
low-cost, small footprint, innovative way. That is precisely
what the Navy and Marine Corps do.
The process we used to craft the Department's budget
request was determined, deliberate and dedicated to our
responsibilities to you and to the taxpayer. And like the House
and Senate budget resolutions, we do not assume that
sequestration will continue in fiscal year 2014.
Mr. Chairman, the budget we are submitting supports the
defense strategy, preserves the readiness of our people and it
builds on the success we have achieved in shipbuilding.
For 237 years, our maritime warriors have established a
proven record as an agile and adaptable force. Forward-
deployed, we remain the most responsive option to defend the
American people and our interests.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Mabus can be found in
the Appendix on page 57.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Admiral.
STATEMENT OF ADM JONATHAN W. GREENERT, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL
OPERATIONS, U.S. NAVY
Admiral Greenert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
members of the committee. It is my pleasure to appear before
you today to testify on the Navy's fiscal year 2014 budget and
posture.
I am honored to represent 613,000 Active and Reserve
sailors, Navy civilians and their families who are serving
today. This morning, I want to address three points: our
enduring tenets for decisionmaking, our budget strategy for
2013 and the subsequent carryover into 2014 and the course that
we are on for 2014.
Two important characteristics of our naval forces describe
our mandate that we will operate forward where it matters and
that we will be ready when it matters.
Your Navy and Marine Corps are uniquely qualified to
immediately respond to crises to assure allies, build
partnerships, deter aggression and to contain conflict.
Our fundamental approach to meeting this responsibility
remains unchanged. We organize, man, train and equip the Navy
by viewing our decisions through three lenses, or you can call
them tenets, and they are warfighting first, operate forward
and be ready.
Regardless of the size of our budget or our fleet, these
three tenets--these are the lenses through which we evaluate
and we conduct each decision.
Now, if you refer to the chart that I have provided in
front of you, for each of you, you will see that on any given
day we have about 50,000 sailors and about 100 ships deployed
overseas providing forward presence.
[The chart referred to can be found in the Appendix on page
179.]
Admiral Greenert. There are orange bowties on the chart and
they represent the maritime crossroads. Those are the key
straits, the key ``choke points'' some call them, where
shipping lanes and our security concerns intersect.
A unique strength of your fleet is that it operates forward
from U.S. bases and they are represented on this chartlet by
circles. You will recognize those.
But there are places, and these are provided by partner
nations, and they are represented by squares around the world.
These places are critical to your Navy being where it
matters because they enable us to respond rapidly to crises and
they enable us to sustain forward presence with fewer ships by
reducing the number of ships on rotational deployments. These
places are important.
Now, when I last testified to this committee in February,
we faced, in the Navy, a shortfall of about $8.6 billion in our
fiscal 2013 operations and maintenance account.
Now, since then, thanks to the Congress' efforts, we
received a 2013 appropriation in March. And, in accordance with
our priorities and tenets, we plan to invest our remaining 2013
operation and maintenance funds to take care of our must-pay
items, such as payroll, leases, utilities.
We will reconcile our 2013 presence with our combatant
commanders. We will conduct training and maintenance for forces
next to deploy and prepare to meet our 2014 Global Force
Management Allocation Plan. That is our demand signal, that is
our covenant with the combatant commanders. And we will restore
critical base operations and renovation projects.
Now, though we intend to meet our most critical operational
commitments to the combatant commanders, sequestration leaves
us with a $4 billion operations and maintenance shortfall and a
$6 billion investment shortfall in 2013.
And this is going to result in our surge capacity--the
surge capacity of fully mission-capable carrier strike groups
and amphibious ready groups, just to list the big ones--being
reduced through 2014.
Now, further, we will have deferred about $1.2 billion in
facility maintenance as well as depot-level maintenance for 84
aircraft and 104 engines and that is just representative of
some of this deferral that we will have to do.
When you consolidate operations and maintenance and
investment shortfalls together, that leaves us with about a $9
billion carryover that will go into 2014 and that is what we
will have to deal with right away.
A continuation of sequestration in 2014 is going to
compound this carryover challenge and it will go from $9
billion to $23 billion. That would be my 2014 challenge.
Further, the accounts and activities that we were able to
protect in 2013, such as manpower, nuclear maintenance,
critical fleet operations, to name a few, they will be liable
to reduction.
Our people have remained resilient in the face of this
uncertainty. And, frankly, Mr. Chairman, I have been amazed at
our sailors and their civilians and their patience and in their
dedication throughout all of this.
Our 2014 budget submission supports the defense strategic
guidance. It will enable us to maintain our commitments in the
Middle East and our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. Now, we
prepared this budget with the following priorities.
Number one, we have got to deliver the overseas presence in
accordance with the Global Force Management Allocation Plan.
That is my demand signal. That is my covenant to the combatant
commanders.
Number two, we will continue near-term investments, ones
that we started last year with your help, and continue this
year into next year to address challenges in the Middle East
and the Asia-Pacific.
And three, we will develop long-term capabilities, focus in
on asymmetric capabilities, capabilities others don't have, at
the appropriate capacity to address warfighting challenges in
the Middle East and Asia-Pacific and other combatant commander
areas of responsibility.
Our budget submission continues to invest in the future
fleet. We take care of our people. We build ships and aircraft,
and we will invest in research and development for new
technology. We have requested $44 billion in ships, submarines,
manned and unmanned aircraft, weapons, cyber and other
procurement, programs such as the SSBNX, that is the Ohio
replacement [submarine] program, the Virginia-class submarine,
the Joint Strike Fighter, Littoral Combat Ships, unmanned
aerial vehicles of the tactical nature, DDG-1000 [USS Zumwalt],
and the P-8 [Boeing P-8 Poseidon], just to name the highlights.
These investments that will deliver a fleet, as Secretary
Mabus said, of about 300 ships--of 300 ships in 2019. And these
ships will have greater interoperability and flexibility when
compared to today's fleet.
We continue to fund important capabilities, such as the
laser weapon system for small boat and drone defense, which
will continue testing aboard the ship Ponce, here in the spring
of 2014. We will deploy that soon. Also, in 2014, we will
deploy on the aircraft carrier George Herbert Walker Bush, a
successfully tested prototype system to detect and defeat
advanced wave-combing torpedoes, a major vulnerability that we
had reconciled.
We continue to grow manpower, 900 in the net in 2014, as we
focus on reducing our manning gaps at sea, as we enhance Navy
cyber capabilities. And we will continue to address our
critical readiness and safety degraders, sexual assault
prevention, suicide prevention, sailor resilience, and our
family support programs.
So Mr. Chairman, your Navy will continue to ensure our
Nation's security and prosperity by operating forward to assure
access to the maritime crossroads. We are going to be present
where it matters, and we are going to be there when it matters.
This budget places our Navy on a course which will enable us to
meet the requirements of the defense strategic guidance today,
while building a viable future force and sustaining our
manpower for tomorrow.
We appreciate everything you and this committee have done
for our sailors and our civilians and their families. And we
ask, again, for your support in removing the burden of
sequestration so that we can better train, equip, and deploy
these brave men and women in defense of our Nation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Greenert can be found in
the Appendix on page 101.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
General.
STATEMENT OF GEN JAMES F. AMOS, USMC, COMMANDANT, U.S. MARINE
CORPS
General Amos. Chairman McKeon, members of the committee, I
am pleased to appear before you today to outline the 2013
posture of your United States Marine Corps.
I am equally pleased to be sitting alongside my service
secretary, the Honorable Ray Mabus, and my good friend and
fellow Joint Chief, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the Chief of
Naval Operations.
For more than 237 years, your corps has been a people-
intense force. We have always known our greatest asset is the
individual marine. Our unique role as America's premier crisis
response force is grounded in a legendary character and
warfighting ethos of our people. Today's marines are ethical
warriors, forged by challenging training and made wise through
decades of combat. You can take pride in knowing that as we
gather here in this storied hearing room, some 30,000 marines
are forward deployed around the world, promoting peace,
protecting our Nation's interest, and securing its defense.
Sergeant Major Barrett and I recently returned from
Afghanistan and--and can attest to the progress there. Marines
have given the Afghan people the vision of success and the
possibility of a secure and prosperous society. I am bullish
about the positive assistance we are providing the people of
the Helmand province, and I remain optimistic about their
future.
Afghan's security forces have the lead now in most every
operation we do. Our commanders and their marines assess the
Afghan national security forces as over-matching the Taliban in
every single way and in every single engagement.
Speaking today as both a service chief and as a member of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the foundations of the defense
strategic guidance depends upon our regional stability and
international order to underwrite the global economic system.
Failing to provide leadership in the collective security of the
global order will have significant consequences for the
American people.
Worse, a lapse in American leadership and forward
engagement will create a void in which lasting security threats
will be left unaddressed, and new security challenges will find
room to grow. The reality of today's security environment
reveals the value of forward naval presence. With declining
resources to address the emerging security challenges, neo-
isolationism does not advance our Nation's national interest.
Forward deployed sea-based naval forces do, however. They
support our proactive security strategy while remaining capable
of shaping, deterring, and rapidly responding to crisis, all
while treading lightly on our allies and our partners'
sovereign territory.
Amphibious forces are a sensible and unmistakable solution
in preserving our national security. Naval forces, and the
Marine Corps, in particular, are our Nation's insurance policy,
a hedge against uncertainty, a hedge against an unpredictable
world. A balanced air-ground logistics team, we respond in
hours and days to America's needs, not in weeks and in months.
This is our raison d'etre. It has always been that way.
This year's baseline budget submission of $24.2 billion was
framed by our following service priorities. First, we will
continue to provide the best trained and equipped marines and
their units in Afghanistan. Second, we will protect the
readiness of our forward-deployed rotational forces around the
world. Third, we will reset and reconstitute our operational
forces as our marines and equipment return from nearly 12 years
of continuous combat. Fourth, as much as is humanly possible,
we will modernize our force through investing in the individual
marine first, and by replacing aging combat systems next. And,
lastly, we will keep faith with our marines, our sailors, and
our families.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Marine Corps is well aware of
the fiscal realities confronting our Nation. During these times
of constrained resources, the Marine Corps remains committed to
being responsible stewards of scarce public funds.
In closing, the success of your marines and your Marine
Corps is directly linked to the unwavering support of Congress
and the American people. You have my promise that during our
economic challenges, the Marine Corps will only ask for what it
needs, not for what it might want.
We will continue to prioritize and make the hard decisions
before coming to Congress. We will continue to offer a
strategically mobile force, optimize for forward presence and
rapid response. Your Marine Corps stands ready to respond
whenever the Nation calls, wherever the President may direct.
Once again, Chairman, I thank the committee for your
continued support, and I am prepared to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Amos can be found in the
Appendix on page 126.]
The Chairman. Thank you, very much. As I mentioned in my
opening statement, I am concerned about the general force
structure reductions in both the Navy and the Marine Corps. The
Navy has proposed a force structure of 273 ships in fiscal year
2014, and the Marine Corps continues to reduce their force
structure to 182,000 marines.
Admiral Greenert, General Amos, when Admiral Mullen said we
needed to cut $465 billion, I think, he gave the chiefs goals
and targets that they needed to work on that $465 goal--it grew
to be $487 billion. But you had about a year to come up with
the new strategy. And that strategy replaced the strategy we
basically had since World War II, being able to fight two major
structures at the same time, to where now we say we will fight
one and hold one, I believe. That is the current strategy.
But Secretary Hagel said, I think about 2 weeks ago, that
we needed now, with these additional cuts of sequestration to
come up with a new strategy. And I would like to ask both of
you, in your best professional, military judgment, can you talk
about any red-line issues that you will not be able to support
during this review in the way of cutting the Navy from the 306
goal, although I don't know when we would ever hit that goal,
even, because we are much below that now and the 182,000 force
structure of the Marine Corps.
Could you, as you go through this process of coming up with
a new strategy that Secretary Hagel has said we are going to
have to come up with, could you tell us, at this point, any red
lines that you will not be able to support?
Admiral Greenert. Mr. Chairman, as I look at the numbers,
and I think you are talking, assuming a sequestration, $500
billion. First thing I do is, and most important, we provide
forward presence. And it is--I can't provide--I cannot meet the
current Global Force Management Allocation Plan with those
numbers. So I don't know what number I would be at. It would be
on the order of 30 ships, you know, as I look at a balanced
reduction in that regard, less than the number of ships that I
have today.
So, let's say 250 ships if I am at 280 today. So when you
take that and you just--and you look at what we have forward in
our plans to go forward and what we rotate, it would be--I
can't meet the Global Force Management Allocation Plan that I
have today.
But I would emphasize that our initiatives to operate
forward, to forward deploy, to forward rotate, very important
throughout all of this, because we get great leverage out of
that. So number one, the Global Force Management Allocation
Plan.
Two, because I have to balance what the Navy in that
regard, make sure I can meet the requirements today but build a
future force, I worry about the industrial base. I worry about
the ability to maintain two submarine builders so that we can
have that competition. The same with destroyer builders, large
surface combatants. The industrial base would be a great
concern of mine. And I can't reconcile right now, today, how we
maintain the industrial base that we need today to maintain the
different ship types in that future. It is just something I
haven't figured out yet.
The Chairman. Let me drill down just a little on that. The
$487 billion cuts that we are just starting to see, you could
maintain those with that.
Admiral Greenert. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. But the sequestration pretty well wipes it
all out?
Admiral Greenert. Yes, sir. When you go from today, we look
at where we are at today, and you say I want to know what your
situation at roughly $50 billion for the next 8 years, 9 years,
tell me about that. That is what I just commented on, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. I think not everyone, not everyone
understands. Of course the people on this committee do and I
think most of the people in Congress. We have had the $78
billion cuts with Secretary Gates and then the $487 billion, so
what we are really talking about is this additional $500
billion on top of that at the same time which reduces us over
$1 trillion over a 10-year period while we are still at war.
General.
General Amos. Chairman, I can't give you specific red lines
because we have just embarked on this strategic choices, the
review, about 30 days ago. We have got another 30 days left. It
is based on a $500 billion sequestration. It is the law so we
are proceeding down that path. So it is yet to be seen
precisely what the results of that will be, because each
service, as we come out of this, the Secretary of Defense and
the service secretaries will, along with us, will make a
determination where the Department of Defense is going to
weight its effort.
My sense is that the President's strategy for the
reorientation of the Pacific will probably remain a good
strategy. I mean I support that. I like that. I think it is, I
think I have said before this committee before, we are all a
part of the development of that in support of the President and
I still believe in it to this day. It is a function of how much
you can do. It is a function of capacity. For instance, at the
$500 billion it is not a matter of being able to do the same
with less, and you are certainly not going to be able to do
more with less. You are going to do less with less. I mean that
is the reality of really $1 trillion worth of cuts. You lay
that on top of the $200 billion worth of Secretary Gates's
efficiencies and you are about $1.2 to $1.3 trillion out of the
Department of Defense in the last, just in the last 2 years
over the next 9 years.
So we are going to do less with less. That doesn't mean we
are going to do it poorly or we are going to do inadequately.
We will do it to the very best we possibly can. So when you ask
what the red lines are, for me, it focuses as I come down, you
know I am headed to 182,100. Now that is a result of the Budget
Control Act. So we are going from 202 down to 182,1.
With the Budget Control Act, we can afford 182,100. It is
not exactly the number that Secretary Gates approved and
Secretary Mabus 2 years ago when we did our Force Structure
Review. But it is adequate and we can live with that. What will
happen with $500 billion is that force of 182,100 is no longer
sustainable. So you are going to come down. I am going to come
down some number below that. And I don't know yet how low that
number is going to be. That number then will dictate the
capacity to be able to be forward deployed, forward engaged.
Those types of things that I talked about in my opening
statement.
The thing that concerns me the most is that at least a
piece of the Department of Defense has to be that hedge force,
has to be that crisis response force. I know I use that term,
but America buys, people buy insurance for a reason, as a hedge
against the unknown. That is what Admiral Greenert and I are,
we are America's insurance policy. We don't know what is out
there. We didn't know what would happen in Boston last night.
We didn't know what was going to happen 3 weeks ago in Korea,
in North Korea.
We certainly aren't sure how things are going to turn out
in Syria. So you need some portion of the Department of Defense
engaged or deployed at a high state of readiness. And that is
us. We go below 400--excuse me, 182,000 and we embrace the full
$500 billion it is going to be, we are going to do less with
less. There is going to be less of that.
So I can't give you a red line Mr. Secretary, excuse me,
Mr. Chairman, but I hope that answers your question.
The Chairman. Red line may have been the wrong terminology.
Maybe what I should have asked was what, this isn't a
confrontational thing, it is based on, you are going to get a
number and there are certain things you will be able to
continue to do, certain things you won't be able to do. And I
am hoping we can have a full discussion when we come up with
that new strategy--when you come up with that new strategy,
that it will include increased risks that we are going to have
to assume and things that we will not be able to do going
forward. Thank you, very much.
Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again gentleman, thank you for your service and for helping
us to try to understand where everything is. Let me ask you a
quick question before I go to my prepared questions. I was out
visiting several bases and commands during the break recently
for the Congress. Visited several, a lot of Army, went to the
82nd of course, 48 hours and they are on a plane somewhere
going wherever we, you know, want them to or send them to.
And it was very interesting because as I spoke to them, it
became very apparent that in this year for this sequestration
hitting them at their, at the real troop level, their cut was
not what a lot of us on committee think, it is a 9 percent cut
or it is a 10 percent cut. Mr. Chairman, but for them directly,
the actual soldier that we put on the plane that is going to go
and drop in somewhere, it was actually a 35 percent decrease
this year.
So my first question to you is what does it really mean to
the marine on the ground? Has he seen this 10 percent coming
in, readiness for the future, what have you? Or are they seeing
even deeper cuts because the further away you get from the
Pentagon it seems, the more gets cut out of the budget.
General Amos. Congresswoman, that is a great question and
each service approaches this just a little bit differently
depending on what their responsibilities are with readiness.
For instance, in the last about 3 months, I have moved those
operations and maintenance funds that I had available to me,
that I had the authority to move, I pulled them out of other
accounts, maintenance accounts, sustainment accounts, and some
training accounts for operational units, and pushed them into
units that are poised and getting ready to deploy next.
Some are getting ready to go into Afghanistan, some are
getting ready to go on our ships. The Marine Expeditionary
Units, some are getting ready to go around the world to various
things. So their readiness, if you were to go to them, they
would probably not see the difference. But if you went to their
sister unit next door, or across the base, they would be 30, 40
percent down, the way that the 82nd is, the way you have
described it. Because we have taken their readiness money,
their training, their ammunition, their deployment to
Twentynine Palms to train and prepare. We have taken that money
away from them to prepare, to insure that those forces that are
next to go, are in fact ready.
So that is why I say each service is a little bit
different. Our next-to-go forces are ready, probably wouldn't
see a difference. But boy I tell you what, you go across the
base, and you are going to see the 30 to 40 percent.
Ms. Sanchez. Admiral, any comment to that?
Admiral Greenert. Yes ma'am a little perspective if you
will, in our operations account. It is roughly a $40 billion
account. And when we were, when we looked at the challenge for
sequestration and the continuing resolution, that is about $9
billion. So of the $40 billion account, $18 is either exempted,
kind of fenced, or already spent. So you are looking at $22
billion, that is where the money was. And you got about $9
billion. So 9 divided by 22. That is what it looks like in many
of those accounts.
So if you are the sailor that as maybe as Commandant
mentioned, maybe the sailor that had deployed maybe recently, a
pilot. Say what is new in your world? He says simulators. I
just go to the simulator today because I am not flying. At all.
And we had that for a period of time. Now we are off of that.
Some ships we had to say, well you are not next to deploy, as
the Commandant said, you are tied up. And so they go through
routine training. And to them, it is a different world from
what they are used to.
Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Chairman it is just, I think we really
need to have a discussion among ourselves here before we talk
to the rest of the Congress. Just about what this really looks
like. Because it is one thing on paper but I think at the real
operational level it is astounding some of the things that I
heard. I really want to get, I don't want to take a lot of
time, but I want to get to my main question that I had
prepared.
It deals with, gentlemen, women in combat. So Secretary
Panetta and the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously said, you
know, I think Secretary Panetta at the time, put it best when
he stated that not everyone will be a combat soldier but
everyone is entitled to have a chance. And of course I have
been advocating for that for a very long time.
So I am confident that between Congress and the Department
we can make the right steps. It is my understanding that the
services are required to implement, to have an implementation
plan no later than May of 2013, so can you provide this
committee with an update of where that stands? Are you going to
meet that deadline? What are the steps that you are taking
towards opening some of those positions? And can the Congress,
how can the Congress help you to ensure that we get the plan in
place, that we go through the implementation as you see as it,
as you have been talking and trying to deal with the new
reality?
General Amos. Congresswoman, thank you for the opportunity
to talk about this. I think it actually is good news and I
would like to walk you through it. I am in agreement with you,
we have had women in combat now for 12 years, probably before
that in some areas that we are completely unaware of. So women
risking their lives and their being out in the front is not
new.
We have got everything you said, with Secretary Panetta, we
are on track, the service Chiefs are. We are in the United
States Marine Corps. We have 335 what we call primary military
occupational specialties. I am a pilot, I am a 7523, or at
least I used to be, F-18 pilot. So that is my MOS [Military
Occupational Specialty]. If you are an infantry officer you are
an 0302, if you are an intel officer you are an 02. So we have
got 335 of those; 303 of those right now are absolutely,
completely open to women.
So there is 90, 90.4 percent of all our occupational jobs
are open to women. We had about 10 major units, amtracs
[assault amphibious vehicles], our assault vehicles, artillery
tanks, air naval gun liaison, and light area defense. We had
these kinds of units and infantry and reconnaissance that are
the primary units that are closed--been closed historically to
women.
We have opened up all of those for all intents and purposes
with the exception of infantry and reconnaissance. And we are
doing some work on that, and I will talk about that in just a
second.
But what we have done is we have gone back through and we
said, ``Okay, let's go and let's take those jobs that are
already open to women but in other kinds of units, in aviation
squadrons and units, let's put them in there first. Let's put
the leadership in there, the officers and staff, NCOs
[noncommissioned officers]. And let's put them in there first,
and they will kind of--they will kind of seed the bed, so to
speak, and provide--excuse me, provide intermediate-level
leadership so that when we start bringing our youngsters in,
the ones right out of boot camp, they will have leadership in
there. They will have a cohort. They will have role models and
that.''
So we have done that right now with the exception of
infantry and reconnaissance. And what we are doing now in the
rest of those, the other remainder of those MOSs that are
closed, 32, we are developing standards right now. And we
should have those done, the goal is to have them done by the
end of this June.
So they will be--what we are really talking about is
physical standards. Most of our MOSs don't require anything
more than our combat fitness test or our physical fitness test.
I mean, to be the administration--being a fighter squadron, you
just have to be able to pass the PFT [physical fitness test]
and CFT [combat fitness test].
But if you are a tank gunner, then you really actually have
to be able because you are in a tight spot. You actually have
to pick up a, almost a 60-pound round that is behind you and
turn it around and rotate it, shove it in the breach of a tank,
and nobody can help you, because you are in there all by
yourself in that part of the tank. So we are developing those--
those physical standards and those 32 other MOSs.
Quite honestly, we haven't had those before. We have just
said, ``Okay, guys, you just go to them,'' and--and some guys
can't do it. And those guys we actually--they drift off to the
barracks and they hand out sheets and they take care of the
barracks and manage those kinds of things.
To do what we want to do now, to set our females up for
success, not to keep them out, but actually to, as much as you
can, guarantee success, we are developing those standards, and
they are going to apply to guys and gals all--that is what we
will have developed by this June. We are going to test those
for the rest of this year. And then our plan is to implement
them in January of next year.
So that will actually set the conditions to open up
basically everything in the Marine Corps with the exception of
infantry and reconnaissance. And what we are doing on infantry,
and, I believe you are aware, is we have our infantry officers'
course down at Quantico. We have opened that up for our female
lieutenants to go through. We have had four. We only get about
150, 140 lieutenants a year--female lieutenants a year in the
Marine Corps. We are pretty small.
And so far we have had four volunteers. They, along with
probably about 40 or 50 males, did not make it through. We have
another course that starts in July. We have five female
lieutenants who will be graduating from our officer basic
school down in Quantico. And we are excited about them
starting.
So I just need to get enough information in that area to be
able to make, to my Secretary, a reasonable, you know,
analytical recommendation, instead of just some hyperbole
stuff. So I actually feel pretty good about where we are going.
We are setting the conditions. And, I think, we are headed
exactly where perhaps you would like us to go.
Ms. Sanchez. Great.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I will end my turn.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I have tried over the last 4 years to join my
voices with--my voice with those who realized the massive cuts
we have made to our national security over the last 4 years
have been dangerous and unwise. But I am not going to revisit
those battles this morning.
Mr. Secretary, given these cuts and the dangerousness of
the world in which we live, it is crucial that we have a viable
partnership between this committee, your office, and the fine
men and women who build and repair our ships. And we look
forward to building and maintaining that partnership.
Admiral, I think it would be fair to say that the last
decade we asked a disproportionate sacrifice to our men and
women who served in the Army and the Marine Corps. But with the
reduction in land-based facilities, and the rising lethality of
some who do not wish us well, I think, the next several decades
we may ask a great deal more of our seapower and projection
forces.
And one of the most important components of that power will
be our carrier air wing. So I want to focus my time on the
planned composition of the carrier air wing today. You know, it
has been argued that Iran and China are making major
investments in capabilities to counter the Navy's surface
forces, in aircraft carriers, in particular. And if this is
true, it would be a significant departure from past planning
assumptions that maintain that the U.S. would be able operate
in permissive environments where regional adversaries could not
hold our carrier strike groups at risk.
I want to put up a chart if we have it. And I think we have
given you a copy of it. These two charts are CSBA [Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments] charts. And I know these
are approximate ranges, and I don't want to argue,
particularly, the numbers, but I--under the guise of ``a
picture is worth 1,000 words,'' if you look at this first chart
on Iran, it shows that our strike capability for our carrier
groups would really only reach about a third of the land space
in Iran.
If I could shift to the next chart, this one would show,
based on the DF-21D [Dong-Feng anti-ship ballistic missile]
published reports that has about 810 plus or minus nautical
miles, as a stand off. If you look there, our F-18s and our F-
35s really couldn't even reach China's soil unless we were
prepared to put our carriers in a very dangerous position.
[The charts referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 181.]
Mr. Forbes. So my question for you, Admiral--I mean,
Admiral, is, given the developments in Iran and China's defense
strategy over the last 10 to 15 years, is the future carrier
air wing properly balanced between range, persistence, stealth,
and payload for both sea control and power projection missions?
And what kind of questions are you going to have to be asking?
And how can we help you with that?
Admiral Greenert. I think, the carrier air wing, Mr.
Forbes, in my mind, is balanced. And what we need is, we need
range. We need payload. We need electronic warfare capability,
electronic attack capability, and we need stealth. And the air
wing and air operations of tomorrow are carrier air wing, but
with the arrival of the fifth generation, the F-35B, we will
also have Marine air with that component to help supplement.
So, I think, in my conversations and dependent on the--what
operation it is, we keep that thought in mind for both.
But what I am talking about is the range. The range piece
is important, and you have got to get--you have got to have
access. So refueling is important. What am I talking about? I
am looking at an air wing of the future of a Hornet, an F-35
Charlie, a UCLASS, which is unmanned carrier-launched aerial
surveillance and strike. And that--my view, and as we have laid
this out, that can provide surveillance, as well as strike, as
well as refueling capability. We can't, as you have shown up
here on that chart, you have got to get there. And you have got
to get back. And you have got to have enough fuel.
So all of these are important. The electronic attack, I
wouldn't underestimate the importance of that as we look at the
threat out there today and in the future. And that is the
Growler, the EA-18G, as well as the F-35 Charlie.
So, Congressman, we need all of that. It has to fit
together. It has to work together on the carrier of the future.
No one aircraft is going to do it all as we look out in the
future.
Mr. Forbes. And, Admiral, we appreciate that. We want to
look forward to working with you on that. We know that is
important. And, also, I appreciate you talking about the
UCLASS. I think, that is going to be important to give you the
range that you are going to need. And we want to help you with
that, too.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. McIntyre.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all of
you for your great commitment and service to our country.
Mr. Secretary, you have been a pioneer in biofuels for the
U.S. Navy. And I greatly admire your work to make sure our
national defense is not dependent upon foreign sources of
energy. And I know in your testimony on page 33, you mention
that the Department continues to develop drop-in advance
biofuel initiative for our ships, aircraft, and shore
facilities. And then you mention the Department of the Navy
working with Departments of Agriculture and Energy. I know, as
a senior member of both this committee, but also of the
Agriculture Committee, the great work that you have done to
pursue this course of action.
I also notice on page 33 of your testimony, you state that
there are no changes to our engines, aircraft, ships, or
facilities needed to burn this type of fuel. And so, my
question is, given the declining resources available to the
services, how does the 2014 budget contribute to the Navy's
efforts to continue to achieve these goals, in terms of
biofuels, so that you can continue to pursue this course?
Secretary Mabus. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for
those words on making us better warfighters through the way we
use power.
And the first thing that you said is absolutely true. The
big news about using alternative fuels is there is no news,
that we use the same logistics chain. We don't change a single
engine. We don't change anything about it. We simply put it in
and burn it with normal avgas [aviation gasoline] or marine
diesel.
The--I think, in these budget-constrained days, it is more
important than ever to search out alternatives to our current
way we buy fuel. In fiscal year 2012, the end of it, the Navy
got an additional $500 million bill for fuel. This year, we are
looking at an additional $600 million bill for fuel just
because we have--the amount that oil went up was
underestimated. Oil is the ultimate global commodity.
And so, I think it would be irresponsible of us not to try
to find a competitive, drop-in fuel that can--can do this. And
our 2014 budget and the budget stretching out beyond that gives
us that ability. And--very much appreciate the support of this
committee and of Congress in doing that, because it allows us
to have a home-grown source of fuel that is not as susceptible
to the price shocks that--Admiral Greenert talked about these
choke points of some--somebody threatens to close the Straits
of Hormuz and the price of oil goes up $10, $20, $30 a barrel.
Every time it goes up a dollar, the U.S. Navy and Marine
Corps are looking at $30 million per dollar increase in
additional fuel costs. So I think we are well on our way. I
think we know where we need to head. And again, I appreciate
the support of you and this entire committee and Congress in
making sure this comes true.
Mr. McIntyre. Well thank you. Thank you for your forward
thinking on that. In the remaining few seconds I have, General
Amos, I am glad you mentioned the commissioning ceremony coming
up at Quantico this Friday. I plan to be there to see that
ceremony with some folks I know involved in that. And I have
followed closely your training for the infantry and for those
new commissioned officers.
I wanted to ask you, does the Marine Corps have the
resources you feel to meet its needs for the F-35B STOVL [short
take-off and vertical landing] version of the Joint Strike
Fighter? Are the problems you feel like with the lift fans
resolved? And do you feel like the Marine Corps is being able
to adjust to the potential shortfall given the budget problems
in the production of the F-35Bs?
General Amos. Congressman, I feel pretty good about where
we are right now. We have worked pretty hard as you know, in
the last several years to fix those couple things that the F-
35B that ended up on probation. Of course it has been off of it
for over a year now and it is doing well. So I do feel good. I
think the procurement rate, we have adjusted that as a result
of fiscal reality.
But we have laid that in over the lifetime of our current
fleet of F-18s which are Legacy Hornets and our Harriers and we
are managing that lifetime so that we will be able to bring in
those F-35Bs as long as we are able to maintain a reasonable
production, a sustainable, reasonable production rate.
So I do feel good about it. I think the airplane is doing
well. We have got 15 airplanes now. F-35Bs in the training
squadron down at Eglin Air Force Base. It is a combined
training squadron with us and the U.K. They have got two of
their airplanes in there. We are training their pilots. And we
just stood up last December, the very first fleet squadron out
in Yuma, Arizona, VMFA [Marine Fighter Attack Squadron] 121.
So they are there. They have got four jets, by the end of
this year they will have 16. They will be what we call initial
operational capable by probably the third, maybe June, excuse
me July or August of 2015. And we are scheduled to deploy which
means they will be combat ready by the way, by then. And they
will be ready to deploy or scheduled to deploy in 2017. If
something happens around the world prior to 2017, this will be
the only fifth generation airplane America has ready to go in
an operational squadron. So I feel very good about it. We have
been resourced and taken well care of by our bosses.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you, thank you General.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Is it my understanding,
it was either Mr. Secretary or Admiral, one of the two, you had
made this comment in regards to your budget request assuming
that sequester will be resolved by 2014? Is that what I
understand?
Secretary Mabus. Congressman, what I said was that we put
our fiscal year 2014 budget request in without sequestration,
exactly the way that the budget resolution of Congress, of the
House and of the Senate, did the same things. As we were
developing that fiscal year 2014 budget request, it was prior
to sequestration taking effect and as the Admiral said so
eloquently, if sequestration stays, we are facing some serious,
widespread problems, particularly in 2014.
Mr. Miller. I think it is here. And I think it would
behoove everybody to plan for it to go beyond 2014, because
obviously there are wide differences between the House and the
Senate as to how we resolve the budget issue out there. The
House wants to do it through cuts, the Senate wants to do it
through tax increases. Everybody wants to figure out a way to
turn it off. I am hoping that the Navy is planning for having
it as well as not having it.
Secretary Mabus. Well this is part of the Strategic Choices
and Management Review that we are undertaking in DOD
[Department of Defense] right now, is for that range of
options, ranging everything from full sequestration to no
sequestration and how that will affect what all the services do
and what we are able to do.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. That is all, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of
you and thank you so much for your great leadership. It is
appreciated by the men and women, I know, that you work with
and serve with as well as all of us here.
Admiral Greenert, you mentioned the four areas that really
detract as you said, and really make the bringing the vision
forward difficult. And among those are sexual assault and
suicide in the military. And I know there has been a great deal
of focus. I want to particularly thank General Amos for his
passion in trying to address the sexual assault area.
But one of the things that we know about that is we have a
number of civilian employees who are very actively involved and
have been counted as partners as you work with this issue. How
do you see the effect of sequestration on your efforts? Because
with all the cuts that we are experiencing it is difficult to
see how we might be able to sustain the increases actually that
you are planning for in these areas. If you could address and I
don't know, Admiral, if you want to address that and others.
How we do that in those two areas.
And the other thing I wanted to focus on just briefly, is
how you believe that our partnership capacity is also
undermined through our civilian furloughs and some of the cuts
that we are seeing. How are we viewed by others as we move
forward to try and address many of these concerns that you are
talking about in terms of our, whether it is the rebalancing or
the activities that we have in theater where we are partnering,
where we are doing exercises, how do you see that being
affected?
Admiral Greenert. If I may ma'am I will answer the last
question first and then get to that. We spent a good bit of
time talking with our partners. I was at the U.K. this week.
Tonight I am leaving for France to talk to my counterpart and
in 2 weeks I am going to the Asian-Pacific region to speak to
many of it. And the whole idea is just to lay out for them what
the situation is, and the significance.
I gave you the chartlet and then I give them the chartlet.
I say look, we will be forward, we will be in theater. What we
are doing with exercises, ma'am, we are doing the exercises,
all of them, internationally. But we are having to craft them
in a different manner. There will be somewhat less. And we do
what is right and what resonates with both of us.
As we move to fiscal year 2014, we will look at it again
with the combatant commanders and say, hey which of these is
most important and let's make sure we do those right. So that
is, the international piece is a big focus of ours. But we have
to communicate and relate with them.
Mrs. Davis. Are we seeing our partners trying to pick up
some of the perhaps the roles that we have been playing in the
past?
Admiral Greenert. In some cases we are. In the case of say
ballistic missile defense, there are two aspects to that.
Someone has to look for the ballistic missile, somebody has to
protect the force. They are picking up the I will protect the
force ASW [anti-submarine warfare] exercises, we do see them
pick up. Especially in the Asia-Pacific region, Korea, Japan,
very interested in that regard, Singapore and Australia as
well.
If I may, the civilians, the sexual assault response and
counselors are, and what we call upper tier, which means we
want to exempt them from furlough. We will continue those
hirings which we have committed to. As we move into fiscal year
2014, Family Readiness Programs, Sexual Assault Programs, my
high priority. I would not, I would endeavor at every
opportunity I can, not to reduce that. I have to get that right
ma'am.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Secretary Mabus. I want to reiterate that, Congresswoman,
because this is a threat, this is a direct threat to our force,
to our readiness, to everything that the force does and stands
for. You know that General Amos, Admiral Greenert and I, if you
ask if we are concerned about sexual assault, our answer is we
are not concerned about it, we are mad about it. And we are
going to get something done about it. I think we are beginning
to learn what happens. And we can't afford to pull back against
any threat but particularly one that is this insidious and
internal.
General Amos. Congresswoman, we sat down to work through
the effects of 2013 continuing resolution and sequestration,
all of us began to rebalance where are we going to, where is
our least priority, where is our highest priority. And in our
service just as Admiral Greenert said, we are exactly the same.
We took those programs, sexual assault, what we, in my service
we have kind of begun to understand it is kind of all knit
together under kind of behavioral health. All those things that
deal, that are so critically important to the health and
wellbeing of our corps. We put those to the top. So they are
the last to go. And we are going to do our very best to not
affect that. We can't allow that, it is Wounded Warriors. They
are up there, too. So we have to, we have to maintain that. So
that means that some of the operational readiness, combat
readiness will begin to get, we will pay for that to be able to
keep those capabilities with some operational readiness as we
start echeloning our way up as sequestration takes full grip
next year.
The building partnership capacity is training, it is
building trust, it is relationships, it is working with our
allies, it is reassuring. Those are the things that quite
honestly, we do as a naval force because we don't have a big
footprint when we go someplace. We can often operate from the
sea. That is going to be affected. It is yet to be seen exactly
how much we work with the combatant commanders in their
theaters to determine where their greatest priority is.
But I mean I lost, the next year, under sequestration I
will lose almost $700 million in operations and maintenance
funds. So I am going to have to take some of this is going to
have an effect on these forward-deployed forces building
partnerships and building relationships.
One last point on this thing, we have reoriented in
accordance with the strategy more infantry battalions to the
Pacific. In fact this fall, we will put our fourth infantry
battalion in the Pacific. Having started with only one over
there. We will have our fourth one, so we are actually, we are
heavily invested. Sequestration. It will be a rotational force.
I don't have enough money to bring that battalion back home or
the one before it back home. So I got to do my homework between
now and then. I can get them there; I just can't afford to get
them back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you very much for your service. I grew up in
Charleston, South Carolina, and I have a firsthand experience
of growing up with Navy personnel, and what extraordinary
people that you work with and who protect our country, and then
I have had the privilege of representing Beaufort County,
Parris Island, Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort Naval
Hospital, and the Marine personnel I have had the privilege of
working with are truly an inspiration and an indication of
dedication to our country.
General Amos, we understand the Marines will be needing to
refurbish the existing M4s and M16s. What are your plans to do
this? Will you follow the Army requirements? Or will you
develop your own path?
General Amos. Congressman, we do not have a program of
record right now to replace the M4 or the M16A4. We like that
weapon system. It is modularized. We have upgraded it for the
last several years.
However, we are joined at the hip with the Army. Our
requirements team at Quantico works daily with the Army as they
develop helmets, body armor, new weapon systems, and all that,
so that neither one of us are surprised and we learn from one
another. So right now, we are aware the Army is doing this. We
are watching it. We are getting the same reports as they work
through--work their way through this. Yet to be seen whether or
not we are going to do this and yet to be seen whether or not
we are going to jump onboard and replace our weapons.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you. And, Admiral, my wife and I are very
grateful. We have a son serving in the Navy. And so we know
firsthand, again, the extraordinary personnel. What has caused
the Navy to request an increase of almost 7,000 more sailors
over the next 4 years from last year's plan?
Admiral Greenert. Well, things have changed, Congressman,
over a couple of years. We are growing, and we are hiring. And
so if I could summarize it, we had through OCO [Overseas
Contingency Operations] individual augmentee process, we were
presented over the last few years, we--our folks were funded.
We had a number of billets funded, about 2,000.
And so those individual augmentee, that requirement and
that funding source has changed so now we are carrying that
billet base in our manpower count, so that is 2,000 of that. We
are building cyber warriors. That is almost 1,000. we are
bringing new ships in. That is almost 1,200 right there.
We are bringing new capabilities in, unmanned aerial
systems and our Littoral Combat Ship, and preparing to bring
the mission modules in. That is about 900. So those are the big
chunks of those amount.
Mr. Wilson. And you feel like there is sufficient funding
for recruiting and retention?
Admiral Greenert. I do. Right now, our recruiting is going
along fine. It is becoming more challenging. The economy is
starting to change, but we are meeting goals, and retention is
adequate. But trust me, Congressman, I got a microscope on
retention right now with high op-tempo.
Mr. Wilson. And I also want to commend you on the sand
sailors who are trained at Fort Jackson, South Carolina,
volunteers to serve in Afghanistan and off ships. And it is
really, again, inspiring to see the people who you have
recruited.
Admiral Greenert. Thank you, sir. To a person, they say
that training has been effective and proper for them when they
go overseas.
Mr. Wilson. Excellent.
And, Mr. Secretary, considering the significant variability
associated with the budget and resulting force structure, is it
premature to initiate a BRAC [Base Realignment and Closure]
round? In terms of force structure and budget, what planning
factors would the Department use to determine appropriate
infrastructure requirements?
Secretary Mabus. Congressman, DOD has requested a BRAC
round for fiscal year 2015, and I think it is appropriate for
us always to take a look at these things, to take a look at
what we are doing at each of our facilities, to make sure that
they are still required, to make sure that they are doing
things in the most effective and most efficient ways.
I--when I was governor of Mississippi, I lived through a
BRAC round. It is a stressful time. We recognize that. But I do
think that, in this time of constrained budgets, we should at
least take a look at what is possible and what needs to be
done. The outcome of that, I think, that--you talk to General
Amos and Admiral Greenert. We in the Navy have taken previous
BRAC rounds very seriously. We have shed most of our
duplicative and overlapping bases and services.
So I think that where we are in the process is, we have
done a pretty good job in terms of skinnying down and making
sure that all our bases have the requirements and the--that
they need.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a few questions. First off, the committee will have an
opportunity to support the EA-18G program as a budget
submission for 2014, because of the addition of 21 additional
Growlers. And so I hope the committee will take that
opportunity.
But I think for the purpose of the background, General
Amos, if you could start--and, General Greenert, then follow
on--could you walk through the Marine Corps' expeditionary
electronic attack decision and then how that has now migrated
to the Navy?
And, General Amos, could you start with why the Marine
Corps is getting out of the Prowler business? And then General
Greenert can take over from--to discuss the expansion of the
Growlers.
General Amos. Congressman, we are sundowning our--which
means we are retiring--our four EA-6B Prowler squadrons that we
have currently at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North
Carolina. We will sundown the last one in fiscal year 2019. We
start in fiscal year 2016.
The airplane is simply out of service life. I mean, we
began flying these airframes, the early version of these
airframes in Vietnam, and then we got--we kind of came out of
that and started building the one we have, and then we just
added it and service life-extensioned it. So it is out of
Schlitz. So we are sundowning that.
While we have done that, we have brought in electronic
attack capabilities for the ground commander on the ground, so
he can actually manage his piece of the battlespace to some
degree fairly effectively, with electronic warfare fires from
organic equipment, and we are bringing in some new equipment
there.
But I think the real replacement for us is the F-35B. Early
on, when the decision was made to go to that aircraft, we did
an analysis between what the organic system, the radar, the
AESA, [active] electronically scanned array radar, provides,
and the integration of the systems on that airplane with
regards to electronic attack, and balance that against what we
call the ICAP III [improved capability] version of the EA-6B
Prowler, which is the Cadillac version we have now.
Mr. Larsen. Right.
General Amos. And it is about 85 to close--maybe 90 percent
of what just the standard F-35 AESA radar and systems--has
about probably 85 percent of what--of an ICAP III has. We are
looking right now at fielding an electronic pod that will hang
on the wing of the F-35B, which will take it past the
capability of the current Prowler. So I think by the time we
stand up our fleet squadrons, we will have that pod. It is
already developed. It is just a function of integration. So we
will be back in the airborne electronic attack business for the
Marine Corps.
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
And, Admiral Greenert, then, could you take it the next
step there?
Admiral Greenert. Yes, sir. What we are talking about, 21
aircraft, as you mentioned, Congressman, and that will break
down to two operational squadrons, and that will bring our
expeditionary--the Navy's expeditionary squadron. And as
Commandant said, we are happy to take on this mission in the
Department to five, so that would be five operational
squadrons, one training squadron, and one reserve squadron.
Congressman, in my view, the more I look into the
electromagnetic spectrum, what we need to do in it, where it
results in the future, where our potential adversaries are
developing it, the electronic attack is huge and a major, major
part of the air wing of the future, air warfare of the future,
warfare of the future, including cyber.
And so we are very pleased to be taking on this mission.
This is going to be an awesome capability, and when you add the
Next Generation Jammer, which is in our budget here, this will
be a really very cutting-edge capability.
Mr. Larsen. Yes. Mr. Secretary, when Secretary Hagel was
here, I discussed a little bit about the feast and famine
nature of electronic warfare where sort of the conditions for
famine are coming up as part of the budget picture. And I guess
I would ask you, from a Secretary's perspective, your ability
to avoid famine on electronic warfare and what you plan to do--
what is your plan to ensure continued investment in it?
Secretary Mabus. Well, as both the Commandant and CNO has
said, this is one of our critical capabilities, particularly in
anti-access/area-denial theaters. And so I think that you are
seeing some of the things that we are doing, putting in these
21 Growlers to stand up the two additional expeditionary
squadrons, pursuing the Next Generation Jammer, so that
whatever the platform is, we can carry that in and to the
Commandant's point. They have 35B having an electronic attack
and electronic defense mechanisms on it.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Thank you for your
leadership and your contribution to our national security. I--
my question is going to be about sequestration, and it will be
initially directed to General Amos, and then I will look to the
rest of you to comment.
Mr. Secretary, I think in the response to Congressman
Miller, you were indicating that the budget doesn't assume that
sequestration continues. And, you know, one of my concerns in
our ability to try to offset sequestration is that I believe
that we are in part where we are, here with sequestration going
into effect, because Congress and the American public did not
have enough information as to what the effects of sequestration
would be.
Now, I voted against this mess, because I believe that we
would be right here, where there is no solution, implementation
of a strategy that is detrimental to our national security,
without a very good understanding of how to stop it.
So one of the things that we need to do better--and we look
to your assistance--is to be able to tell what the effects of
sequestration will be so that there can be an understanding not
only in Washington, but also, you know, across the country of
how devastating this is and how it needs to be remedied.
That pressure of--that the effects, as the President said,
would be, you know, so detrimental that no one would allow it
to happen, it is now happening. But we are not hearing a clear
picture of those detrimental effects.
And so I want to go first to General Amos, you know, it has
always been our policy for the past two decades that we look in
our planning and in our strategy that we would have an ability
to fight in two wars, in two conflicts.
The President's strategic guidance, he recently indicated
in his five major tenets, that his intention was to, ``Plan and
size forces to be able to defeat a major adversary in one
theater while denying aggression elsewhere or imposing
unacceptable cost.''
That is a significant shift at a time, of course, when our
world is not getting to be a safer place that we would look at
a narrowing.
Secretary Panetta made the following comments about the
administration's new strategic guidance at the 2012 Munich
Security Conference in front of America's major allies.
He said, ``We will ensure that we can quickly confront and
defeat aggression from any adversary anytime, anyplace. It is
essential that we have the capability to deal with more than
one adversary at a time and believe we have shaped a force that
will give us that capability.''
So there is a conflict in the two statements as to what our
capabilities will be.
We now look at three rounds of cuts and with sequestration
currently in place and the prospects that it might remain in
place. I have become increasingly concerned as to what our
force would look like under sequestration.
So, General Amos, where we had initially the goal of being
operating in two conflicts, the President now saying a focus of
one conflict, I am concerned whether or not under sequestration
we--that the Marine Corps would be able to support the Nation's
strategy if sequestration continued and beyond.
Would we be able to function effectively in one conflict
with the restraint that you have in funding and in capability?
And, also, certainly what do you see in future years if it is
left in place? What does it do to the Marine Corps? You
indicated $700 million in additional cuts. Could you please
give us a picture of that so that as we try to advocate for
sequestration to be set aside, we can have accurate
information.
General Amos. Congressman, the truth is right now if you
take--and you were to take a major theater war, what we called
in the old days a major contingency operation, but what you
were referring to, the Marine Corps today sits at 27 infantry
battalions. We are on our way down to 23 as a result of the
Budget Control Act.
So let me see if I can set that in the context of a major
theater war. The typical, what you would call the notional
major theater war, and, of course, there is rigor behind this
which I can't get into in an open hearing, but is about a 19
battalion requirement of the United States Marines.
So as we go down to--headed to 182,100, that would give us
a couple of battalions over, you know, beyond if you just
deployed everybody. That is actually pretty reasonable because
there is going to be combat replacements and there is going to
be a need for more Marines to replace those that are wounded
and those that we lose.
So there is really not a lot of slack. We become a ``go to
war and come home when it is over'' force. We are a single MCO
[major contingency operation] Marine Corps.
Now it doesn't mean that if we are involved in that and
something else happened and somebody said, ``Commandant, I will
pull out my folks from Washington, DC, and we will bring
everybody and cobble together because every Marine is a
rifleman, we will send them.''
But when you start talking about major combat and major
combat units, we are a single MCO Marine Corps as we go to
182,100. That is 487. That is the Budget Control Act.
You go to--we bring in sequestration and we will be down in
the teens for battalions and we will be very, very strained to
be a single MCO Marine Corps.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Greenert and
General Amos, thank you very much for your service and I
appreciate the strong relationship that Guam has with the Navy
and Marine Corps.
General Amos, I was encouraged and appreciate the DOD
positioning a THAAD [Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense]
system to help protect Guam from possible attacks. And I am
also encouraged to see DOD is providing funding directly
related to the realignment of Marines from Okinawa to Guam.
Can you provide me with an update on how the Marine Corps
transition to Guam is progressing and what are the impacts of
sequestration and how important is the Marianas region for
joint training?
And I would ask you gentleman to limit your answers. The
committee is very strict with time.
General Amos. Congresswoman, we are operating out of Guam
right now. We have got an infantry rifle company there today as
we speak. We have had F-18 squadrons from Iwakuni, Japan, that
have come down, as many as three that have operated out of
Guam.
We have operated out of Tinian. We are trying to
acclimatize ourself there. We don't have any new facilities
there. There is nothing that says United States Marine Corps
painted on the outside of a building.
So we are sharing facilities with the Air Force. We are
living in places that we like to live, maybe others wouldn't,
but we are committed to Guam.
If sequestration, when it hits, again, it is law, it is
going to slow down the transition to Guam. It absolutely has
to. It is going to slow down military construction money. It
will slow it down. But we are still committed to go to Guam and
I am bullish on it.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Now, this question is for Secretary Mabus or Admiral
Greenert. I remain greatly concerned about the number of MSC
[Military Sealift Command] and Navy ships that are sent abroad
for repairs.
I recognize that emergent repairs are exempt from Repair
American provisions in Title 10. However, an annual report to
Congress shows an alarming number of ships that are now being
sent to foreign shipyards.
Can I have your commitment that the Navy will continue to
work closely with me to make sure the intent of Section 73.10
of Title 10 are upheld according to the intent of Congress?
I recognize that budgets are tight, but sending money
overseas seems very shortsighted to me.
And do we have your commitment to an acquisition strategy
that maintains a depot-level ship repair capability on Guam?
Admiral, I think you would be the one to answer that.
Admiral Greenert. Ma'am, you have my commitment that we
will comply with law, with regulation and with the intent not
just, you know, the specific regulation.
And as you and I have talked, I am real bullish, as the
Commandant has said, on depot repair capability on Guam. If you
look at my little chartlet here, you know, you put your little
finger in the middle to balance it, it is Guam.
It is right in the middle of all of it. So we have to have
a repair, a refurbish, it is a base and a place and key to my
strategy.
[The chart referred to can be found in the Appendix on page
180.]
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you for your commitment. And
my third question is to you, Admiral, as well. I note that the
USS Freedom, the first LCS [Littoral Combat Ship] ship, is
making its maiden voyage to the Asia-Pacific region and will
ultimately end up in Singapore.
There was a lot of anticipation having the ship make a port
call on Guam. It is important for our allies to see us deploy
our newest and most sophisticated equipment to this critical
region.
I know there have been some concerns about the ability to
provide any repair or support to the ship as it is forward-
deployed. Are there any lessons learned from this deployment to
date that are worth noting?
Admiral Greenert. There are, ma'am. And they are you have
to--the ship has a unique capability. It is monitors all its
operations very quickly.
And the lesson learned is to get that information out so
that in such a large region you are so--you know so much about
this and that is the tyranny of distance in the Western Pacific
so that we can get the parts where they need to be.
And when we use the concept of operation of these ships in
the future, we will have to have a network of logistics to
respond very quickly to have the right parts in the right place
because the crews are small.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Admiral.
And, Secretary, do you have any comments on the build-up on
Guam that I asked earlier?
Secretary Mabus. We--consistent with the NDAA [National
Defense Authorization Act] and the restrictions that were put
in there, we are doing military construction, particularly for
Marine Air in Guam that will be used regardless of what happens
in terms of ramp space, in terms of hangars, things like that.
As you know, we have got the supplemental environmental
impact statement going. It will end in 2015 and we are marching
ahead with the plan to relocate Marines from Okinawa to Guam.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here, for your service, for
your testimony today and for your very frank and complete
answers to our questions. It is very, very helpful.
I am going to yield the remainder of my time to a new
member of Congress and, therefore, this committee, fellow
marine, Colonel Cook.
Mr. Cook. Thank you, Congressman.
General Amos, you talked about Americans--America's 911
force. I just want to go over this one more time. As a marine
and as a 0302 infantry, the culture of the Marine Corps has
always been about the mission, about ``Semper Fi.''
Unfortunately, I have gone through this drill in the past
where budget cuts have gone right to the bone. And as an
infantryman, as a person that commanded marines, it is really,
really hurt us.
The tempo of ops never seems to slow down, but it puts us
in a very very precarious spot. In terms of having these
expectations where if the balloon goes up, we got to go to war
and, yet, are we going to be ready to be able to do this.
I know you addressed this, but maybe I am trying to
underscore the fact over and over again. We have done this
before and we have paid the price in terms of being 100 percent
ready whether our readiness was C1 or C2 and maybe the old C3
or C4.
And can you--I know we are going down to 182,000, but I am
concerned about the training, the readiness that all these
tempo of ops things that we have listed that seems as though
they never go away.
Do we have to be more realistic in terms of meeting this
goal of being always ready whether it is as a second lieutenant
with a bald eagle or sparrow hawk, which a lot of people in
this room have never heard about, but a lot of people died
doing those type of things?
So if you could kind of address some of those concerns, my
concerns on that, thank you.
General Amos. Congressman, we made a decision 3 or 4 months
ago. I talked about it just a little bit earlier in my
testimony, but it bears. To take money to assure that those
forces, not only the ones that are already deployed, they are
at the highest state of readiness.
Those that are about to deploy will be at that same state
of readiness. So that is my commitment to Congress, the
American people and to the Marines.
I will leave tonight. We will go spend the next 2 days at
Camp Pendleton and I will talk to 5th Marines, 1st Marines,
11th Marines. I am going to tell them exactly the same thing.
You have my promise that we will move money around, within our
authorities to the best of our ability and H.R. 933 helped for
2013 to ensure the readiness of the forces that are getting
ready to go.
So that right now, as we sit today, is fine. But we are
eating our seed corn right now for the readiness for those
units that aren't on the slate to deploy until next year. Maybe
at the end of next year. Those that are just coming back. We
are taking money away from their training. Taking equipment
away from them. Taking money away from the sustainment of their
equipment. And we are eating that seed corn right now to insure
that I have near-term readiness.
I am also taking money out of procurement, PMC
[Procurement, Marine Corps], which is reset, which is
modernization, to move it into readiness accounts. That is my
job. My job is to be ready. I mean I really take that
seriously. Just be the most ready when the Nation, people think
that is cornball. But I suspect that you and I don't. What is
going to happen in 2014, as we move into the early parts of
2014, those units that are back here, I am talking infantry
battalions and squadrons.
Based on sequestration, the way we know it right now, those
units that are back home and that are not in the queue to go
will be less than 50 percent ready. Which means they will be C3
or worse. So if the balloon goes up, what are we going to do?
We are going to cobble them together just like we did the 1st
Marine Provisional Brigade and sent it with 5th Marines into
Korea. We will do exactly that. But you are 100 percent correct
and I am very concerned about it.
Mr. Cook. Thank you very much for your explanation. It is
scary but you are absolutely right, it is still ``Semper
Fidelis,'' you have a mission to carry out and get it done. I
yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to compliment Mr. Cook on his questions, even
though he represents a district from California, he actually
hails from Connecticut which explains the brilliance of his
presentation here. And also just want to thank all the
witnesses for being here, particularly Admiral Greenert and
General Amos. Last time you were here I think there were 27
stars that were, in my opinion, laid out very clearly the
damage that sequestration was going to cause.
And although at least there was some partial response by
getting the continuing resolution [CR] passed, clearly what we
are hearing this morning is that you still have unacceptable
risk, that you are still going to be forced to try and manage.
And hopefully that momentum of getting the CR passed will
continue in terms of getting some good decisions.
For the record, I mean since 1985 when sequestration was
first enacted after Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, Congress never let
it go this far. And hopefully we will look at that past
experience as a guide to avoid the dangers that you are
presenting.
I also want to congratulate or complement both you and the
Secretary in terms of getting the 2014 second submarine in the
Virginia-class program protected through the CR. That was a
tremendous challenge over the last 14 months. And Under
Secretary Stackley, again, I think has just been an amazing
public servant in terms of trying to juggle all of these
challenges with so much uncertainty that he is facing.
In terms of sequestration again, one of the things that you
were able to mitigate with the passage of the CR were the
civilian employee furloughs. Again it was at that point
projected to be 22 days of furloughs. The last reports I have
seen is it is down to 7. Is that over? First of all, is that
number accurate? And if it is, are we pretty much stuck with
that furlough plan between now and the end of the fiscal year?
Secretary Mabus. I believe the last announcement was from
22 to 14 days. But I think the direct answer to you, is
everything about that is still under discussion. That Secretary
Hagel said if we can do better we will do better. And I know
that everyone at DOD and particularly the three here testifying
today, recognize the critical importance of our civilian
employees and particularly to some of operations and the
operational impacts that losing any of them for any amount of
time would have on Navy and Marine Corps.
Mr. Courtney. Well thank you. And I hope that people will
continue to look at that again. I noticed, Admiral Greenert,
you listed that as probably the number one priority in terms of
mitigation. I just, a perfect example of it were the Groton
firefighters from the Navy base who drove up to Maine in the
middle of the night and literally turned that fire, the tide of
that fire around. You know that is a skill that we need at all
times. You looked like you were reaching for the microphone, if
you wanted to say something?
Admiral Greenert. No, I am good.
Mr. Courtney. And lastly I guess in terms of the SSBN
[ballistic missile nuclear submarine] program which again both
of your testimony identified as a must-do item. Again, I know
the Navy has been trying to focus on trying to extract as many
savings out of the requirements process. Can you give us any
sort of update in terms of where that is headed and again, the
sort of knife-edge schedule that we are on for 2028.
Admiral Greenert. We are finding that we are very
comfortable with the design. And what I mean by that, we do
design, then test it. We are using the Virginia class as our
benchmark. That is a very successful program and I thank you,
Congressman, for the tireless effort you did, you worked in,
you and your constituents, in this committee and others, to
help us get that second SSN [nuclear submarine] in fiscal year
2014.
But the Ohio replacement program is going apace. We will
work through sequestration as I have stated, that is a very
important program. We have got to stay the pace on that. So we
are very comfortable with that. The Ohio class itself is
performing well, so as we look at our plan out there toward
bringing, sequencing down the Ohio class and bringing in the
Ohio replacement, we are very comfortable. And the requirements
review is going well.
Mr. Courtney. And again I think the warning was issued the
other day by the general in charge of strategic defense that we
really can't miss that date, right, in terms of deploying that
first Ohio submarine, because we really start to have a
readiness problem if that happens. Is that still the case?
Admiral Greenert. Yes sir, that is the case. Until, it is
all about how many SSBNs are available and deployed and on
alert. And those numbers remain the same. Until they change,
that is our mandate and we are good on that.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you Mr. Chairman. First General Amos, I
want to thank you for your professionalism and your candor in
that last answer. I hope the President is paying attention to
what you are saying. That was very revealing.
My questions are going to be directed to Secretary Mabus
and Admiral Greenert with regard to the Ohio-class replacement
submarines. These submarines are being designed to meet
potential threats seven decades from now. With regard to the
missiles and the entire strategic weapons system, how is the
Navy positioning itself within the FYDP [Future Years Defense
Plan] and beyond to maintain the weapon system to meet the hull
life of the Ohio-class replacement. How do you long the expect
the D5 [Trident II missile] system to be sustained and what are
we looking to replacement it? And when might this system be
fielded?
Secretary Mabus. Thank you Congressman, inside this FYDP we
are looking at the D5 extension program which will take that
weapon into the 2040s. We are also doing as Admiral Greenert
said in answer to the previous question, the design, the R&D
[research and development] work on the hull itself, on the
replacement platform, on the Ohio-class replacement.
And we do think that those two things are going along very
well in concert. The common missile compartment that will go on
the Ohio-class replacement, also goes on the British Successor
class. We have been working very closely with our British
allies. They are paying for part of this design and
development. To make sure that it meets not only our schedule,
but their schedule. And Admiral Greenert who is a submariner
and knows far more technical things than I do about this, can
add some things to that.
But where we are now we are on track, we are on schedule,
both in terms of the platform and the weapons.
Mr. Rogers. It is to be fielded when? When will it be
fielded?
Secretary Mabus. The first Ohio-class replacement will go
to sea in 2028, 2029.
Mr. Rogers. The current Ohio-based submarines have a finite
service life. In fact, they are being pushed far beyond the
service life of almost any submarine previously deployed by the
U.S. Why is it important for the first Ohio-class submarine to
be delivered in 2029? Admiral.
Admiral Greenert. Well, as you correctly laid out,
Congressman, the Ohio class has gone beyond its design life. We
have had two extensions. Now we do this very deliberately and
it is based on science, it is based on testing and engineering.
And so far it is passing all that tests. The issues of concern
are nuclear, it is the nuclear components that are irradiated,
as well as the hull, exposed to seawater, goes up goes down,
that is a lot of cycles. And we monitor certain aspects of the
hull itself and the seawater systems. Going very well.
But as a previous question indicated, we are signed up. Our
mandate is to have a certain number of SSBNs available,
available to deploy, and then deployed on alert. And we have to
meet that. That is a national tasking. And that is why it is so
important that we get this done on time. We are on track.
Mr. Rogers. What happens if it is not done on time? If you
miss the 2029 target date that you are expecting?
Admiral Greenert. Well, what you would have to do is, you
would have to extend patrols in order to do the coverage and
you could do this in the short-term, well you could. And the
problem is downstream. Like a lot of these. There is an
expected maintenance process. And during that time that you
just described, that 2029, all the Ohio-class submarines would
be finished with all their overhauls. They would all be
available.
We would likely be using up, if you will, the Ohio
replacement. You know those that were in place. If they were
not ready, we would have to extend the Ohio class. And that
goes beyond the design time we expected to have them into sea.
So we would be into new territory.
Mr. Rogers. And how are you managing the cost on this
replacement program?
Admiral Greenert. We are managing the cost of this
replacement program by being very deliberate and very vigilant
on the requirements that we put in place. And we are measuring
frequently, how much is, what did we estimate this requirement
be? What are the design engineers coming back with? If there is
a cost growth, why is there that cost growth? And is there, can
we descope, is there another materiel we would look at? And as
Secretary Mabus said, we are doing this with a partner, so we
have to do this very closely with the U.K.
Mr. Rogers. How have the costs been? Are y'all coming in on
budget?
Secretary Mabus. Congressman, so far we have taken more
than $2 billion per boat out of the Ohio-class replacement and
we are continuing to come down. In--fiscal year--I believe,
2011, we wanted the number to start with a 4 to----
Mr. Rogers. On that good note, I will shut up.
Thank you very much for your service, and thank you for
being here.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
gentlemen, for being here.
I would like to follow up on some of the questions that
were asked earlier. And I think this is to Admiral Greenert.
Admiral, you are talking about furloughs, and I think, you
know, you said it is still fluid, and I believe the Secretary
of the Navy also said that.
I have read some reports, whether accurate or not, that the
Navy and Marine Corps can actually do away with the furloughs.
In other words, you have enough in terms of your, I guess,
operation maintenance budget, or within enough flexibility
there that you could do away with it. But this may be a
question of whether the DOD as a whole would take one position.
In other words, does everyone take 14 days, or does
everyone take 7 days, when the Navy could and the Marine Corps
could do with no furlough days?
Am I correct in my understanding?
Admiral Greenert. Well, what you are correct in is that the
Department of Defense wants to approach this very deliberately
fair across the board with all of our partners--our civilian--
in my case, sailors.
You are also correct, ma'am, that we did a number of
evaluations that we fund with operations and maintenance, are
civilian. And we looked at a lot of possible scenarios that we
could use. As I have articulated, I got shortfalls across the
board. The question is, what is the proper use of these funds,
and as Secretary Mabus said, we are still just discussing that
in the Department.
Ms. Hanabusa. You also testified about the concept of an
industrial base, which I think is also very critical. In
situations, for example, like Pearl Harbor, which I represent,
you would have if you take furlough days--and I was sort of
calculating it.
You know, we have, like, 5,000 employees--a rounded
number--and if we were doing, like, middle of June, 14--14
weeks or 14 days--5,000--if you were to give them furloughs,
one a week, you know, you would have 1,000 employees--civilian
employees off every single day. And that has gotta then affect
the efficiency of--and our readiness posture more than anything
else.
So that is what I am also interested in, is that when you
have that large of a contingent, how are you going to do these
furloughs and not affect readiness substantially? And it is
going to affect the whole industrial base, or whatever you want
to call it, in terms of our ability to be ready, especially in
the situations that we are now facing in Asia-Pacific.
Admiral Greenert. You have laid it out very well, ma'am,
and that--again, we are in discussions.
You take that and extrapolate that to aircraft depots, you
extrapolate that to family service centers--you know, if there
is counselors involved--and we have to tier this right. We have
to compare that with operations money, you know, fuel, parts--
other maintenance, if you will, and other support. And we gotta
do this right, and that is what the Department wants to get
right, and that is--we are still in discussion.
Ms. Hanabusa. The other question I have is, we all didn't
expect sequestration to happen, but it has happened. And we are
hoping on the 2014 budget, that somehow, sequestration will
miraculously disappear. But what if it doesn't? What is going
to be the impact then?
Is the 2014 budget sufficient to give you some movement? In
other words, have you--is it plussed-up enough, so that if you
take another hit like we are taking now--$10, $11 billion from
Navy and Marine Corps alone--are you going to be able to
withstand that?
Admiral Greenert. Well, for me, as I laid out there before,
it is $23 billion estimate; $9 rolling over from 2013, and
another $14 billion estimated. It could be a little bit more, a
little bit less.
And, you see, we put some things off in our investment
accounts to get through 2013. We call that ``cost to
complete,'' and that is the--kind of the--training materials,
parts, documentation--things of that nature. Auxiliary gear
that goes with ships' aircraft.
We said, ``Well, we will defer that,'' so that we don't
lose the aircraft as a result of sequestration in 2013. That is
all going to come to roost somewhere. And if not 2014, well,
when?
But at those levels--at $23 billion, that is substantial
and we can't do that. So there will be real industrial base
issues here, ma'am, and I am concerned. However, as mentioned,
we are doing a strategic concept and management review. We are
looking at what in that scenario you just described--do we keep
more force structure, or hold on to more capability, reduce
overhead, look at compensation and entitlements? What
asymmetric capability do you want to keep instead of others,
under that scenario? And that is what we are looking at now to
help inform us. And we will work this summer to decide, what
will we do in this case?
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Forbes [presiding]. Thank you.
Mr. Wittman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary Mabus,
Admiral Greenert, and General Amos, thank you so much for
joining us today, and thanks for your service to our Nation.
General Amos, I wanted to ask you specifically about the
amphibious combat vehicle [ACV]. Where are we in the progress
of that vehicle?
Looking at where we are in these fiscally austere times,
can you tell us why the Nation should be investing in that
particular vehicle?
And then, looking to--ahead, how critical is the ACV for
Marine combat operations going into the 21st century?
And essentially, let us know, what are the baseline
capabilities of the amphibious combat vehicle?
General Amos. Congressman, thanks for letting me talk about
that important capability.
I have got two major programs in the United States Marine
Corps. One is the F-35B and one is the amphibious combat
vehicle.
So if you were to ask me, ``Okay, where do you want to put
your money, that you are only going to be able to invest in two
out of however many,'' I would say those were the two. So that
gives you a sense for how important it is for me, and for our
Marine Corps.
So, thanks for that opportunity.
The Department of Defense--OSD [Office of the Secretary of
Defense]--did an amphibea--excuse me--an analysis of
alternatives last year. They worked on it for the greater part
of a year. Reported out last June, July, and that validated the
requirement for a surface-born capability for marines to get
ashore. When we come off an amphibious ship, we come off via
air, the M-20--MV-22s, and that. And then we--and we come
across the surface in tractors.
Our tractor right now that we have, the amphibious combat
vehicle, is going to--is going to replace--it is over 40 years
old. By the time this amphibious combat vehicle comes in and it
hits initial operational capability, it will be 50 years old,
ours right now.
So, we need it. So it is been validated. The requirement is
there for 12 battalions worth of lift. We are only going to buy
enough for six.
So where are we? We have looked at this now since we
canceled the EFV [Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle] 2 years--a
little over 2 years ago and to continue to refine the
requirements. We know we are only going to get one more bite at
this apple.
So we have worked this thing. They came to me about 7
months ago. I looked at it, and I went, ``Okay, put it back in
the process again.'' We have stood up a program office with a
Ph.D. running it.
Sean Stackley, the assistant secretary of the Navy for
research and development--as he was said earlier, is a genius--
he is helping us with this. We are a partner with General
Dynamics and BAE to help look right now at a--what is the art
of the possible for a high-water speed tractor?
They are to report back to me around September or October
of this year. We will make a decision, is the cost too much?
And if it is too much, well, then we will go with what we call
a displacement--a slower moving vehicle. And we will get on
with it. We will have a source selection, and we will get on
with building it.
So, Congressman, it is very, very important to us. It is
critical to the naval--or for the Department of Defense.
Mr. Wittman. Very good.
I want to move and ask a question of both Admiral Greenert
and again to you, General Amos, specifically about our
amphibious class of ships.
Where are we currently--where are we with the requirement
going into the future? And can the Navy currently meet the
standing requirement for a two Marine Expeditionary Brigade
[MEB] lift requirement?
And then also, can we meet that requirement going in the
future with where we are going with the number of amphibious
class ships?
Admiral Greenert. Well, I support the requirement that the
Commandant and the Marine Corps actually brought forward a few
years ago--33 ships. That is actually a fiscally constrained
number of 38 to provide support for forcible entry for two MEB.
Can we--the question is, you know, can you support that?
Well, you know, we are in at around 30 right now--29, 30, 31--
and if it ramps up, we eventually get to 33.
There may be opportunity to get there sooner than later,
but right now, early next decade with newer ships, if we get
there.
My near-term issue is, get the ships under construction out
and into the fleet, and operating with the fleet as soon as
possible. And keep those operated in the fleet at a high
readiness level.
The question is, how many--you know, how many ships do you
need to have at what site, at what operation, at the right
time? So there exists enough ships, but we need to be better.
And I am endeavoring to do whatever I can to get there sooner
to that next class of ship and get that in the fleet.
Mr. Wittman. Very good.
General Amos.
General Amos. Congressman, I know we are working hard on
this thing, because Admiral Greenert and I team up, and we work
budgets--if not daily, certainly weekly.
We work through this now, not only when we were both
assistants to our service chiefs, but when he was a head of
requirements and I was his--in the Marine Corps.
We are working as hard as we can with the money that we
have to get as many ships as we can.
You are aware that we just commissioned the Arlington 2
weeks ago down in Norfolk, a beautiful ship. The flaws have
been figured out in that San Antonio class--this is a wonderful
ship.
Admiral, Congress was good enough this year to give us some
extra money so we could sustain two LPDs [Amphibious Transport
Docks] next year and not retire them.
You know, my shipmate is working to keep the numbers right.
So I am content with the effort. I am never content with the
amount of ships. You know, I would like to have 50, but I got
to balance it against all our other requirements, and I have
got confidence in the leadership in the Department of the Navy
that is taking care of us.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Nugent [presiding]. Mr. Langevin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Mabus and Admiral Greenert and General Amos,
thank you for being here, for your testimony and for your great
service to our Nation.
Obviously, we are in challenging times, both for the myriad
threats that we face, and from the damaging constraints--the
fiscal constraints that are confronting the DOD and the Navy
today. And we on the committee appreciate the benefit of your
insights and your testimony.
If I could, I would like to turn to Virginia-class
submarines to start off with. And more specifically, I know
that a change in the funding trajectory for the Virginia
Payload Module in the President's fiscal year 2014 budget
submission and so much of our undersea vertical launch
capability is contained in the four converted Ohio SSGNs
[guided missile nuclear submarines] that we begin to age out.
Can you speak to the importance of maintaining this
program, as well as the capability that VPM [Virginia Payload
Module] will bring to the Block 5 and beyond Virginia-class
submarines?
Secretary Mabus. Congressman, you very correctly identified
the issue that is going to be facing us in the mid-2020s, mid
to late 2020s when the four SSGNs, guided missile submarines,
begin to leave service.
We have continued the work on the research and development,
design work on the Virginia Payload Module because this is a
crucial characteristic that we will need in our submarine
force, not only for--to launch the missiles, the land-attack
cruise missiles out of that, but to have these four large-
diameter tubes that you can use for a myriad of missions for a
very flexible things.
And with the funding stream that we have going forward, we
will have the--we will be where we need to be to make the
decision in terms of putting the Virginia Payload Module into--
to that block of submarines.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
If I could turn now to directed energy. First of all, I
want to congratulate the Navy on the recent successful test of
a high-energy laser that shot down a drone and other tests.
Admiral, I noted with approval the Navy's decision to
deploy a directed energy system on board the USS Ponce--Ponce,
I should say. And how does this deployment fit into the Navy's
plan to deploy high-powered directed energy systems in the near
and mid term?
Admiral Greenert. Well, what--first, it is about validating
the CONOPS [concept of operations]. I call this, ``Let's get
this system wet.'' And so, I want to get it out to the Gulf,
which, I think, is a really good Petri dish to lay in what are
the effects of sand, air, heat, and, not only on the system
itself, but on its support systems? How much power does it
really take? Can--is latency an issue? And the Gulf has some
interesting aspects of it from haze, from rain at different
times.
So it is really about the environmentals of that. And we
will continue to test the system and see. The sailors find
amazing things. And they come up with amazing ways to employ
things when we give it to them.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
Well, this is an area I have real interest in. And I see it
can offer a host of benefits, not necessarily going to be a
replacement for kinetic defenses, but certainly would be a
great supplement to them, especially for ship defense and we
have--and operating the littorals, especially as our
adversaries are continuing to develop surface-to-air missiles
and things that could further threaten the fleet.
Let me, while my time is still--I still have time. Let me
turn to cyber. Secretary Mabus, looking at the fiscal year 2014
budget, are we resourcing adequately in order to operate within
the cyber domain and ensure our national interests are
protected? And, specifically, does the Navy require additional
authorities in order to educate, attract, and retain the very
best cyber operators?
And if you could also, Mr. Secretary, with the guide to
cyber, do you feel that we have reached the proper balance with
regard to what capabilities and responsibilities that rest with
10th Fleet, and CYBERCOM [U.S. Cyber Command] and the regional
combatant commanders?
Secretary Mabus. Congressman, I do think that we are where
we need to be and heading where we need to be in terms of cyber
in this budget. We are growing cyber, as Admiral Greenert said.
We are growing cyber in the Marine Corps, as General Amos said.
We are growing cyber forces for our inclusion with Cyber
Command through 10th Fleet, as you noted. And I will be happy
to give you a much fuller answer in writing, sir.
Mr. Langevin. I would appreciate that. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Nugent. Mr. Scott is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here, Secretary Mabus, and
Admiral, General.
Secretary, you mentioned in the last round of questions,
looking forward into the 2020s a little bit. And I want to talk
with you about that, as well. Because 2020 is the year that my
son will be a freshman in college. And, I think, certainly from
my standpoint when I look at national defense, and I know we
all care about it, we look at it from the standpoint of, ``What
is going to be there for our children?''
And here we are, taking cuts. We are canceling air wings.
We are stopping the deployment of ships. We are furloughing
civilians with the cuts that are coming. And I look at the
world, and I think it is a much more dangerous place today than
it was yesterday. And, I think, it will be a more dangerous
place in several years than it is today. I think, we will have
many more threats that we will have to be addressing.
I want to ask you to all take a look at page 189 of the
President's budget, table S5. And this is where I have the real
hard time coming to grasp with where this country is going to
be when my son is a freshman in college.
If we look at total spending, it will be up $1.2 trillion
from now. If we look at non-defense discretionary spending, it
will be up. If we look at Social Security, it will be up. If we
look at Medicare, it will be up. If we look at Medicaid, it
will be up. If we look at every line of the budget that the
President gave us, in 2020, which, again, is a special year for
me--it may be 2019 for some, it may be 2022 for others--
everything is up other than defense discretionary spending.
There is also another thing that is very special about that
year. It is the year in which the interest payment on the
national debt will exceed what we spend on national defense.
And that makes the assumption that we are able to manipulate
interest rates continually to artificial loads.
So, I guess, when I--my question, Secretary Mabus, I don't
think we can defend this country with that budget. And, I
guess, when we talk about alternative sources of fuel, I am a
big fan of them. I think, we need them. I don't want my Navy to
be dependent on foreign sources of oil, just like I don't want
my country to be dependent on foreign sources of oil.
But--would you agree that the liability of our Navy being
dependent on foreign sources of oil is similar to the liability
of the American citizens and our economy being dependent on
foreign sources of oil?
Secretary Mabus. I am sorry, Congressman, I think that
dependence on foreign sources of oil or foreign sources of
energy in general, is not only a national security thing, it is
a national energy security--it is a national security issue--no
matter how we look at it.
And that is the reason that we are trying to so
aggressively pursue alternative forms of energy that are
homegrown, that are not subject to these incredible price
spikes. And I thank you for your support on that.
Mr. Scott. And my question with that, Mr. Secretary, is
right now the time to be buying as much alternative fuel as we
are, or would it be more important to be able to deploy our
fleet and keep our aircraft in the air and maybe just pull back
a little back on the percentage of biofuels that we are paying?
Because we do pay more per gallon for that fuel right now, if I
am correct.
Secretary Mabus. Two things, Congressman. Number one, I
think it is more important now than ever to do it in this
constrained-budget environment. In answer to a previous
question, I said that in 2012, Navy got an additional $500
million in fuel cost. In 2013, we are looking at an additional
$600 million in fuel cost. That is $1.1 billion. We don't have
many places to go get that. That is outside of sequestration.
That is outside of the Budget Control Act. And so, that is what
is causing our planes to operate less, us to steam less. So, I
think, if we don't come up with this.
And, secondly----
Mr. Scott. [Off mike.]
Secretary Mabus [continuing]. The price of that fuel----
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Secretary Mabus [continuing]. Is coming down dramatically.
And I have committed that we will not buy operational amounts
until it is absolutely, positively competitive with fossil
fuels. And I am absolutely confident that will happen in the
time being that we are looking at.
Mr. Scott. Secretary Mabus, I appreciate that answer. And I
have only got 10 seconds left. And if I may, if those of you
who are--and I understand you are Presidential appointees--but
if we look at 2020, the year in which my kid is a freshman, if
the people from the DOD that come before us say the President's
budget is balanced, and we support the President's budget, I--
those of us that want to put the money back in there are going
to have a much harder time getting it back in there.
And I honestly don't think that we can defend this country
at the levels in 2020, when my kid is a freshman, that this
budget has. And so, I would ask those of you to look at that
chart, page 189 of the President's budget.
I yield.
Mr. Nugent. Mr. Smith is recognized.
Mr. Smith. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
apologize. Gentlemen, I was not here at the start of the
hearing this morning. I had planned a speech some time ago at
the Wilson Center before this hearing got scheduled. So I had
to arrive late, but I have heard most of your testimony and
certainly appreciate all that you are doing and the very
difficult circumstances that have been described. I have met
with all of you personally to discuss that.
I don't know how you do it. I don't know how you go, you
know, week to week, month to month not knowing how much money
you are going to have, with the responsibilities that you have
with that money. So we very much appreciate your diligence,
your creativity, and your tireless effort to fund our national
security in these very uncertain times.
And, again, I will just reiterate that, you know, the
sooner Congress can, you know, pass appropriations bills on a
regular basis and get rid of sequestration and get rid of that
uncertainty, you know, granted the number certainly should be
higher in the budget, maybe long term than sequestration, but
just getting rid of that uncertainty would be a huge step
towards being able to help you guys do your job. So we will
always emphasize that.
On the biofuels point, just one quick thing. And I have a
question on another area. But, look, we gotta generate
alternatives. We gotta get to the point where if, you know, we
have to buy oil from overseas at this incredibly high price, we
can go, ``You know what? We are not going to do that. We have
got something else we can buy.''
And you just don't get there if you don't develop those
alternative sources, if you don't make some investment in
developing something other than oil, as long as we are always
dependent on it, as long as oil can say, say, ``Hey, well we
are the cheapest. We are the best. So don't bother with any of
that other stuff,'' it perpetuates the situation that puts us
into this hole where we have to buy--we have to buy oil. And if
we have to buy it from whatever country in the world, then we
have to. If we have to pay, you know, $5 dollars a gallon or
$150 a barrel, and we have got no alternative, that is where we
are stuck.
So I applaud you, Secretary Mabus, and, you know, in both
of your services, you know, for the efforts to finally get us
some kind of choice so we are not held around the throat by
whatever the price of oil is and whoever happens to be selling
it.
The question is on base realignment, very controversial
issue up here. Everyone freaks out at the very mention of the
word BRAC, but when you listen to some of the restructuring
that is going on in all of the services, because of budget,
because of changing national security needs, it seems
nonsensical to think that we wouldn't be better served by
restructuring in some ways. It is going to vary from service to
service. But part of my question is to hear from both General
Amos and Admiral Greenert, actually from all of you, on how you
would, what needs would be out there to help you realign some
of your bases, realign some of your force structure?
And then also I am hoping and based on some private
conversations that I have had with you, knew we could get
there, part of what we can do here is also calm some nerves.
That you are actually particularly in the Navy, got a force
structure that is not that far off from where it needs to be if
we did a BRAC, we are not talking about closing big huge, major
bases in the middle, you know, things that may have happened in
the past.
So can you give us a little reassurance that your structure
isn't as far off but also explain the need for at least some
flexibility? If you could thread that needle, I would be
curious to hear how all of you feel about base realignment.
Secretary Mabus. Actually I don't think I could do a better
job of threading that needle than you just did.
Mr. Smith. Okay.
Secretary Mabus. I think that it is as indicated in the
budget, that it is a tool that needs to be looked at in terms
of flexibility going forward. I also think it is the answer to
the previous question, that the Navy and the Marine Corps have
taken previous BRAC rounds very seriously and have shed a lot
of the duplication, a lot of the excess, a lot of the things
that were not needed for our operations. And I do think that
our force is now, we are growing the Navy. We are growing the
number of ships. We are growing the number of sailors going
forward.
And this new defense strategy that was announced 15 months
ago is a maritime-centric strategy and it is going to place
more focus on the Navy and Marine Corps and on the capabilities
that we bring to the country and to any possible fight. So I
think that, in terms of, as we look at BRAC, you have to take
all of those elements into account.
We need to look at it but I think that there is some
solace. I don't know if you were here, but I did point out that
as Governor I lived through a BRAC round and I understand the
uncertainty and the concern that they cause.
Mr. Smith. General, do you have anything to add to that?
Admiral Greenert. Well, for us sir, we will bring as we did
last year, to you and to your staff, what we call the strategic
laydown. And it is kind of the metamorphosis of ports, people,
ships, aircraft and it kind of shapes the port as we bring new
construction ships in, as we retire some. And as we rebalance
to the Pacific as we say, as you know, we are going from 55
percent West Coast, 45 East to a 60/40. And so that has its
own, if you will, realignment. Although it is subtle.
Mr. Smith. That is a matter of moving ships for the most
part. It is not a matter of shutting down a base or you know,
it is just moving them around, is that fair?
Admiral Greenert. That is right sir. And with that will
come the supporting infrastructure. But as you said, are these
major, no they are subtle. Over time, 10 years, it can appear
major to some. We move an amphibious ready group to Mayport, it
is a pretty big change to Mayport, as an example. We put P-8s
in the Pacific Northwest in the Whidbey Island with Growler
Squadrons, in the sum total it can be very big.
If I may sir, though, what is very important to me, these
little black squares on the chartlet that I provide, overseas,
we get such leverage operating forward, being forward
stationed. This is very subtle, modest changes that we need to
support them. And the payback is huge. It is 4 to 1, it takes 4
ships to keep 1 forward. If one is forward, you see the
leverage, sir. And so I commend that to you, that that is
important. We are evaluating our overseas laydown in the Navy
and we will, we are going to reduce it as much as possible
because it can get costly. And not put anything overseas that
we don't need.
Mr. Smith. A couple critical points there. I know a lot of
people say, why do we have all these bases overseas? And we are
in some places shrinking. I mean the Army I know is shrinking
in Europe. There are a lot of places where it makes sense. But
that is a huge point you just made about being present over
there, means that you don't have to do all this work back home
to be ready to be present over there if necessary.
I guess the other thing is, I think the Navy is on solid
ground, and I'll say this even though my good friend from
Connecticut Mr. Courtney isn't here, if we could just convince
him that New London is fine, I think he might have a different
attitude about BRAC. And New London is fine. It is a critically
important part of where we are at. And I am just worried that
members are looking at you know, stuff that happened 10 years
ago that may have jeopardized them and getting in the way of
what we need to do on realignment. And in some isolated cases,
closures. Stopping the minor changes that are necessary, even
though the underlying structure, particularly in the Navy and
the Marine Corps is very solid.
Now, General Amos, if you have anything you want to add?
General Amos. Sir, we are already pretty lean as you know,
Congressman.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
General Amos. So there is not a lot of fluff with regard to
our bases. We don't have a lot of them, and those that we do
have are pretty well occupied. But to the larger issue, my
personal opinion is where we are headed with 182,100 Marines,
down 20,000 from where we have been, should be the floor.
And I say that with regards to the future security
environment. I mean there is absolutely no indication that
things are getting any nicer out there. I mean just opening the
Washington Post on Sunday you can walk your way around a
geography lesson around the world. So as I look with my JCS
[Joint Chiefs of Staff] hat on, I look and I go, okay well who
is going to do this? Who is going to be out there, be present,
forward, not at large land bases and stuff, but on ships doing
the bidding of the Nation, responding to crisis? It is us. So
that is why I say 182,100, I look at that and I go boy, this
should be the floor of the Corps.
Now I have said this before in this body and I have said it
publicly. At the end of the day, when sequestration hits, if it
is taken if it is adjusted, whatever it is, the Marine Corps
will end up with euphemistically some pile of money to operate
the Corps. And inside that I will build the most capable, ready
Marine Corps that the United States of America can afford.
But when I put on my other hat, my JCS hat on, we have got
some business decisions as a nation to determine where we are
going to balance our priorities. And where are we going to take
our capabilities or perhaps most relevant over the next two
decades in a resource constrained environment? Where are we
going to use those and apply those? That is where I think the
Navy and Marine Corps team really gives you a bang for a buck.
Mr. Smith. We know you will do your best. And when you
mention the dangerous world we live in, I have taken to doing a
standard joke about I get clips every day as I am sure you do,
about what is going on in the world. It always reminds me of
the scene in ``Roxanne'' where Steve Martin buys a newspaper,
takes it out, looks at it, screams, puts another quarter in,
opens it up, returns the paper and shuts it. Doesn't want to
have anything to do with it. Make no mistake about it, there is
a lot of dangerous stuff going on in the world and you guys see
it every day, do your best to deal with it. And I thank you for
that.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Nugent. I thank the ranking member. Great comments.
Mrs. Roby is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you. And again thank you to each of you
for your service and sacrifice for our country, we appreciate
that and not just you but your families as well. So thank you
for being here today. General Amos, I see in your posture
statement that you request Congressional support to expand the
Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, California, and extend the
existing withdrawal of land for the Chocolate Mountain Aerial
Gunnery Range in California as well as purchase private
property to expand the Townsend Bombing Range in Georgia. So I
just wanted to give you an opportunity to talk about why this
is so important.
General Amos. Thank you. Let me start with one that, I
actually know all three of them well. I have operated and
trained out of all three of them over my time as a marine. So
let me start on the East Coast, Townsend, which is just outside
of Savannah. And it is used primarily by the Air Force that
flies in and around South Carolina as well as the Marines that
fly out of Beaufort. And as Congressman Wilson was talking
about we have got F-18 squadrons, soon to be F-35 squadrons up
there, as well as up in Cherry Point.
The Townsend Range right now is, I use it a lot. I have
probably operated out of there over 100 times. Very limited. It
is nice, it is convenient. It is about 70 miles away from the
air station. And it literally is the only range within that
kind of proximity to be able to deliver air-to-ground
ordinance. All we are trying to do is expand the property
around there, not to drop live ordinance. But to be able to
actually drop the new family of weapons, JDAMS [Joint Direct
Attack Munitions Systems] and these kinds of things, not using
high explosive heads on these things.
So it actually will bring that range into the 21st century.
Because right now we are flying 20th century weapons in there
because we are restricted. So that is what that would do.
If you go to the Chocolate Mountain area just outside of
Yuma, we have been using that for decades. The SEALs [Sea, Air,
and Land] use that, we share that with them. And it is the only
place that we have in that part, the only place, that either
the Air Force out of Luke or the Marines or the Navy have an
opportunity to drop the entire array of ordinance in a live
configuration.
The last place you want to do it for the first time is in
combat. When you are actually trying to deliver a live piece of
ordinance, it is very complicated. So all we are doing is ask
that be renewed.
And then the Twentynine Palms land expansion we have been
working for 6 years, when I was a three-star, we started
working it. It is a recognition that as we come out of
Afghanistan and this counterinsurgency operation mindset, we
need to get back to our bread and butter which is combined
arms. We have asked for a, what we call a Marine Expeditionary
Brigade-size force, which is three infantry battalions
maneuvering on the ground with aviational logistics. And we
need that land expansion to be able to do that.
The record of decision, they made a choice about a year or
so ago, saying that we could use both, not only a shared use
area but a use that is specifically for us. So we are excited
about it. We hope that that is able to come through and we ask
for Congress's support on it.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you very much.
And Admiral Greenert, I was in Mobile 2 weeks ago and I had
the opportunity to tour and spend time on the JHSV, the joint
high-speed vessel, that is currently in production. And so if
you could, would you just give us your vision about how you see
use and utilization of this in your fleet?
Admiral Greenert. Thank you, ma'am. I will.
The joint high-speed vessel, a catamaran, is about speed
and volume, with fuel efficiency, if you will. So what we have
is an opportunity. There will be 10 produced. We will deploy
them. They will be forward-deployed, so on this little chartlet
out there, they will be out around the world. Civilian mariners
will operate them, but we will have a military detachment on
board, somewhere around 40 people.
But what is extraordinary about it is it has got a lot of
volume. You can move a lot of vehicles on board. So, as General
Amos was saying earlier, how do we tailor the force of sailors
and marines to do that. It is fast. You can put some armament
on it and it can do counter-piracy operations, counter-drug
operations. It can do things that we weren't sure about
whenever we started.
It has a good medical facility, so it can do theater-
security cooperation. So it resonates with Southern Command. It
resonates with Africa Command. And it also has--can carry 300
soldiers or marines on board with gear. Now, this isn't
overnight. This is place to place. But if you are going 40
knots, you can get a lot of places in a short amount of time.
Add on top of that, it has--its been--the backbone is in
there for command and control. So it can direct operations. And
I would see perhaps mine counter-measure operations, counter-
smuggling, that sort of thing where you bring in small boats
and direct them around. It is a pretty agile vessel, ma'am.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Nugent. Thank you.
Ms. Speier is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Mabus, Admiral Greenert, and General
Amos, for your extraordinary leadership on behalf of our
country.
I would like to start, Secretary Mabus, by focusing on the
Littoral Combat Ship program. Congress was initially promised a
speedy, flexible, lightly manned and cheap ship. But as you
know, we have discovered that the module concept is not as
flexible as we thought it would be, and the manning
requirements have had to be substantially revised, all of which
is resulting in a ship that has doubled in price.
It also concerns me that we have had problems with
corrosion and doors that wouldn't close. And I am very
concerned that taxpayers are not getting the kind of ship that
they should be getting. And I am wondering, from your
perspective, is it time to re-think moving forward with the
LCS?
Secretary Mabus. Congresswoman, straightforward answer to
your question is absolutely not. The LCS program had some
problems in the early part of the last decade. But since I have
been there, and I will give you a very quick snapshot, when I
got there, we had one ship in the water of each variant. They
were research ships. They were the first of the class. They
were experimental ships. There was one of each class being
built.
We put three more out for bids and the bids came in
absolutely unacceptably high. So I made the decision that while
we wanted both versions, each one brought something unique.
Both met all our requirements. And so they were going to have
to compete based partly or primarily on price.
Over the course of--and we would award one shipbuilder 10
ships over 5 years. We would get a technical package from that
shipbuilder. We would then award nine ships to a second
shipbuilder to keep competition in the program, but only one
version.
The prices came down by 40 percent over the course of that
competition. I came back to Congress, asked for permission, and
Congress gave that permission to buy both ships. They are being
bought under a block buy. They are firm, fixed-price contracts.
We got 20 ships, 10 of each version instead of 19, and we saved
$2.9 billion on that program.
Ms. Speier. All right, Secretary, let me ask you this. It
has been reported that, and I quote--``the boat deck
configuration for both LCS types for launching and retrieving
small boats can be quite dangerous and lead to injuries or
fatalities.'' Are you familiar with that?
Secretary Mabus. One of the things that the CNO has done is
as you begin to use these ships, and LCS-1 is right now on her
way to Singapore in our first deployment overseas. As we begin
to use these ships, and as the concept of operations begin to
be developed, and as we begin to do things like boat operations
or unmanned systems operations, and in the different weapons
systems, that are on-track today, exactly where we thought they
would be for all three modules.
CNO has set up the LCS Council, the Littoral Combat Ship
Council, to take a look at any issues, come up with an
operating concept and design, come up with the manning. And we
still have the same core crew on LCS of 40. The weapons systems
crew will be anywhere from 40 to 50. So we are still under 100
sailors on that ship.
As issues arise, this LCS Council takes a look at them,
sees if it is a design issue; sees if it is an operational
issue; sees how we can change it or mitigate it. The first ship
of the class in any ship is going to have some of these issues.
But I am confident--I am absolutely confident that we are
meeting all those issues and that this ship is going to be one
of the backbones of our fleet for years and years to come.
Ms. Speier. Well, I am glad you have that kind of
confidence. I am just reminded of the Air Force finally pulling
the plug on an IT [information technology] project that cost
over $1 billion, coming before Congress a number of times.
Congress indicating its concern about it. They continued to
say, ``Oh, no, we are going to make it work even though it is
now 12 years in the making.'' And then finally, they pulled the
plug. I just hope that we are not in that kind of position with
the LCS.
Secretary Mabus. Congresswoman, the LCS program today is
one of our very best programs. It is coming in under budget. It
is coming in on schedule. And it is coming in with capabilities
that we have to have.
Ms. Speier. My time is expired. Thank you.
Mr. Nugent. I want to recognize myself.
General Amos, I truly do commend you in what you are
facing, particularly as it relates to this fast reaction force
that we need to have. And what I am concerned about, from--and
Admiral Greenert you can I am sure respond to this also--but
when the fact that the Marine Corps I believe thought that we
should have 38 amphibious warfare ships, amphibs, available to
meet the demands particularly as it relates to our
expeditionary brigades.
But last year, if I am not mistaken, and correct me if I am
wrong, we only had 22 of those ships actually available that
were out at sea or could be at sea. How do we deal with that?
Particularly--let's forget about sequestration for a minute--
when we have a need for the Marine Corps to have this fast
reaction team, which I absolutely agree with, particularly when
this is--and we have heard this testimony all day in regards to
the fact that the world is not getting safer. It is getting
more dangerous. We saw it in Benghazi, in Africa.
How do we reconcile ourselves to the fact that with the
shipbuilding that the Navy is talking about doing, where does
that put the amphibs? I haven't heard any discussion in regards
to upping the ante as it relates to how do we support the
Marine Corps and the mission that they have.
Admiral Greenert. Well, the way we deploy our ships and
employ our ships is called the Fleet Response Plan. And what I
will get you to is the numbers--why aren't the numbers out
there. So, the Commandant, and I agree with this, has a
requirement--the Marine Corps has a requirement, the country
has a requirement for 33 ships to support a two-MEB joint
force--joint forcible entry.
At any given time, we have a certain number of ships in
what we call a ``sustainment phase.'' And it is almost a
conveyor belt. You are in maintenance. Then you do basic
training, integrated training and sustainment. And so the need
for 33--we need to have 30 ships--we commit that--available for
a joint forcible entry operation at a certain time.
And that is the key. You have to have them there by day X
in a scenario that we think is appropriate. And that is what we
benchmark against. And so when you say there might be 20 ships
at any time, I would say: ``Well, how many can I have?'' And we
track this daily--how many ships can I have available if called
upon by 60 days or 45 days? And they are, again, benchmarked to
different operations. That is what we track it against.
We are not there at the 33, and as I have spoken before, we
are endeavoring to get there with the help of the Congress. We
have two LSDs [landing ship, dock] through this fiscal year
2014. And we are working to build the amphib ships to get
there.
One of the items is, and if you said to me, ``Hey, Admiral,
what is your number one shipbuilding concern at this time?'' It
is completion of and integration of the ship--of our amphibious
shipbuilding.
Mr. Nugent. General Amos, with 22 ships that were available
last year, what position does that put you in in fielding the
force that we need to have available at any given time? Because
we don't know--if we could plan exactly where we are going to
be in regards to, you know, hostile actors against us, it would
be great. But we have never been able to do that. I don't see
that happening.
Obviously, you have come up with a number based upon
possible hostile scenarios in regards to having those forces
available to meet the demands that the President may set out.
Where does that put us if, in fact, we only had 22 ships
available last year?
General Amos. Congressman, the reality of availability for
ships is a lot like airplanes. It is a lot like--a little bit
better than my MRAPs [Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected
vehicles], and my MRAPs are not doing bad in some cases; excuse
me, MRAPs are probably doing better. But it is availability.
One of the things that is happening that actually I think is a
bright and shining light on the horizon is the new ships that
are coming online. You remember when we built LPD 17, the San
Antonio. It was the quality assurance issues and all that. It
didn't--there were issues with it. It was harder to get out of
the blocks than it should have been.
Those have been resolved. Two weeks ago, I think I said,
and I don't know whether you were in here, but I was down there
when we commissioned LPD 24, which is the, you know the seven
ships later on down the road, and it is just a beautiful ship,
and everything works on it.
So what we are doing is we have got a large deck being
built at Pascagoula LHA 6, we have got LHA 7. I mean you could
actually--it looks like a ship. We have got some in the FYDP
that we are--that General--or Admiral Greenert and the
Secretary of the Navy are buying. We are going to get newer
ships. The availability will--just like an airplane, a new
airplane, will actually be better than some of our 25- and 30-
year-old ships. I anticipate the availability will go up.
Because also, and I want to give credit where credit is due. My
shipmate here has actually kind of put his money where his
mouth is, so to speak.
He has put money in ship availability to repair and
maintenance. He is fixing some things that maybe should have
been fixed some time ago, and he is working hard at it. So the
truth of the matter is we are where we are, Congressman. If
something happens, we have never guessed it right as you said,
something happens, we are going to put marines on anything we
can. Even if it is that Italian cruise liner that was laying on
its side off of the coast of Italy.
We will right that baby and put marines on it, we will go
to war. That is just what we do. But I am not trying to be
funny here, but I am actually optimistic for the future.
Mr. Nugent. I am glad to hear that and I am glad to see the
cooperation, not only between the Marines and the Navy, but all
our service warfighters. One last question, and I hear this--I
heard General, you say this, obviously our readiness, as it
relates to those that are deployed, and those that are near
deployment will be at the highest level. Obviously my concern
is for all those troops that we have sitting around, where are
they at in the mix? Because if in fact something happens, and
we have to muster them all out, we want to make sure that they
are ready to go, just like the guys that are ready to go, that
are leaving for Afghanistan, or wherever, today.
General Amos. Congressman, the fact is they will not be as
ready to go as those that we are training that are in the
queue. It just--it is not going to be that way. I said a little
bit ago that come January and February and March of 2014, those
units that are not in the queue to get ready to go will be at a
readiness rating of what we call, C3 and below. So, they are
not as ready. They will go if the balloon goes, I just, I want
to be clear about that. We will go, and we will turn out a good
performance.
But it will be painful. There is another--let me just give
you an--not an anecdote, let me declare the truth of this
thing. When the full effects of sequestration take place, as we
roll into next year, if I take a look at my F-18 squadrons that
I have. And remember I am flying, I have got legacy F-18
squadrons now, and we are trying to milk those along until we
stand up the F-35s. Here are some numbers. We have 257 F-18s
today that have USMC [United States Marine Corps] painted on
the side of them; 102 of those, 40 percent, are at depot-level
maintenance as we meet here this morning.
There are 23 that are scheduled to go into depot-level
maintenance towards the third and fourth quarter of this year.
Furlough happens. That is 11 percent of lost workdays in that
depot. So I just--you know you need to understand that because
what that is going to result in, it is going to result in more
airplanes being in depot in an out of reporting status and not
being repaired to the number of 125.
So, 125 of 257 Hornets in the Marine Corps will be in, what
we call, out of reporting status. So that is almost half. If
you take the six squadrons that I have forward deployed in
Iwankuni, in the Persian Gulf and on U.S. Navy aircraft
carriers, that leaves--and then you take the airplanes out of
the reporting status, out of that mix, I will have about, no
more than six airplanes per squadron back home in the United
States of America. That rates a 12-plane squadron. I grew up
flying Phantoms when we would get 10 or 11 hours of flight time
per month. And we thought actually it was pretty okay.
Those were pretty austere times. We are headed to times
that will be less than that for those squadrons that are back
home.
Mr. Nugent. Just one comment, and then I am going to
recognize Mr. Andrews. Just if you would, for the record, it is
the--I think extremely important for this committee, but other
Members of Congress to know exactly where we are going to be
when sequestration, you know the ugliness actually hits us next
year. Because if we don't know that, what I am concerned about
is that we have Members that are just going to kind of march
along and say everything is going to be okay. Because what I am
hearing, it is not going to be okay. And I want to make sure
that every soldier, marine, sailor that we have out there has
the best possible training, best possible equipment. As a
parent of three soldiers, I want to make sure that they have
the best possibility of surviving anything that we may throw
them into, and the same goes for our marines and sailors. So I
will now recognize Mr. Andrews.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I thank you gentleman
for your service to our country. Heartened this morning to hear
that some of our Navy bomb personnel have been deployed to
Boston to try to help with that situation. I know they will do
a great job. In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995,
then President Clinton talked about what had just happened. He
said, the threat is not isolated. And you must not believe it
is. We see that threat again in the bombing of the World Trade
Center in New York, 1993, he was referring to. In the nerve gas
attack in the Tokyo subway. The terrorist assault on innocent
citizens in the Middle East.
He said then, we see it even on the Internet where people
exchange information about bombs and terrorism even as children
learn from sources all over the world. He goes on to say that,
like the vigilant generations that brought us victory in World
War II, we must stand our ground. In this high-tech world, we
must make sure that we have the high-tech tools to confront the
high-tech forces of destruction and evil. Pretty prescient
given some of the things that have happened since 1995.
Something else has happened here in the last 10 years that is
not your responsibility, it is ours.
Not yours, it is ours. For every $100 we were spending in
2004 on research and development, we are now spending $85.00.
If you adjust the spending for inflation in the RDT&E
[research, development, test and evaluation] lines, we are
about 15 percent shy of where we were 10 years ago. Now again,
that is because of decisions people on this side of the podium
made, not that you made. I wonder if you could tell us in this
unclassified setting, given the rules that we have, what we are
giving up in that 15 percent? What research and development
aren't we doing today, that you think we should be doing today
that would protect us against risks that perhaps we can't see
10 or 20 years down the road? What are we giving up?
Secretary Mabus. Congressman, I think the statement that
you made that we just don't know what those risks are going to
be. We don't know what is going to be required. And I think
more than what specific R&D that we are giving up, is we are
stretching out the time. We are having to--we are not being
able to turn as fast in some of the R&D capabilities that we
have.
And it is one of the things that we are fighting, working
hard to protect the most. Because two things give us our combat
edge. One is our people, and the amount of responsibility that
we push down and expect great performance, and get every single
time.
But second is our technological superiority. And because of
that, in the budgets going forward, we have tried to the
maximum extent possible to protect and in any case that is
possible, increase research and development into new cutting-
edge weapons, like the directed energy weapon.
Mr. Andrews. What are we doing we can talk about in an
unclassified setting, about electronic pulse shock? In other
words, something would take down our computer systems. What are
we doing about that potential problem?
Admiral Greenert. Well what, we are looking at hardening
what we have. In other words, that they can recover. That the
systems can withstand in an EMP [electro-magnetic pulse] and
then recover. So you have kind of hit the nail on the head,
Congressman. Okay, so we are doing something to undo in a
defensive nature, what is done to us. I would comment, I would
like to see more investment in asymmetric capabilities that we
have. Things that we are unique on. The Secretary mentioned
one, people. To make our people more effective at what they do.
And the Commandant is all over this for the Marine Corps.
The electromagnetic spectrum to me is somewhere that we have
fallen behind. We did it purposely because we had no equal in
that arena, and we were unchallenged. Well, we are challenged
today, and we are behind. So I would like to see a lot more in
there. The undersea domain is ours. We have it, we own it, we
have got to keep it. We need unmanned autonomous vehicles, but
we need the propulsion system in there. It is coming along
slowly.
Mr. Andrews. I see my time is almost expired. I appreciate
that. I would simply say, and it is probably appropriate to say
this given the fact that only two members I think are here now.
Everybody here has their pocket speech about base closings and
how much they deplore them and how terrible it is. And I don't
relish base closings. I have been through them in my district.
But the members of this committee have to take an honest look
at the trade-off between excess overhead. And look, everybody
thinks the excess overhead is in somebody else's district, I
get that.
But we have to take an honest look between excess overhead,
and what we are giving up by losing the RDT&E edge that I think
is perilous to lose. And I appreciate the fact you are
struggling with limited dollars. We have made that decision,
not you. But this is an area where I think we will deeply
regret not staying current, not staying ahead of the rest of
the world if we don't make some unpleasant choices about base
structure. I appreciate your time, and attention.
Mr. Nugent. Mr. Andrews, thank you very much for your
comments. Secretary Mabus, Admiral Greenert, and General Amos,
we really do appreciate you appearing in front of this
committee. On behalf of the chairman, seeing no other members
present, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
April 16, 2013
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 16, 2013
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.001
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.002
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.003
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.004
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.005
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.006
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.007
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.008
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.009
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.010
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.011
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.012
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.013
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.014
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.015
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.016
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.017
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.018
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.019
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.020
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.021
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.022
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.023
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.024
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.025
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.026
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.027
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.028
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.029
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.030
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.031
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.032
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.033
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.034
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.035
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.036
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.037
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.038
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.039
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.040
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.041
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.042
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.043
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.044
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.045
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.046
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.047
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.303
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.049
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.050
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.051
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.052
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.053
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.054
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.055
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.056
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.057
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.058
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.059
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.060
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.061
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.062
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.063
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.064
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.065
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.066
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.067
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.068
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.069
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.070
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.071
.epsno graphics 72 or 73 deg.[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.074
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.075
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.076
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.077
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.078
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.079
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.080
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.081
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.082
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.083
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.084
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.085
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.086
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.087
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.088
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.089
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.090
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.091
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.092
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.093
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.094
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.095
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.096
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.097
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.098
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.099
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.100
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.101
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.102
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.103
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.104
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.105
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.106
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.107
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.108
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.109
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.110
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.111
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.112
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.113
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.114
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.115
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.116
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.117
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.118
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.119
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.120
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.121
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.122
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.123
.eps?
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 16, 2013
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.124
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.125
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.126
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80757.127
.eps?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
April 16, 2013
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN
Mr. Langevin. Secretary Mabus, looking at the FY14 budget, are we
resourcing adequately in order to operate within the cyber domain and
ensure our national interests are protected? Does the Navy require
additional authorities in order to educate, attract, and retain the
very best cyber operators?
Additionally, with regard to cyber, do you feel that we have
reached the proper balance with regard to what capabilities and
responsibilities rest with 10th Fleet, CYBERCOM, and the regional
combatant commanders?
Secretary Mabus. The FY14 Budget sufficiently resourced Navy's
aggressive and balanced approach to build our cyberspace operations
capability. Navy is committed to providing nearly 1750 personnel in
support of the U.S. Cyber Command (USCC) Cyber Force Model build
through FY16. These forces will be allocated to support National, DoD,
Combatant Command and Service operational requirements, and will be
trained to USCC standards. In addition, Navy is committed to the
improvement of Service-specific cyberspace capabilities (e.g. Computer
Network Defense afloat) with a corresponding workforce that is balanced
in both manning and skill levels, and equipped with the necessary tools
to achieve success within the cyber domain.
The Navy continues to coordinate with the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, USCC, and the National Security Agency to develop standards
to recruit, train, and position the cyber workforce to make cyberspace
operations a key component of maritime operations. Navy has also taken
advantage of its unique ability to leverage the operational forces
across the Information Dominance Corps to aggressively increase
capacity, capability and expertise in the cyber domain in support of
National, Theater, and Fleet missions. Because of these efforts the
Navy does not require additional authorities.
A rapidly evolving cyber environment, unconstrained by global
boundaries, creates unique challenges to traditional military
warfighting integration, synchronization, coordination and
deconfliction. As such, Navy's operational arms at Fleet Cyber Command/
Commander 10th Fleet and Fleet Forces Command continue to work closely
with USCC and regional Combatant Commanders to build and support a
common understanding and appropriate balancing of cyber capabilities
and defined lanes of responsibility. This will ensure efficient and
effective operationalization and employment of Navy's cyber forces
across the spectrum of military operations.
Mr. Langevin. Admiral, can you speak to the investments the Navy is
making in Unmanned Undersea Vehicles, and what those mean to the Navy's
ability to persist in the restricted environments of the future?
Admiral Greenert. For Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicles
(LDUUVs), the Office of Naval Research (ONR) invested $42 million
toward Research and Development (R&D) in autonomy and endurance in
FY12. PB13 contained $45 million for ONR, and $7 million for Program
Executive Office Littoral Combat Ships to commence acquisition
activities focused on the conduct of an Analysis of Alternatives. PB14
includes $39 million for technology maturation and $12.2 million for
acquisition. $33.8M has been invested in research, development, test,
and evaluation to date for the Littoral Battlespace Sensing-UUV system
while PB14 contains $9.6M for procurement. For the Persistent Littoral
Undersea Surveillance (PLUS) system, $9.0 million has been invested for
maturation and fleet transition.
Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs) are a critical component of the
future Navy Force. They augment manned undersea platforms by conducting
dull, dirty, dangerous, and distant operations, thus freeing up more
valuable manned assets for higher priority missions. UUVs provide
capable, minimally manned, and relatively low cost alternatives to
operate forward through persistent undersea operations, including:
Reduced operational risk (i.e., removing the warfighter
from harm's way).
Improved situational awareness in forward areas or an
Anti-Access/Area Denial environment since they can reach areas
inaccessible to manned platforms.
Operation of missions in areas inaccessible by manned
platforms or especially hazardous to personnel.
Operation of lower priority missions that allow manned
platforms to focus on higher priority tasking.
Delivery to Operational Commanders of greater tactical
flexibility in scheduling (reduced number of) assets.
LDUUV's long endurance, advanced autonomy, and multi-mission
modular capabilities allow it to operate autonomously or provide
support to manned undersea systems. PLUS' persistent undersea presence
provides valuable Anti-Submarine Warfare information to Combatant
Commanders.
Mr. Langevin. Admiral, battlespace limitations within anti-access/
area-denial environments are likely to place a premium on particular
assets, technologies, and competencies, particularly in the Asia-
Pacific region where there is a significant proliferation of
submarines, advanced tactical fighters, and ballistic missiles, as well
as many electronic warfare challenges. Can you speak to how the Navy is
resourcing, training, and investing in research and development in
order to meet those challenges, particularly with regards to directed
energy, undersea warfare, and advanced tactics, techniques, and
procedures?
Admiral Greenert. We continue to evolve our systems and tactics,
techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to counter predicted threats in anti-
access, area-denial (A2/AD) environments.
For directed energy, the Office of Naval Research's (ONR's) Solid
State Laser-Quick Response Capability (SSL-QRC) is currently being
deployed. SSL-QRC will support the ONR Solid State Laser Technology
Maturation program which will develop and demonstrate a 100kw or
greater laser prototype. The first demonstration of this program will
deploy on USS PONCE (AFSB-I) in 2014.
For Undersea Warfare the Navy is acquiring and fielding a number of
different Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) systems: the Littoral
Battlespace Sensing (LBS) UUV and Glider, the Surface Mine
Countermeasure Knifefish UUV, and the Mk 18 Mine Countermeasure UUV.
The Persistent Littoral Undersea Surveillance (PLUS) System will add to
our Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) capability. The Large Displacement UUV
(LDUUV) will be a modular, long endurance autonomous platform capable
of conducting multiple missions to include: intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance; minesweeping; and ASW. The Navy's biggest
challenges in the full development of UUVs remain endurance, autonomy,
ship integration, and energy certification. The Advanced Undersea
Weapon System (AUWS) will be designed to deliver and distribute
targeting sensors or autonomous weapons into chokepoints or channels to
neutralize maritime threats for extended periods. ONR supports research
to improve anti-submarine surveillance, detection, and attack
capabilities against quiet adversary submarines operating in noisy and
cluttered shallow water environments, enabling new undersea weapon TTPs
and training.
ONR's Naval Air Warfare goal is to develop technologies, TTPs, and
training to expand Naval weapon system stand-off ranges and reduce
engagement timelines to enable rapid, precise, assured defeat of moving
land, sea and air targets.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ROGERS
Mr. Rogers. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Greenert, has the Navy
programmed funds to participate in the interoperable warhead W78/W88
life extension study being conducted in partnership with the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Air Force?
a. Do you have any concerns with NNSA's ability to successfully
execute this program?
b. Will the program preserve an option to conduct a straight W88
life extension if the interoperable warhead option fails to happen?
Secretary Mabus and Admiral Greenert. The Navy is requesting
funding in the PB14 submission to support this study and is reviewing
reprogramming options to commence this effort in FY13.
The Department of the Navy supports the Nuclear Weapons Council
decision to consider an interoperable warhead in the W78/88-1 Life
Extension Program (LEP) study. This effort has fiscal and technical
challenges, but has the potential to achieve long-term national cost
savings.
The Navy's current planning efforts reserve the option to develop a
standalone W88-1 LEP. This option would not need to start until the
early 2020s.
Mr. Rogers. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Greenert, the joint
explanatory statement of the conference report accompanying the FY13
NDAA requires the Navy and Air Force to brief the congressional defense
committees later this year on efforts that can be jointly undertaken
and cost-shared. Do you see opportunities for strategic collaboration
or commonality between the Air Force and Navy for sustainment of
ballistic missile capability in the long-term?
a. How might this reduce cost across the Service's respective
ballistic missile programs?
b. Would commonality between the two ballistic missile programs
increase risk that a technical failure would ground both Navy and Air
Force ballistic missiles simultaneously? Have these risks been
assessed? How [would] DOD manage such risks?
Secretary Mabus and Admiral Greenert. Yes, there are potential
opportunities for strategic collaboration or commonality between the
Air Force and the Navy for sustainment of ballistic missile systems,
and we are investigating those opportunities. Navy and the Air Force
are both addressing the challenges of sustaining aging strategic weapon
systems and have begun to work collaboratively to ensure these
capabilities are retained in the long-term to meet our requirements and
are seeking opportunities to leverage technologies and make the best
use of scarce resources. The Navy and the Air Force have established an
Executive Steering Group to identify and investigate potential
collaboration opportunities and oversee collaborative investments for
sustainment of our strategic systems. As a part of this effort,
technology area working groups have been established to study
collaboration opportunities in the areas of Reentry, Guidance,
Propulsion, Launcher, Radiation Hardened Electronics, Ground Test and
Flight Test systems, and Nuclear Weapons Security/Surety.
A) While we are in the initial stages of addressing collaboration
opportunities, we see potential to reduce costs in the future. Navy is
also assisting the Air Force in investigating the potential for
including commonality in the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)
follow-on as a part of the ground-based strategic deterrent (GBSD)
analysis of alternatives (AoA). B) We are assessing the spectrum of
potential commonality with the goal of using commonality where
appropriate while ensuring essential diversity where needed to reduce
the risk of a technical failure impacting both Navy and Air Force
ballistic missile systems.
Mr. Rogers. Secretary Mabus and Admiral Greenert, the Ohio-class
replacement submarines will provide the nation with its critical core
of sea-based deterrence capability until at least 2080. These
submarines are being designed to meet potential threats seven decades
from now. With regards to the missiles and the entire strategic weapon
system, how is the Navy positioning itself within the FYDP and beyond
to maintain the weapon system to meet the hull life of the Ohio-class
replacement? How long do we expect the D5 system to be sustained and
what are we looking at to replace it? When might this system be
fielded?
Secretary Mabus and Admiral Greenert. The Navy is extending the
life of the Trident II (D5) strategic weapon system (SWS) to match the
extended service life of the current OHIO Class SSBNs. The OHIO Class
was extended by 12 years (42-year service life) and will begin
decommissioning at one SSBN per year in 2027. The D5 Life Extension
(LE) program will maintain this strategic weapon system in service
until at least 2042 and, pending additional analysis, possibly as far
as the 2060s.
The D5 LE program is executing on schedule and within budget. The
program consists of the purchase of 108 new missiles and alteration
kits to modernize the remaining inventory with a new guidance system
and missile electronics components. Additionally, the Navy has
continued to fund the low-rate production of solid rocket motors to
prevent the age-out of the current inventory. The D5LE is scheduled to
meet initial operating capability in 2017.
Plans to support OHIO Replacement long-term requirements will be
developed in the future. As the D5 LE program is fielded within the
SSBN fleet, the Navy will further analyze the SWS service life. In
parallel, the Navy is evaluating follow-on program replacement options
in collaboration with the Air Force. These efforts will help ensure
that the Navy continues to provide the required strategic capabilities
to maintain the sea-based leg of the triad.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN
Mr. Wittman. Secretary Mabus, what are the operational impacts of
civilian furloughs on fleet maintenance activities particularly in
light of civilian hiring freezes and reduction to overtime work?
Secretary Mabus. Furloughs, combined with the ongoing hiring freeze
and overtime restrictions, will have an extended impact on Fleet
maintenance capacity.
The combination of the civilian hiring freeze, overtime
restrictions, and 11 furlough days at the aviation depots is expected
to delay the delivery of approximately 66 aircraft and 370 engines and
modules from FY13 into FY14. This equates to 80% of a carrier air wing
and will result in fewer aircraft ready for tasking and a commensurate
reduction in flight hours for non-deployed units. Recovery of the
delayed work will drive additional unbudgeted costs. The Naval
Shipyards have been exempted from the furlough, but capacity is still
being impacted by overtime restrictions and the hiring freeze. This
capacity reduction will result in maintenance availability completion
delays.
If the hiring freeze continues through the end of FY13, it will
prevent the Naval Shipyards from hiring approximately 1,030 production
artisans and engineers. FY13 capacity would be reduced by 87,000 man
days, resulting in a two month delay for one Aircraft Carrier
maintenance availability; a two month delay for one Ballistic Missile
Submarine maintenance availability; and a total of eight month delay
for two Fast Attack Submarine maintenance availabilities.
Mr. Wittman. Secretary Mabus, in light of the fact that the Navy
has spent the last six years operating a significant part of the force
above a long-term sustainable tempo level, as the DOD draws down in
Afghanistan and re-balances to the Pacific, a predominantly maritime
environment, will the Navy be able to sustain its operations and meet
enduring GFMAP requirements with base funding? And, by doing so, what
risk will you assume?
Secretary Mabus. Navy will source 100% of SecDef adjudicated
requirements. Force capacity prevents sourcing 100% of Combatant
Commander (CCDR) demand. Navy uses base funding to sustain the presence
ordered in the Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP) base
order. Operations beyond the base order will delay maintenance periods
and decrease training opportunities, effectively reducing the long-term
readiness of the force.
Mr. Wittman. Admiral Greenert, can you briefly describe the plan
for the replacement of the aging TAO and LSD class? What is the current
vision for these platforms? Additionally, can you please touch on
whether there is any consideration for hull commonality in future
designs or commonality in ops and sustainability with the HM&E of the
ships with what is currently operated in the fleet?
Admiral Greenert. An Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) is in progress
for the LX(R) program to evaluate alternatives for the hull-form to
fill capability gaps due to upcoming LSD 41/49 class ship retirements.
The operation of the LX(R) platform will be consistent with the
existing Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit missions.
Two of six options currently being evaluated in the AoA utilize
existing hull-forms in the fleet today: an LPD 17 variant and an MLP
variant. Both of these options could provide some commonality
throughout the amphibious fleet.
The AoA is expected to be complete in August 2013. Until the AoA is
complete, it is too early to speculate on any details of HM&E
commonality between LX(R) and existing assets in the fleet today. The
preliminary and contract design phases will offer additional
granularity to analyze LX(R) HM&E system commonality.
Mr. Wittman. Admiral Greenert, you have now started to begin the
needed scheduled maintenance on our fleet. (1) Are there any ships that
you anticipate completely skipping a planned maintenance period, if so
what is the long term impact of that decision? And (2) Do you plan to
have the ships available to deploy and maintain the needed forward
presence for the foreseeable future, perhaps the next 5 years?
Admiral Greenert. Navy does not intend to completely skip any
planned ship maintenance periods. Navy's PB14 request, including
projected OCO levels, fully funds ship maintenance to execute all
planned FY14 availabilities. It also funds the revised Class
Maintenance Plan requirements to reset the material condition of
surface ships undergoing docking availabilities in FY14.
We plan to fund and execute the final eight scheduled FY13 surface
ship availabilities supported in part by reprogramming currently under
review by Congress. Any deferred FY13 availabilities will be
reconsidered for scheduling and funding in FY14. While this might
create a bow wave of maintenance that could take years to recover and
higher costs to complete, this is preferable to completely skipping
availabilities.
Navy will deploy fully ready forces to the Combatant Commanders in
support of the FY14 Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP).
While the uncertainties of the ongoing sequester and future budgets
could significantly impact our Operations and Maintenance funding
levels, we will continue to prioritize the readiness of deployed and
next-to-deploy forces. Any degradation to operational readiness will be
taken in non-deployed forces to the maximum extent possible. This will
best preserve our ability to support the adjudicated GFMAP in the near
term, but will impact our capacity to respond to contingencies or to
emergent Requests for Forces.
Mr. Wittman. General Amos, how do you measure readiness and what
impacts will sequestration have on the Marine Corps' ability to
maintain acceptable readiness levels? Can you briefly describe the
current risks you are accepting in the force to maintain a combat ready
expeditionary force?
General Amos. The Marine Corps measures the long-term health and
readiness of its force by balancing resources across five broad
pillars: 1. High Quality People; 2. Unit Readiness; 3. Capability and
Capacity to Meet Requirements; 4. Infrastructure Sustainment; and 5.
Equipment Modernization. Maintaining balance across all five of pillars
is critical to achieving and sustaining Marine Corps readiness. Given
the impacts of sequestration, the Corps is being forced to take actions
to preserve its short-term readiness at the expense of long term
sustainment, investments and readiness. Most recently I have been
forced to transfer facilities sustainment funding to support critical
operations and equipment maintenance accounts. Over time, these actions
will create an imbalance across our readiness pillars that result in
both near- and long-term readiness deficits.
As the nation prepares for an uncertain future, its expeditionary
Marine forces provide a highly-utilitarian capability, effective in a
wide range of scenarios. Marines remain a cost-effective hedge against
the unexpected, providing a national ``insurance policy'' against
strategic surprise. The Marine Corps remains responsive to its
Congressional mandate to be the ``most ready when the nation is least
ready.'' As such, we will preserve the readiness of our Marines engaged
in combat--we will keep deploying units fully manned, trained and
equipped--and we will do our best to have the resources necessary for
the next mission while preparing for the future. Despite the
constrained funding resulting from sequestration, the Marine Corps will
meet near-term commitments for deployed and next-to-deploy forces,
however we will continue to take risk as this comes at the cost on non-
deployed Marine units. Currently, 65 percent of non-deployed units are
experiencing degraded readiness due to portions of their equipment
being redistributed to support units deploying forward. While necessary
in times of crisis, this commitment of our `seed corn' to current
contingencies degrades our ability to train and constitute ready units
for their full range of missions over time. Unbalanced readiness across
the force increases risk to timely response to unexpected crises or
large-scale contingencies. We will continue to emphasize our reset and
reconstitution efforts that cost-effectively restore combat equipment
and return it to units for training.
Mr. Wittman. General Amos, how imperative is the reset and
reconstitution of the Marine Corps? How does your reset plan support
the new strategic guidance's directed role for the Marine Corps? How
will reset be impacted by sequestration? How long will it take to
recover?
General Amos. The Marine Corps plays a special role in protecting
our Nation. We are America's Crisis Response Force--the Nation's
insurance policy. We must always be ready. For most of the past decade,
the Corps has been engaged in combat operations that have placed a
tremendous strain on our ground equipment. For this reason, resetting
and reconstituting our Corps remains my top priority--we must swiftly
repair and modernize equipment, while divesting obsolete inventory.
These two complementary efforts, reset, and reconstitution are
inexorably linked and must be conducted without operational pause. It
is imperative that we align reconstitution with reset actions, force
structure requirements, acquisition plans and maintenance strategies.
Our Reset Strategy fully supports my strategic guidance to maintain
a global crisis response capability that ensures readiness of ground
equipment. Although the purpose of the Reset Strategy is to create
unity of effort across the Marine Corps with respect to equipment reset
planning and execution from Afghanistan, it similarly supports my
direction to quickly rebalance to the Pacific, and ensure reset and
reconstitution actions are oriented to protect the long-term health and
readiness of the warfighter.
With respect to sequestration, potential deferments and
cancellations of planned maintenance could negatively impact readiness
and operational capability. This situation could also result in a
reduction and delay of equipment procurement contract orders. While we
remain on schedule with our reset plan for the remainder of FY13,
sequestration impacts in FY14 and out could reduce depot workload
capability, impact planned procurement actions and cause delay of
reset. Such a delay would hinder the Marine Corps' ability to ``reset
and reconstitute in-stride'' by FY17.
The Marine Corps has a statutory responsibility to be the most
ready when the Nation is least ready. As such, we will preserve the
readiness of our Marines engaged in combat--we will keep deploying
units fully manned, trained and equipped--and we will do our best to
have the resources necessary for the next mission while preparing for
the future.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BRIDENSTINE
Mr. Bridenstine. I am concerned about the recent cancellation of
multiple ship deployments to the U.S. Southern Command Area of
Responsibility. Is sequestration the driving factor behind these short-
term cancellations? Does the Navy plan to increase its presence in
SOUTHCOM in the future? Please describe the Navy's long-term laydown
for SOUTHCOM.
Admiral Greenert. Sequestration is the driving factor behind recent
cancellations/curtailment of FY13 deployments to SOUTHCOM. Six
deployments were cancelled and one unit redeployed early. These seven
deployments represent 50% of the FY13 Secretary of Defense ordered Navy
deployments to SOUTHCOM.
The Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP) is a Joint
Staff led process to determine sourcing solutions to Combatant
Commander Requests for Forces (demand). Navy, as part of a larger Joint
Staff led effort, is currently evaluating potential Sequestration-
related impacts to the FY14 GFMAP.
Long-term sourcing to SOUTHCOM is difficult to predict. Combatant
Commander demand for assets routinely exceeds Navy's capacity to
source. SOUTHCOM's Request for Forces must be evaluated against global
Combatant Commander demand and global priorities, and the Service's
capacity to source these requests as part of the GFMAP process.
In the future, new platforms like the Joint High Speed Vessel
(JHSV), the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and existing Patrol Coastal (PC)
ships will operate from bases like Mayport, FL to support the
partnership development and maritime security missions that we perform
in SOUTHCOM today. Use of ships like these will enable the Navy to
maintain a more persistent presence, while high end ships (e.g.
destroyers or amphibious ships) are drawn to more challenging missions
in other theaters.
Mr. Bridenstine. How much money do you project the E2-D Advanced
Hawkeye multiyear procurement will save taxpayers? Please also comment
on what threats make the procurement of E2-Ds so important?
Admiral Greenert. PB-14 includes a Multi-Year Procurement for 32
aircraft (FY14-18) that saves the Navy an estimated $522.8M and
stabilizes the production line to support an efficient E-2C to E-2D
Fleet transition plan.
Procurement of E-2D is important because, in the past decade, Anti-
Access Area Denial (A2AD) threats have increased as a result of
accelerated advanced weapon and platform development, the introduction
of low-observable technology and supersonic weapons, and advances in
research and development for electronic jamming equipment to deny or
deceive U.S. Navy detection capabilities. The E-2D APY-9 radar has
advanced waveform and Space Time Adaptive Processing (STAP) techniques
that provide enhanced surveillance and tracking against advanced threat
aircraft and sea-skimming Coastal Defense Cruise Missiles (CDCM), which
are a rapidly growing threat for our Carrier Strike Groups (CSG). E-2D
also provides persistent, elevated track data as part of Naval
Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA). NIFC-CA extends the
range, accuracy, and lethality of Navy fires, specifically for our
Aegis ships with the SM-6 missile and for our F/A-18E/F aircraft with
the AIM-120 missile.
Mr. Bridenstine. As a member of the Tactical Air and Land Forces
Subcommittee, I've spent a lot time monitoring the progress of the F-35
acquisition process. The function of oversight committees, of course,
is to focus on things like cost, schedule, and performance. However, I
think sometimes we miss the forest for the trees. Can you both remind
us why the Joint Strike Fighter is strategically important? How does
the capability fit into long-term U.S. defense strategy?
Admiral Greenert. The F-35 Lighting II will enhance the
flexibility, power projection, and strike capabilities of future
carrier air wings and joint task forces. The F-35 Lightning II program
will provide a transformational family of next-generation strike
aircraft, combining stealth and enhanced sensors that enable the
aircraft to be more combat effective and survivable. The F-35 will be a
``day-one'' capable strike-fighter that enables combatant commanders to
attack targets day or night, in all weather, in highly defended areas
of joint operations.
The Department of the Navy will leverage the 5th generation
capabilities of the F-35 to enter into the battlespace further than
other aircraft in an Anti-Access/Area-Denied environment to fuse multi-
source data, process that input and link actionable targeting
information to integrated, joint (and sometimes combined) warfighters.
With its all-aspect low observable design, internal weapons carriage,
and fully fused mission systems, the F-35C will complement the
capabilities of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a necessary part of the
future carrier air wing.
Mr. Bridenstine. As a member of the Tactical Air and Land Forces
Subcommittee, I've spent a lot time monitoring the progress of the F-35
acquisition process. The function of oversight committees, of course,
is to focus on things like cost, schedule, and performance. However, I
think sometimes we miss the forest for the trees. Can you both remind
us why the Joint Strike Fighter is strategically important? How does
the capability fit into long-term U.S. defense strategy?
General Amos. The F-35 JSF is the next generation strike weapons
system designed to meet an advanced threat, while improving lethality,
survivability, and supportability for our tactical aircraft fleet. The
JSF will be the cornerstone of a multi-mission joint force possessing
improved mission flexibility and unprecedented effectiveness to engage
and destroy both air and ground threats. The F-35 is designed to
participate in a wide variety of operations from routine, recurring
military activities to Major Theater War. The short take-off and
vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B is the centerpiece tactical aviation
aircraft needed to support our Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF).
Our requirement for expeditionary tactical aviation capabilities has
been demonstrated repeatedly, most recently with forward operating
bases (FOBs) in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). The F-35B surpasses
our current generation of aircraft in combat effectiveness and
survivability in the current and future threat environment.
The capability inherent in a STOVL aircraft allows the Marine Corps
to operate in harsh conditions and from remote locations where few
airfields are available for conventional aircraft. The F-35B is also
specifically designed to operate from amphibious ships--a capability
that no other tactical fifth-generation aircraft possesses. The ability
to employ a fifth-generation aircraft from 11 big-deck amphibious ships
doubles the number of ``aircraft carriers'' from which the United
States can employ fifth-generation capability. The expanded flexibility
of STOVL capabilities operating both at-sea and from austere land bases
is essential, especially in the Pacific. The Marine Corps will leverage
the F-35B's sophisticated sensor suite and very low observable (VLO)
fifth-generation strike fighter capabilities, particularly in the area
of data collection and information dissemination, to support the MAGTF
well beyond the abilities of current MAGTF expeditionary attack,
strike, and electronic warfare assets. Having these capabilities in one
aircraft provides the joint force commander and the MAGTF commander
unprecedented strategic and operational agility.
Marine Corps alignment with the security demands articulated in the
2012 Strategic Guidance for the 21st Century is enhanced by the F-35's
advancements in capabilities that do not exist in today's legacy
fighter aircraft. The vastness of the Pacific and the diversity of
challenges make the reach of the F-35 fleet a key element for our 21st
century Pacific strategy.