[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 116-32]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
ON
THE FISCAL YEAR 2020
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
__________
HEARING HELD
APRIL 10, 2019
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-499 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Sixteenth Congress
ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY,
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island Texas
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee ROB BISHOP, Utah
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOHN GARAMENDI, California MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JACKIE SPEIER, California K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland, Vice PAUL COOK, California
Chair BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
RO KHANNA, California SAM GRAVES, Missouri
WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
FILEMON VELA, Texas SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
ANDY KIM, New Jersey RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, Jr., MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
California MATT GAETZ, Florida
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania DON BACON, Nebraska
JASON CROW, Colorado JIM BANKS, Indiana
XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
KATIE HILL, California MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia
Paul Arcangeli, Staff Director
Katy Quinn, Professional Staff Member
Dave Sienicki, Professional Staff Member
Justin Lynch, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services.................................... 1
Thornberry, Hon. William M. ``Mac,'' a Representative from Texas,
Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services.................... 3
WITNESSES
Neller, Gen Robert B., USMC, Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps....... 7
Richardson, ADM John M., USN, Chief of Naval Operations.......... 6
Spencer, Hon. Richard V., Secretary of the Navy.................. 4
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Richardson, ADM John M....................................... 63
Smith, Hon. Adam............................................. 51
Spencer, Hon. Richard V...................................... 54
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Brown.................................................... 89
Mr. Cisneros................................................. 89
Mr. Conaway.................................................. 88
Mr. Langevin................................................. 83
Mr. Larsen................................................... 83
Mr. Turner................................................... 84
THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, April 10, 2019.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Smith (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The Chairman. Good morning. We will go ahead and call the
committee to order.
It is going to be a little bit more confusing today because
we have votes. We scheduled this hearing before they changed
the schedule, and votes will be coming sometime in the next
half hour. We will take the votes and come back. We will try to
get through as much as we can.
There is no particular hard stop, as I understand it, but
we will probably go till about 1 o'clock would be the plan.
That is normally when things fade. But we will see where people
are at after that point.
Also, I will not be here for the full hearing, massive head
cold, which is getting better. But Mr. Langevin will be in the
chair for the last part of the meeting.
But, with that, I am pleased to welcome the Secretary of
the Navy, the Honorable Richard Spencer; Admiral John
Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations; and General Robert
Neller, Commandant of the Marine Corps.
This seems to be a theme with our hearings these days, but
as I understand it, Admiral Richardson and General Neller are
soon to retire and may not have the pleasure of coming before
our committee again. So I want to thank both of you for your
outstanding service to the country and for your work with this
committee. You have both done a great job of being very open,
cooperating with us over here in Congress. I think we have
worked very well together. I appreciate that relationship, and
I appreciate your dedication and hard work.
With that, I have an opening statement, which I will submit
for the record, and just make three quick points off of the top
of it.
First, I think the biggest challenge within the Department
of the Navy right now is the new ships that you are building
and preparing to build. And to put it bluntly, we have not had
the best past record in terms of developing new large programs.
We have had a number of them that never quite got off the
ground, others that were truncated and wound up costing us a
great deal of money.
I think the number one most important thing that I want to
hear from all of you today is how are we going to do better
going forward with the new frigate we are talking about doing
as a--as I understand, it is something of a replacement to the
LCS [littoral combat ship]. As we are developing new ships in a
number of areas of capabilities, how can we be confident that
this time we actually are going to get what we are looking for
and not wind up wasting money, and wind up with a product,
because the history of that has been truly painful. Everything
is expensive in this business, but it is really tough when you
spend the money and you don't wind up with any product on the
back end of that.
Second is readiness and training issues. And I really want
to thank Admiral Richardson in particular. You have been very
open in discussing with us, you know, your investigations into
the accidents and the USS Fitzgerald and the McCain. We
obviously need to do better. It is not just the Navy, it is
throughout the force, in terms of training, making sure that we
keep the men and women who serve safe as we do this. So I would
love to get an update on readiness, where that is at, and how
you see us being in a better position to avoid these types of
accidents going forward.
Lastly is an issue that I know will come up, and that is
the issue of readiness as it relates to the deployment to the
southern border and how it impacts the readiness of the force.
I have no doubt that it is not a huge impact. It doesn't help.
It is an additional distraction to the overall mission of the
military. We are also concerned about the taking of money out
of the Department of Defense to go towards the President's
emergency on the southern border in building that wall.
But the one message--and this message is not for the people
here, it is just on the issue that I think is really important.
There wasn't actually any crisis at the border when President
Trump took office. We were doing better than we had done in
about 15 years. Two-plus years later, it is a mess. And you can
debate, you know, what the solution is. Is it a crisis? Is it
an emergency? But you cannot debate that the situation on our
southern border is vastly worse than it was 2 years ago.
Personally, I don't think spending tens of billions of
dollars on a wall is going to change that equation. The biggest
thing driving it is people are desperate, primarily in Central
America, and they are coming because of that desperation. So if
we are going to solve this, let's start thinking about how we
can stop them from being so desperate in coming to our border.
And most of the crisis right now is asylum seekers. It is
not people trying to sneak into the country; it is people
showing up and making themselves available for asylum. And I
don't know exactly what policies have led to this, but there
are a couple that don't help. One, we have dramatically reduced
the number of people being allowed in as refugees. We are
making asylum tougher and tougher to seek, so people out there
are desperate. They don't see a process, those who are trying
to get out of horrific situations, particularly in Central
America.
Lastly, with a daily threat of closing the border, folks
feel like this is it. If they don't come now, they are never
going to have a chance. Sorry. Not lastly. One other thing.
Cutting off aid to Central American countries that are
struggling, that are beset with violence and poverty and a lack
of economic opportunity only makes it more likely that more
people are going to come.
We can build all the walls and send all the troops and set
up all the sensors and do everything we have got, as long as we
create a situation where more and more people are going to try
to come into our country, we are never going to be able to deal
with it. We need to get at the source of the problem so we can
take the pressure off of the Pentagon, off of you gentlemen, so
that DHS [Department of Homeland Security] isn't always showing
up and asking you to do things that they ought to be able to
handle themselves.
We have got enough to do with the Department of Defense, to
get the readiness up to where we want it, to meet the national
security threats in the complex threat environment. We don't
need to create a bigger problem on the southern border that
distracts from those already difficult and incredibly important
missions that you all at the Department of Defense are trying
to implement.
With that, I will turn it over to Mr. Thornberry for his
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found in the
Appendix on page 51.]
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And let me join in welcoming our witnesses. And may I
begin, General Neller, by expressing condolences to the Marine
Corps and to the family and friends and colleagues of the three
Marines who lost their lives yesterday in Afghanistan. I think
it is important for their family and others to know that they
were there to protect our country. That was their mission. And
we grieve their loss and honor their service.
I also want to thank Admiral Richardson and General Neller
for your service over many years. I am not quite ready to let
you all go yet. As we work our way through a number of issues,
I am sure we will have a lot of interactions with the
committee, but I join the chairman in appreciating what you all
have done.
If you step back and look from when each of you first
assumed your current position, in some ways, things are on a
better track. We have a National Defense Strategy. We have,
this year, a budget that is, you can debate to what degree, but
at least somewhat tied to that National Defense Strategy and is
looking ahead at the challenges that we face before us. My
sense, and this is what I am going to ask you in a minute, is
that we have turned the corner, maybe, on readiness. I noticed
there was a study that was published yesterday that said, for
aviation, the Navy was slightly worse last year than the
previous year. The Marine Corps was slightly better. But if you
look at overall accident rates, it is somewhat better than it
was, even though it is still way too high.
I join the chairman, Admiral, in appreciating the efforts
you all have made on the surface combatant accidents and
training and so forth that you all have tried to improve.
And I will say, another way things are getting better, as I
was heartened by the reports yesterday, that finally there are
some serious discussions going on about a cap deal. Because as
all three of you have talked about before with this committee,
it is the amount of funding and the consistency of funding that
enable you all to make the most use of the dollars that the
taxpayers provide.
So there will be a lot of questions today, a lot of issues.
I am going to avoid the border debate for the moment.
But I guess the last thing I would say is, even though we,
in my estimation, are on a better track, the enemy always gets
a vote. And they are not going to wait for us to get our act
together. So there is still a sense of urgency dealing with the
shipbuilding issues the chairman talked about and other things.
I am sure we will touch on most of those today.
Again, I thank all of you for being here.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Spencer.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD V. SPENCER, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
Secretary Spencer. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Thornberry, distinguished members of this committee, on behalf
of our sailors, our Marines, and our civilian teammates, we
want to iterate yet again thank you for your bipartisan support
of restoring funding stability.
Before I begin, I would also like to reflect what the
ranking member just said, and we all keep the three Marines
that were lost in our prayers and our thoughts, and also one of
our allies. The Japanese lost somebody who is still being
searched for, and we should keep our allies in our thoughts and
prayers.
I would be remiss not to say, wearing a businessman's hat,
that I could not have asked for two better business partners in
the last 20 months of working here as Secretary of the Navy.
The CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] and the Commandant have
been terrific. If I was to put my business hat on and use
business terms, ladies and gentlemen, the Navy that I sat down
to was literally a corporate turnaround. We have made herculean
efforts, and you will hear about them today.
But these two gentlemen, there was no light between us as
we walked down the path and moved some big rocks out of the
way. And I would like to tip my hat because this is their last
time probably in front of you. But more importantly to me, I am
going to lose two great people this summer. I am going to gain
two great ones. But for this moment, I would like to say thank
you in public.
The concept of a strategy is the application of limited
resources to attain a goal. Aligned to the National Defense
Strategy, the Navy strategy for restoring readiness,
strengthening relationships, and reforming our processes has
been set. And we build on that with a discipline focused on
people, capabilities, and processes.
This budget prioritizes a strategy-driven balanced approach
to investment. It builds on prior investments that we have
made, sustains the industrial base, and maintains our
competitive advantage, if not expands it in certain areas, as
we transition to a more cost-imposing survivable and affordable
future force.
The restoration of readiness is well underway, and we are
seeing progress each and every day. My analogy is that the wind
vanes are all pointed in the correct directions. And although
we might be frustrated with the velocity, we continue to
increase it day by day.
We are building the strength of our team through hiring in
areas of critical need, such as cybersecurity specialists,
aviation technicians, scientists and engineers, human resource
specialists, shipyard workers, and digital warfare officers. We
are aligning and enhancing our educational institutions and our
distributed learning venues through the Education for Seapower
Review.
And we are taking aggressive actions to return private
military housing to a premium product, mindful that while we
recruit the individual, we retain the family.
All of these actions have one common thread: the goal of
increased readiness. We are building our capabilities through
investments in hypersonics, machine learning, additive
manufacturing, quantum computing, and directed energy. We are
building the fleet in pursuit of a 355-ship Navy, manned and
unmanned, to include the Columbia-class submarine, next-
generation frigate, remotely piloted sea platforms such as Sea
Hunter and Orca. These efforts are increasing lethality through
our increased distributed maritime operations.
To reach the Secretary's goal of 80 percent mission-capable
tactical aircraft, we have realigned investments in new spare
parts, aviation engineering, logistical support, through our
newly created Navy Sustainment System, incorporating best
practices from outside the wire or, as we might say, from
commercial airline maintenance leaders.
As a pilot program, these activities have moved us to
review our processes in all maintenance areas within the naval
enterprise, to include ship, weapon, vehicle maintenance and
sustainment.
Driven by the Marine Corps Force 2025 Capability Investment
Strategy, we are investing in the amphibious combat vehicle,
loitering munitions, and unmanned logistical systems in order
to maintain and, as I said earlier, expand our competitive
advantage on the margins.
Exercising the Marine Corps operating concept is moving us
to rapidly progress as a continual learning organization as we
adapt and experiment in our new competitive environment. Yet
while we effect the aforementioned, the Marine Corps is also
contending with the unprecedented double impact of Hurricanes
Florence and Matthew, which together damaged or destroyed more
than $3.7 billion of infrastructure across many of our east
coast installations.
Camp Lejeune, as many of you know, is our primary force
generator for naval services, directly contributing to the
capacity and readiness of our force. That area took the
majority of the blunt impact of the storm.
Over the past year, we have meaningfully increased our
interaction with our allies and friends. Exercising and
education have strengthened the ability to operate and,
therefore, increase the depth of our collected ability to
deliver the forces required. Compared to a year ago, the
increase in this depth of our relationship with our allies and
friends has been the prime contributor to the good of this
outcome.
Our Navy has implemented 91 of the 111 Readiness Reform and
Oversight Council recommendations, transforming a culture of
accepting risk to one of understanding and managing risk. We
have reviewed and are in the process of reviewing the
remediation of our business processes following our first ever
top-to-bottom audit. The great news on the audit is, ladies and
gentlemen, it is now proven to be a tool where we can leverage
lethality.
We are using this information to streamline operations and
to reimagine how support functions can be modernized to drive
continual learning, therefore producing ever increasing
efficiencies for the American taxpayer. We owe it to them to
ensure every dollar we invest, every dollar, is invested in the
most effective manner possible. I am proud to work with this
committee to keep that promise.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Spencer can be found
in the Appendix on page 54.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Admiral Richardson.
STATEMENT OF ADM JOHN M. RICHARDSON, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL
OPERATIONS, U.S. NAVY
Admiral Richardson. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking
Member Thornberry, and distinguished members of the committee
for the opportunity to appear alongside Secretary Spencer and
General Neller to discuss the Navy's fiscal 2020 budget.
President Jefferson wrote: Industry, commerce, and security
are the surest roads to the happiness and prosperity of our
people.
And the causal link between prosperity, order, and security
is why he deployed the United States Navy to combat piracy off
the Barbary Coast at the dawn of the 19th century. And it is
why, for over two centuries, we have helped keep the seas open
for all and oppose those who seek to control the seas at the
expense of America and her allies.
Today, as outlined in the 2018 National Defense Strategy,
nations like China and Russia are attempting to do just that,
to stem the tide that has steadily lifted all boats by
unilaterally redefining international norms on terms more
favorable only to themselves.
The Nation and the Navy are responding with more than
60,000 sailors deployed aboard nearly 100 ships and submarines
at this very moment by sustainably operating around the globe
advocating for our principles and protecting our national
interests.
To maintain this worldwide posture, the President's budget
offers a strategy-driven, future-leaning, balanced approach to
deliver a naval force up to the task in this era of great power
competition. The single most effective way to maintain our
strategic momentum is to provide adequate, stable, and
predictable funding. This makes everything possible. It
solidifies strategic planning, incentivizes our commercial
partners, and mitigates operational risk by maximizing our
planning and execution time.
The foundation of naval powers are a force of talented and
well-trained sailors. And important to our success, we remain
committed to recruiting and retaining diverse shipmates whose
intelligence, curiosity, energy, different backgrounds, and
varied viewpoints will catalyze the speed and quality of
decisions we need to outperform our adversaries. As well,
working with Congress, we continue to transform our pay and
personnel systems to 21st century standards.
This budget builds a bigger fleet, 55 battle force ships
over 5 years, preserving our industrial base and strengthening
our ability to prevail in any warfighting contingency. This
budget fully funds the Columbia-class ballistic missile
submarine program, fulfilling our existential imperative to
deter a nuclear attack on our homeland. This budget builds a
better fleet, fielding state-of-the-art systems that are more
agile, networked, resilient, and lethal. This budget recognizes
that aircraft carriers will be central to winning the future
fight, which is why it invests in the Gerald R. Ford-class
delivering far more combat power for less cost over their
lifetimes than their Nimitz-class predecessors.
And this budget builds a ready fleet, steaming days to
exercise at sea, flying hours to train in the air, sufficient
quantities of ammunition and spares, the resources to conduct
maintenance today and in the future as the fleet size grows.
Meeting the Nation's and the Navy's responsibilities is not
easy. It requires us all to work together. But this is what
great nations and only great nations can and must do.
At the dawn of the Cold War, as the Nation took on the
challenge to go to the moon, President John F. Kennedy, a naval
officer, said: We do these things not because they are easy but
because they are hard, because that challenge is one that we
are willing to accept, one that we are unwilling to postpone,
and one that we intend to win.
I am grateful to this committee and your colleagues in the
Congress for continuing this important work. We look forward to
sailing alongside you to build and deliver the safest Navy for
our sailors, the strongest partner Navy for our friends and
allies, and a Navy that is the worst nightmare for our enemies.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Richardson can be found
in the Appendix on page 63.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Admiral.
General Neller.
STATEMENT OF GEN ROBERT B. NELLER, USMC, COMMANDANT, U.S.
MARINE CORPS
General Neller. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry,
distinguished members of the committee, I am here today to
testify on the posture of your Marine Corps. I appreciate this
opportunity to be here and look forward to your questions.
I know this committee, the Congress, and the American
people have high expectations for our Marines. As our Nation's
expeditionary force in readiness, you expect your Marines to be
ready to operate forward with our Navy in the contact and blunt
layers of the global operating model and to assure our
partners, deter our rivals, and respond to crises across a
range of military operations. And if that deterrence should
fail and we are called to fight, you expect us to fight and
win.
As we hold this hearing, approximately 41,000 Marines,
along with our Navy shipmates, are forward deployed or postured
to more than 60 countries around the world, some in harm's way
as we were reminded of 2 days ago, all engaged doing exactly
what you would expect of them. Through our history, you have
called upon your Marines to respond immediately to crises
around the globe, either from the sea, from forward bases, or
from home station.
To meet your intent to be ready to suppress or contain
international disturbances short of large-scale war, we strive
to prevent war by assuring our allies and deterring our rivals
with ready, capable, and persistently present expeditionary
forces.
Forward postured naval forces, your Navy-Marine Corps team,
remain critical to that end, providing the Nation a significant
operational advantage through maneuver access and our presence.
Supporting day-to-day operations through theater security
cooperation, building partner capacity, providing, when
required, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, or
supporting current global contingencies requires your
expeditionary force in readiness to be present.
We recognize the strategic environment is constantly
changing, requiring adaptations to our organization, our
training, our equipment, and our warfighting concepts in order
to provide our Nation the most lethal naval expeditionary force
it demands. Your Marine Corps remains committed to building the
most ready, capable, and adaptable force the Nation can afford.
This requires hard choices as we balance our commitments to
current operations, work to continue to improve our readiness,
and pursue modernization efforts designed to increase our
competitive advantages over our adversaries.
Thanks to your efforts in Congress to provide increased and
on-time funding, you have made some of these choices far less
difficult. Still, we remain challenged by the lasting effects
of Hurricanes Florence and Michael that hit the east coast last
fall. The financial cost of these storms totals $3.7 billion.
But the impacts go much deeper. I look forward to answering any
of your questions on this issue.
I do want to thank the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
the Congress, and the administration for their work and support
in approving a $400 million reprogram resources so we can begin
immediately to address some of those needs at Camp Lejeune and
the North Carolina area.
The Marine Corps continues to work tirelessly to address
our remaining shortfall for this year, but we are prepared to
make the decisions necessary in the short term so that we
continue to train and be ready, repair our facilities, and
continue to increase our readiness.
Despite these challenges, the Marine Corps remains on the
right path as we implement the National Defense Strategy. We
continue to develop effective warfighting concepts and invest
in the right capabilities, while experimenting ruthlessly to
validate these choices.
Most importantly to the success of your Corps, we continue
to be able to recruit and train the most qualified men and
women our Nation has to offer, men and women who raise their
right hand, desire to earn the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor, and
ask to serve something greater than themselves and represent
the best our Nation has every day around the world.
The Navy and Marine Corps team remains our Nation's naval
expeditionary force in readiness, forward deployed, postured,
and competing every day. And with the Congress' continued
support and commitment, we will assure that we must send--if we
must send our sons and daughters into harm's way, they will
have every advantage our Nation can afford and provide.
As was mentioned, this is likely my last opportunity to
appear before this full committee as I close out 44 years as a
Marine and the last 4 as a Commandant. And I want to personally
thank this committee and the Congress for the support you show
every day to your Marines.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, General.
As I mentioned in my opening statements, the two most
important things we can do is get the caps deal that the
ranking member referred to so that we can get that budget on
time by October 1. I know it made a huge difference to actually
have that last year for the first time in Lord knows how long.
And the second is passing some sort of supplemental emergency
funding bill. I know that has really impacted the military. And
we are going home in a couple hours, and we are not going to
get it done before the April recess. And that is a huge
problem, well, for the country, but also for the Department of
Defense. These are two things that we in Congress need to get
done to help you.
Just one area of questioning, Mr. Secretary, is, one of my
opening comments about, as you are developing new platforms,
moving forward with the Columbia-class submarine, having a
replacement for the large surface combatant ships, what have
you learned?
I know we have talked a lot about, you know, your efforts
to try to figure out how to be more cost effective in
acquisition and procurement, to bring some of your business
skills. And I have been very impressed with what you guys have
done in terms of making it more efficient and more effective.
But this is the big stuff. This is the billions of dollars.
What did we learn from the mistakes of the past, from the
expeditionary fighting vehicle, from the DDG 1000 [guided-
missile destroyer] where we wound up with only three ships,
from the UCLASS [Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne
Surveillance and Strike]? What have you learned from that that
is going to be different as you move into the these large new
procurements that are going forward so that we can actually get
a product in a cost-effective way?
Secretary Spencer. Chairman, day one arriving, the whole
approach that I had had with industry is that we truly do have
to become partners. And that is not just words. My definition
of partners is shared risk, shared return and benefits.
Aligning ourselves with people who can solve our problems and
have skin in the game is the best fundamental formula that we
can have. We have moved closer and closer towards that as we go
forward. We have increased the actual----
The Chairman. If I may, and I am sorry to interrupt, but
that is all kind of generic speak. What I would love is what is
a concrete example. Gosh, here is what we did wrong and here is
how we are going to do it different this time. Just one or two
concrete examples.
Secretary Spencer. Fine. Concrete examples. Using
technology that is available to us off the shelf in designing
ships and building ships. We now have digital tools versus
paper. A huge savings in that regard. The concept of modular
building, increasing modular building. Do we force that upon
the contractor themselves? No. Do we help them and steer them?
Do we work together? Yes, we do. Again, cost savings in that
regard.
Requirements. Focusing requirements and understanding that
the contractor is in the game. And the reason I led with that,
Chairman, is we have to know what is the best solution that
they have, to walk into the marketplace and say I want this,
this, and this and this, without the supplier going, wow, if
you took this path, I can save you 15 percent.
That is the two-way communication that has really helped us
going forward as far as partnership goes.
The Chairman. Yeah. That is exactly what I wanted to hear.
And that makes sense. And that is incredibly important going
forward to make sure that we follow through on that.
We have got votes coming up, so I will cut this short and
go to Mr. Thornberry.
Mr. Thornberry. Admiral and Commandant, I mentioned at the
beginning, my sense is that we turned a corner on readiness,
but we are certainly not where we need to be. And I would
appreciate each of you kind of stepping back and giving this
perspective of where we have been, where we are, and where we
are going on the broader readiness issues that we have talked
about with this committee so much.
Admiral Richardson. Thank you, sir. I will take the first
stab and then hand it off to the Commandant.
First is that we funded those readiness accounts. And so
since I have been CNO, we have been steadily funding those at
pretty much the requirement or the maximum executable. And that
has allowed us, particularly in the enabler accounts, as we
call them, the parts, the engineering, and everything to
support readiness, the flying hour program, the steaming hour
program, maintenance programs, all of those have been funded.
Then in response to the collisions in the 7th Fleet, as
we've briefed, we have got a comprehensive review and a
program. The Secretary highlighted the number of measures that
we have taken. But really, what we have done is working on a
change of culture there. So the first thing we did is
reestablish schedule discipline out in the 7th Fleet. We don't
send a ship out to do a mission until they are maintained,
trained, and certified to do that mission. And that return of
that discipline has ensured that our ships are ready to go.
With respect to the training required both pipeline--
career-based training. As I pointed out in my written
statement, the amount of sea time and experience that an
officer will get when they take command is almost double now
with this new career path than it was before. As well, the
schoolhouse training has increased at every level of an
officer's career. And not only in amount but also quality as we
have brought in a lot of high-fidelity simulators to enhance
that training and complement the at-sea training.
And so, really, we have moved from a climate where we
needed to make sure that we were safe to operate, then able to
comply with all requirements, now really striving towards that
culture of excellence, measuring ourselves the whole way to
make sure that we are achieving the goals that we set out to
achieve.
Mr. Thornberry. Just briefly, Admiral, how far do we have
to go?
Admiral Richardson. Well, this is really establishing a new
normal, sir. And so I would say that, in many ways, we are at
that new normal. Some of this is going to be career-long types
of things. And so we need to--I would advocate for letting this
program have some run time so that we can see some of the
longer term benefits before we start to make changes. That was
one of the symptoms of the past is that we kept moving the
goalposts. And so I think we have got ourselves on a good
course. Many of the near-term goals have already been met. Some
of the longer term goals are going to be career-type things.
And then these simulators are going to be in place for the next
couple of years. So I think we are on a good track, sir.
General Neller. Ranking Member Thornberry, you know, you
asked if we turned the corner. It is like being too ready is
like having too much money or being too good-looking. It is
impossible to be too ready.
So have we improved? Absolutely. And I can quantify that
for you, particularly with aviation. More hours flown, more
ready aircraft, the goal of 80 percent TACAIR [tactical air],
which means we are--based on OSD [Office of the Secretary of
Defense] standards, we have--10 squadrons are supposed to have
12 jets, which means we have got to have 96 jets that can fly.
We have been up into the 80s. So we are continuing to strive
for that. And it will be--we may make it like for 1 or 2 days,
but it will be very difficult to sustain that level. But as the
CNO said, we had not previously funded the readiness accounts.
The training piece of this is even more different, because
at the same time we have current operations, we are trying to
modernize those capabilities to be able to be effective for the
current op, and we are trying to change the force fundamentally
for what we anticipate the fight to be in the future. So a lot
of the training changes that we have been able to do because of
the resources allow us to fight more against a peer adversary
as opposed to operate in what we have done in the last 17
years, 18 years, which is a counterinsurgency, stability,
counterterrorism fight. And it is fundamentally different
having to consider mentally the training aspects to fight
against an adversary who has an air force, who has long-range
fires, who can jam your nets, who can take down the network.
And so, obviously, those capabilities are things that we need
to look at.
Now, our ability to operate in cyber, in the information
domain, to protect our network, which is our friendly center of
gravity, the thing that we have to protect to be able to
operate.
So are we making progress? Absolutely. Turning the corner?
We continue to make progress, and we are never going to be
satisfied that we are too ready.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, if I could just add on a little
bit. The Congress has been working, really, hand in hand with
us. We talked, both the Commandant and I, about funding. And I
would say since the 2017 request for additional appropriations,
the 2018 and 2019 budgets has helped tremendously. We hope to
keep that momentum.
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The only thing I would say is, by turn a corner, I mean it
is not getting worse, it is getting better. That is the corner.
General Neller. No, it is quantifiably better, and I can
show you the metrics for that. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thornberry. Yeah. I appreciate it.
I yield back.
The Chairman. There are always more corners, but it is good
to have that one turn. I agree with the ranking member. We have
made an enormous amount of progress.
Votes have been called. We can get through one questioning
and then go, so we will start with Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome our witnesses here this morning. Thank
you for your testimony. In particular, Admiral Richardson,
General Neller, thank you both for your service to the country.
I know that you said this is the--and the Secretary said this
is the last appearance likely before the committee. And I want
to just thank you for your service. You have all made a
difference both improving our military and enhancing our
national security. For that we are grateful.
Secretary Spencer, if I could start with you. I understand
that you recently commissioned a review of our cybersecurity
readiness of the Navy and Marine Corps. And I think you
commissioned that study. Cybersecurity clearly is one of the
greatest challenges that I believe that we face as a Nation,
both now and going forward. Again, I commend you for taking the
step in doing the study and commissioning it.
However, I also understand that one of the primary findings
of the report was that--with the need to change the culture of
the Navy in a way that must stem from the senior-most
leadership. So I was a little disappointed that you didn't
expand upon that more in your opening statement. But if, you
know, going forward, if you can expand upon that right now,
because the bottom line is, if you don't prioritize it, you
know, how can we expect your deputies to do so? So can you help
the committee understand what you are doing in response to the
review's recommendations?
Secretary Spencer. Congressman, thank you. I could spend a
day on this topic. And it is a high-priority topic, if not one
of the highest. And one of the things that came out of the
study, and the reason we had the people on the study that were
there, was to look outside the wire and see some of our
compatriots in large organizations who have gone down the cyber
path and the learning curve--JPMorgan, Caterpillar, large
corporations.
And in every single case, every single case, it starts at
the top. You hit the nail on the head. It is a cultural issue
and it is a mechanical issue. It is a hygiene issue for data.
And it has to be led at the top.
We have right now, one of the members of the group who did
the study is on board in Navy right now prioritizing the
findings that he helped write to put together our remedial plan
to go forward on the cyber issues facing the Navy and Marine
Corps team.
Mr. Langevin. Okay. I look forward to working with you on
that.
Secretary Spencer. Most definitely.
Mr. Langevin. Our enemies and adversaries are not standing
still on this, and they used this asymmetric technology to
undermine our advantages, and we want to make sure that we are
as resilient and strong in that area as possible.
Secretary, I also wanted to say I am concerned about the
resiliency of Navy and Marine Corps bases due to the effect of
climate change and rising sea levels. Thank you for--obviously,
you identified Camp Lejeune as having taken a major hit.
Billions of dollars of damage done as a result of a storm that
they had to go through. And, you know, really underscores the
need for the Navy and the Marine Corps to consider resilience
in their installation master plans.
So on this point, what investments are you making today in
order to mitigate risks that we are going to face in the short,
medium, and the long term to our CONUS [continental United
States] and OCONUS [outside continental United States]
institutions, and how are you evaluating those risks as they
evolve? Otherwise, if we are not planning ahead--you know, we
have to face the fact that climate change is here and it is
going to cost us more if we don't prepare for it and mitigate
those effects going forward.
Secretary Spencer. Congressman, spot on. I share those
exact same concerns. We have done an inventory around all our
bases. And it is not just rising water. It is drought. It is
fire. It is any weather-induced massive impact to our bases.
And we have done our analysis.
As an example, Norfolk. We have a MILCON [military
construction] project for, in most simplest terms, diking
around Norfolk for rising waters. Camp Pendleton. We are
constantly looking at how we can address fire control at Camp
Pendleton. All our seaside bases, we are looking at what we can
do going forward with all our projects to add into those
projects rising water and/or weather-related events.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you. I want to continue to work with
you on that as well.
Secretary Spencer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Langevin. Finally, as you know, China, it appears, has
fielded a railgun. We are making advances in railgun
technology. When are we going to be fielding our railgun?
Secretary Spencer. Congressman, we have a whole priority of
advanced weapons that we have talked about, directed energy.
Railgun is in there. I actually will defer to the CNO quickly
on the actual technical application there.
It is a priority. Put it this way, it has been prioritized
within the Navy. We are focusing on some other areas that we
think are probably more productive when it comes to a weapon.
But, CNO, I don't know if you have anything to add to that.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, we are continuing to work on the
railgun.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I don't
want to rush you. Sorry. I should have said this upfront. I try
to keep people to the 5 minutes. But if you have something
quick, Admiral, go ahead, since we are----
Admiral Richardson. We are continuing. We are working on
integration. We are going to take the railgun out to White
Sands. And we have made some great progress not only on the gun
itself, which is a lot of energy in a short period of time, but
also on the projectiles. The high-velocity projectile is as
much a benefit from that program as anything else because they
are adaptable to other guns as well. So there is money in the
budget to advance this program this year.
The Chairman. Thank you. I apologize. I should have pointed
out for the witnesses. We try to keep them to the 5 minutes as
much as possible. And I don't want to cut you off at mid word.
But we will try to move it on.
We have five votes, I think. Doing the math, and it pains
me to say this, it is probably going to be about 11:45 before
we get back. We don't move too quickly over on the floor,
regrettably.
So we will just plan on reconvening at 11:45. And I
appreciate your patience.
We are in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Courtney [presiding]. The committee will come back to
order. Mr. Smith again has other commitments, and he asked me
to fill in for him.
With that, I will yield to Mr. Wilson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, Acting Chairman
Courtney.
And, gentlemen, it is particularly an honor for me to be
here with you--and thank you for your service--in that I am
here as a Member of Congress, but also as the very grateful dad
of a naval doctor, who works with the Marines, General, at
Parris Island.
And I am also very grateful and wish you well in your
retirement, General Neller. You have made such a difference on
behalf of our country.
And, Secretary Spencer, the fiscal year 2020 budget request
includes approximately $10 billion for cybersecurity. South
Carolina is uniquely positioned to advance cybersecurity
partnerships that enhance the U.S. capabilities to compete with
adversaries in cyber domain. Our Adjutant General Van McCarty
is advancing cybersecurity partnerships through existing force
structure with senior military colleges like The Citadel and
the proximity of key infrastructure. How does this request
reflect the new cyber strategy? Does this request include any
programs that work with universities or industry?
Secretary Spencer. Thank you, Congressman. I had the
pleasure of joining, I believe, Senator Scott down in
Charleston about 2 or 3 weeks ago, and he introduced me to the
military contractors association down there, and we also had a
chance to tour the new training facilities that are online in
Charleston for--the nuclear training facilities.
It does align, and the reason I am pausing for a second is,
as I told you earlier, the review that I just had done is now
being created and implemented. Our implementation plan will be
rolled out. You will see more coming along that way.
But in the $10 billion, we are aligning ourselves, not only
through the Naval Postgraduate School, but through other
organizations and institutions outside the wire.
Mr. Wilson. That is really encouraging. And also
encouraging, each of you earlier in the hearing provided an
update in regard to readiness and the progress that is being
made toward readiness, and part of that is modernization. There
are three versions of F/A-18 Hornets that are found aboard the
Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, the F/A-18A and C Hornet and
the F/A-18D Hornet. These are older models showing their age.
What is the plan, Mr. Secretary, and timeline to replace
these aging aircraft and add new Super Hornets to the
inventory?
Secretary Spencer. As far as the Marine Corps is concerned,
no new Super Hornets in the Marine Corps. We are transitioning
to all fifth generation, which, if I am not mistaken,
Commandant, we are somewhere around 2030 for the actual full
transition to the F-35B and C.
Mr. Wilson. That is excellent.
And, Admiral, I was grateful to have recently met with
General Steve Lyons, and he testified to this committee the
need for increased sealift capacity. How is the Navy addressing
the TRANSCOM [U.S. Transportation Command] commander's number
one request for increased sealift? What is your assessment of
the current Ready Reserve Fleet and the ability of it to
support the National Defense Strategy?
Admiral Richardson. Sir, as I am sure General Lyons told
you, we currently meet the requirements, but that fleet is
aging out quickly. And so the need for recapitalization there
is urgent. We are taking--working very closely with TRANSCOM
and also Admiral Buzby. We are taking sort of a three-pronged
approach. One is to do life extensions where those life
extensions make fiscal sense. The second approach is to buy
used ships that will meet the requirements, and we are taking
advantage of all the authorities that Congress has given us
with respect to buying used. And then the third is to build
new. And so it is the combination of those three.
Right now, though, I think we are also interested--I am
interested in having a discussion in terms of how we can best
incentivize domestic shipbuilding in the United States of
America. And I think that all of this would help, not only the
sealift part of TRANSCOM's issues, but also alleviate some of
the cost for DOD [Department of Defense] shipbuilding, Navy
shipbuilding. So I think that that would be a good thing to
discuss as part of this as well.
Mr. Wilson. And additionally, Admiral, I appreciate how the
budget invests in continuing to rebuild aviation readiness.
What lessons have the Navy and Marine Corps learned from
pursuing former Secretary Mattis' goal of 80 percent mission
capability for the strike fighter aircraft?
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir. I think the Secretary has
described it that we are really going outside to take a look at
what are the commercial best practices. And we have brought a
lot of that--those ideas in-house. And so in terms of workflow,
establishing that workflow and maintaining it, that has allowed
us to have a steady ramp toward achieving that 80 percent
readiness, and we are optimistic that that is going to happen.
And then the stable funding has allowed us to refill parts
bins and parts baskets that were previously empty, and so that
is also reducing the time in maintenance.
Secretary Spencer. Congressman, I got a beef just for a
second because readiness right now, Navy and Marine Corps team,
F/A-18s, 67 to 70 percent, which when I was here a year ago, we
were nowhere near that.
Mr. Wilson. Progress.
Mr. Courtney. The gentleman's time has expired. Again,
going in order, I yield myself 5 minutes.
First of all, I just want to start by saying, as someone
who has been on the Seapower Committee for the last 4 or 5
years, I want to thank all the witnesses for their great work,
in particular, Admiral Richardson and General Neller, as you
start to head towards the exit. Again, both of you served
straddling two administrations, two national security reviews,
and have really, I think, done an outstanding job in terms of
just integrity and excellence, and again, I want to thank you
publicly.
I would like to focus for a second on the inclusion of
funding to build a third Virginia-class submarine in the 2020
budget to be actually executed in the 2023 timeframe. From a
strategic standpoint, this is a step to more rapidly reach 66
attack submarines called for in the 2016 Force Structure
Assessment. Today, of course, the fleet stands at 51 and will
drop to 42 by 2006.
Admiral Richardson, can you state what the impact of even
one additional attack submarine would have on the Navy's
operational capability? Can you discuss what types of OPLANs
[operations plans] it would help support, in an unclassified
setting?
Admiral Richardson. Sir, I will do my best. One is that
with respect to our greatest gap between the warfighting
requirement and current inventory, there is no greater need
than the attack submarine fleet, as you have highlighted just
with the numbers. It is a wide gap, and it is getting wider. So
every single submarine counts against closing that gap.
Why do we need that force level? Well, in the OPLANs, I
think it is safe to say in this forum, that particularly the
more stressing OPLANs in the Pacific and in the Atlantic, the
first phalanx, the first response among them are going to be
the submarine response. And they are going to go out there
early, they are going to use their stealth and speed to get
into far forward areas and really establish the conditions for
the rest of the joint force to execute their part of the
campaign.
And so right now, we are stressed to meet those
requirements just because of the force level, in particular,
combined with maintenance, and so every single submarine
counts. If you think about a submarine going out there with 26
tubes in its torpedo room and missiles on board as well and
coming back empty, it is a tremendous influence on the
battlespace there, in that asymmetric aspect of it, to open the
door for the rest of the joint force.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. And, again, just to follow up,
there has been some discussion, you know, the fact that we are
funding this sub outside the block contract program, which is
two subs a year. There has been some questions raised about
whether or not it is adding risk in terms of the Columbia
program, which obviously is happening pretty much in that same
timeframe.
I was wondering if you could just, you know, sort of
explain whether or not doing it this way, actually with
flexibility, will, in fact, maybe help de-risk the Columbia
program.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, that is exactly how I see it. And
I was up at Electric Boat just last week to have them walk me
through that from their perspective. First, I have got to say,
what a great situation, where a lot--a lot of this involves
workforce, bringing workforce on, and all of our shipbuilders,
but it was very vivid there at Electric Boat, are bringing in
so many young people. About 50 percent of the workforce has
less than 5 years of experience now, which is just such a
terrific story in terms of building those skills to do welding,
pipefitting, electricians, et cetera. So that is part of it.
They showed me their workload curves and how they are
actually going to use this to mitigate peaks and valleys,
smooth out their level of effort. If we get the flexibility to
do this, as you said, we will fund it in 2020, because the SCN
[Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy] profile is much smoother
then, and then we will execute it as a 2023 ship because that
smooths out the workforce. So the combination of that really is
almost a stabilizer rather than an increased risk.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. I appreciate that.
And then one quick question. Again, one of the initiatives
is the unmanned vessels that, again, are a part of the budget
here. And, again, I think there is enthusiastic recognition
that this is where the future is going to be headed. But in
terms of just, you know, investing upfront this year, I just
wonder if the two of you could comment a little bit in terms of
whether or not, you know, we are getting a little ahead of our
skis in terms of creating a program where the mission set isn't
quite developed yet and, you know, hopefully we won't repeat
some of the mistakes of the past.
Secretary Spencer. Let me go first on that, if I could,
then hand it over to the CNO.
Congressman, it is a great observation, but one of the
things that you have charged us with is to go smartly, go
quickly, and go intelligently. We believe that what we put
before you is the intelligent way to go. It is in size, I
completely agree with that, but we are going to experiment with
it, we are going to actually, you know, quote/unquote, break
it, figure out what to do, learn with it, and then go forward.
This is the way we go fast.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, I will just add, we are going to
leverage a lot of work that we have already done with the
Strategic Capabilities Office, particularly for the 2020 ships.
So we have got those really kind of underway.
And then for the follow-on, again, as the Secretary
discussed, leveraging mature technology and then getting after
those things with respect to autonomy and unmanned that we just
really have to explore those. And this is not a capability that
we want to cede to the adversary because it is going to be
decisive when we get it right. That is why we have parked it in
the research and development line. I think that is the
appropriate place to do work like this, where so many questions
remain to be explored.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you to all of you.
Mr. Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, I think that a hurricane hit Camp Lejeune
September 14. Is that date correct?
General Neller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Scott. How are things at Camp Lejeune now?
General Neller. There have been repairs made. The people
are back occupying those buildings that they can still occupy.
So there were two impacts, one was on the private--the public
housing or the PPV [Public Private Venture] housing. The vendor
there has fixed about 50 percent of those houses.
We have gone through and done what we could do with the
appropriations and the resources we had, and we have
reprogrammed some money, but we have come up with a list of
about 31 buildings that we believe the cost to repair exceeds
the value of the building, and it would be better off to build
new. Some of those buildings were already in the future
program. We want to bring them to the left.
But the end result is, we have a bill, if you take away the
$400 million that we got last week on reprogramming, we have a
bill of about $3.1 billion over the next 3 or 4 years, where we
think--where we need to fix the base so that we don't have to
go through this again.
Mr. Scott. Is it safe to say that things will continue to
degrade unless some type of supplemental disaster assistance or
appropriation is passed for Camp Lejeune?
General Neller. If we--well, yes, they will. Otherwise, we
are going to have to figure out how we are going to have to
self-fund this. So whether there is reprogramming done within
the Department or there is a supplemental, we don't have
insurance. The Congress is our insurance.
Mr. Scott. Yes, sir.
General Neller. So----
Mr. Scott. As is the White House. It is Congress and the
White House. It takes both to get disaster relief passed.
General Neller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Scott. Hurricane Michael hit my district, and we
haven't received disaster assistance yet either. I know Vice
President Pence, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for,
flew down there in two of your--two Marine Corps Ospreys on
October 16. We are with you and we will stay with you until we
rebuild and recover better than ever before, is the statement,
and yet to this day, we have not received a request for
disaster assistance from the Office of Management and Budget.
And I am a little taken back with what has happened at Camp
Lejeune and with the Corps and the damage and the need that you
have for a supplemental appropriations bill, as well as the Air
Force, who has basically had to take what they had in operation
and maintenance money left over and use it to rebuild as best
they can Tyndall. And now the Air Force is about to be in a
situation where they are going to be stopping flying unless
some type of supplemental appropriations is done.
Congress is about to go on vacation for 2 weeks. The White
House hasn't even submitted a request for assistance. And I am
embarrassed, quite honestly, that this job hasn't been done.
Now, to be clear, there is politics being played on the Senate
side. If the storm had hit Vermont or if the storm had hit New
York or if the storm had hit a blue State, then Senators from
New York and Vermont would not be standing in the way of this
package passing.
But have any of you talked with the White House about the
need for a supplemental disaster assistance package?
Secretary Spencer. Not directly, Congressman.
Mr. Scott. Secretary Spencer, I would suggest--I have a
tremendous amount of respect for you, I have a tremendous
amount of respect for both of you two, but I think the number
one thing you could do for the men and women in the Navy and
the Marine Corps is to speak directly with the White House
about the need for supplemental assistance.
I do not think that the President of the United States--I
do not think President Trump would be allowing Congress to go
home for 2 weeks if he--if he knew what was about to happen to
the readiness of the Air Force and the Corps. I think that he
would be challenging us on--to stay here and get this job done,
and I think that we could get beyond the petty politics in the
Senate, but--we want to be a part of the solution.
I am embarrassed that we are going home. These storms hit 7
months ago for you. They hit 6 months ago for me. Farmers in my
area are filing bankruptcy, even though they were promised
disaster assistance. It hasn't come. You guys need it just like
we do. And I hope, I hope, Secretary, that you and the other
secretaries will speak with the White House about the damage
that is going to be done by not getting a disaster relief bill
passed before we go home for Easter.
Thank you for your service.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Golden.
Mr. Golden. Thank you.
Secretary Spencer and Admiral Richardson, I want to talk
just a little bit about shipbuilding readiness for a moment.
The Navy's fiscal year 2020 report to Congress on the annual
long-range plan for construction of naval vessels noted--that
is a quote--that a healthy and efficient industrial base
continues to be the fundamental driver for achieving and
sustaining the Navy's baseline acquisition profiles and that
the shipbuilding base is a matter of national security that is
unique and must be protected.
As leaders, I know you both know from experience that
producing people with the right skill sets isn't just not
something that occurs overnight and takes a great deal of
training and instruction. So I was very pleased by your--both
of your remarks, where you put an emphasis on the importance of
education and training, as well as support for both public and
private shipyards.
And as you know, trained shipbuilders, you know, we have
got some great ones up at Bath Iron Works, and it is something
that requires some time and investment in workers. It typically
takes like 5 to 7 years of training in order to get someone to
achieve shipbuilding proficiency.
And with the Navy's plans to expand the fleet, I wanted to
hear your thoughts on what you are doing to encourage young men
and women to enter into the shipbuilding profession, and what
you are doing to help private and public shipyards with
recruitment. I think about this in regards to the younger
folks, whether they are coming out of high school or looking to
get into the trades, or even individuals like myself leaving
the service who are looking for potential career opportunities.
Anything that you are doing with the shipyards for recruitment
or training, and what can Congress do to assist and help you
reach that objective?
Secretary Spencer. Congressman, that is a great
observation, and it is happening throughout the whole
shipbuilding industry, both sides of the Mississippi. But I am
going to bring Maine out as a specific example. I was up there
right after my confirmation hearing, visiting Bath, and the
community colleges in the area there had no exposure or no
plans to have a curriculum to support what the basic skill sets
are, nor the high schools.
I was very encouraged on my last visit up a month ago to
see that both the community college and the high schools are
adopting primary skill sets and advanced curriculum in this
area.
I mean, it is across the board in the U.S., I think we have
to address this, because at the end of the day, a level three
welder and/or any other artisan in the shipbuilding, aviation
assembling field, it is a very nice career to have.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, I will just pile on to what the
Secretary said and add to my comments that this is really
something that is exciting around the Nation at every one of
our shipbuilding centers and ship repair centers as well, both
public and private.
With respect to the public shipyards, you know, oftentimes,
we are sort of drawing from the same pool, but it is really a
team effort, right? We go out as a Navy and try and recruit.
Some people want to ride and operate those ships as sailors.
Some people want to design and build those ships as
shipbuilders or ship repairers. But the apprentice programs,
the teaming with the community colleges, even down to the high
school level, they are really pulling out the stops, and they
are responding to the demand signal for more shipbuilding,
right? That is the thing that really is the most fundamental
element of this.
And so as we continue to grow the Navy, build more ships,
they are going to--they are going to have places to go after
they go through this training. So that is the most important
thing.
Mr. Golden. All right. Thank you for those thoughts. And,
you know, I think the community colleges in Maine are doing a
good job. And the unions have got some great apprenticeship
training programs. They really make an investment in the
workers and helping young people get set up for success. So I
thank you for working to help them in any way that you can.
And there is some interesting work being done in Maine with
some individuals that are starting to get into the business of
trying to recruit for the shipyard and going down, traveling
around to bases and other places to show people that there is a
good career waiting for them up in Maine. So I think there is a
lot of potential there.
Just real quickly, I wanted to give you an opportunity,
Admiral. We heard from Vice Admiral Merz about the coming
online of the Flight III DDG, and just wanted to hear your
thoughts on what that is going to do to help the fleet, both in
regards to new capabilities, but also your overall goal of
getting to a fleet of 355.
Admiral Richardson. I will tell you what, the capabilities
on the Flight III DDG, its sensors, its weapons, the whole--it
just has a battlespace control that is going to add a
tremendous amount of capability, not only as a single ship, but
in concert with the rest of the ships and the strike group and
the fleet. And so as we think about distributing maritime
operations, that type of capability is key. The fact that we
are leveraging the learning curve that we have got already on
the DDG 51 class and just modernizing that is also a benefit.
And then we are looking for the next thing as well. Because
with the Flight III, the DDG is about maxed out. Not a whole
lot more room to expand beyond that. And so working with
industry, just as the Secretary said, to bring them in early,
to make sure we have as smooth a transition to the next large
surface combatant.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you.
Mr. Byrne for 5 minutes.
Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Richardson and General Neller, I just want to say
how much I appreciate your service to our country, and I want
to tell you how much I appreciate your work with this committee
and with me personally. It has been an honor, a pleasure to
know you and to work with you, and we wish you the best of luck
in the years to come.
Mr. Secretary, you have been very gracious in all the time
you spent with me as you have heard my worries about the small
surface combatant program, and I am very pleased to see that we
are making the shift to the frigate in this year's budget. So I
know you have worked very hard on that, and thank you.
I do continue to be concerned about the price point,
because we now, on the initial ship, are up to almost $1.3
billion with additional requirements. And so what I worry about
is, you know, when we start getting these defense--these
acquisition programs, the costs up like this, we tend to cut
back on the numbers. So are we still aiming for $800 million on
the follow-on ships and still trying to get to 20?
Secretary Spencer. That is correct, Congressman. If
anything--and I share your consternation. We have, as you know,
five robust platforms that we are going to be entertaining,
which makes this probably one of the most competitive platform
acquisition programs that we will have. So we are quite excited
about that. We look at the learning curves on those hulls that
are already out there, and they are very impressive.
The reason I pause for a second is that I read the latest
GAO [U.S. Government Accountability Office] report on the
Columbia, and one of the things the Navy is criticized for is
not--not estimating the costs in an appropriate manner, that we
underestimated. I am hoping, and I am pretty confident, that
the number that we are projecting here is the first ship
number, and it is going to be a conservative number, but we are
definitely driving for the $800 million number.
Mr. Byrne. Well, good, because I don't think you are going
to get to 20 if you jump it up much higher than 800. You know
all the competition for the other ships that we are trying to
construct. So please forgive me if I don't continue to bring
that up. It is just a continued concern of mine.
Secretary Spencer. Please do.
Mr. Byrne. Yes, I will. I will.
General Neller, I had the privilege of leading the past
group that went out to RIMPAC [Rim of the Pacific Exercise]
last summer, and we were looking forward to getting under way
on the Bonhomme Richard, but couldn't because it couldn't sail.
We were also supposed to have the Boxer out there, but it
couldn't participate. I am concerned about the amphibious
program and our readiness. Do I have a legitimate concern? Do
you have a concern about where we are on the amphib program?
General Neller. We worked really hard with the Navy on the
maintenance processes for amphib ships, and there is a--I
believe the Navy has a backlog on a number of platforms for
maintenance. So, yes, we are concerned about the availability
of these platforms. This is not something that happened
overnight. And we have been funding maintenance and readiness
at a higher level. So we are hoping to see a better
availability of these ships, but it is something that the CNO
and I talk about, and he is tracking all this, as we are,
making sure that the platforms we do have are available and
they have the mods [modifications] and other changes they need.
So we are not where we want to be, but we are continuing to
work on it.
Mr. Byrne. Thank you, General.
Admiral, we continue to hear more and more about China and
its naval operations, and presently around an island that is in
dispute or--an island or rock--that is in dispute between it
and the Philippines. Can you enlighten us where we are on that.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, I think the word for--the one word
I would use to characterize that is consistency. Our actions
are consistent with our words in that that is a very important
body of water, the South China Sea. And about one-third of the
world's trade goes through there, and so we have got tremendous
national interest in making sure that that trade flows freely
through there unthreatened.
We have been consistently present in that part of the world
for 70 years, and we are going to remain consistently present
there, and continue to advocate with our allies for free and
open seas so that we fly, sail, and operate wherever
international law allows.
Mr. Byrne. And I assume that the shipbuilding plan that you
have submitted is your best estimate about what you are going
to need short term, near term, and long term, to keep up with
or stay ahead of the threat from the Chinese?
Admiral Richardson. It is exactly--addresses that strategy
in every single hull. Right? It is a very strategically
informed budget. And so all of--you know, the entire budget
really is leaning in that direction, yes, sir.
Mr. Byrne. Well, I thank you both--all three of you for
what you do. I think it is tremendously important to the
defense of the country. And I certainly want to give my full
support to all of your efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Norcross.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman.
And I want to echo the previous statements of thanking all
of you for your service, and wish you well as you move on in
life. I know you won't go far.
Secretary Spencer and Admiral Richardson, according to
naval aviation long-term tactical aircraft inventory plans, 50/
50 split is the percentage you are looking at between fourth-
and fifth-generation fighters with the F-35C. The rationale
between that 50/50 split across the entire globe, can you
explain to us why you came up with the 50/50 split?
Secretary Spencer. I will take a first cut at that,
Congressman, and then offer the CNO to dive in also.
In the job here that I wear, wearing the title 10 hat, it
is portfolio management. Obviously, I would love to have every
single thing that I asked for, but I can't have it. When it
comes to bringing the F-35 into the Navy fight, this is the
most efficient and effective way that we believe we could do
it, which is basically to feather in the F-35 Charlie,
augmented by the Super Hornets, and that is both Super Hornet
new and the SLEP [service life extension program] program for
the Super Hornet. So eventually we are getting to 100 percent
fifth gen.
We also have to figure in that we have the next-generation
fighter, which we are now just beginning to do some analysis
on, and that should be brought into the argument also.
Mr. Norcross. After the F-35, you are actually doing that
analysis 30 years ahead or 20 years?
Secretary Spencer. Yes, we are starting it now.
Mr. Norcross. Admiral Richardson.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, I would just echo what the
Secretary said. I think he captured it completely. If you look
at the capability of the future air wing, it is going to
include that mixture of fourth and fifth gen, each of which
contributes uniquely to the airpower of that air wing.
And then, of course, we are bringing in the unmanned tanker
as well, so that we extend the range of that air wing and allow
strike fighter aircraft to do the strike fighter mission
instead of the tanking mission. And so it is really, you know,
a whole air wing approach as we move forward.
Mr. Norcross. So as you move forward to 2030 and you start
dealing with the near-peer competitors, particularly in the
East China Sea, do you see that ratio changing over the course
of the next 20 years?
Admiral Richardson. We are going to stick with what we have
got right now, sir, and we will learn as we go forward. And
then as the Secretary said, we are already looking at what it
is going to take to maintain air dominance, even beyond fifth
generation, and so we have got to start introducing that
capability in the 2030s, and so it is time to get thinking
about that now.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Norcross.
Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
Secretary Spencer, your Navy cyber review, I believe, ID'd
[identified] contractors as a huge vulnerability, really, the
soft underbelly of Navy cybersecurity. Just to follow up on
what Representative Langevin talked about, could you please
comment on the severity of the contractor threat? And if you
would also address, I believe you are proposing a fifth
assistant secretary for cybersecurity. The Navy already
obviously has a CIO [chief information officer]. You have an
OPNAV [Office of the Chief of Naval Operations] cybersecurity
division run by a two-star. So the proposal, I think, begs the
question, what are those existing positions not empowered to do
that you believe an assistant secretary for cyber would be able
to do?
Secretary Spencer. To answer your two questions,
Congressman, yes, one of the most vulnerable Achilles' heels we
have is our supplier base, and that--I think you appreciate
that ranges from Fortune 100 companies, Fortune 50 companies,
on down to--I will use the term ``mom and pop,'' the small
business world. We have to be able to encompass and provide
them avenues to protect our data.
One reason that we are going to the cloud, the cloud allows
that ability to provide an avenue for some smaller organization
to be encrypted, to be protected, without encumbering a lot of
costs on them. That is one of the things we are after.
When it comes to the fifth assistant secretary, that will
be the compilation of what we have in the organization already
at the secretariat level. And to remind you, secretariat level
is more a policy performer, and then the services themselves
are the tactical and actors. So we will be a support mechanism
for that, providing the structure and the gray matter needed to
actually put the policy out there and assist in the creation of
the infrastructure around it.
Mr. Gallagher. And just--yes, Admiral?
Admiral Richardson. If I could, sir, I would just add on
that we have taken some very near-term actions already, even
before the cybersecurity study, in terms of tightening up the
contractual relationship with a lot of those partners in the
defense industrial base. And so encrypting their data at rest
and in transit, two-person--two-method authentication,
increasing the transparency into their systems, the oversight
of those systems, the response of those systems, and so we are
moving out with urgency here.
Mr. Gallagher. And, Admiral Richardson, if I could, the
National Defense Strategy obviously has this massive conceptual
shift towards prioritizing great power competition: China,
China, China, and then Russia a distant second. But contained
within that is this further conceptual shift away from reliance
primarily on deterrence by punishment to doing more of
deterrence by denial. How has that changed--sort of that big
conceptual shift in that document changed the way the Navy is
doing business, and what role will the future frigate play in
conducting deterrence by denial in the Indo-Pacific region?
Admiral Richardson. Well, I would say that our conceptual
approach to that, articulated in the Navy strategy, the design
for maintaining maritime operations, is distributed maritime
operations. And so the fundamental thesis of this is that we
are going to complicate any adversary's targeting problem by
distributing the platforms and the fleet, keeping that very
distributed and dynamic, but having a network that would allow
us to mass effects, whether--payloads, if you will, kinetic and
nonkinetic.
I will tell you what, the frigate is going to contribute
tremendously. It is going to pack a wallop, and it is going to
allow us to get out there with a number of platforms and
exercise this distributed maritime operations concept.
Mr. Gallagher. And then to follow up on that, General
Neller, can you walk us through how you think U.S. withdrawal
from the INF [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty might
affect your role in that fight and specifically your EABO
[Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations] concepts?
General Neller. If we have the ability to deliver surface
fires beyond the range that we are restricted by in INF, that
will put us in a better position vis-a-vis other adversaries
out there. So in the EABO, Expeditionary Advanced Base Ops, we
believe, in conjunction with fleet operations and a naval
campaign, that we can use a land force to help control the
maritime space. And so the longer range we have, the better
opportunity we have to control greater pieces of the maritime
space.
So if you look at the critical geography on the globe,
whether they are maritime choke points, you know, and they are
obviously where they are, if you control those and you have the
ability to reach out and dominate the sea space from the land
in support of the fleet, and from the air, I think it gives you
an operational advantage, and that is what we are going to try
to do with these capabilities that we are going to develop. So
we are lockstep with a lot of the weaponry, development that
the Army's doing, what the Navy's doing, with long-range anti-
ship missiles and other things. There is capabilities out
there, and we hope to field those and make that part of the
naval campaign.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you. I am out of time. But I think it
also means we are going to have to teach a generation of young
Marines what sea denial and sea control means and refresh that.
General Neller. I think we will be able to do that, because
historically, the seizure and securing of advanced naval bases
in support of the naval campaign is what we have historically
done. We haven't done it the last 17 years, as you rightly
acknowledge and you know yourself, but I think that is going to
be part of the education and training process, and we are
moving out on that.
Mr. Gallagher. Absolutely. And thank you both for your
service.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher.
Congresswoman Hill.
Ms. Hill. Thank you. And thank you all for being here.
Great to see you.
Admiral Richardson, I hear a lot of talk about a bigger
Navy and the need for the 355 ships, but I wanted to hear more
about the creating a ready Navy, what is being done differently
after the McCain and Fitzgerald incidents and, you know, to
make sure that our destroyers are getting the maintenance they
need. Can you talk a little bit about that?
Admiral Richardson. Sure, yes, ma'am. First and foremost,
with respect to the 7th Fleet, which is where we had our
trouble, the most important thing we have done is just return
schedule discipline to the force. Admiral Sawyer out there, the
7th Fleet commander, Admiral Aquilino, the Pacific Fleet
commander, are supporting this with vigor.
And so what this really means practically is that we don't
send a warship out to do a mission until it has been trained
and certified to do that mission and we have provided adequate
time and oversight to make sure that they are ready to go.
Backing that up, we stood up a new command out there in
Japan, to make sure that there is an onsite advocate for force
generation so that we get to that level of readiness, and that
is stood up and working very well.
And then as we go into deeper matters, we have adjusted the
training profile for each of those ships. We are moving
simulators, high-end simulators out to each of the fleet
concentration areas, especially and including our forward-
deployed naval forces, and then we have changed the career path
for surface warfare officers to make sure that they get better
and more training as they go through their career.
Ms. Hill. So do you feel like the maintenance needs are
being met for the destroyers or----
Admiral Richardson. I will tell you, maintenance has been a
topic of conversation here at the hearing all morning, and it
is probably our remaining, most complicated Gordian knot to
untie. And so we have got everything leaning into this. We are
using the same practices that we used to improve in aircraft
maintenance, going out into the private sector to look at best
practices. We are starting to use a very data-centric approach.
There has been some good progress made in maintenance, but we
have still got a ways to go.
Ms. Hill. Thank you. Okay. So then this is in a different
direction, but my brother is enlisted already. He is scheduled
to go out for boot at the end of May, so very excited about
that. But I was hoping you could talk about what the Navy's
doing to hit its future recruitment targets. I know you
mentioned earlier that there is as many as a 6,500-billet
shortage. So anything you can talk about there?
Admiral Richardson. I will tell you what, ma'am, knock on
wood, but both the Commandant and I have enjoyed the fact that
we have hit our recruiting targets for probably the last 12
years, and on a month-by-month basis. And I think that has a
lot to do with the same factors that you are seeing in your
family, in terms of what draws our Nation's young people to the
service. It is as competitive a space as I have got anywhere,
is the competition for talent.
The recruiting team is doing great work. We are using some
very new techniques, kind of web-based approaches to this. It
is part of our transformation of our personnel and pay system.
And that is--that is yielding some pretty good results. I will
tell you what, also, once you arrive at boot camp, it is a
completely different scenario. You are going to learn
resilience. You are going to learn so many skills that we have
actually made it tougher, but we have done it in a way that we
are actually retaining more people. The graduation rate is
higher, even after we have made those adjustments, because we
are teaching people how to manage that stress in a much more
effective way.
And then finally, we have to stay true to our values,
which, I think, is the thing that attracts our young people
more than anything else.
Ms. Hill. So if the recruitment targets are being met,
where are those shortages coming from, the 6,500 shortages?
Admiral Richardson. This is really a leftover, if you will,
from a shortage that we experienced in recruiting in 2016. And
so as you think about that divot moving through time, it is
going to be with us until it passes through the senior ranks.
But that is where we are. The most recent recruiting numbers
have been much better. And we are going to see this recover, I
think, in the next year or two.
Ms. Hill. Great. Thank you very much.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Ms. Hill.
And, Admiral, I was just out at Great Lakes Training Center
and saw the transformation that Admiral Bernacchi has brought
out there, and everything you described is absolutely true. The
morale and enthusiasm was off the chart, and he was making it
tougher.
Mr. Cook.
Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, Admiral, I am going to be sorry to see you retire.
For General Neller, I understand you are going out to Las Vegas
and with Buck Bedard open up a casino. Is that correct?
General Neller. No, Congressman, that is not correct.
Mr. Cook. Just you, huh?
Anyway, I did want to talk about amphibious ships and the
fact that two of them were cut out of the budget, correct me if
I'm wrong, LPDs [amphibious transport dock ships]. How much of
an impact is that going to have on commitments?
General Neller. There was LPD Flight II and an LHA
[amphibious assault ship], which were moved to the right in
this--in the program. So we have discussed--and there was
advanced procurement money provided by the Congress for both of
those platforms. And so in discussions yesterday and with other
hearings, we believe, with incremental funding, if that was
permitted by the Congress, that we could probably bring those
back to the left.
Are they important? Yes. We still have a requirement for 38
amphib ships, we believe 12 big decks and 26 LPD similar hull
forms. And so we would like to get to 38 ships. And so--but
there is other competing requirements, I understand that.
Obviously, we believe that amphibs obviously are critically
important to Marines, but submarines are important to Marines,
too, because if we don't have submarines, we are not going to
get to the fight. And so I have to be, as a member of the Joint
Chiefs, I have to be operationally intellectually honest about
that. But as a Marine, we need both, more platforms, and we
need more availability from the platforms we have.
So I believe if we work with the Congress on being able to
spend this advanced procurement with some incremental funding,
I think we can move for sure the LPD Flight II hull form, get
it sooner than where it is in the program.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, if I could just pile on to my
partner here, is we see it the exact same way. Even with these
adjustments, we are going to have 36 amphibious ships at the
end of the 5-year program, in fiscal year 2024, against a
requirement for 38. So we are taking this very seriously.
With that incremental funding authority, we could get
started on that LPD as soon as we get those authorities and
maybe even do better than that.
Mr. Cook. I wanted to address something that is often, I
think, forgotten in the budget, and that is the Mountain
Warfare Training Center. And you know this thing has been
around since the fifties, a reaction to the Korean war. I think
it is a great training area. I was there many, many years ago,
and there is a certain part of my exterior that still hasn't
thawed out since the sixties, I guess I was there.
The problem--I was there recently and very, very concerned
about the fire danger. As you know, you can still see the red
lines where the planes--it was very, very close. And the--the
other problem is they had a great exercise up there, but I was
concerned with the helicopters and everything else, because
there is no security for those things. You got to have troops
out there, that road that they have, that goes--it is like 50
miles away--or excuse me, it is like maybe 50, 100 meters away
from where the helicopters were set for the evening during that
exercise.
So I am just hoping that we can work with the Park Service,
the Forestry Service, and straighten out that road, whether we
have to get money or what have you. And if you could--I am
going to be studying it more and more, and any suggestions you
have, because it has been like that for too long. And sooner or
later, we are going to have a problem there with fires or
interlopers with some very expensive equipment. And they--great
exercise, I thought it was fantastic. But any comments on that?
I don't have----
General Neller. Congressman, I was just up there and they
briefed me on that northern part of the training area they want
to open up and the particular road you are referring to. So I
will get back to you with whatever particular initiatives that
we need, and maybe you can help us with the Park Service to be
able to improve that road and be able to open up that training
area, at least for maneuver, and also, so we can get into the
training area from a different direction in case we have an
issue that we need to address. But I will owe you that, and I
will get back to you on that.
Mr. Cook. I appreciate it. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Cook.
Congresswoman Luria.
Mrs. Luria. Well, thank you, gentlemen, for being here
today. One of the things that strikes me the most when I look
at the budget is the changes year over year to a 30-year
shipbuilding plan, and I am just trying to wrap my head around
why there are so many changes in just 1 year. A few examples.
In last year's 30-year shipbuilding plan, we had no cruiser
decommissionings through 2023, this year we have 6; we had 3
minesweeper decommissionings, now we have 11; we are going to
decommission a carrier halfway through its 50-year life cycle;
and the ship-to-shore connector, we have gone from 8 to zero.
I would assume when we generate a 30-year shipbuilding
plan, that it would be pretty consistent year over year in the
nearest years, and the way I see a 20-year shipbuilding plan at
this point, it is like the Navy's vision 2050. And if that
vision changes every year, do we really have a clear vision?
An example I will get from a hearing. In 2015, Rear Admiral
Manazir, the air boss, said, and I quote, this force structure
assessment--he was talking about the 2014 one--is sized for a
U.S. Navy force to conduct a complex, multiphased campaign
against a high-end adversary in one region and to deter or
impose costs in another region. This force is designed to do
that all the way to 2030.
So that force structure was 308. The next year in the new
force structure assessment, we said it was 355. And as we know,
we are pending a new force structure assessment which you have
stated is going to even have a higher number. So why are there
so many changes year over year? And do we really have a long-
term vision towards 2050 for the Navy?
Admiral Richardson. Ma'am, I think the answer to both of
those questions is, yes, we have a long-term vision. What has
happened since 2016, I think, is indicative of just exactly how
fast and quickly our--both the security environment is changing
and also the technology landscape is changing. So each one of
those platforms that you mentioned has its own justification.
We are going to continue to assess the cruisers. We are
going to not propose them for life extension, but we are going
to take this year and study that to see if it is a good return
on the taxpayers' investment, given the warfighting punch that
they bring.
With respect to the mine countermeasure ships, we are going
to----
Mrs. Luria. So just in the interest of time, not to go line
by line. It was really about a bigger vision, not----
Admiral Richardson. We do have a vision, but we also are
operating in an extremely dynamic security and technology
environment. And so I think that is why we are doing the force
structure assessment.
I would just say that I don't think I have predicted it is
going to be higher or lower. I really am letting that run----
Mrs. Luria. Okay. Well, I will look forward to those
results.
So, Secretary Spencer, so one of the main things that
concerns me is the continuous change and churn that we have
within the Navy. In my own 20-year career, for example, the
surface warfare training pipeline changed four times. Again, I
think an indication of no real vision. And, you know, we did
have the terrible collisions in the Pacific in 2017, and we are
implementing corrective actions for that part of our training.
But I see the same thing in this year's budget and shipbuilding
plan, more change, more churn. And I understand that technology
changes, our potential adversaries change, as do their
capabilities, but what do you think about the fact that it
appears to the outside observer that the Navy doesn't have a
shipbuilding plan that can stand for more than 1 year without
significant changes?
Secretary Spencer. It doesn't bother me whatsoever,
Congresswoman, because the fact of the matter is, we are
adapting to the changes around us. The fact that we have
accidents in the Pacific and we make a change to correct it,
that is change; I don't think that is churn. I would hope that
you would want me to be running at full speed, and when I run
at full speed, I am going to adapt and adopt and experiment as
much as I can.
Mrs. Luria. Okay. So, Admiral Richardson, with regards to
the OFRP [Optimized Fleet Response Plan], CVN 77 [USS George
H.W. Bush aircraft carrier] recently entered Norfolk Naval
Shipyard for a 28-month availability. Was 28 months ever part
of the planned OFRP cycle?
Admiral Richardson. Ma'am, it was originally in for a 16-
month. That is what it was planned for.
Mrs. Luria. Okay. And so Ike also finished their
maintenance availability a year late recently, and they were
the first to go through an OFRP cycle. Is that correct?
Admiral Richardson. They were one of the first. But I will
tell you that this 28 is really a recognition that there is
some emergent material issues that we have got to do that were
not part of the original plan, and so we are recognizing that.
Mrs. Luria. Are you able to consistently provide a two-
plus-three carrier presence over the FYDP [Future Years Defense
Program]?
Admiral Richardson. For the most part, yes. Sometimes
maintenance prevents us from doing that, but we are certainly
striving towards that by the end of the FYDP.
Mrs. Luria. So is the OFRP producing the deployed presence
that was envisioned and testified to this committee in 2015?
Because at that time, in the same hearing that we are having
now, everyone affirmed the minimum number of carriers to
produce an acceptable level of risk is 11. So why in the 30-
year shipbuilding plan do you not maintain, as required by law,
the 11 carriers?
Admiral Richardson. I think that with respect to the Truman
overhaul I think is where your question is centering, is we
have to consider that as sort of a number of interrelated
things. One is that we are biased towards naval power, and that
that naval power may be maximized by some of these new
technologies that are coming down right around the corner. The
Harry S. Truman also delivers a tremendous amount of naval
power. Resolving all that is being evaluated in this force
structure assessment that you have referred to, as well as the
combatant commanders updating their OPLANs. When we see those
OPLANs and that assessment done, we are in a perfect position
to respond to----
Mrs. Luria. As I see, we are out of time.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Okay. I think our time's run out.
So, thank you, Congresswoman.
Mr. Gaetz.
Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Spencer, my constituents in Pensacola love their
Blue Angels. I am hopeful that your budget fully supports the
Blue Angels.
Secretary Spencer. It does this time, sir, yes.
Mr. Gaetz. And would you comment about the role that the
Blue Angels play and how important they are in the overall
Navy?
Secretary Spencer. Blue Angels are one of our key
recruiting tools for the United States Navy. The Blue Angels,
in concert with our TACDEMO [Tactical Demonstration] legacy
flights, really are one of the go-getters when we go out to
airshows to help the recruiting effort.
Mr. Gaetz. We are proud of them.
I would have to say, Admiral Richardson, I am a little less
proud of how we have dealt with some of these physiological
episodes and how we have dealt with some of the training
deaths. Would you comment on how the budget we have now leans
into a solution set so that we don't continue to have those,
particularly on the [T-45] Goshawk.
Admiral Richardson. Yeah. I think that--first, I want to
come and brief you, because I think when you get the details,
you would be proud that we have attacked this from a
multidisciplinary approach, not only in the Navy, but we have
employed NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration],
the private industry, and just about everybody who can help us
here. We have employed the diving community to help us
understand this better.
It is about as complicated a problem as you can describe,
the interface between a high-performance aircraft and a human
body, but we are stepping through in a very disciplined way. We
have seen, in general, the trend of those physiological
episodes go down, in some cases almost being eliminated from
certain type/model/series, and we look forward to making future
progress.
Mr. Gaetz. I look forward to that briefing. One of the
concerns I have is that when I visited NAS [Naval Air Station]
Pensacola, only one of the training simulators had a hypoxia-
enabled OBOG [On-Board Oxygen Generation] system. And what I
heard from the leadership and the students there is that if all
the students know that there is but one simulator that has the
hypoxia simulation, then it misses the point of training
students how to diagnose a physiological episode and then deal
with their emergency protocols.
Is there any thought given to how we train those students
to react to those symptoms? And is it your view that maybe
having more than one trainer with the hypoxia-enabled OBOG
system might assist in that training?
Admiral Richardson. I will say that a consistent approach
to us responding to this is to increase the training across the
entire naval aviation enterprise in terms of how pilots
recognize and respond to a potential physiological episode in
the air. I am not sure exactly how the trainer in Florida
relates to that----
Mr. Gaetz. Well, no. You would understand, though, that if
there is sort of one system with that feature and the other
systems don't have that feature, then you would expect that
feature in the system that you knew had it and not in the
systems that didn't. Just as sort of a commonsense reaction
from some of the students. So I hope you will take that into
consideration as the Navy continues to address the problem.
I wanted to shift gears and follow up on Mr. Langevin's
questions about climate change. Admiral Richardson, what
elements in the budget that the Navy's presented would we look
to to say that they acknowledge the challenges associated with
climate change, that they lay out a strategy to deal with it?
Admiral Richardson. Sir, thank you. I would point to our
MILCON budget, first and foremost, and the guidance that we
have put out that anything new that is built has to be
considerate of potential sea-level rises and other factors of
climate change. We are also working very closely, not just, you
know, isolating to the on-base problem, but working closely
with local communities. Because typically, we are right there
with our neighbors in places like San Diego, Norfolk in
particular, and other places.
Mr. Gaetz. Yeah.
Admiral Richardson. So it is the MILCON budget where I
would point you.
Mr. Gaetz. Appreciate that on basing. But for years, I have
heard my colleague, Mr. Garamendi, mention the impacts of
climate change on the permissibility of the environment in the
Arctic. We have heard chiefs from the Air Force and the Army
testify that climate change impacts the permissibility of
various environments, and they specifically referenced the
Arctic. Do you similarly hold that view, or is there a
different view you hold?
Admiral Richardson. No, I think we probably are first among
equals in terms of the impact. Sea lanes are open now that
weren't open before. Continental shelves are exposed now that
weren't open before. The Arctic ice cap is as small as it has
been in our lifetime. That is why we are invested up there. We
took the Harry S. Truman strike group north of the Arctic
Circle last year for the first time since 1991. We have had a
consistent submarine program, including ICEX [Ice Exercise]
last year, where we surfaced two U.S. submarines and a British
submarine through the ice. We have a robust program of
exercises that we have been conducting and plan to continue to
conduct in the Arctic to make sure that we can operate up
there.
Mr. Gaetz. Is it fair to say, then, that you are having to
react to the impacts of climate change in real time as they
impact environments that our adversaries are interested in?
Admiral Richardson. Absolutely fair.
Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Gaetz.
Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Gaetz, thank you for raising that issue,
it saves me the time, and we do pay attention to polar security
cutters. Thank you.
Secretary Spencer, thank you for sharing information and
time.
Admiral Richardson, the same, you have been very
forthcoming. I appreciate it.
General Neller, I think you and I--not you, but I will be
visiting your folks at Lejeune a little later this afternoon,
in fact, shortly after this question ends. With regard to Camp
Lejeune, we have had a full discussion. We will have more as a
result of the visit that we will--Mr. Lamborn and I will be
making today.
General Neller, you have spoken to the issue of the
deployment of your troops to the border wall and the readiness
issues that have occurred as a result of that. I would
appreciate, later, more information about specificity,
specifically what you were referring to, both----
Now, with regard to the issue that Mr. Wilson raised with
regard to sealift, we need to revisit the current NDAA
[National Defense Authorization Act], as we prepare for the
next NDAA, and be really drilling down on what ships are going
to be needed sooner than later. You mentioned this, Admiral
Richardson. A particular concern of mine is information that
was given to us with regard to specialty ships that service
other ships and that they seem to be aging out sooner than
later. So I would like to have more full information on that
and try to design that into the current NDAA and the timing
issues surrounding that. So if you could give that information
to us.
Finally, with regard to MILCON, there is no way that we can
avoid the fact that $6- to $8 billion is likely to be taken out
of the current MILCON programs if the President is successful
with his program. We need to know soon, like now, what programs
are at risk, given the President's desire to take that money
and spend it on the border wall. So for all three of you, if
you could immediately, like when we return after the Easter
recess, have that information in hand.
We do know that a billion dollars has already been taken
out of the defense budget to be used on four--three contracts.
The legality of that is questionable, but nonetheless, that
appears to have happened. We will be looking at that. So a
billion dollars is already gone.
So I want to have very specific information, upon our
return, as to what projects are at risk. And I think it is a
fool's errand to assume that that money will be replaced in the
coming appropriations. So that is money that is likely not to
be available in the future, and we need to know the impact of
it. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Courtney [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Waltz.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I specifically want to thank both of your families,
Admiral, General, for--you know, thank you--it is probably safe
to say you are both in your dream jobs right now but your
families have borne the brunt of your service, and I always
want to keep the families in mind.
I want to talk a bit about the submarine threat, Admiral
Richardson. The evolution of the Chinese and Russian, my
understanding in simple terms, Chinese are really ramping up
production in numbers, the Russians in terms of approaching
parity in quality.
Can you share with us some of the successes you have had in
tracking the recent out-of-area submarine deployments by the
Chinese and the Russians? I understand that the P-8 has been
instrumental, its sonobuoy processing capabilities are critical
to that success. And then if you could talk to me about
sonobuoys in your funded and in your unfunded priorities.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, I mean, what I think I need to do
is come back and give you a classified brief on that. It is
almost impossible to talk about that in an unclassified forum.
Mr. Waltz. Fair enough.
Admiral Richardson. But I will say that, in this venue,
that ASW [anti-submarine warfare] has really become a team
sport. It involves not only submarines but also surface ships,
their towed array sonars, their radars. And then as you
mentioned, the P-8s and their sonobuoys. It all works together
as a team. And we are getting more and more participation with
our allies who can keep with us at that high end as well.
With respect to sonobuoys, it is like every other--it is
like a piece of ordnance. You know, you expend it and it is
done, and you need to kind of keep replenishing that. And as we
continue to ramp up our capability, we are finding that we need
to replace those sonobuoys at an increasing rate, and so our
budget supports that.
Mr. Waltz. Great. In terms of--again, sticking to the
Chinese and where they are going, a number of studies that I
have read, they are producing--and setting the qualitative
parts of this aside, we are looking at two to three ships to
one in terms of their production. I mean, that is one of the
largest shipbuilding--they have one of the largest shipbuilding
capabilities in the world by far. As you are looking at your
studies and in your study on the force structure, isn't there
kind of a quality to quantity in and of itself in looking at
the high-low mix and looking at the cost savings of
refurbishing frigates, in particular at a fraction of the cost?
So if these trends continue, do you agree with the assessments
that, quantitatively, the Chinese will be on parity by 2030 and
qualitatively--actually, I would say quantitatively exceed,
qualitatively approaching parity by 2030?
Admiral Richardson. Well, certainly, they are the number
one shipbuilder in the world, right? And so from a quantitative
standpoint, it is, you know----
Mr. Waltz. Maybe you can just add to your comment. You had
mentioned some incentives that you are looking at increasing
our shipbuilding, domestic shipbuilding capability.
Admiral Richardson. I would be willing to participate in a
discussion to do everything we can to incentivize and increase
domestic shipbuilding for--I think it is a national strategic
imperative. And so there is a number of things that we might be
able to do. And, you know, I would look forward to the
discussion, sir.
And then with respect to the qualitative, I think we are
going to continue to do our best to stay ahead, from a
qualitative standpoint, from any other navy in the world.
Secretary Spencer. Congressman, just to add some of that
that is going to inform our discussions. Our acquisition and
sustainment arm, through Secretary Geurts, is actually doing a
what happens when the balloon goes up with industry? We are
having a forum that read, you know, America's arsenal of the
Freedom--the Freedom's Forge. It is that whole concept of what
would happen to capacity and what could our suppliers expect to
do if, in fact, we really surged the demand. That is happening
the end of May. It is going to be interesting. We will let you
know.
Mr. Waltz. [Inaudible] new investments in modernizing the
Reserve Fleet which is sitting around 40 to 45 years. How are
we going to address that and how is the Navy--I mean, I
understand it is not the sexy end of shipbuilding. But just
assure this committee that you are taking that seriously.
Secretary Spencer. Totally. This is square in my
wheelhouse. Again, it comes to portfolio management. And I
don't say that apologetically. That is how we are trying to
balance this whole investment process, Congressman. The CNO
gave you the overview.
One of the things that I would love to plant as an ask is
the ability to buy more foreign, used. Yes, we need to get our
shipbuilding muscles back in shape. But in the immediacy, you
have given me the ability to buy two and then go forward with
CHAMPs [Common Hull Auxiliary Multi-mission Platforms], and
then I can buy three more.
I would like to have more of the ability to have X dollars
in an account and go out to the marketplace and buy as much as
I could with that money.
Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you, Mr. Waltz.
And the MARAD [Maritime Administration] actually is going
to be coming out with its maritime policy, which hasn't been
updated since the 1930s. And we are certainly going to have a
hearing at Seapower when that day comes, shortly, hopefully.
Now I would like to recognize the ranking member on the
Seapower Subcommittee, my friend Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Spencer, Admiral Richardson, General Neller,
thank you so much for joining us. And, Admiral Richardson,
General Neller, thanks so much for your leadership, for your
vision, and for your direction in your tenures there as chiefs.
We appreciate that tremendously. I think you have really moved
the ball forward for our Nation's Navy and Marines Corps, and
we appreciate that. Created a legacy for many years to come.
General Neller, I want to build on some comments that you
have made concerning the devastation at Camp Lejeune from
Hurricane Florence. As you pointed out, significant impact
there; $3.6 billion of damage, $2 billion going towards
demolition and rebuilding of those buildings, $1.3 billion
going to fixing existing buildings, and about $300,000 going to
fix IT [information technology] systems and other repairs. So
pretty significant.
Your comment was this specifically. You said, if the Marine
Corps had to fund that through its existing military
construction budget, it would take that budget in its entirety
for about 4 years. That is a tremendous impact.
I want to get your perspective. Where does that leave not
only Camp Lejeune operationally, but where does it leave the
operational capability of II MEF [Marine Expeditionary Force]
in its ability to respond to crises? Because, you know, we can
look at buildings and those sorts of things and really just
make it about bricks and mortar, or we can really talk about
what does it do to affect operational capabilities. So could
you give us that perspective on where things are with the
Marines Corps?
General Neller. Well, Congressman, I appreciate the
question. Obviously, II MEF remains in operational capable
headquarters in a command element and the Marines and their
families that live and train and operate out of there are ready
to go today. They are operating in a degraded environment, and
we expect to do that when we forward deploy in an expeditionary
scenario. We don't necessarily expect to do that when we are at
home station.
So over a period of time, I think it will--it could affect
a lot of things. It could affect retention. It could affect our
ability--some of the ranges and training areas have been
degraded, the beach area and access to the beach. You know, the
shoreline on the east coast is changing over time because of
all the storms we have had. So it affects our ability to use
that beach, because that is a training beach. So some of the
range areas, I think, are back in business, because we had to
clear some areas.
So the impact on the New River and the Cherry Point side,
you are operating in hangars where the office spaces and the
planning spaces are degraded. And so, you know, we expect our
folks, when they forward deploy, to operate in austere
conditions. We don't necessarily expect them to operate in that
environment when they're at home station.
So they are willing to put up with it for a while if they
know there is a remedy coming, and we need to be able to offer
them that remedy. This is not just an All-Volunteer Force. It
is an all-recruited and all-retained force, and we need to
provide them some level of capability at home station. It
doesn't have to be perfect, but it has got to be better than
what we got down at Lejeune right now.
Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you, General Neller.
Secretary Spencer, I wanted to get your perspective on some
comments that have been made by members of this committee with
some concerns about what has happened recently. Their comments
have been about taking away reprogramming authority. And as we
know, reprogramming authority gives some flexibility, and we
were just talking about the impact of the storms on Camp
Lejeune, on Tyndall Air Force Base. So I wanted to get your
perspective.
How would you see the impact in your role and your
capability there in making the necessary adjustments for a
Navy-Marine Corps team if that reprogramming authority was
completely taken away from you?
Secretary Spencer. Congressman, as I know you appreciate,
because we walked through this before, when we assemble the
budget, we try to make it as tight and as focused as possible.
But in the ever-changing world that we deal with, there is
continual adjustments that have to be made, whether it be the
purchase of armaments, whether it be maintenance, which is one
of my biggest reprogramming drivers. It would be devastating to
lose the reprogramming capability, sir.
Mr. Wittman. Gotcha. Very good.
Admiral Richardson, I wanted to build a little bit on your
comments on the fiscal year 2020 budget and how your focus is
on preserving the industrial base. I think that is absolutely
critical. But if you look at that, you see that there are no
requests for additional construction for amphibious ships.
Ship-to-shore connectors were taken out; we heard that referred
to earlier. CVN 75 refueling.
So the question becomes, if we are really about maintaining
the industrial base as well as building that capacity, it does
seem to be somewhat of a contradiction with those missing
elements of what is in the budget request to your efforts to
say that, you know, we want to make sure that we are
multipurposing in this effort to assure we have industrial
capacity and capability at the same time that we are rebuilding
the proper components of the fleet. So I just want to get your
perspective on that.
Mr. Courtney. And if you could make it sort of a shortened
version, that would be----
Admiral Richardson. Abbreviated version.
Sir, I mean, we build 12 ships over--in this budget, 55
over the FYDP. With some authorities, we could get started on
the amphib ship and bring it back in and get started on that as
quickly as we can. And so I think we do show a commitment there
to shipbuilding and the national treasure that is the
shipbuilding industrial base.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Wittman. Thank you to the
witnesses for your endurance.
There actually is a request for a couple follow-up
questions by some of the members. And, again, at this point, I
just want to yield to Mr. Thornberry, ranking member.
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary and Admiral, Mrs. Luria kind of started down
this road, but nobody has really pressed you all on why the
administration request is walking away from 25 years left of a
carrier life. So I think we need to hear that explanation. And
then the part B of that is if we--and I think the prevailing
opinion in this committee is to refuel the carrier. Okay. If
that is our decision, then what are you not able to do in the
future given the budgets that you assume are coming?
Secretary Spencer. Congressman, let me walk you through the
thought process. When we sat down to create the budget, then-
Deputy Secretary Shanahan really had us go through what I
consider a very healthy assessment of where we are. And if you
look at United States Navy, which probably has the largest
installed base of capital assets, there are three buckets that
we have, which is our legacy systems; the modernization of our
legacy systems; and then the funding of what I am going to call
R&D [research and development] and/or force 2.0, those weapons
that are being developed now and those to come that we have to
invest in.
If we look at the two-carrier buy combined with the
nonrefueling of the Truman, the thought process was as follows.
One, and I think this is lost in some of the conversations, the
Ford-class carrier is not a Nimitz in any way. It has a 30
percent higher projection of sortie launch, 25 percent fewer
people to man it. We are expecting maintenance to be less. That
will be proven out.
If that is the case, we are modernizing the fleet. I look
at, again, outside the wire, anywhere from oil industry to
aviation to trucking. When, in fact, a new platform is
presented to anyone who is modernizing in the 20 percent
improvement range, people abandon assets to make the case to
move towards more effective, more efficient, in our case, more
lethal platforms.
So this is not a one-to-one trade. This is modernizing the
fleet with three platforms right off the bat that are more
lethal. That was the thought process behind the Truman.
Walking away from 25 years, abandoning an asset is not an
easy decision. In the where we are right now in the actual
process, we can still come back to address it. The Joint Chiefs
are doing studies, so are we, as far as requirement goes.
But as far as a modernization argument, we believed it was
a way to put the statement forward that we can take those
moneys and invest in force 2.0, whether that be more
submarines, whether that be advanced systems, whether that be
future weapons that we don't have yet that we have to invest
in.
Mr. Thornberry. We are obviously going to have a fair
number of Nimitz-class carriers out in--on the seas. So I take
your point. A new carrier is better than an old carrier, but an
old carrier has substantial value, don't you think?
Secretary Spencer. It has value, sir, but the business case
is to what investment to what I get on the other side of
investing in new weapons.
Mr. Thornberry. Okay. And, Admiral, I would appreciate your
comments. But also, the second part of my question is, if we
disagree and we say you are going to refuel the carrier, then
what budget implications does that have for you all in the
coming years?
Admiral Richardson. Sir, I will just echo what the
Secretary said, that, one, the budget submission is about
addressing the strategic priorities, which place a great
responsibility on maximizing naval power and how we do that
going forward. First of all, the investment in the Ford class,
I think, to me, says that the aircraft carrier continues to be
a relevant part of delivering naval power into the future. So
there has been a lot of conversations about the vulnerability
of the aircraft carrier, et cetera. A competently run aircraft
carrier in a distributed maritime operations environment is a
very lethal platform. And it is not the carrier itself,
although this carrier is much better than the other. It is
actually--innovation takes place on the air wing, and that is
the striking power of the aircraft carrier.
With respect to the balance between the Nimitz class and
new technology, I think that is why we have to study this,
which is why we have these studies going on in parallel to
this. And also the industrial base, which has been mentioned a
number of times. What is the impact on the industrial base of
these decisions?
And so it is about that balance, just as the Secretary
articulated. Whether we move forward and invest in some of
these technologies or whether we deliver on, you know, a proven
platform that will deliver new technologies through its air
wing. And so I think we are in a position that, wherever those
studies take us in parallel with this decision, we can respond.
If you were to restore the overhaul of the carrier, then we
would just adjust our investments into some of those other
parts of the budget. I think if it was consistent with the
logic, we would draw off of some of that new technology
investment. It would be a considerable amount remaining, and we
will look for other less lethal places to find that money.
Mr. Thornberry. Okay. I would just say, my sense is we
ought to be having those conversations. And I understand your
point. But if that is the way it goes, then it may have
implications that we need to talk about.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Thornberry.
So, again, just kind of get situational awareness here. We
have got two members who have follow-up questions. We have
already had one pass through. But we have been joined by Mr.
Banks who, again, was not able to be here for his first round
of questioning.
So, Mr. Banks, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Spencer, I recently introduced a piece of
legislation to create military education savings accounts for
military families. I don't know about you, but I have heard
from so many military families and our men and women in uniform
who go through that difficult process of moving from one
installation to another, having their children placed in a good
school in one place but finding poor education options when
they move to a new location.
I wonder, do you hear those same complaints from families?
There was a recent military time study that suggested that
nearly half of our service members have either left the service
or thought about leaving the service because of poor education
options for their children. I don't know if you could have any
remarks about that.
Secretary Spencer. Congressman, yes. The way that I hear it
is the inconsistency of the education available to those that
are transferred around. There is a lack of consistency.
Mr. Banks. So you do hear from our sailors about the
difficulty of that?
Secretary Spencer. Yes.
Mr. Banks. I understand that you have been in contact with
the Department of Education about that--about the----
Secretary Spencer. Yes, we have.
Mr. Banks [continuing]. Education savings accounts? And is
that a concept that appeals to you that you think would----
Secretary Spencer. Appeals.
Mr. Banks [continuing]. Appeal to our families, our
military families across the country?
Secretary Spencer. To those that are educated on it on a
launch basis, yes.
Mr. Banks. Okay. I appreciate your brevity. But is there a
good way to--with your business experience, is there a good way
to create a path toward creating an option like that for our
families through the DOD? And would the Department of Navy
potentially be interested in a pilot program that--empowering
the Navy to create----
Secretary Spencer. I will turn it over to the CNO. But as
far as a businessman wearing my title 10 hat, would love to see
the option available.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, I will tell you, one of the--
probably one of the most exciting parts of what is going on in
the Navy right now is how we are transforming the way we do our
human resourcing. And so we are very soon, with the Congress'
support in terms of revolutionizing this, are going to be able
to understand the individual priorities of every one of our
sailors, which would include their families and their
education. And so we will know better that if a sailor wants to
achieve some geographic stability because he wants to put his
kids through school, we will have some options that we can
appreciate and offer him as a part of his compensation package.
It is really becoming a much more dynamic marketplace with
the sailors increasingly participating in their future destiny,
all the while meeting the needs of the Navy and the Nation. And
so this is an exciting part. If a pilot program that would
further enhance a sailor's ability to control their own
destiny, educate their children, we would be excited to
participate in something like that. As I end 37 years, we have
5 children, we have moved 21 times, we have experienced this
personally, and it is something that we need to make as smooth
as possible.
Mr. Banks. I appreciate that very much.
As the NDAA soon approaches us, perhaps we could work with
you to see if the Navy might be the best home for such a pilot
program to support our military families as they face this
difficult issue.
I don't have more, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back with
that. But this is an important subject, something that I hear
from so many families about is, as they make that tough journey
in their service and faced--our military families are the--they
are the last families that should be faced with the stress of
choosing whether to send their children to a bad school or
poor-performing school because they are moved to a new station,
and it is something I think this committee ought to do a lot
more about.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Banks.
Congresswoman Luria.
Mrs. Luria. Well, thank you.
And I wanted to pick up, Admiral Richardson, where we left
off, because the current law says that we need to have 11
aircraft carriers. But you are bringing us a budget that
actually is asking us in your 30 ship--your shipbuilding plan
to never attain that goal.
So can you explain the disconnect? Are you coming to us and
asking us to change the law about the number of carriers that
we need?
Admiral Richardson. I am not aware of any legislative
proposal to change the law there yet. I mean, it takes a while
to get up to 12. It is outside the 30-year shipbuilding plan by
the time we reach 12.
Mrs. Luria. Well, I understand that. But we voluntarily let
ourselves dip to 9 when we could have been at 10 during those
timeframes.
My next question, and this is something that Chairman
Forbes asked during a previous hearing when he was still here.
Has the United States Navy ever made the determination that the
presence of an aircraft carrier strike group has had a
significant role in deterring a conflict from going from phase
0 to phase 3?
Admiral Richardson. The answer to that is yes.
Mrs. Luria. Okay.
Admiral Richardson. I mean, it is a tremendously cost-
imposing thing. That is kind of a--that is a difficult question
to answer briefly. And deterrence is a difficult thing to
measure, in general, you know, how did something not happen,
but----
Mrs. Luria. So Secretary Stackley's response at the time
was that he would go as far to say that it is the cornerstone
or our maritime strategy. Do you, in principle, agree with that
assessment?
Admiral Richardson. It is the fundamental fighting element
of the United States Navy right now.
Mrs. Luria. Okay. And, Secretary Spencer, you quoted some
efficiencies that we gained through the Ford-class aircraft
carrier. And one of those is that you assess that the
maintenance costs go down by 20 percent.
So the Ford-class carrier cycle, and this was also
previously reported in a hearing before the Congress, is that
that cycle is 43 months versus the 36 months that we have for
the Nimitz-class, which would allow the ship to deploy more
frequently over its life cycle and only have to dry-dock once
every 12 years and result in this overall 20 percent reduction
in maintenance.
However, we are still planning to operate on a 36-month
cycle. So it doesn't appear that, although we have built an
efficiency of having a 43-month cycle, more availability to
deploy and more presence, that we are actually planning to
execute to that and take advantage of the 20 percent reduction
in maintenance that this should afford us.
Can you explain that disconnect?
Secretary Spencer. I think you will see us work that into
the plan.
Mrs. Luria. So then would the OFRP change and all surface
combatant cycles would extend to 43 months?
Secretary Spencer. I will let the CNO address that. But if,
in fact, we have the efficiencies, I don't know why we wouldn't
accept and avail ourselves to them. But it is not universal
across all forums.
Admiral Richardson. Ma'am, as you alluded, we are going to
have to take a look at the escorts, the auxiliary ships, and
everything that supports that strike group, the air wing. And
so it really is a force that deploys together. The fact that we
designed in 20 percent less maintenance cost, we certainly
intend to take advantage of that, whether it is a 36 or a
longer month OFRP.
Mrs. Luria. Okay.
Admiral Richardson. And the OFRP, in general, is designed
to be dynamic. We have changed it several times, as you and I
have discussed. I mean, this is not something that, you know,
is written in stone. It will change as well to respond to
circumstances.
Mrs. Luria. Thank you.
And so over the course of several hearings that we have had
on this topic, both in the full hearing as well as within
Seapower, I have, you know, tried to distill the difference
between actual presence versus availability to deploy and surge
capability that you are creating with the OFRP.
And I just wanted to close out my comments with something
that Secretary Mabus said during his last hearing before this
committee. His quote is: While there has been discussion about
posture versus presence, the simple fact is that, for the Navy
and Marine Corps, our posture is presence. And there is no next
best thing to being there. Maintaining that presence requires
gray hulls on the horizon.
And have you changed in views, Mr. Secretary, from your
predecessor as far as the importance of presence? And we seem
to have emphasized surge capability over presence. Can you
comment on that?
Secretary Spencer. A policeman on every corner will deter
crime. I would love to have a gray hull on every corner. I do
not have that luxury. So it is a portfolio management, risk
management model that I must deal with.
Yes, posture is presence, and, yes, that is a deterrent. I
have to use it judiciously, or I could produce it judiciously
for the COCOMs [combatant commands] to use judiciously.
Mrs. Luria. Okay. And why is it that they are not getting
the requested amount? I have had the opportunity to ask three
COCOMs before this committee what percentage of presence they
are getting versus their request, and CENTCOM [U.S. Central
Command] said about one-fifth, EUCOM [U.S. European Command]
one-third, and PACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command], obviously,
they have the additional presence of the carrier on station in
7th Fleet, said about 70 percent.
So is there something--is there a disconnect in the process
by which the COCOMs are requesting this but we are not
providing that? Or do we need to look at the realism of the
request that they are making versus off the threats in their
theater?
Secretary Spencer. I will let the CNO dive in here also.
But, I mean, it is a supply-demand. And we try to do the best
we can, obviously, you know, managing the risk that we have.
I am sure, as the combatant commander, the balancing threat
versus asset is a model they have to deal with. They feed it
into the machine. They feed it into our request. We have the
assets that we can provide to them.
Admiral Richardson. If I could just pile on to that.
General Neller and I both worked in the part of the Joint Staff
that sort of did this math over time. I think historically we
meet about 50 percent of the combatant commanders' requests as
a joint force, and that would include the Navy if you average
everything out.
And it goes exactly to what the Secretary said. It is a
matter of what forces are available versus the demand. The
difference in that is risk. And we prioritize our presence so
that we can minimize our global risk. That, again, is a very
dynamic scenario, and so we work that continuously. But every
year, you know, they redo the entire plan.
And so one thing we have to also address is that we don't
overdrive the force employment part of the equation so that we
underdrive the maintenance, training, and certification parts
of the equation, or we will find ourselves back into the same
imbalance that led to the unreadiness in 7th Fleet.
General Neller. Let me just add on that. I don't want to
get into too much information here in a public setting. But
there is about 10 capabilities that the Department of Defense
has that are never met for the COCOMs. And they are
unconstrained in their requests. They can say this is what I
believe I require to do my mission. And so we meet that.
But naval forces, submarines, cruiser/destroyers, carrier
strike groups, amphib ready groups, ARG [amphibious ready
group]/MEUs [Marine expeditionary units] are always deficient,
which is a capacity. And so we do the very best to meet that.
And that is the tension between the COCOM and the force
provider.
So that is why we have the discussions about how large a
Navy do we need to have to meet this. And I think--I am not
going to put words in Secretary Mabus' mouth, but I believe
what he was trying to do at that time was to say we need to
have enough presence, which means we need to have a larger
Navy.
Mrs. Luria. Okay.
Admiral Richardson. Which our 30-year shipbuilding plan
supports.
Mrs. Luria. So we need--Commandant, you said we need to do
the most we can do to meet that, yet I will go back to my very
first question I asked earlier in the hearing. We are planning
to decommission 6 cruisers, no investment in the ship-to-shore
connector, decommission an aircraft carrier halfway through its
life cycle, and decommission 11 minesweepers, yet we are doing
everything we can do to meet that, yet we are voluntarily
reducing our capability and the number of ships that we have
over the next several years?
Secretary Spencer. That has to be balanced, Congressman,
with what it costs. It might not be economically worthwhile
with the risk balance to keep those cruisers going versus where
those dollars can be placed for more effective deterrence in
some other asset.
Mr. Courtney. Great. Okay. Well, thank you, gentlemen. It
was a good exchange.
Final word, Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. Gallagher. Well, let me follow up on that. I think I
would like to associate myself with the thrust of Mrs. Luria's
line of questioning, which is to say if you--there simply is no
way to do deterrence by denial, particularly in the INDOPACOM
[U.S. Indo-Pacific Command] theater, unless we find a way to
get more Navy-Marine Corps tooth into the blunt and contact
layers, right? But then the question becomes, to your point,
Mr. Secretary, what is the right mix of tooth? What is the
right mix of ships and sailors and Marines, and what is the
overall cost, because it doesn't need to be all carriers,
obviously. We have a lot of tools at our disposal.
And I would just like to push on that. Admiral Richardson,
in your Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority 2.0, you
argue that Chinese and Russian actions may imperil the, quote,
diplomatic, economic, and military bonds that link the United
States to its allies and partners.
And if I understood your answer to my previous question,
you believe that the future frigate will play a critical role
in the contact and the blunt layers in preventing this from
happening and in strengthening these diplomatic, economic, and
military bonds.
So to get to the issue, this sort of tradeoff that we have
to make, I appreciate the desire to control cost. I understand
that the Navy can't afford a ``DDG lite.'' But, Secretary
Spencer, can you walk me through what went into lowering the
projected cost of the second FFG(X) from 950 to 800? In other
words, what specific costs and capabilities did you remove from
the program?
Secretary Spencer. Didn't remove anything, Congressman.
That is a great question. That is learning curve. You build
something once, you know how to build it. You build it twice,
you know to build it better. Three, four, five, you come down
the industrial learning curve. That is what you are witnessing
for the 800. No capability or capacity reduction.
Mr. Gallagher. And then, obviously, the frigate has an
aggressive detail design and construction award timeline. And
if we sort of fall behind that timeline, it is going to result
in, you know, a loss of thousands of jobs.
Do you believe you are on track to execute this contract by
the end of fiscal year 2020?
Secretary Spencer. We are. And I want to make sure that you
understand, when we say aggressive, it is aggressive on a
historical basis. These are all proven form designs.
Mr. Gallagher. Sure. And, Admiral Richardson, if you would
comment.
Admiral Richardson. It goes to what the Secretary has
talked about in terms of bringing industry in early on into the
requirements process. And so that has been a tremendously
informative discussion. And it enhances the confidence that we
are going to be moving into the frigate with more mature
technology, proven hull designs, leveraging combat systems, the
latest versions. And really just--now, it comes down to
integration of that technology. And so we have good confidence.
The request for proposals went out just a little bit early, and
so we are stepping through this on pace.
Mr. Gallagher. Yeah. And, again, I would like to just get
back to my colleague's line of questioning. I mean, I think,
again, we can have a debate about the right mix of ships. But I
think in any analysis, particularly as you look at the first
island chain in the priority theater, I mean, it will require
more ships. Now, we could have a higher degree of autonomous
ships. We can do creative things with those ships like put
LRASMs [long-range anti-ship missiles] on Mark VI patrol boats
and things like that. So we have to think creatively.
But I think we all want to execute a plan with as much
urgency and alacrity as humanly possible. And if we keep sort
of changing the plan and timelines get delayed, then I think
that is where a lot of us get frustrated.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, I think one of the biggest changes
of last year's 30-year shipbuilding plan to this year's is
that, one, we all agree a bigger Navy is what the Nation needs.
That is why we are building towards 355 ships. This year's plan
gets to 355 20 years earlier than last year's plan. And so I
think these are changes that the Nation would be in favor of to
reach our goal 20 years earlier.
Mr. Gallagher. And I will betray my bias in a closing
comment here, as a Marine and as a navalist, as I read the NDS
[National Defense Strategy] and NSS [National Security
Strategy], and I have tried to read it closely, I think it is
asking the Navy and the Marine Corps to do a lot more and play
a unique role. I mean, if you just look at, again, the priority
theater and the shift to deterrence by denial--and I don't mean
that as a knock on the Army and the Air Force and everyone we
work with; they have a critical role. But I think in
particular, that Navy-Marine Corps team is going to be critical
if we are going to actually implement the National Defense
Strategy.
It is remarkable to me that we actually have a bipartisan
agreement on this major conceptual shift contained within those
documents. But implementing it is a whole other story. And that
is going to be a task for all of us here. And it is a budget
process. It is a strategy process. And so I just hope to work
with all of you as we try and simply implement the National
Defense Strategy. And if nothing else, that we don't slide
backwards over the next 2 years after having 2 years of success
in this committee.
And with that, I yield my remaining 8 seconds.
Mr. Courtney. Here, here. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher. So I
think we did it.
I just want to again thank the witnesses for your
endurance, again. And, obviously, we had the delay because of
the votes. But I really appreciate you hanging in there with us
and being patient to answer all the questions.
And with that, I declare the hearing closed.
[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
April 10, 2019
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 10, 2019
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
April 10, 2019
=======================================================================
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN
Mr. Langevin. I appreciate the Department recognizing the critical
need for a third Virginia-class submarine in its FY20 budget request.
However, I am concerned that the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) is not
funded along with the third submarine. What are the implications of
removing a VPM from the FY20 and FY21 budgets, especially as it
pertains to shipbuilding and the supply base?
Admiral Richardson. There would be one non-VPM Blk V VCS in FY20,
and one non-VPM Blk V VCS FY21. While this decompresses stressed
vendors and reduces vendor construction risk, it requires additional
design effort to create a non-VPM Blk V design. The development of the
required design change to the 20-1 ship will begin efforts in June 2019
to support a FY20 construction start, in conjunction with completing
the VPM design. Disruption to the supply base will be minimal as
suppliers will continue to provide many VPM-related components, such as
520-ton air conditioning plants, circuit-D, internal communications
system and impressed current cathodic protection system, that will be
used to build these non-VPM Blk V ships. Removal of a VPM ship in FY20
provides relief to the payload tube component and assembly vendors who
are late to the just-in-time planned deliveries. According to initial
government assessments, the payload tubes are projected to be seven
months late to a 19-2 ship construction start in September 2019 (first
VPM hull), but supports the current critical path build plans, albeit
with a slow start to payload module integration.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LARSEN
Mr. Larsen. Secretary Spencer, what steps is the Navy taking to
address the current and projected shortfall? Does this strategy address
issues dealing with both supply (limited number of schoolhouse spots
and training hours) and demand (heavy recruitment from private sector)?
On which types of aircraft is the pilot shortfall particularly acute?
Secretary Spencer. Naval Aviation's inventory and accessions
(tactical, maritime, and rotary wing combined) remain sufficient to
meet operational requirements. However, declining retention of mid and
senior grade officers in some communities--particularly acute among
strike fighter and electronic attack pilots--present challenges to
aviation's long-term health. We are fully engaged in reversing these
adverse trends along multiple fronts, including: increasing production,
establishment of a readiness recovery team, enhanced monetary and non-
monetary incentives, and personnel modernization initiatives. The
readiness recovery team is addressing maintenance, personnel retention
and training issues, spare parts availability, and depot-level
maintenance challenges contributing to decreased strike fighter
aircraft availability--a primary quality-of-service dissattisfier for
strike fighter pilots. The readiness team is identifying solutions in
systemic supply, maintenance, manning, and facilities shortfalls.
Consistent and full funding of readiness accounts across the Future
Years Defense Program will be key to success. Bonus and flight pay
adjustments have been well-received, and initial ``take rates'' are a
leading indicator of improving retention and manning readiness.
Sustained support for readiness enabler accounts, including flight hour
and aircraft spare parts, is critical to improving the quality of
aviation service.
Additionally, aviators have consistently expressed interest in
enhanced career path flexibility, opportunities for personal and
professional development, and flexible, merit-based, competitive,
monetary incentives. Accordingly, Navy has:
increased options for graduate school and fellowships
through initiatives, such as Tours-with-Industry and the Career
Intermission Program.
implemented changes in the legacy aviation career path to
offer options, such as permanent flight instructor assignments.
increased the Aviation Bonus (for department head and
command assignments) and Aviation Incentive Pay (flight pay),
synchronizing targeted increases in flight pay and bonuses, in a
mutually supportive fashion, upon attainment of major aviation
leadership milestones (i.e., Department Head, Command and Major
Command).
We remain optimistic that this multi-faceted approach will
effectively address issues contributing to aviators leaving the Navy.
We are closely monitoring the impact and effectiveness of these
initiatives, and will make further changes as necessary.
Mr. Larsen. Admiral Richardson, to what do you attribute the number
of PEs in the EA-18G aircraft, and what steps are you taking to address
pilot safety concerns about that airframe specifically?
Admiral Richardson. The majority of physiological episode (PE)
events in the EA-18G have been attributed to an icing condition that
can occur inside the Avionics Flow Valve, in large part due to Naval
Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island late fall/winter environmental
conditions and EA-18G operating profiles. Two primary efforts have been
underway to address this condition. The first is a revision to
Environmental Control System (ECS) software, which was quickly fielded
as an interim solution, and has provided a significant reduction in EA-
18G icing-related PE instances in the short time since implementation.
A more definitive solution to the icing issue is incorporation of an
ECS Duct Heater, which is currently undergoing development. Upon
completion of successful testing, scheduled for this Summer, component
production will commence with aircraft installations planned to begin
at NAS Whidbey Island Fall 2019.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER
Mr. Turner. Why do events such as the Fitzgerald and McCain Navy
mishaps continue to increase year after year and what actions are being
done to arrest this negative trend? Could you speak about the mishap
review and oversight process? Learning the right lessons so we don't
repeat the past is important--can you tell us how you take lessons you
have learned from your safety investigations and use them to make
recommendations that would stop future accidents from occurring? And
further, do you currently have a significant backlog of mishap safety
investigation recommendations which have not been closed? What are your
plans to immediately address this backlog?
Secretary Spencer and Admiral Richardson. 1) Why do events such as
the Fitzgerald and McCain Navy mishaps continue to increase year after
year and what actions are being done to arrest this negative trend?
Based on data collected by the Navy Safety Center (NAVSAFECEN) to date,
numbers of the most severe category of Afloat Class A Mishaps (defined
as total property damage of $2 million or more and/or fatality or
permanent total disability to personnel) did not increase following the
2017 FITZGERALD and JOHN S. MCCAIN incidents. In 2017, there were five
and in 2018 there were five. In 2019 there has been one. Afloat Class B
Mishaps went from 18 in 2017 to 21 in 2018, with nine currently in
2019. This trend coincides with a Navy-wide commitment to increasing/
improving mishap reporting.
2) Could you speak about the mishap review and oversight process?
Class A mishap boards are convened by the controlling custodian/
command, the Navy or Marine Corps Flag or General Officer who is
responsible for achieving readiness and safety standards while
optimizing total resource requirements. The mishap board reviews three
types of evidence: People (witnesses, survivors), Physical (wreckage,
tools and equipment, facilities), and Documentation (records and
logbooks, photos and video, electronic media). There is no standard
safety investigation timeline. These investigations vary based on
factors such as the severity of the mishap, whether or not the wreckage
can be recovered or reconstructed, and whether there were survivors to
make statements. The report is due 30 days from the date of the mishap,
but extensions are often requested and approved due to the length of
some engineering investigations and other extenuating circumstances.
Once the mishap safety investigation is complete, the board produces a
report detailing whether each causal factor is accepted or rejected.
When a hazard is discovered during the safety investigation or at any
point in the process, a non-privileged hazard report (HAZREP) is often
released to provide timely notification to the fleet and program
managers. These HAZREPS allow systems commands to decide if groundings,
deadlines, inspections, or other mitigating actions are necessary
before the continued employment of the type of aircraft or equipment
involved is permitted.
3) Learning the right lessons so we don't repeat the past is
important--can you tell us how you take lessons you have learned from
your safety investigations and use them to make recommendations that
would stop future accidents from occurring? The primary purpose of the
mishap review and oversight process is to prevent recurrence. After a
mishap investigation is finalized, every causal factor is required to
have at least one corrective action or recommendation with which it is
associated. The Naval Safety Center (NAVSAFECEN) tracks all open Mishap
Recommendations (MISRECs) and hazard recommendations (HAZRECs).
NAVSAFECEN centralized and strengthened its lessons learned program
office with the sole focus of developing products aimed at various
fleet audiences. Sharing this type of information across communities is
essential, because the true extent of many safety problems go well
beyond the mishap unit or platform. NAVSAFECEN also produces periodic
Safety Gram, FLASH, and Safety Bulletins, messages for their community
safety representatives. The messages provide community safety trends,
contain relevant and recent mishap investigation and hazard reports,
and distribute type/model/series community lessons learned and best
practices across all stakeholders. In addition to the Safety messages,
NAVSAFECEN publishes periodic magazines and safety related posters
promoting safe practices and relevant processes to enforce a culture of
safety. The analysis of data collected from mishap safety
investigations is key to understanding and communicating mishap
information. However, NAVSAFECEN is working to get ahead of mishaps
with preventive and prescriptive mishap data analysis and informed risk
identification through strategic partnerships that perform in-depth
studies to gain a better understanding of the human and materiel
factors that lead to mishaps so mitigations can be developed to stop a
mishap before it happens. NAVSAFECEN works with the fleet and type
commanders to develop mutually beneficial data sharing agreements that
will allow for improvements in risk and hazard identification and
analysis. This ``deep dive'' analysis should eventually allow for the
identification of risk trends that become a predictive and preventative
tool, and increases the need for an analytical workforce, leading to a
development of sophisticated risk models using these new data streams
and growing organic capabilities and capacity. To enhance the
analytical ties to the fleet, NAVSAFECEN modified the Afloat Safety
Assessments to capture common factors related to all afloat mishaps,
focus on unit culture, and use every opportunity to directly engage the
fleet Sailor via face-to-face interaction and safety seminars at every
major fleet concentration area.
4) And further, do you currently have a significant backlog of
mishap safety investigation recommendations which have not been closed?
What are your plans to immediately address this backlog? NAVSAFECEN
works closely with commands so that MISRECs and HAZRECs backlogs are
reduced, while aggressively promoting faster completion of
recommendations. NAVSAFECEN is currently tracking 538 open aviation,
afloat, shore based, and off-duty/recreational mishap or hazard
recommendations. To put this number in context, the Naval Enterprise
has averaged 2,850 MISREC/HAZREC closeouts per year for the past eight
years and 1,762 MISRECs/HAZRECs have been closed out thus far in FY19.
These recommendations can range from procedural or programmatic changes
to aircraft redesign or technology procurement. Complex engineering
solutions and time to fund and implement improvements across the fleet
can impede the resolution of outstanding MISRECs/HAZRECs as does the
continual flow of new MISRECs/HAZRECs into the system.
Mr. Turner. What impacts would a return to sequestration funding
levels have on the Navy's readiness and modernization? Additionally,
what impacts would a CR have on these plans?
Secretary Spencer and Admiral Richardson. If Budget Control Act
caps are left in place, and sequestration were to occur in FY 2020,
without Overseas Contingency Operations increases, there would be
severe impacts to the Navy's readiness recovery and its path to a
larger, more capable fleet. This will result in a smaller, less lethal
force requiring a revision of the National Defense Strategy. The Navy
would be hard pressed to meet current operational requirements or plan
for future contingencies. Budget uncertainty is highly detrimental to
the Navy. We must be able to outpace our competition and act in real
time to defend our nation's interests in a rapidly changing global
security environment. The budget uncertainty that would result from a
Continuing Resolution (CR) in FY 2020, of any length, will erode and in
some cases reverse the Department's readiness recovery effort that
began in 2017. Given the strategic environment and the pace by which
our adversaries are modernizing and expanding, any setback in the
ability to recover readiness and modernize will pass additional risk to
Combatant Commander validated needs. A CR will also directly and
adversely impact our people and their families in an environment where
the competition for talent is a critical enabler for current and future
readiness. Typically, CRs lock the Department into last year's budget
with last year's priorities. CRs prohibit new starts and production
rate increases above previous year levels, and the movement of funds
between appropriations is constrained. A CR in FY 2020 would induce
risk in our readiness to conduct operations by deferring maintenance,
inhibit modernization of our critical weapons systems, and slow
procurement of weapons, ships and aircraft needed to stay ahead of our
adversaries in an era of great power competition.
Mr. Turner. What strategic advantages does the continued
development of low-yield SLCM provide the Navy to counter threats and
support the National Defense Strategy?
Secretary Spencer and Admiral Richardson. Low yield nuclear weapons
fulfill the defense objectives outlined in the 2018 National Defense
Strategy of defending the homeland from attack, defending allies from
military aggression, and bolstering partners against coercion. These
weapons also support the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review goals of providing
a range of arms control compliant response to our adversaries. Our
nuclear deterrent must dissuade any adversary from mistakenly believing
it could credibly coerce the United States. Modifying a small number of
submarine-launched nuclear warheads and the eventual fielding of a sea-
launched cruise missile (SLCM) raise the nuclear threshold in the face
of Russian and others' limited use doctrines and capabilities. Low
yield weapons and SLCM address the growing disparity in non-strategic
nuclear weapons between Russia and the United States, thereby creating
incentives for Russian participation in future rounds of arms control.
These capabilities assure European and Asian allies by demonstrating
the United States can credibly and decisively respond to any deterrence
scenario. They ensure the nuclear threshold remains high, and that
deterrence remains effective.
Mr. Turner. The rate of pilots experiencing physiological episodes
(PE) is back on the rise this year. The Navy has yet to pinpoint a
cause for the PEs--air contamination has already been ruled out. Mr.
Secretary, could you touch on this subject for a minute and talk about
what is being done by the Navy to address PEs and ensure the safety of
our pilots? There is evidently much work to be done as the rates of
pilots experiencing PEs are rising, not decreasing.
Secretary Spencer. To answer this question, we are looking at three
separate categories: Hornets and Super Hornets, training aircraft, and
aircrew systems: In aggregate, F/A-18 physiological episodes (PE) rates
are trending downward, although there have been seasonal and type/
model/series variances. For example, F/A-18A/B/C/D model aircraft PE
events have decreased while F/A-18E/F/G rates increased over the cold
weather months, which has historically been seen and is being addressed
through revision to Environmental Control System (ECS) software and
incorporation of an ECS Duct Heater. Overall, the rate of PE is down
17% since the November 2017 peak. As the result of failure analysis and
root cause and corrective action (RCCA) efforts conducted during 2018-
2019, five significant changes to the F/A-18 will be fielded in the
next year that address PE. These are: Cockpit Pressure and Onboard
Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS) Monitoring System, Secondary Bleed Air
Regulating valve revision, Primary Bleed Air Regulating valve revision,
ECS Duct Heater, and Cabin Air Exit System Removal. Additional efforts
and improvements include: 1) the Hornet Health Assessment and Readiness
Tool, a near real time ECS data analysis program, which has begun fleet
wide monitoring to preventatively warn squadrons of ECS system
deviation; implementation of a revision to aircrew breathing strategies
and 2) the fielding of an ECS Control Software Revision (Phase II) in
2020, which is a major ECS software update that involves over 30
changes to improve reliability, fault detection, recovery, and
component interoperability. The Physiological Episode Action Team
(PEAT) has also completed a study with the Naval Experimental Diving
Unit and is now moving to Phase 2 of that effort, and has two other
studies underway with Brooks Labs and Naval Medical Research Unit--
Dayton, with results expected by early Calendar Year 2020. These
studies are critical to further understanding root causes for PE.
The Navy has met with measured success in reducing PE rates in
training aircraft. The T-45 average PE rate has decreased over the past
year and has improved dramatically since Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, falling
from a high of 63.1 events per 100,000 flight hours to 7.3 events per
100,000 flight hours in FY 2019. The Navy has implemented a number of
changes to improve pressure and oxygen concentration provided by the
OBOGS. These improvements include an increase to the engine idle
setting, elimination of obsolete components, and increased system
maintenance. Future modifications include an additional caution light
to advise of oxygen system degradation, and an Automatic Backup Oxygen
System to provide supplemental oxygen in case of momentary reductions
in system performance. Both designs are nearing completion, and
activities leading to test and production are well under way. The Navy
T-6 PE reporting rate has also decreased from a high of 5.8 events per
100,000 flight hours to 4.7 events per 100,000 flight hours in FY 2019.
The Navy T-6 PE events from FY 2017 and FY 2018 were attributed to
hardware or equipment failures. The Navy T-6 PE events in 2019 were
traced to component failures due to the age of the failed components
and the overall age of the aircraft. The affected aircraft have been
repaired, tested, and returned to service. Navy engineers and
scientists developed and deployed a sensor to collect system
performance data and a new oxygen concentrator has been procured to
improve reliability and provide a data logging capability. A new oxygen
concentrator has been procured to improve reliability and provide a
data logging capability. The concentrators are currently being
installed.
The Navy continues to coordinate with the Air Force and share data,
findings, recommendations, and component upgrade efforts. The Navy, Air
Force, and industry have engaged in multiple lines of effort to
mitigate and solve PEs. We have raised awareness to fleet aircrew and
maintainers through direct fleet engagement via the PEAT and Fleet Air
Introduction Liaison Survival Aircrew Flight Equipment (FAILSAFE) team.
Navy flight equipment experts from FAILSAFE are providing on-site
refresher training for all Navy and Marine Corps tactical aircraft
squadrons in order to address gear fit issues identified as potential
contributors to PE and will continue to do so on a recurring schedule.
All fleet tactical aircraft aeromedical safety officers will receive
refresher training on identifying common fit issues during the annual
FAILSAFE working meeting this August and the Aircrew Systems Program
Office (PMA202) is working with the Naval Survival Training Institute
to ensure aircrew understand the difference between proper and poor
fit. There is an on-going surveillance program of specific materials in
the OBOGS, which have found no issues to date. In support of the RCCA
branch closeout, we have engaged in multiple efforts, such as the Joint
Combined Aircrew System Tester, to check mask fit and pre-flight
integrity of oxygen flow; the Enhanced Emergency Oxygen System, to
increase the emergency oxygen available to aircrew in the event of an
in-flight PE; an upgrade to the T-45 OBOGS; an evaluation of alternate
oxygen masks to improve the ease of mask fit and aircrew mask comfort;
and multiple physiological monitoring products that identify aircrew
physiological state for real time alerts to aircrew and overall data
analysis of physiological performance inflight.
Mr. Turner. The Navy has identified strike fighter shortfall of 54
aircraft, which amounts to one carrier wing. Admiral Richardson, what
impact does this shortfall have on current Navy readiness, and what
actions are being taken now with this budget request to mitigate the
shortfall?
Admiral Richardson. Strike Fighter Inventory Management (SFIM) is
focused on ensuring the Navy has the Tactical Aviation assets required
to support National Defense Strategy (NDS) guidance, and is dependent
upon three key factors:
-- Procurement of new strike fighters,
-- Depot maintenance capacity to sustain, modernize, and extend
the service life of the existing inventory, and
-- Manage aircraft utilization rates (e.g. manage the shortfall)
The President's Budget (PB) for FY-20 reduces the Department's
strike fighter shortfall to single digits by the end of the Future
Years Defense Plan (FYDP) by:
-- Procuring 24 F/A-18E/Fs (84 total across the FYDP),
-- Procuring 10 F-35Cs (92 total across the FYDP),
-- Procuring 15 F/A-18E/F Service Life Modification kits (160
total kits across the FYDP).
-- Funding $42.5 million in infrastructure investments to procure
modern equipment and tooling in Naval Aviation Fleet Readiness Centers.
In addition to procurement efforts in PB-20, the Naval Sustainment
System (NSS) is a comprehensive approach of industry best practices to
address F/A-18 and other platform readiness shortfalls at the Depot,
Intermediate, and Operational levels. NSS focuses on:
-- Fleet Readiness Center reform,
-- Operational Level Maintenance reform,
-- Supply Chain reform,
-- Engineering reform,
-- Governance and accountability, and
-- ``Aircraft On the Ground'' cell:
Prioritization of supply and maintenance actions to
get more flight-line aircraft into MC status sooner.
Reduce turnaround time, increase predictability, and
encourage more productive organizations.
Finally, aircraft utilization rates are managed, and thus strike
fighter shortfall is managed, via the assignment of a reduced number of
aircraft to squadrons early in their turnaround training cycles (e.g.
maintenance phase, aircraft in depot, etc.) when fewer training hours
are required to meet reduced readiness standards. This resultant
shortage in available aircraft, and lower readiness, to those squadrons
in ``garrison'' directly equates to their inability to rapidly deploy,
should the need arise. All squadrons assigned to Carrier Air Wings in
readiness sustainment or on deployment are assigned a full complement
of Strike Fighters.
Mr. Turner. The Marine Corps is requesting 10 fewer F-35B aircraft
in FY20 than was planned in the FY19 budget, but increased the
procurement of F-35C aircraft by four, for a total of 10 F-35C aircraft
in FY20. The Navy is requesting 2 fewer F-35C aircraft in FY20 than was
planned in the FY19 budget. Why is the current projected mix of Marine
F-35B and F-35C aircraft optimal to support achieving the goals of the
National Defense Strategy?
General Neller. The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) continues to evaluate
the proper ratio of its F-35B and F-35C aircraft based on the pacing
threat and steady-state requirements across the conflict continuum. The
current program of record (POR) of 67 F-35Cs and 353 F-35Bs is
proportionally correct for the USMC at this point in the plan. Today's
F-35C procurement plan allows the USMC to sustain four squadrons. The
plan meets the Tactical Air Integration (TAI) commitment the USMC has
with the USN to include the Navy Master Aviation Plan (MAP) deployment
requirements on CVN Carrier Strike Groups. The aircraft are also used
for deployments in support of all USMC global force commitments. The F-
35C brings added capabilities to the USMC and the Marine Air-Ground
Task Force (MAGTF) in the form of increased range, payloads and
lethality. The F-35B brings the vertical landing capability that
provides critical support to the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU)
deployments aboard L-Class ships, a mission that cannot be performed by
the F-35C. With a mixture of 10 and 16 plane F-35B squadrons, the
current transition plan allows MAGTF commanders the flexibility to
deploy a 6-plane MEU detachment all the way up to a full 16-plane
squadron.
Mr. Turner. Marine ground units are almost wholly without an
effective organic air defense system except for the man-portable
Stinger missile system and a small number of ground based air defense
systems protecting deployed forces. Please provide the committee an
update on Marine Corps plans to develop a family of systems that can
defend against UAS, aircraft, cruise missiles, and other airborne
threats? Please describe if or how these plans are nested with the
Army's efforts to field similar systems.
General Neller. The Marine Corps is presently developing and
fielding the Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS) Family of
Systems (FoS) to address UAS and aircraft threats against operational
forces as well as installation counter-UAS requirements. MADIS' open
architecture design integrates `best of breed' components among state-
of-the-art detect, track, identify, and defeat technologies. This
approach maximizes and simplifies testing, integration, training, and
system upgrades via the Program Executive Office-Land Systems (PEO-LS)
Ground Based Air Defense (GBAD) Program Office. In addition to the C-
UAS mission, the MADIS improves on the Stinger missile capability by
incorporating a vehicle mounted launcher enabling a more responsive
engagement timeline. Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for the MADIS
is FY21. Our GBAD efforts are nested closely with the Army's Maneuver--
Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) as well as the greater Joint and
inter-agency community of interest to ensure the most promising
technologies are integrated into the MADIS program of record. While the
final design is still under development, it is anticipated most major
components will be shared by multiple services. Building upon Marine
Corps defense in depth, our cruise missile defense (CMD) effort is in
its early stages and moving forward as we analyze existing capabilities
from partner nations with the intent to integrate existing Marine Corps
sensors and C2 programs to complete the system. In Aug 2019, we will be
conducting a live-fire demonstration at White Sands Missile Range to
test the Skyhunter launcher/Tamir Missile integrated with the Common
Aviation Command and Control System (CAC2S) and the AN/TPS-80 Radar (G/
ATOR). Concurrently, modeling and simulation of the missile is being
conducted to inform leadership of the system's capabilities and
limitations. Upon completion of the demonstration and simulations, a
decision will be made on the way forward. In addition to Skyhunter, the
Marine Corps is closely monitoring the Army's Indirect Fire Protection
Capability (IFPC) efforts.
Mr. Turner. What strategic advantages does the continued
development of low-yield SLCM provide the Navy to counter threats and
support the National Defense Strategy?
General Neller. I defer to the Navy as Ship Launched Cruise
Missiles (SLCM) is a U.S. Navy program.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CONAWAY
Mr. Conaway. Thank you for your time in appearing before the
Committee. Knowing that the DOD has been tasked with completing a full
financial audit, I am interested in the following:
a. Is the USN committed to obtaining a full, unqualified audit
opinion of the USN?
b. Will you hold the incoming CNO chief accountable for his/her
responsibility to moving the USN to a full unqualified audit opinion?
Will you get the incoming CNO's commitment before confirmation by the
Senate?
c. Will you continue to dedicate adequate resources to the USN's
audit efforts?
d. Other information regarding the USN's efforts to achieve an
unqualified audit opinion that you may believe helpful to answering the
aforementioned questions, is welcome.
Secretary Spencer. A. Yes, the Navy is fully committed to obtaining
a full, unqualified audit opinion.
B. The nominee for Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has proven his
commitment to the Navy obtaining a clean audit opinion during his
tenure as Vice CNO, where he has co-chaired the Department of the Navy
Audit Committee (with the Under Secretary of the Navy and Assistant
Commandant of the Marine Corps). His leadership has been pivotal in the
Navy completing the audit and in executing corrective actions to
resolve audit findings. He has demonstrated his commitment to the audit
by holding subordinate commanders accountable for results, which has
enabled the Navy to complete a full inventory of Real Property this
year. He is fully engaged with the audit and regularly receives
briefings from organizational leadership on their progress.
C. We will continue to dedicate resources to the Navy's audit
efforts and request your continued support for our request for
additional funding in Fiscal Year 2020 to support audit remediation and
the transition off legacy systems. These areas provide a strong return
on investment as they will reduce manual data entry, increase data
transparency and usability, and support operational transformation
efforts.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. BROWN
Mr. Brown. In a written statement provided to this committee last
spring, Assistant Navy Secretary ``Hondo'' Guertz said, ``The
proliferation and technological progression of readily available
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to state and non-state actors have
advanced at an unprecedented pace.'' As these adversaries become more
sophisticated and use drones to conduct surveillance on our troops,
disrupt critical missions or worse yet, harm our service members, the
military, especially the Navy, needs a robust counter-UAS capability.
What is the Navy doing to counter this threat in the near-term to
protect our troops now and how is the Navy utilizing programs like the
Rapid Prototyping, Experimentation, and Demonstration Program to
acquire tested, commercially available counter-UAS technology?
Secretary Spencer. The Navy, in coordination with the other
Services and the Department of Defense, is pursuing an integrated
Counter-UAS family of systems to protect high value and critical naval
assets afloat and ashore. The Navy is rapidly fielding an initial
capability, to be followed up by implementation of more robust and
integrated solutions. The initial capability consists of existing
commercial and government systems. The Navy is also pursuing refinement
of material and non-material solutions, threat assessments, and
development of advanced target discrimination and defeat capabilities.
Systems fielded ashore include CORIAN (a commercial system), NINJA
(developed by Air Force Research Laboratories), and Drone Defender (a
commercial system). Systems fielded afloat include Drone Restricted
Access using Known Electronic Warfare (DRAKE), Drone Defender, and
existing ship's electronic warfare systems. Pending formal
documentation, the Navy is also using the Maritime Accelerated
Acquisition process to develop MK38 gun weapon system improvements to
increase lethality against UAS as well as other threats.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CISNEROS
Mr. Cisneros. We have spent billions of dollars to develop the
Zumwalt-class destroyer, yet we are no longer procuring the ammunition
for its primary weapon system and we will only have 3 Zumwalt-class
ships as opposed to the original 32. What is the Navy doing to find a
new mission for this ship as they're delivered over the next 3 years so
we get something for the significant investment that has been made?
Secretary Spencer and Admiral Richardson. In November 2017, after a
comprehensive review of ZUMWALT Class requirements, the Navy refocused
the primary mission of the Class from Land Attack to Offensive Surface
Strike. The low observable characteristics of the hull form provides
the Combatant Commander a unique capability not seen with other classes
of surface combatants. Prior investments in stealth technology, power
distribution, and capacity make the ZUMWALT Class ideal in fulfilling
the Surface Strike mission in the era of Great Power Competition. The
FY 2019 budget provided funding to integrate Maritime Strike Tomahawk
(MST) and SM-6 Block 1A missiles to the class. Both are existing
programs of record, and will combine to add long-range offensive
capabilities. SM-6 Block 1A is scheduled to achieve Initial Operational
Capability (IOC) on USS ZUMWALT in FY 2021. MST is scheduled to IOC in
FY 2025. The Navy continues to explore additional options and emerging
technologies to further enhance ZUMWALT Class lethality.
Mr. Cisneros. I asked Chairman Dunford 2 weeks ago about statements
you had reportedly made about the impact of the Southern Border
deployments on the Marine Corps readiness. The Chairman replied that it
wasn't the Southern Border deployment itself that is a problem, rather
it is the unanticipated bill of the Southern Border deployment--along
with many other unanticipated bills--that taken together are making it
difficult for the Marine Corps to fund other priorities. Is the
southern border deployment creating readiness challenges for the Marine
Corps? And if it just another bill among many, is it a bill that makes
it harder to pay for other priorities, like rebuilding Camp Lejeune or
executing the Integrated Training Exercise at Twentynine Palms,
California?
General Neller. Although South West Border (SWB) operations have
impacted some of the units providing support to the border, in the
aggregate, the readiness impacts have been manageable. The Service has
been able to mitigate readiness impacts through unit and personnel
rotations. If the requirements to support the mission continue into the
foreseeable future, the Marine Corps will continue to mitigate impacts
to readiness through similar measures. To date, SWB mission has not
significantly impacted our ability to meet our global commitments. In
terms of funding; No, the bill associated with Southern Border
deployment is not making it harder to pay for other priorities. There
is a cost there, a small cost compared to others. We have a shortfall
of just under $300 million of which the border mission is less than two
percent, not including Hurricane Recovery shortfalls. The cost of
supporting Southern Border deployment is one of many unplanned and
unbudgeted factors that in total have created unprecedented budget
shortfall challenges in our current fiscal year. The inability for the
Marine Corps to reprogram money and the lack of a supplemental for
Hurricane recovery efforts for the first six months of the fiscal year
had forced the Marine Corps to cancel Alaska Exercise Midnight Sun and
reduce participation in Exercise Northern Edge, as well as cancel
participation by II Marine Expeditionary Force units in Integrated
Training Exercise 3-19 and Scotland Exercise Joint Warrior 1-19. In
order to address our immediate fiscal challenges and prevent further
risk to readiness, the Marine Corps has pursued reprogramming and
supplemental relief actions. The Marine Corps is grateful to Congress
for the recently approved reprogramming and Disaster Relief
supplemental and greatly appreciates continued Congressional assistance
on these efforts.
[all]