[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 116-80]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
meeting jointly with
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
of the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
SEALIFT AND MOBILITY REQUIREMENTS
IN SUPPORT OF THE NATIONAL
DEFENSE STRATEGY
__________
HEARING HELD
MARCH 11, 2020
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-866 WASHINGTON : 2021
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut, Chairman
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
JIM COOPER, Tennessee K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
FILEMON VELA, Texas MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, Jr., VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
California PAUL COOK, California
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia, Vice
Chair
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York
Phil MacNaughton, Professional Staff Member
Dave Sienicki, Professional Staff Member
Sean Falvey, Clerk
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
JOHN GARAMENDI, California, Chairman
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
ANDY KIM, New Jersey, Vice Chair AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma JOE WILSON, South Carolina
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania ROB BISHOP, Utah
JASON CROW, Colorado MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico MO BROOKS, Alabama
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
Melanie Harris, Professional Staff Member
John Muller, Professional Staff Member
Sean Falvey, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative from Connecticut, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces................. 1
Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative from California, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Readiness...................................... 3
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative from Colorado, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Readiness.............................. 4
Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative from Virginia, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces......... 2
WITNESSES
Buzby, RADM Mark H., USN (Ret.), Administrator, U.S. Maritime
Administration................................................. 6
Lyons, GEN Stephen R., USA, Commander, U.S. Transportation
Command........................................................ 5
Nahom, Lt Gen David S., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and
Programs, Department of the Air Force.......................... 9
Williamson, VADM Ricky L., USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations,
Fleet Readiness and Logistics (N4), Office of the Chief of
Naval Operations, Department of the Navy....................... 8
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Buzby, RADM Mark H........................................... 54
Courtney, Hon. Joe........................................... 35
Garamendi, Hon. John......................................... 39
Lamborn, Hon. Doug........................................... 40
Lyons, GEN Stephen R......................................... 42
Nahom, Lt Gen David S........................................ 69
Williamson, VADM Ricky L..................................... 59
Wittman, Hon. Robert J....................................... 37
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Kelly.................................................... 83
Mrs. Luria................................................... 83
Mr. Norcross................................................. 83
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Norcross................................................. 91
Mr. Vela..................................................... 92
Mr. Wittman.................................................. 87
SEALIFT AND MOBILITY REQUIREMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE
STRATEGY
----------
House of Representatives, Committee on Armed
Services, Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces, Meeting Jointly with the
Subcommittee on Readiness, Washington, DC,
Wednesday, March 11, 2020.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Courtney
(chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE COURTNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CONNECTICUT, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION
FORCES
Mr. Courtney. [Mic off.] 2:30 because, again, we have got
votes coming in about an hour and 15 to an hour and a half and
we want to, obviously, make sure we get a chance to hear from
the witnesses and ask questions.
So, good afternoon. Today's Seapower and Projection Forces
Subcommittee and the Readiness Subcommittee are meeting to
examine sealift and air mobility capabilities, two critical
elements of our Nation's defense strategy.
Before I introduce our witnesses, I want to note that this
year marks the 100th anniversary of the Jones Act. For a
century, the Jones Act has helped promote a robust domestic
maritime industry while preserving our Nation's security.
We are a maritime nation and the Jones Act is one of the
foundation pillars of a strong maritime policy now and in the
future.
In beginning here today, I just want to--it is also the
75th anniversary fast approaching for the end of World War II
and Winston Churchill was quoted right after that conflict by
saying, ``Victory is the beautiful bright flower. Transport is
the stem without which it could never have blossomed.'' And
right now, I think the stem is--for a lot of us is we are
concerned about and that is really, obviously, the focus of
today's hearing.
Again, because of the time issue, I am going to submit my
remarks in writing to the record and, again, we want to,
obviously, give members a chance to ask a lot of questions. The
briefing we had a couple months ago I think shows that there
is, certainly, high interest.
And with that, I would now yield to Mr. Wittman, the
ranking member of the Seapower Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Courtney can be found in the
Appendix on page 35.]
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND
PROJECTION FORCES
Mr. Wittman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate you yielding. I especially want to thank Chairman
Garamendi and Ranking Member Lamborn for this enduring interest
in our Nation's logistics capabilities. We know how
extraordinarily important this is and I can think of no better
panel to discuss sealift and airlift than the folks we have
before us today.
As I assess the state of our Nation's military logistics,
there are many areas that allow us to rapidly project power to
include our tanker and airlift forces.
These capabilities are foundational to a great power and I
believe that we have done a good job of providing this force.
However, it is essential that our subcommittees take aggressive
action to staunch the bleeding occurring in our logistics
forces today.
For example, our lack of strategic vision in our Nation's
sealift forces is particularly wanting. I think that this lack
of vision is a relic to years of strategic hubris and
complacency.
My friends, sometimes we are not aware of what is rapidly
changing around us. We continue to support legacy sealift force
that is designed for regional conflict and presumes sea
control. Both of these assumptions have been invalidated with
our new National Defense Strategy.
Yet, it is almost as if the Navy forgot to read the
strategy when they put together their budget plan or, worse, I
think that we have a strategic seam between the Army and the
Navy.
For me, I think that the Navy's budget is overtaxed with
support for the $110 billion Columbia ballistic missile
submarine program. I believe it is time for the Army to pick up
the budget responsibility for the surge sealift forces that
uniquely support the Army's ability to go to war.
As to our subcommittee's response to our surge sealift
plight, I am opposed with the administration's legislative
proposal that would solely rely on procuring used foreign-built
vessels to recapitalize our surge sealift.
I continue to support a combination of procuring used
vessels through the National Defense Sealift Fund and procuring
new sealift vessels. At the same time, I do not believe that we
can sustain a new construction option to support the
administration's $550 million per hull assessment and look
forward to pursuing other options that reduce this $25 billion
new construction recapitalization effort.
As for our air logistics component, while I am satisfied
with our current aviation refueling capacity, I think that we
need to tailor the response to mitigate KC-46A deficiencies.
There are some that believe that we should cancel the KC-46A
aircraft contract in its entirety. I do not believe this is a
prudent strategy. However, until we can deliver a capable KC-
46A aircraft, I think that we should slow both the ordering and
delivery of KC-46A aircraft and we need to retain legacy
tankers to cover these shortfalls and we need to ensure that we
have adequate competition at the conclusion of the current KC-
46A contract.
And while I could sit here and pontificate about the
shortfalls of this program, simply put, I think we need to now
look at making the best move in a bad situation and one that
is, sadly, of our own making.
In conclusion, I am reminded of a quote from Alexander the
Great when reflecting on his extensive logistics train required
to resupply his battle lines where he indicated, ``My
logisticians are a humorous lot. They know if my campaign fails
they are the first ones I will slay.''
While I don't espouse the slaying of our logisticians, I
think this clearly paints an indomitable reality that a failed
logistical plan will allow potential adversaries to dictate the
circumstances of future warfare, a future which our great
United States of America can ill afford.
I believe it is essential that we take aggressive steps in
the National Defense Authorization Act to staunch the bleeding
and address these substantial logistic issues.
Again, I appreciate Chairman Courtney and Chairman
Garamendi's support for having this important hearing and I
yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the
Appendix on page 37.]
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Rob, and we will now have to call
you Wittman the Great.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wittman. No. No. No. No. No. No, absolutely not.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Courtney. And I yield to my colleague, the chairman of
the Readiness Subcommittee, John Garamendi.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was watching our witnesses as Alexander the Great was
speaking, something about slaying, which I find it fully
understandable.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Garamendi. But we do have a problem. I am going to
shorten this. I ask that my testimony or my opening statement
be put into the record.
KC-36--excuse me, KC-135, KC-10s, and the 46 [KC-46]--what
is going on here? We need to get this squared away. General
Lyons, you think we need more. The Air Force thinks we don't.
We are going to have to sort that out. The reality is it is a
very, very serious problem and I could probably echo most of
what Mr. Wittman said but I won't right now.
But that has got to be addressed. The sealift is an ongoing
problem. I don't think the Navy is going to be able to afford
the sealift capacity necessary to meet the new National Defense
Strategy.
I am not even sure they can meet the old one. Some very
useful work had been done by the Center for Strategic and
Budget Assessments. Draw it to your attention, I think I
deliver this to all of you. It basically calls for the
rebuilding of our merchant marine, using that with military
useful ships to address what we will never be able to
accomplish or not likely to accomplish with the Navy budget,
even if we are to raid the KC-46 budget to do it.
So, I think there is a strategy, a national fleet strategy
that we can employ. I will be asking questions about that and
we can continue with what we presently have but even that is
woefully inadequate.
So, we need to build those ships and if we do it on the
private sector side, guaranteeing that they have cargo, which I
think we can do, and provide the necessary support, we can, I
believe, quickly within the next decade, provide the necessary
sealift capacity.
I guess I am going to have to deal with something that--it
is called luggage, personal property. Ongoing issue. General
Lyons, it is your turf and that will be my last question.
If I run out of time, I will get you personally later and
we will go through it as this is the annual whipping of the--of
the problem. Excuse me, the semiannual whipping. I will let it
go at that and we will get on with it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in
the Appendix on page 39.]
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi.
I now recognize the ranking member of the Readiness
Subcommittee, Congressman Lamborn.
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO,
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Chairman Courtney. I truly
appreciate the collaboration that you and Ranking Member
Wittman continue to show Chairman Garamendi and myself on these
issues that are critical to both of our subcommittees.
There is an old saying. Amateurs talk about tactics, but
professionals study logistics. An examination of the issues
before us reveals the wisdom of this statement. Our witnesses
today are at the very heart of projecting and sustaining the
joint force.
General Lyons, I really appreciate your recent visit and
the opportunity to discuss the major issues facing USTRANSCOM
[U.S. Transportation Command]. As you highlighted in your
opening statement, which will be presented here soon, the world
is changing and we need TRANSCOM to focus on great power
competition.
I am particularly concerned about the cyber threats posed
to our distribution networks by Russia and China and their
ongoing efforts to erode access to the U.S. and our allies. We
must assume that logistics support for future operations will
take place in highly contested environments.
Given how central these two--the two issues dominating
today's hearings are to our overall military readiness, I want
to add my concerns to those of my colleagues. With 85 percent
of the joint force based within the United States, our military
readiness risks being irrelevant without the capability and
capacity to project those forces to the fight.
During the turbo activation exercise in September 2019,
only 60 percent of the organic surge fleet was considered ready
and only 40 percent of those were able to get underway in the
time allotted.
As General Lyons stated in his written statement, by the
mid-2030s over half of the sealift fleet will be unusable.
Congress had provided the Navy with authority to begin
recapitalization through a combination of buying used vessels
and some new ship construction.
But to date, we have seen very little action. The fiscal
year 2021 budget would provide funding to purchase two.
The KC-46 program, as has already been discussed, is yet
another example where poor contractor performance is severely
degrading warfighter capability and requiring the government to
underwrite the cost of retaining legacy aircraft longer than
planned.
Given the unsafe conditions created by the biggest Category
One deficiency on the KC-46, the remote vision system, it would
be irresponsible for us to allow the U.S. Air Force to proceed
with its planned tanker retirements.
According to Air Force Chief of Staff General Goldfein, we
are close to a way ahead with Boeing on the KC-46, but it will
take two to--excuse me, 3 to 4 years to implement.
I am not one who is calling to cancel this program but if
we don't see progress this year the Department may need to
reconsider recompeting the program.
Finally, I am encouraged by the progress that TRANSCOM has
made regarding the Defense Personal Property Program. The
business case analysis [BCA] for the Global Household Goods
Contract was delivered on time to the committee and it appears
to demonstrate a significant increase in performance and
capability.
My understanding is that GAO [Government Accountability
Office] will complete its review of the BCA shortly and I want
to commend TRANSCOM's efforts to address industry concerns.
Thank you to our witnesses for your testimony, for what you
do for our country, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn can be found in the
Appendix on page 40.]
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
Now we will start with General Lyons and just go right down
the table, and the floor is yours, General.
STATEMENT OF GEN STEPHEN R. LYONS, USA, COMMANDER, U.S.
TRANSPORTATION COMMAND
General Lyons. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Courtney, Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Members
Wittman and Lamborn, distinguished members of the committee, it
is my honor to represent the men and women of the United States
Transportation Command who, at this very moment, are employed
around the globe conducting mobility operations 24 hours a day,
7 days a week, 365 days a year.
Our mission at TRANSCOM is enduring and that is to project
and sustain the joint force globally at our time and place of
choosing, thereby representing multiple options for our
national leadership and multiple dilemmas for potential
adversaries.
With 85 percent of the force element stationed in the
United States, as you mentioned, it is TRANSCOM's job to move
forces and materiel in support of the Secretary of Defense's
strategic priorities.
Our National Defense Strategy underscores the importance of
advancing our national security interests, deterring potential
adversaries and, should deterrence fail, responding with
overwhelming force to win.
Power projections are a distinct U.S. comparative
advantage, but we are not alone in this effort. Our vast global
logistics network are underpinned by a deep bench of allies and
like-minded partners that facilitate critical access basing and
overflight activities.
Our world is changing and the defense strategy describes a
future in which TRANSCOM must be able to project the force
under all-domain persistent attack. We acknowledge that our
success today does not guarantee success tomorrow and we are
actively preparing to meet tomorrow's challenges.
Today, I am confident in our ability to successfully
execute our mission but the risk, as noted, is increasing. Our
aerial refueling and sealift forces require immediate attention
to meet current and future challenges. We are actively
exploring the feasibility of a specified sealift appropriation
to mirror DOD [Department of Defense] and congressional efforts
to recapitalize the Ready Reserve Force in the 1990s.
Before I close, I do want to highlight the Department's
ongoing work to improve the Defense Personal Property Program,
an area of great interest for Congress.
The Department, we acknowledge, can no longer afford to
operate a disparate confederation of government activities
supervising a similarly disparate collection of hundreds of
transportation providers.
My message for DOD families: We have heard your call for
improved accountability, transparency, and quality capacity and
we are committed to deliver.
My message for industry providers: If you provide quality
service today for our military members you have a place in the
future program.
It is an exciting time to be the commander of USTRANSCOM
and I could not be more proud of the team of professionals that
create the strategic comparative advantage called the Joint
Deployment and Distribution Enterprise.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Lyons can be found in
the Appendix on page 42.]
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, General.
Now, I will move to Admiral Buzby who is joined here this
afternoon by his wife. Thank you. You are welcome to join us
here today and, again, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF RADM MARK H. BUZBY, USN (RET.), ADMINISTRATOR,
U.S. MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
Admiral Buzby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon
to you, sir, and to Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Members Wittman
and Lamborn, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the Maritime Administration's role in
supporting strategic sealift.
As the members well know, America's strategic sealift
capability is comprised of government-owned ships, assured
access to a fleet of U.S.-flagged commercial vessels under
civilian mariners, and intermodal systems.
While this is an efficient and effective force for moving
cargoes worldwide during peacetime, I am concerned about its
ability to reliably project and sustain power globally in a
contested environment.
To address this, we must strengthen our sealift capability
and reverse declines in U.S.-flagged commercial fleet and U.S.
shipbuilding repair industry.
The top of our priority list is the recapitalization of the
Ready Reserve Force, or RRF. Along with the 15 Military Sealift
Command surge sealift's ships, the 46-ship Ready Reserve Force
provide the initial surge of ready sealift.
These vessels' average age is 45 years old and,
consequently, we have struggled to maintain readiness. The
results of the September 2019 turbo activation are reflective
of the current readiness of these ships despite focused and
valiant efforts by their crews to maintain them.
We continue to work with the Navy on a recapitalization
strategy that includes a combination of targeted service life
extensions which have begun; by acquiring and converting used
vessels, which is also now in progress; and eventually building
new vessels in U.S. shipyards.
MARAD [U.S. Maritime Administration] has recently released
a request for proposal for a vessel acquisition manager who
will identify, purchase, modify, and after purchase potentially
operate these new vessels.
The decline in our domestic capacity to build and repair
large commercial ships is a major concern. Of the seven large
shipyards involved in the last major effort to construct or
convert large commercial-type ships for sealift several decades
ago, three of those are now closed, one no longer does
commercial work, and two perform conversion work only. Of that
original seven, only one retains its expertise to build large
commercial-type sealift ships.
Last year, I reported 81 ships in our international
commercial fleet. Today, we are 87 but still down from the 106
in 2010. The overall decline in the size of the U.S.-flagged
fleet makes the Maritime Security Program essential.
Maritime Security Program ensures access to a fleet of 60
commercial vessels to meet DOD contingency requirements. MSP
operators also support the employment of 2,400 of the trained,
skilled U.S. merchant mariners that our country depends upon to
crew surge sealift ships.
I thank the committee for its reauthorization of MSP
through fiscal year 2035. The Maritime Administration is also
ensuring compliance with cargo preference requirements. We are
significantly expanding our outreach and engagement to maximize
the use of U.S.-flagged vessels. More cargo means more U.S.-
flagged vessel operators employing U.S. citizen mariners, many
of whom will be needed for sealift.
We also remain committed to our domestic Jones Act fleet.
Jones Act requirements support U.S. shipyards and repair
facilities, sustain supply chains that produce and repair
American-built ships, and the employment of U.S. citizen
mariners. It is the indispensable foundation of the U.S.
maritime industry and our economic and national security.
Due to declines in the U.S.-flagged fleet, I am concerned
about our access to enough qualified mariners. We are working
to better track our pool of available mariners who could be
available for sealift and are exploring a range of options to
ensure that a sufficient number of mariners are trained and
available to meet potential contingency operations.
The Maritime Administration continues to support mariner
education and training through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy
and the six State maritime academies. Congress's funding of the
National Security Multi-Mission Vessel [NSMV] program will help
provide our State academies with modern training vessels to
prepare future mariners.
The President's budget requests $300 million for a fourth
ship designated for Texas A&M [Agricultural and Mechanical]
Maritime Academy. We expect that our vessel construction
manager, TOTE Services, will have a shipyard under contract
shortly in order to deliver the first NSMV in fiscal year 2023.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address this
committee on the state of American sealift. I look forward to
your questions and ask that my testimony be entered into the
record, sir.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Buzby can be found in
the Appendix on page 54.]
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. So, ordered.
Admiral Williamson.
Could you push the button on that? Yes.
STATEMENT OF VADM RICKY L. WILLIAMSON, USN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
NAVAL OPERATIONS, FLEET READINESS AND LOGISTICS (N4), OFFICE OF
THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Admiral Williamson. [Inaudible.] Sorry, sir. [continuing]
And distinguished guests of the House Armed Service
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces and Readiness. I
am honored to be here today to provide a Navy perspective on
the sealift and support of the National Defense Strategy.
One of my primary responsibilities as Navy's logistics
champion is making sure that the strategic sealift fleet has a
strong resourcing advocate on the Navy staff. I can tell you
from my personal experience this issue of sealift readiness has
the attention of my entire chain of command.
Since assuming my role 7 months ago, I have spoken
personally with the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] several
times, the Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of Defense as
we worked hard to balance the needs of the sealift fleet with
those of the combatants that enable ships to deliver their
cargo.
As the CNO said in his testimony a few weeks ago, we are
beginning to make investments in strategic sealift where we
haven't made significant investments in a while.
We expect that investing now will yield returns of
increased long-term readiness as we work to recapitalize the
sealift ships using the multi-pronged approach delivered in the
March 2018 ``Sealift That the Nation Needs'' report to
Congress.
We continue to demand analytic rigor that provides
actionable data to guard our investments in maintenance and
repair to return the fleet to our agreed readiness goal of 85
percent.
Finally, I see no barriers to our plans to recapitalize the
sealift fleet. I will continue to work alongside General Lyons
and Admiral Buzby to provide the sealift readiness our Nation
needs.
I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Williamson can be found
in the Appendix on page 59.]
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Admiral.
And lastly, but not least, because he is a native of the
State of Connecticut, Lieutenant General Nahom.
STATEMENT OF LT GEN DAVID S. NAHOM, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
FOR PLANS AND PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
General Nahom. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Courtney, Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Members
Wittman and Lamborn, distinguished members of the subcommittee,
thank you for having us here today with U.S. Transportation
Command and Maritime Administration to discuss the state of the
mobility enterprise and provide testimony on Air Force's role
in supporting the Department of Defense's air mobility
capabilities.
The Air Force provides capabilities, crews, fleets
essential to mobilize global support. The mobility fleet faces
many challenges providing the force and fleet readiness needed
to meet ever-increasing demands our Nation relies upon.
Our most significant challenge today is the move to a two-
tanker fleet as we must stretch our resources to meet demands
while balancing the appropriate risk by divesting the legacy
aircraft to move toward the future force.
As we modernize to counter growing threats, we must also
ensure that forces remain ready and able to offer options to
our Nation's leaders and combatant commands.
There is no doubt the demand for mobility capabilities
remains high. With the support of Congress, we have made major
improvements to mobility readiness and hope to continue
increasing our ready forces.
I am looking forward to the discussion today and to
continue to work with this committee for a more ready and
capable mobility force in the future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Nahom can be found in
the Appendix on page 69.]
Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you, General.
So, we are going to go into questions. Again, we are going
to apply the 5-minute rule to everyone, including folks near
the microphones here and, hopefully, we will at least get
through one cycle and if there is extra time then we will keep
going, depending on next votes.
So, Admiral Buzby, thank you for at least recognizing we
got a couple things right last year in terms of restoring the
funding for the National Security Multi-Mission Vehicle. Great
to hear things are on track with that program, and also the
extension and reauthorization of the Maritime Security Program.
We also backed a three-pronged approach which, again, was
mentioned earlier about extending current sealift ships, buying
used vessels, and requiring the start of a domestic new-build
ship and gave some additional authorities to build these new
ships using alternative contracting approaches.
Again, that alternative contracting approach I would like
to focus on just here for a moment, again, is being deployed in
the case of the multi-mission vehicle.
Can you talk about what, you know, knock on wood, you know,
how that is proceeding and then whether or not that we could
use that model again as a way of getting more sealift ships
built and with a little more flexibility.
Admiral Buzby. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
As I mentioned in my testimony, we are about that close to
actually having our vessel construction manager TOTE Services
get to contract with the shipyard.
The process has been a learning process for all involved,
both the government, us in Maritime Administration, TOTE
Services, our contractor, and the potential shipyard.
I think that it offers great promise because what we are
going to be doing is using a commercial practice to deliver a
ship at a fixed price and a fixed timeline and contract, and I
think that it offers--I think we are going to see a great
savings from it.
I mean, the proof will be in the pudding. I know we have
been talking with the Navy, with Naval Sea Systems Command on
this. They have been watching it very closely, and I think they
have gotten more comfortable as time goes on.
I don't want to speak for them but, you know, as we have
matured it and gotten through it and worked through the bumps,
I think--I think it definitely offers great promise and needs
to be seriously looked at if we go forward to procuring more
sealift ships.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. I don't know if, Admiral
Williamson, you want to comment at all. But, again, as you
said, the committee sort of expressed its, you know, support
for this approach that he just described in terms of just what
is the Navy's take on it.
Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. As the CNO testified earlier,
you know, we are working really hard to close these gaps from
our--us not investing in the past 15, 20 years.
You know, we see this as an opportunity. We will partner
with MARAD and do the analytical rigor necessary to ensure
that, you know we can find executionable solutions within the
constraints of our budget, sir.
Mr. Courtney. Well, thank you, and we will be, you know,
again, really anxious to see how this unfolds again because we
have got to get sort of a different approach here if we are
going to really start getting some momentum in terms of filling
some of the gaps here.
Admiral Buzby, our subcommittee also for a number of years
has been sort of tracking the progress about getting a national
maritime strategy sort of on the books, which have been decades
since we have done that as a nation, and I know it is a
challenge because there is a lot of different Federal offices
and agencies that touch the maritime realm. But maybe you could
just give us an update in terms of how that is proceeding.
Admiral Buzby. Yes, sir. I am very happy to report to the
committees that our report back to Congress as was directed in
the 2014 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act], actually
the Coble Act, is complete and has been submitted. It is
entitled ``Goals and Objectives for a Stronger Maritime
Nation,'' our report to Congress.
It lists 4 goals and about 39 objectives to get to a
stronger merchant marine. It is not a global maritime strategy,
one that encompasses the Navy and the Coast Guard and all the--
all of the facets of maritime America.
It really is kind of focused on the commercial side and
those things that we in the Department of Transportation could,
clearly, focus on. But I enjoin everyone to take a good look at
it and, you know, it is a starting point. It is a place where I
think we and industry can all stack our hands together and move
forward from.
Mr. Courtney. Well, we are, you know, glad to hear that is
happening. Again, if we can sort of get progress in the
commercial sector that will spill over and benefit, obviously--
--
Admiral Buzby. I would agree.
Mr. Courtney [continuing]. Other parts of shipbuilding,
whether it is Navy, Coast Guard, or, you know, sealift and, you
know, if you look at the aerospace sector, you know, the fact
that they are able to sort of balance their industrial base
with commercial work in addition to military work, I mean, that
has really been the missing sort of ingredient in the
shipbuilding area and your description of the shipyard decline
that is happening, you know, that is just--we have to turn that
around----
Admiral Buzby. Yes, sir.
Mr. Courtney [continuing]. And really glad you finished
that report. So, thank you.
I recognize Mr. Wittman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank our witnesses for joining us.
Admiral Buzby and Vice Admiral Williamson, I want to go to
you to begin with. As we look at the fiscal year 2021 budget
request for recapitalizing the logistics fleet--the Ready
Reserve Fleet as it is formally called--we look at a $550
million per ship cost in constructing new ships.
I am not confident that we can afford ships at that price
and build the fleet back at the pace that we need to build it
back. But I do think there are a lot of different ways that we
can think about how we can make those things happen.
Chairman Courtney talked about several. I think we have to
engage the industry. But I want to get your perspective. I
think, looking at U.S. shipbuilding companies, looking at their
potentially partnering with other companies across the globe
that are in the shipbuilding business and how we can make sure
we have critical U.S. systems on board those ships here, make
sure they are designed specifically for the purpose of the
military, looking too at the idea of the use of those ships by
the private sector and then contracting for those ships to be
made available for the United States military and then at a
certain point maybe the sealift--our Maritime Administration
purchasing those ships as kind of a reverse of the MSP program.
I think all those things are efforts that should be on the
table. I want to get your perspective about how do we, as
quickly as possible, rebuild that capacity, much like Secretary
Lehman did back in the 1980s. Time is not in our--in our favor
now and we have to be able to do this quickly.
Admiral Buzby, I want to get your perspective. And then,
Admiral Williamson, I want to get your perspective, because it
really doesn't seem that the Navy is really serious about this.
It seems like the Navy is saying, you know what, doesn't
make a big difference to us. We don't need ships to get to the
fight. We got them. And if the Army wants to get to the fight,
we will let them worry about it.
So, it seems to me it is pretty doggone parochial and it
seems like to me we are not making any progress in getting
where we need to be. So, I would like to get both of your
perspectives on that.
Admiral Buzby. Thank you, sir. Thanks for the question.
I absolutely agree, we need to get on with this. You know,
we have to kind of approach it kind of two ways right now.
We have to--we have to fix and get as ready as we can the
ships that we have for the very near term and we have to do
some of the replacement using the authorities that Congress has
granted us to get us moving. You know, some of the things that
we are discussing here is going to be, you know, kind of a mid-
term sort of set of actions.
We have to, I think, kind of make a fundamental set of
decisions here on where these ships are going to come from. The
current Ready Reserve Force now is virtually all foreign built.
There are a few U.S.-built ships in there. But for the most
part they are in fact foreign-built ships. Ships that we will
be talking about bringing in near term are foreign-built ships.
So, you know, we are going to need to, you know, have a
real serious policy discussion on how critical is it that those
ships be built in the United States and there is some
criticality to that, and, you know, it goes to the comments
that I made earlier about our industrial base.
That is something to be taken into account and something we
don't want to, I think, just throw away. So, I think that
seriously needs to be taken into account against the need to
get ships quickly, very quickly.
But, you know, we are going to be working really closely
with the Navy and, obviously, with TRANSCOM setting the
requirement on what that mix--proper mix should be.
Mr. Wittman. Very good.
Admiral Williamson.
Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
As I said in my opening remarks, my leadership is taking
this very seriously, is closing this gap as quickly as we can,
and I think that is representative in our 2021 budget proposal.
You know, the funding of the two used ships at $60 million
I think helps, to Admiral Buzby's point, get us added capacity
and readiness now. I also believe that as far as the costs of
building new, we are committed to building new that is also
represented in our submittal of $37 million to do a design of a
ship to be built in--start build in 2023 and delivered in 2026.
Additionally, we are working with your staff right now to
address this, to find solutions that are affordable but also at
the same time, to echo what Admiral Buzby said, working very
closely with him and TRANSCOM how do I get after the divot that
was about 10 years out, as identified in the CBSA [Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments] study.
And I believe through a combination of the service life
extension program, additionally with the used ship buy, two
planned in 2021--we have an additional one in planning for
2022--I think that helps us lessen the impact of the--of the
shortfall identified in the CBSA study. So, we will continue to
partner with USTRANSCOM and MARAD to get after this, sir.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wittman.
Chairman Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
Reality. A little reality check here. With regard to this
sealift capacity, it isn't going to be done in the traditional
way. It is not going to happen. There is not money in the naval
budget to build the sealift capacity. There is no money to
rebuild the Ready Reserve Fleet. It just isn't there.
So, we need to think differently. Fortunately, there is a
proposal--a plan, if you will--that has been proposed to us and
we need to get real about this.
We either say this plan laid out in these documents is not
worth our effort to even think about or it is, and I would
suggest that this year we make a decision to pursue a different
strategy than the one that we know will not work, and that
strategy is something along the line that was laid out by the
Center for Strategic and Budget Assessments in this document
``Sustaining the Fight'' and then in its followup document.
It basically calls for the rebuilding of the American
merchant marines system using things that are already in place
such as the Jones Act, celebrating its 100th birthday, as Joe
told us earlier, and utilizing stipends, subsidies, and other
programs that have been on the books for more than 50 years but
not used in the last 25 years.
Essentially, building a fleet that is militarily useful,
and we can do this. The United States is now one of the largest
exporters of oil and natural gas, none of which is on American-
built ships. Keep in mind that Russia is requiring that its LNG
[liquid natural gas] from its northern Siberian area be on
Russian-built ships and Russian-flagged ships.
Why are they doing that? Because they see it as an
opportunity to build their merchant fleet, useful for their
purposes.
Similarly, we could, using legislation that we proposed
called the Energizing the American Shipbuilding Industry,
requiring that a small percentage of that oil and gas that we
ship overseas be on American-built ships with American
mariners, solving two problems simultaneously.
And if those ships are built appropriately, for example,
with a center--what do you call this, Mr. Buzby?
Admiral Buzby. A construction differential subsidy.
Mr. Garamendi. That is it. That is one of the subsidies.
But also built so that that ship can be used for resupplying
the Navy fuel at sea with a center post, I think you called it.
Admiral Buzby. King post. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. King post. And also some sort of a reel of
pipe at the back?
Admiral Buzby. Stern refueling capability.
Mr. Garamendi. There you go. Good words all the way around.
We could do this, and in the process reenergize and build in
our shipyards and all the things that we have been talking
about here.
So, we need an overarching strategy that is in place.
Hopefully, Admiral Buzby, your new maritime strategy, should it
ever emerge from OMB [Office of Management and Budget]--where I
understand it is still stuck.
Admiral Buzby. It is out, sir. The Secretary has signed it
out. It is----
Mr. Garamendi. Oh, my.
Admiral Buzby. It is for real.
Mr. Garamendi. Oh, my, my. At last.
Admiral Buzby. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. In any case, better now than never.
What I am--what I basically want to get into a deep
discussion on is in this year, in this year's NDAA, build upon
what we have--what we already have in place and stretch it
further so that we can do two things--leading the national
security requirements of this Nation.
So, let it go. I talked to all of you about this. Your
comments? Let us begin with Admiral Buzby and then go both
different directions.
Admiral Buzby. Sir, I would concur that we definitely need
a bit of a more bold approach if we want to get ahead of the
bow wave of obsolescence that we know that is coming, it's
well-documented, of our--of our sealift forces.
So, taking the outlay that is laid out in the CSBA report
is one way to do it. We have to just find the right mix, the
affordable mix, that still meets the capability requirements
that General Lyons lays out to meet the OPLAN [operations plan]
square footage and dry fuel--and wet fuel movement.
Mr. Garamendi. Admiral Williamson.
Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. As I said, my leadership--we
are absolutely committed to closing this gap in the near term.
Mr. Garamendi. Are you willing to think outside the box?
Admiral Williamson. Sir, we are willing to partner with
anyone to be able to close that gap sooner, and we will work
shoulder to shoulder with Admiral Buzby, TRANSCOM, industry,
and your staff.
Mr. Garamendi. I yield back.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thanks.
Boeing's performance issues with the KC-46--and by the way,
I am going to ask about refueling and tankers because I share
concern on the sealift capability but I think we have been
addressing that really well so far.
But on the KC-46, it puts everyone in a bind. It is hard--
it seems like it is going to be hard to even support day-to-day
combatant commander requirements not to mention the surge
required in case of major contingencies.
So, given the safety issue of the boom operators not being
able to see that last 18 inches, and I am not sure that it is
an acceptable risk to say they are still ready to go into a
major conflict.
So, General Lyons, could TRANSCOM meet its refueling
requirements if the Air Force was permitted to retire its KC-
10s but Congress were to direct it to retain additional KC-35s
so as to have 23 or so additional craft?
General Lyons. Sir, as you know, we have been working with
the Air Force and the delay in the KC-46 does in fact cause
about a 30 percent reduction in outputs and day-to-day
competition space. So, we are talking about non-mobilized
enterprise.
We would like to remediate that down to about 10 percent
reduction and that is where the delayed retirement for the
legacy fleet KC-10s and the KC-135s come into play. And I know
the Air Force--I know Dr. Roper and so forth has talked to you
and they are working very, very hard with Boeing, and Boeing
has got to come through and deliver a technical solution.
I want to talk to the Air Force on the programmatic piece.
But for an operational piece, we are approaching a high window
of risk if we continue to retire those jets.
Mr. Lamborn. And, General Nahom, is contract refueling a
viable option to bridge the gap as one way to meet this need in
case of further--either a contingency or the need of a surge?
General Nahom. Sir, we are looking at contract refueling,
and that wouldn't really be for so much contingency. That would
be some of the CONUS [contiguous United States] requirements.
Mr. Lamborn. For day-to-day?
General Nahom. Some of your training, your tests.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Okay.
General Nahom. Things that you do here at CONUS, not more
of your day-to-day overseas.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. I understand. I understand.
So, if so, would TRANSCOM or the Air Force be the more
appropriate party to manage the contracting process?
General Nahom. Sir, I don't want to speak for TRANSCOM here
but I believe--I believe that would fall under the Air Force as
we--you know, it is our duty to supply the air refueling that
is needed for the joint force and we take that seriously right
now.
The KC-46 is giving us--it is quite a challenge and we have
31 of them sitting on the ramps right now and, as you said,
day-to-day usage--the risk is just too great to use those in a
day-to-day usage.
The chief did say recently that we would use these in time
of a national emergency. We would use the airplane to whatever
capability we would--we could get out of it. But we are not
willing to use it day-to-day.
This is where our partnership with TRANSCOM is critical
right now, to make sure that we do retain enough legacy
refueling that we have for day-to-day operations. But we are
going to have to accept some risk in the near term so we can
correctly modernize too our two-tanker fleet, which is our 135
and our KC-46, and I think this is going to be the balance that
we are going to look to--obviously, the guidance from this
committee and working with TRANSCOM to make sure we get that
balance correct.
Mr. Lamborn. And, General Lyons, any last thoughts before I
turn back my time?
General Lyons. No, sir. The air component--the Air Mobility
Command is in fact at the direction of Congress as well,
looking at the feasibility, the business case, of outsourcing
some level of commercial aerial refueling options, much like we
do in the CRAF [Civil Reserve Air Fleet] program for commercial
augmentation.
And my commitment to General Miller is to support her in
any way that she requires support and we will take a look at
that, sir.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
Congresswoman Luria, the floor is yours.
Mrs. Luria. Thank you.
General Lyons, in your statement you noted that the
readiness of sealift today is 59 percent against the stated
goal of 85 percent. That 85 percent goal, is that against the
10.5 million square feet of sealift that we currently have?
General Lyons. That is correct, ma'am. Nineteen----
Mrs. Luria. But is 10.5 the requirement or is that
requirement actually significantly higher?
General Lyons. Well, the requirement is 19.2 million square
feet of roll on/roll off space.
Mrs. Luria. So, 19.2. So, if we have 60 percent of the 10.5
million that is about 6.3 million square feet currently, and if
you actually find the percentage of that 19.2 million it is
only about 30 percent that we currently have.
So, I am just looking at this number and I am confused
because if we are only meeting 30 percent of that requirement,
it seems like this would have been a much higher priority over
the preceding year.
And when I asked this question last year about our ability
to meet sealift demand, both you and your deputy stated that we
could meet that demand but just not in the time required was
what was said this year.
So, I kind of see one of two things is either true. Either
you don't need the 19.7 million square feet or the combatant
commanders' timeline in their TPFDD [Time Phased Force
Deployment Data] doesn't matter.
So, which is it if you are saying that you can meet the
requirement but you don't have the square footage or you can't
do it in the amount of time? Which one is the answer?
General Lyons. No, I think that is quite a reasonable
question. The 19.2 million square feet requirement has been
really consistent throughout multiple strategies over the
years. We do the force sizing work on that, as you know.
And so, when you don't have that, and we don't have that
today, there is direct implications on the arrival of the
forces relating to the TPFDD, relating to the global
[inaudible] war plan.
And so, to your point, that is the requirement and we are
unable to meet that today. That is the bottom line.
Mrs. Luria. Thank you.
And in this budget year, I understand that Military Sealift
Command--MSC--has allocated $50 million towards building a new
headquarters building and I also understand that this is not
coming from MILCON [military construction] construction. It is
coming from their O&M [operation and maintenance] account so
actually money that would go towards fuel, maintenance.
So why, if you are at 59 percent readiness on sealift, why
is the MSC spending $50 million of that money that could be
going towards maintenance and these other upgrades for these
sealift ships on the new headquarters?
General Lyons. Well, I won't talk to the--from the Navy's
position on headquarters on the title 10 requirements. But I
will say this. When the MSC headquarters got BRAC'd [base
realignment and closure] from the Navy Yard down to Norfolk, it
is currently in probably two dozen or more different
facilities.
This is the headquarters that, over time, has migrated to
an administrative headquarters. We are trying to migrate that
back to a warfighting headquarters consistent with the
strategy.
So command and control is a very important part of the
warfighting function and it really is important that Admiral
Wettlaufer has a command and control capacity that is
facilitated by a facility down there at Norfolk and I think
that is what they are working on.
To be honest with you, I don't exactly know the costs
associated with that. But there is a lot of work to be done in
that area.
Mrs. Luria. But do you agree with that funding for that
facility coming directly out of the operations and maintenance
funding that could be going to fix the problem with sealift
rather than a military construction project, which would be the
normal means for funding a building and a headquarters?
General Lyons. Well, to build a new headquarters would be
military construction, as you know. There are other ways to
improve and modernize your facilities within SRM [sustainment,
restoration, and modernization] and other accounts.
It is not an either/or trade, right. You must have mission
command capacity to command and control your fleet that is a
global fleet. So, we have to address the command and control
construct for the maritime component. We also have to address
the readiness issues on the fleet.
Mrs. Luria. So, I understand that that is being prioritized
this year over fuel for our MPSRON [Maritime Prepositioning
Ship Squadron] forces, over maintenance on these sealift ships.
That has become a priority this year is this $50 million
towards the headquarters over those urgent needs for the
sealift fleet?
General Lyons. Again, Congresswoman, this is--we are not
talking about--you know, we are not talking about plush
headquarters here. We are talking about a warfighting apparatus
to command and control a global fleet that we must employ in
combat operations. It is a warfighting function.
Mrs. Luria. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you.
Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Chairman, and thank each of you for
being here today and thank you for your service to our great
Nation.
I want to talk a little bit, General Lyons, about--we just
recently did an EDRI [Emergency Deployment Readiness Exercise].
I guess about a year ago out at Gulfport where we're exercising
alternate and contingency ports. I think that is great.
Tying that in, how much are you working with AMC [Air
Mobility Command] to make sure that what we lack currently in
sealift capacity or air capacity to make sure that we have
preposition stocks that are not too much at risk but are in
where we think the next fights may be?
Because there is one way--you either get them there after
the conflict starts or either you have to have them there,
which puts them at a little bit at risk, so that we make sure
we can go.
Everybody has a plan--do you get hit in the mouth, and so
you want to make--you have enough. We don't want another Korea
where we almost get pushed off the peninsula by the time we get
forces there.
So how much do you work with AMC to do that?
General Lyons. Sir, we work very closely with the services
who are responsible to determine their preposition
requirements. In this case, I think you are talking about
Army--Army Materiel Command. So, we work very, very closely
with them both in maritime prepositioning as well as supporting
their preposition ashore programs.
Mr. Kelly. I think that is real important. And General
Nahom, if you can kind of--the same way with the Air Force,
either through staging, basing, or prepositioned planes or
stocks or munitions, what are you doing to make sure that we
have the right stuff forward quickly enough. Are you working
with the--I guess the AMC of the Air Force to do the same
thing?
General Nahom. Sir, I don't want--I would say there is a
lot of prepositioning forward that happens through our overseas
combatant commands and, certainly, our major commands that
support that in the Air Force and we work very closely to make
sure they have the necessary--the necessary, you know, tools.
In terms of the equipment we would need to get to the
fight, obviously, we work very closely with TRANSCOM to make
sure we have the appropriate capacity in which to defeat the
fight as necessary.
Mr. Kelly. Because I think while we wait on the sealift or
airlift to get to where we need to be, we are much leaner
everywhere around the world than we were when I was a young
guy.
You know, we were doing Defender 2020 which is kind of like
the old Reforgers but we had 300,000 troops forward then. We
had all kind of airbases forward then. We don't have those same
things.
But we also have better allies probably who are more
prepared today, but a combination--I just want to make sure
that we are--until we get the sealift gap closed we need to
make sure that we are ready to fight tonight.
General Lyons, I am concerned about the future of the C-17
Globemaster sustainment. The current PBL [Performance Based
Logistics] contract between Boeing and the Air Force seems to
be a model program which has delivered 80 percent-plus mission-
capable rates every year for more than 20 years, a readiness
rate that makes the C-17 have the highest OR [operational
readiness] rate in the Air Force.
I understand the Air Force is considering a change to the
sustainment strategy for the C-17 and concluded a business case
analysis last year. Is that accurate?
General Lyons. Sir, I am not familiar with that. I will
take that for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 83.]
Mr. Kelly. I guess that answers my next question. Was
TRANSCOM consulted in the business case analysis? General
Nahom, do you have an answer to that?
General Nahom. Sir, the change to the PBL, I don't have
that information at hand. I am going to have to get back to you
for the record, sir.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 83.]
Mr. Kelly. Okay. And which goes to my next question, which
I know you can't answer but I am going to ask it for the
record. And would this change to the sustainment strategy
affect the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard, which have
C-17s?
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 83.]
Mr. Kelly. Finally, I guess I just want to talk about the--
a little bit--we have talked a little bit about the tankers--
the refueling tankers. And, guys, we just got to get this right
and it goes back to we got to think outside the box if we have
to do something differently in the interim.
But I don't think we can ever again put ourselves in a
position like we did in Korea or like we did at the early
stages of World War II or World War I where we don't have
enough to go toe to toe, because what that means is we are
fighting for footholds or ports or airbases.
Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines die. And so, we have
got to get the long-term solution. But in the interim I just
ask that you guys think outside the box to use every tool in
the box that we have to be able to close and fight tonight.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Norcross, you are recognized.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to thank
the witnesses for being here today. I want to focus on three
quick issues: aerial refueling assets, the strategic sealift,
and if I have time, the CMV-22.
First one. Three major issues left on the tanker--the tie-
downs, which has been addressed and is being fixed; the boom
stiffness, which was actually on us; and the remote visual
system, which is absolutely a critical problem.
But one thing we have to remember is that cost is on
Boeing. This is a fixed contract which needs to be looked at
the way we do it because the requirements has been an issue on
this piece, literally, going back years.
So, when we look at that, and I have great respect for my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but the idea of
halting this contract to me would be an absolute critical
mistake. Ninety-five percent of the time of building that plane
doesn't involve the remote vision system.
We can build those, continue its mission while it is being
fixed. We are too far behind and we are talking about great
power competition, I don't want to send an F-35 up when we are
in a major fight, especially if some other rather negative
things happen. They are not going to be able to fly. The KC-46
can still fly.
So, the idea of stopping a contract because of Category
One--we wouldn't have aircraft carriers, we wouldn't have an F-
35, we wouldn't even have submarines. We need to go at this.
Boeing's on the hook here. They need to perform. There is no
question about it.
But the idea of delay, I think, would be an absolute
critical mistake and something that we shouldn't go into.
But shifting over to the sealift, corona [coronavirus] has
taught us something in a lesson that we should take--that when
our supply chain is outside the United States, we are at risk.
First suppliers that are coming in from China, we are seeing
things delayed and that also goes with human capital.
So, those mariners that I have heard Mr. Buzby talk about
time after time, you don't grow them overnight. This is a focus
and we can only do it with an American fleet.
So, I echo the comments of my colleagues here that this is
a critical component that we don't fix overnight. Training
takes a tremendous amount of time and we need to make sure that
in our budget that the money is where it needs to be to supply
that next generation.
So, to Admiral Williamson, talk to me about the next
generation of supply chain going to our aircraft carriers, the
CMV-22. What is the transition that will take place when that
comes in? I think it is 2020, 2021 when your first one gets
delivered for the Carl Vinson.
Admiral Williamson. I am sorry, sir. I didn't hear the
first part of your question.
Mr. Norcross. The CMV. The Osprey.
Admiral Williamson. Yes.
Mr. Norcross. Is that next chain of supplies for our
carriers that is coming on in 2021. Talk to us how that support
mechanism is going to transition from what we presently have
with the CODs [carrier onboard delivery] and others.
Admiral Williamson. Sir, I am not familiar with that in my
portfolio. I would love to take that for the record and get
back with you. I can speak to how we have incorporated the 22
onto other platforms and how we are using that to look at
distributed maritime ops.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 83.]
Admiral Williamson. For example, EPF [Expeditionary Fast
Transport], which is an auxiliary platform, we are building
small, fast, light auxiliary. Looking at the next phases of
that with the VS-22 gives it about a 350-mile nautical range
capability. In addition to that, we have incorporated it into
our refits of our hospital ships, offering that an additional
350-mile capability as well.
And so when you look at the distributing--the supply chain
across the Log [Logistics] Continuum from the inter to intra,
the last tactical mile, obviously, I think the--and looking at
the distance of which we have to do in distributed maritime
ops, the VS-22 provides us some extremely good capability to
ensure that our sailors and Marines keep supplied.
Mr. Norcross. So, we will follow up on the carriers' supply
ship and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Norcross.
Mr. Bergman.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Buzby, you mentioned about building ships on time,
on budget. Did I get that right?
Admiral Buzby. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. Vice Admiral Williamson, I have never
heard that from the Navy. On time and on budget for ships. We
have had hearings over the last couple of weeks and many
members of the committee here have expressed concern about the
Navy shipbuilding plan. Okay.
I just wanted to--I am not expecting you to answer. I am
not asking you a question. So, Admiral Buzby, back to you. What
is it that is unique to the maritime industry that allows you
to be able to make that statement? What plans, planning,
whatever you want to call it--P2s, P3s--have been put into
place to allow you to make that statement?
Admiral Buzby. Excellent question, sir.
The key point to commercial contracting for new-build
construction is a couple of very key points. You go in with a
very mature design that is well understood, with the
requirement is well laid out and that the shipyard fully
understands what they are going to have to build. So, the
requirement is crystal clear, and right up front before they
sign the contract all of the risks are negotiated out.
You know, you are--you know, the risk is either retired
through understanding of the requirement or it is retired
through costs that is added in by the shipyard to take care of
any fluctuation in the design as they are building it.
So right up front, that is, you know, agreed to rather than
having it sort of float along and be a surprise as the ship is
being built. That is really the beauty of it.
Mr. Bergman. As you are--as you are working with industry
to work out to see where the risk is, these ships are going to
sail across the seas. There is no guarantee that they won't
face some level of enemy threat, if you will.
As part of the risk mitigation, is that part of the
discussion to some level of extent as to what kind of risk we
are assuming if this ship was to take a hit?
Admiral Buzby. The risk primarily that we are talking about
is really design risk----
Mr. Bergman. Okay.
Admiral Buzby [continuing]. And construction risk. The risk
that the ship faces once it is in the custody of the government
and off--or the commercial entity doing its thing, that is
operational risk, which is separate than this construction
risk.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. Well, I guess, again--again, this is
more of a statement, Vice Admiral Williamson, about I would
really--I think a lot of us would like to see the Navy at least
consider at what level can we use this industry model and then
as we got our warfighting ships--you know, it takes on a
different character but still be able to get as close to a
budget, if you will, a business proposal that makes sense that
this committee can look at and say it is--you know, this is--we
can fund this because it makes sense.
Back to you, Mr. Buzby. While the maintenance of the Ready
Reserve Force is important, so too is the development and
training of the mariners to command the vessels and to crew the
vessels.
How are you leveraging modeling and simulation and other
emerging training technologies to better prepare our merchant
mariners?
Admiral Buzby. Sir, that--using simulation is basically
mainline now in the training of today's mariners both on the
unlicensed side and on the licensed side. Matter of fact, I
visited all the State maritime academies, all six of them, plus
Kings Point on a regular basis.
All of them have fairly sophisticated simulation
capability. The Coast Guard recognizes 30 days of sea time in
exchange for simulator time as it stands right now and probably
more going forward. At Kings Point we are rededicating an
entire building and rehabbing it just to be a simulation
center, going forth, with the most modern simulators.
So absolutely critical to the training of a modern--to do
it efficiently, to do things in the simulator that you can't do
without very high risk of failure and potential calamity if you
try and do it for real at sea.
Mr. Bergman. As a veteran of simulation in my flying
career, the whole object of simulation is to be able to scare,
if you will, the pilots or the mariners to the point where they
learn, and you don't hurt anybody or destroy any equipment in
the process.
Because if you are not in their minds when they get into
the real thing, they are not as prepared as they could have
been and we--through the failure to leverage the simulation.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Bergman.
Mr. Golden.
Mr. Golden. Thank you.
Just a question for the panel. Anyone can field this one. I
imagine that USTRANSCOM is looking to remain on the cutting
edge of technological innovation as part of this discussion as
well.
Just as an example, back home in Maine at the University of
Maine Composite Center it is also the advanced additive
manufacturing facility that they have up there for research and
development.
They have the largest 3D printer in the world where they
recently did a 25-foot 5,000-pound boat in about 72 hours; if
you think about that in regards to potential for just design,
testing, research, and development. They've got a big basin up
there for testing these types of things out as well.
But I don't think they believe they are going to continue
to have the largest 3D printer in the world for long. They are
going to go bigger and they are thinking about unmanned and
things of that nature as well.
They also have made composite shipping containers, as an
example, where you can, first of all, think about the fuel
savings to the Navy, potentially, with shipping containers that
are half as heavy as steel, the kind of logistics potential
that comes with something that is stronger than steel but also
able to collapse in upon itself and stack in case you are not
using it all, but also fiber in the composite material so now
you are attached to the grid so you can do inventory scans. You
can do security scanning. It doesn't block GPS [Global
Positioning System] and transmission signals and things of that
nature. You know, they are working hard for the future.
So, I just wanted to give you all the opportunity to
discuss ways in which TRANSCOM is partnering with industry in
general to adapt and innovate to meet the sealift requirements
that the joint force needs in the future.
General Lyons. Congressman, I will start and I will defer
to the--particularly to the services.
But I think you are right, it is absolutely amazing the
technology and innovation that we see across all of our
universities and campuses.
At TRANSCOM, specifically at the headquarters, we are
really focused on decision support systems and command and
control systems, big time into enterprise data environment,
enabling machine learning, thinking about artificial
intelligence, and these kinds of things.
And then at the weapons systems level, I mean, the
services, largely, work the weapons systems level and those
kinds of things. So, I will defer to the services if they have
additional thoughts on this.
But I agree, the rate of change is impressive.
Admiral Williamson. Sir, thank you for the opportunity to
comment. Additive manufacturing, we have already started to
experiment with that on our ships. Stennis used this on her
last deployment.
And to your point, being able to get a part that is
necessary to continue combat operations in a short period of
time, we think there is some incredible opportunities there.
When we look at--you know, earlier we talked about the supply
chains and being able to get those things done.
Additionally, digitalization of our supply chains, being
able to take, obviously, various different systems, bringing
that together to give not only at the tactical level but the
operational level and strategic level the commanders real-time
information to make real-time decisions I think is a road we
are exploring and already making some progress.
Thank you.
General Nahom. And, sir, obviously, no ship examples. But I
would say for the Air Force if you look at where we are going
with digital design it is going to really revolutionize how
we--how we build aircraft in the future.
The perfect example that doesn't apply to the portfolio
here but our new trainer, the T-7, which is the first aircraft
100 percent digitally designed, and you look at how we are
manufacturing it is not about a different aircraft. It is about
building an aircraft differently, and that is going to lead
into the future as we go beyond some of the current mobility
assets we currently fly right now.
Mr. Golden. I thank you all for that, and let me extend an
invitation up to the University of Maine on their behalf, if
you are interested, you know, from the perspective of additive
manufacturing.
I know they are looking at potential jet fuel, you know,
composite and additive manufacturing. Makes sense in Maine.
We've got the largest contiguous forest--working forest in
North America. So, we are the wood basket, so to speak, and you
can do an awful lot with it. So, thank you.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Golden.
Mr. Conaway.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A couple of real quick questions. It won't take long.
General Nahom, KC-46A is not qualified for tanker missions
but it can do other things--air ambulances, other things. Have
we actually used any of those aircraft in a mission of anything
other than training yet?
General Nahom. Sir, right now, it is--the use of the
aircraft is currently in a beddown in the testing. We are
looking for the other capabilities, the cargo and, certainly,
our medical evacuation, and we are looking to certify those
capabilities very quickly.
You know, unfortunately, those will be certified before the
air refueling but we will be able to get to those kind of
missions very quickly.
Mr. Conaway. I am sorry. Did you say they should have been
certified for that before the air----
General Nahom. No, but for--I mean, we would have--in a
perfect world we would have air refueling before those
capabilities.
Mr. Conaway. Okay.
General Nahom. But it looks like, based on the remote
visual system, we are going to have the other capabilities
first.
Mr. Conaway. For those capabilities, I mean, they are
obviously planned for ahead of time. I have been on board one
of those--the planes and there is a lot of room.
General Nahom. Yes, sir. And that is--we are just bedding
down the first airplanes. You know, they are at McConnell now,
soon to be at Pease down in North Carolina, and we are--right
now, we are working on those missions to get those certified
and out to the fields.
Mr. Conaway. Okay.
A little more mundane. General Lyons, you have got a--gone
to a single-move manager for movements. I guess the idea was to
be more efficient and customer friendly.
How are you going to make sure that it doesn't devolve into
just the big guys getting the moves and the smaller movers get
weeded out or pushed out of the way and customer service
deteriorates rather than improve?
General Lyons. Congressman, it is a great question. I will
tell you, the way we started this is we recognized that the
current program we have was never going to deliver the level of
accountability, transparency, and incentivize the level of
capacity we needed for peak.
So, the restructure in our relationship with industry
through the single-move manager construct was really about
making sure that our relationship with industry was clearly
delineated with key performance parameters.
As I always say to the moving companies that are out there
today, the same moving companies if you are performing well you
will still be performing well in the future program. So, the
single-move manager will absorb the global network as it exists
today.
We will measure the level of performance and incentives
that will incentivize growth over a longer period of time in a
contractual relationship.
And let me--I guess to be more clear, Congressman, I will
give you a couple of examples. So, if I--if I asked--if you
asked a question what company, and I won't name the company
publicly but what company has the most suspensions and
warnings?
I can tell you that company has got over a thousand
suspensions and warnings, and under the current program they
did $26 million of business in the Department of Defense last
year.
So, we think that is unacceptable. We think it is
unacceptable that the 950th company of 950 still show up at
your curbside.
So, what we are really trying to do is keep the good
companies, incentivize the growth of the good companies, push
out the bad companies and incentivize the performance inside
that relationship and hold industry accountable inside the
Department. The Department can hold me accountable.
Mr. Conaway. So there is a recommendation, though, that
there could be new companies come into the scheme that would
have some sort of a fair shot at getting to be able to build a
reputation that they are either good or bad, and you are
looking at making sure that new folks can come in, because
there will be companies that go out of business, especially
ones you push out of the--out of the system if they are not
functioning.
But you are looking at the whole package, not just allowing
some single-source--single-move manager to create a fiefdom of
good friends who get all the business.
General Lyons. No. No, sir, you are exactly right and we
want to incentivize new players that come into the market that
are not incentivized to come in today.
Mr. Conaway. All right. Thank you.
General Lyons. We actually want that. Thank you.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Yield back.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Conaway.
Mr. Brindisi.
Pass. Okay.
So, all right. We have done one run-through of the
committee. It looks like that votes are still a little ways
off. So, I think we, again, have an opportunity for a second
round of questions and, again, I will just lead off.
I just have, actually, just one question for General Lyons,
which is, again, last Congress, you know, we definitely dug
into the issue of, again, our shortfall in terms of maritime
tanker support and during the NDAA [National Defense
Authorization Act] we established a tanker security program
modeled off the successful Maritime Security Program, which
Admiral Buzby referred to earlier.
This program would have helped maintain a fleet of 10 U.S.-
flagged tankers to augment our fleet during contingencies.
Unfortunately, that mark fell out during the conference
process. But, again, we are very interested in moving forward
on it.
Again, I just, for the record, can you state whether or not
you favor a program like this and can you speak to--if so, can
you speak to the benefit of a program like this in helping
TRANSCOM?
General Lyons. Chairman, thank you, and thanks for the
language in this--last year's bill. As you know, we will
conduct the study for the Department to really assess our
accessibility to the--to the market--to the global market in
time of crisis.
And so, I think you are alluding to, as you well know, we
have a high dependency on foreign-flagged tankers in crisis in
the maritime tanker area, and so we are looking at this. We are
ready to report back in about the middle of the year, June
timeframe.
We are working with Admiral Buzby. I acknowledge I think
there is value in a Maritime Security-like program for tankers.
We just need to take a look at the economics of it. Yes, sir.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, and, again, I think our
subcommittee is definitely serious in terms of taking another
run at this. So, thank you.
Mr. Wittman.
Let us see. Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. Just a quick question for General
Lyons or Lieutenant General Nahom.
On global fuel distribution, just to think a little bit
toward the future here, given the challenges associated with
fuel distribution in a contested environment, I am wondering if
DOD needs to designate an organization to manage this for the
joint force.
While the Defense Logistics Agency does an effective job of
procuring and distributing fuel for day-to-day operations, I am
not sure that they are equipped to manage distribution during a
major conflict with a near-peer adversary.
And I guess, General Lyons, I will start with you. Have we
reached a point where the Nation needs to become the global
fuel distribution integrator and would TRANSCOM be an effective
choice for that?
General Lyons. Sir, we--you know, in the fall up at Newport
with the Joint Chiefs and the combatant commanders, we looked
at a war game and that red team looked at the end-to-end liquid
energy value chain.
I agree with your assessment. I think inside the Department
we need to take a look at end-to-end global integration role to
make sure that in global posture, not just in the procurement
that DLA [Defense Logistics Agency] does, but in global
posture, in maritime transport, in air transport, the entire
end-to-end view needs to belong to somebody.
I have mentioned to the Department--I think at least to the
vice chairman--that I believe TRANSCOM is the right place to do
that in the future if they so desire for us to take on that
mission, much like we do for global mobility. And so, we are
working with the Department on that, sir.
But I think as we move forward and to great power
competition in contested environments, this is something we
have to look at. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lamborn. Anything to add to that, sir?
General Nahom. No, sir. Nothing to add to that.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
Chairman Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Gentlemen, the Congressional
Budget Office and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessment have both recently identified phased replacement of
the National Defense Reserve Fleet assets with a fleet of
privately owned militarily useful commercial sealift and
tankers as the most cost-effective approach to rebuilding our
strategic sealift fleet.
The CBO recommends a phased replacement plan of five ships
per year, while the CSBA goes further by recommending
completely replacing the government-owned MSC [Military Sealift
Command] prepositioned fleet with MARAD-chartered commercial
ships and expanding the Maritime Security Program to replace
today's MARAD Ready Reserve Forces.
So, the question, Admiral Buzby, should the U.S. Government
transition to a unified national fleet approach that leverages
the best attributes of the U.S.-flagged commercial industry to
meet our strategic sealift requirements?
Admiral Buzby. Thank you for the question, sir.
I could--I can't give you an absolute right now. I think,
you know, the proposals that CSBA has made are very attractive.
I think they need to be more fully teased out.
The right balance of where our capability lies on the
commercial side and the government-owned side I think it is
worthy of further pulling apart and making sure that whatever
we decide upon meets the requirements of General Lyons and the
combatant commanders.
So, there is a--there is a couple pieces to it. There is
the absolute square footage piece of it. There is the
timeliness piece of it and when it is required; the reliability
of both of those forces and how much we pay for those forces.
All those factors, I think, need to be put together in a
calculus to come up with what is the right mix. That is an
option. It makes sense on its surface. I think before we pull
the trigger on anything like that, we need to kind of make sure
we are marching down the right road.
Mr. Garamendi. So, we will pursue it.
General Lyons, your thoughts on it and also, perhaps, first
what about the cargo? What about requirements that all military
cargo, including fuel, be on American-flagged ships, and then
on to the question that I just asked Admiral Buzby?
General Lyons. Chairman, as you know, cargo preference
rules require cargo--general cargo--to move on U.S.-flagged
ships. For petroleum, there are not sufficient U.S.-flagged
ships in the inventory, to your point, to move all petroleum
needs on a U.S.-flagged----
Mr. Garamendi. And there never will be until the only place
you could use it is American ships.
General Lyons. That is correct.
Mr. Garamendi. Yes.
General Lyons. That is correct.
Mr. Garamendi. So therein lies a solution, doesn't it?
General Lyons. Potentially. Chairman, I am open to
solutions. Many different ways to approach this. I am really
wedded to the outcomes.
I do think, to your point, though, sir, on the--whether you
could completely outsource the organic sealift fleet for the
Nation, for the Department, I don't see us ever going there. I
think we will need a DOD-owned fleet at least for the first
traunch out.
But the linkages to the commercial industry are
inextricable, both in terms of mariners, in terms of additional
capacity, and in terms of global networks.
What the report didn't specifically address is how you
would generate the cargo required to move under the U.S. flag
that would then generate the ships and then generate the crews.
I think cargo is king. If we have the cargo, to your point,
moving under the U.S. flag, we have got--we have got a viable
U.S.-flagged fleet.
Mr. Garamendi. The report does recommend several strategies
to develop the cargo, one of which is you use American ships
when you are moving military equipment--Coast Guard, on and on
and on.
So that is one way the cargo can be generated. The rest of
it is we are going to have to find some way to make these ships
available and that is either going to be done with the Navy
budget or, as Mr. Wittman suggests, the Army budget.
Either way, it is coming from the DOD or a strategy that
would leverage the commercial side of it with militarily useful
ships with king's post or--is that it? Thank you.
General Williamson, or Admiral Williamson, your thoughts in
the next round of questions.
I yield back.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you.
Ms. Luria.
Mrs. Luria. Thank you, and Admiral Williamson, I wanted to
turn to you on the buy used that we have talked about a few
times during this hearing and about the authority that was
given to buy seven ships used, and we talked a little bit about
the timeline of why it has been so slow to purchase these
ships.
But can you confirm what you are on track to move forward
for now within this year?
Admiral Williamson. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question.
We are on track right now, provided we get the funding in
our request to purchase two ships in 2021 and we are planning
for an additional ship in 2022. Obviously, this is tied to a
commitment by the SECNAV [Secretary of the Navy] to demonstrate
to the committee and to Congress that we are going to buy new,
and that is reflected in the $37 million RDT&E [research,
development, test, and evaluation] for the purchase--the
purchase of the design for the ship to start build in 2023,
delivery in 2026.
Additionally, we put forward a legislative proposal that
decouples the procurement of the used ships from the mandate to
acquire the used ship--to get away from the mandate to buy the
new ships.
That does not mean that we are walking away from the
construction of new ships. But what it does is allow us to
procure used ships at a faster rate to get after the gap
identified in the CSBA.
Mrs. Luria. So, I understand that the approximate costs
estimated to purchase a used ship that would have military
utility is approximately $30 million per hull.
But do you in--anywhere in the budget take into account the
costs that it would take to upgrade these ships both to make
them meet ABS [American Bureau of Shipping] standards--which I
have heard approximately up to $30 million to take a foreign-
flagged ship to meet ABS standards--and then any additional
upgrades to ramps, cranes, equipment for the type of cargo that
they would carry plus anything that would make them militarily
compatible such as comms [communications] and other
electronics? What is the total price tag and have you included
that in the request?
Admiral Williamson. Ma'am, obviously, that is a very
detailed question. I would love to get back to you with the
details on that if that is okay to work with you and your
staff.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 83.]
Mrs. Luria. Thank you, but that is very important. That is
very important for the committee, because if it is a $30
million price tag to buy the ship but then you need to come
back and ask for $30 million more to make it useful for its
purpose, we need to know that going into this process.
Admiral Williamson. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Luria. So, thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Mr. Golden. Okay.
Actually, I did mean to ask one more question to General
Lyons, and as long as we've got a few more minutes before the
next vote series, again, the last time this country
recapitalized the Ready Reserve Fleet, Congress created the
National Defense Sealift [NDS] Fund as the mechanism for doing
so in an affordable and nondisruptive way which, again, sort of
spread the costs throughout the Department of Defense, as we
heard earlier.
Again, I just want to just ask you for the record, General,
do you support and see value in this fund as we begin a new
recapitalization effort?
General Lyons. Chairman, I absolutely do. I think we are
going to have to have an appropriation that is NDS-like to move
forward. I think that is a--and when I met with Secretary
Spencer back in the September timeframe he mentioned the same
kind of approach and the CNO, I believe, is on board as well.
Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. It is
helpful as, again, we move more towards the mark.
Chairman Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Where to go here?
The--perhaps I will just let it go at this point. My
colleagues have asked most of the questions that are out there.
What I am going to do is my last series of questions indicated
that there was a path that we ought to explore and that we
should thoroughly analyze a different strategy than the one we
have been on.
So, General Lyons, Admiral Buzby, and Admiral Williamson, I
would like to do that with you and with the Air Force.
Oh, there is one thing on the KC--excuse me, on the C-17s.
They really cannot get into a contested environment and
survive. There is an upgrade that we ought to be looking at for
the C-17s. I will leave that to another question.
But back to the sealift capacity here. Looking forward to a
robust discussion about a different way of accomplishing our
goal and where we presently are. We can do the oil piece of it.
That is just a small part of the 86 oilers that are said to be
necessary. How do we get the rest of them?
So, let us spend some time working our way through that and
use this year to get us on a new charted path.
Thank you. I yield.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Chairman.
Again, thank you to all the--thank you to all the
witnesses. You know, your testimony was really helpful and I am
sure the dialogue will continue as we get closer to the April
markup.
Thank you very much, and with that we close out the
hearing.
[Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 11, 2020
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 11, 2020
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
March 11, 2020
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. NORCROSS
Admiral Williamson. There is no shift in the chain of supplies for
our carrier moving from C-2A to CMV-22. In the Navy Aerial Logistics
Concept of Operations, Navy-unique Fleet-essential airlift, composed of
fleet logistics support squadrons operating the C-130T and C-40A
aircraft, supports the forward logistics movement of critical wartime
supplies and personnel from the aerial point of debarkation to the
forward logistics site (FLS) or other fleet support location as
dictated by the forward deployed nature of naval operations. Fleet
logistics multi-mission (CMV-22B) detachments then provide the final
link to finish the last leg of the logistics trail from the FLS to the
Carrier Strike Group via the CVN. In great power competition, the goal
is to ensure survivability of this logistics trail through
unpredictability and use of dispersed/mobile logistics sites. [See
page 21.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KELLY
General Lyons. Yes, the Air Force completed a C-17 Product Support
Business Case Analysis in March 2019. Although I will defer to the Air
Force to elaborate on the details of that BCA, I am confident knowing
that Air Force senior leadership continues to assess options to improve
C-17 sustainment in terms of cost, performance and risk--which, as you
know, is critically important to our strategic airlift fleet. [See
page 19.]
General Lyons. The Air Force's Air Mobility Command (AMC)
represented the interests of all C-17 users throughout the Product
Support Business Case Analysis effort. AMC is the air component of the
U.S. Transportation Command and is responsible for a Total Force effort
to execute Rapid Global Mobility and enable Global Reach missions.
[See page 19.]
General Nahom. The Air Force's Air Mobility Command (AMC)
represented the interests of all C-17 users throughout the Product
Support Business Case Analysis effort. AMC is the air component of the
U.S. Transportation Command and is responsible for a Total Force effort
to execute Rapid Global Mobility and enable Global Reach missions.
[See page 19.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. LURIA
Admiral Williamson. The President's Budget for Fiscal Year (FY)
2021 requested $60 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy funding
to purchase two used, foreign built ships. In the March 2019 market
survey, there were 58 vessel responses of which nine were roll-on/roll-
off vessels that met or exceeded the minimum operational requirements.
Of those nine, five vessels are enrolled in the Maritime Security
Program, therefore, they are U.S.-flagged, deemed military useful by
the U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), and do not require major
modifications or conversions. Three of these five vessels are between
the ages of 20 and 25 years with an average estimated procurement cost,
including reflagging and reclassification to meet ABS standards, of $30
million each. Vessel surveys scheduled to be conducted on proposed
ships for purchase will be conducted in the 4th Quarter of FY 2020. Any
additional upgrades required to make the used ships militarily
compatible, such as communications and other electronic equipment,
would be assessed and the total price tag for those additional upgrades
would be included in a future budget submission. [See page 29.]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
March 11, 2020
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN
Mr. Wittman. In recent years, commercial ship owners and operators,
and certain classification societies, have begun using digital analytic
tools and artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities to aid in the
overall maintenance and management of vessels. These tools also apply
to the commercial offshore exploration and drilling industries. These
tools can be particularly important for tracking the readiness of our
nation's fleet, as highlighted in the recent turbo activation of
sealift vessels. The material condition of many government vessels is a
major issue affecting our nation's ability to go to war. These advanced
analytic tools have been incorporated into a pilot program to determine
their effectiveness at Military Sealift Command (MSC) within U.S. Navy.
Ultimately these tools can and will be used with the classification
societies in a condition-based maintenance approach versus the former
time-based methods of periodic maintenance on ships. These tools,
coupled with new classification methods, are expected to streamline
maintenance planning and provide clarity into the readiness status of
MSC's vessels. These tools can equally benefit the U.S. Navy surface
and auxiliary fleet as well as the sealift fleet.
Since Navy already applies commercial classification rules for
shipbuilding and lifecycle operations, the potential exists for these
advanced digital classification and AI tools to assist Navy and MARAD
with ship management and maintenance planning. To that end:
1. With the success demonstrated to date at MSC, is the U.S. Navy
and MARAD considering incorporation of digital analytic tools and AI
methods into other surface vessels?
2. If not, why not? If yes, when does Navy and MARAD plan to
utilize these tools for maintenance planning and condition monitoring
on its ships?
3. Has Navy considered a pilot program with these new tools similar
to the pilot program MSC has underway? If no, why not?
Admiral Buzby. The same challenges that exist for ensuring the
readiness of our Nation's aging surge sealift fleet exist with respect
to adopting new technologies. To that end, MARAD has always been open
to incorporating new technologies into vessel management and
maintenance when appropriate and resources are available to do so. For
example, MARAD will evaluate technology to perform tank inspections and
robotic hull cleaning, which could decrease resource requirements and
increase availability of vessels. In addition, the American Bureau of
Shipping (ABS) has introduced Image Recognition Technology that has
received class approval. There are more than 20 approved providers that
perform these surveys. It is anticipated that all these processes will
become more available for the ship manager/owner; however, there is
presently a long lead time to apply for these services.
It is difficult to make any type of gains for a fleet that exceeds
46-years of age; however, MARAD recognizes that improving maintenance
means a reliance on data and effective maintenance protocols that don't
simply focus on time. MARAD recently attended the ABS Special Committee
for Ship Operations meeting in February 2020, and we continue to review
emerging maintenance approaches proposed by the classification society.
In 2016, MARAD provided Chief of Naval Operations staff (OPNAV N2/
N6E) with points of contact at MSC for development of a digital twin
for the LMSR ships and fleet oilers (T-AO), however these digital twins
are most relevant for new ships where automation, and instrumentation
are included from new construction.
Additionally, MARAD operates and maintains the National Defense
Reserve Fleet (NDRF), including both Ready Reserve Force (RRF) and the
training ship fleet made available to state maritime academies, under
memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with both the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) and the ABS. These MOUs have defined requirements that MARAD
must meet, which do not necessarily align with advances in AI and new
conditions-based maintenance protocols. In short, advances in data
analysis have exceeded legacy procedures, due to technology or
regulatory requirements (e.g. 46 CFR Subchapter R for public nautical
school ships). MARAD expects the National Security Multi-Mission Vessel
(NSMV) Vessel Construction Manager to incorporate as many new
capabilities as possible in constructing the NSMVs. The Navy and MARAD
will do the same when acquiring used vessels to recapitalize the legacy
RRF fleet.
MARAD's NDRF, including RRF vessels were last recapitalized during
the 1990s, and these ships contain a wide-range of technology and
instrumentation from the 1960s through 1990s. Despite modernization
that is often limited by available resources, a significant segment of
the analysis requires greater instrumentation than is currently
available to us.
MARAD has a continuous dialogue with ABS staff and with ABS
Consulting to identify relevant tools or analysis that could improve
readiness and availability of aging vessels. During these engagements,
the promise of gains quickly conflicts with the existing conditions
onboard an aging fleet of vessels where data for analysis is simply
unavailable. While in Reduced Operating Status (ROS), the RRF vessels
are effectively in a continuous maintenance availability vice the
selective restricted availability of similar Navy vessels. MARAD is
working with ABS to identify maintenance protocols that change from
time-based requirements to conditions-based requirements. Often, these
conditions-based requirements are queued to operating vessels and some
are therefore unsuitable for ROS vessels, in long-term lay berth
conditions.
When practical, MARAD analyzes data resident in MARAD's commercial,
off-the-shelf system known as Nautical Systems-Enterprise (NS-E). MARAD
is working in conjunction with ABS Consulting, the provider for NS-E,
to identify greater and more in-depth reporting and dashboards that use
NS-E data for informed decision making. MARAD selected NS-E to support
the Ready Reserve Force Management System. This comprehensive data
repository helps MARAD and contracted Ship Managers guide preventive
maintenance, logistics management, and even resourcing decisions on a
highly adaptable and widely used commercial platform.
MARAD defers to Navy for comment on development of a pilot program.
MARAD is actively participating in the Performance-to-Plan effort
being conducted by the Center for Naval Analyses funded by the
Director, Strategic Mobility/Combat Logistics Division, Chief of Naval
Operations (OPNAV N42). The goal of this effort is to develop decision
tools and ``levers'' that can affect readiness to hasten gains in
vessel availability and readiness.
Mr. Wittman. Classification societies have developed cyber security
protocols and notations for industry use that promote security and
consequently ensure compliance with government contracting
requirements. These cybersecurity and risk management protocols are a
combination of human and technical factors and are based on an overall
security strategy for the business or organization. Government
contracting requirements for cybersecurity continue to evolve and
tighten as threats evolve.
1. How does Navy/MARAD measure security capabilities onboard
surface ships in ways that allow integration of commercial industry
best practices, but with Government security requirements in mind?
2. What has Navy/MARAD done to incorporate the classification
standards for cybersecurity piloted by Military Sealift Command for
other Navy/MARAD ships and systems?
3. Will the Navy consider specifying classification standards for
cybersecurity and tools similar to the MSC pilot program in contracts
for leased, contract operated and new construction contracts?
Admiral Buzby. MARAD ships maintain a current Vessel Security Plan,
approved by the USCG, and handled and protected as Sensitive Security
Information. This document includes best practices from the commercial
industry, and it is common practice that these are updated as new
threats, vulnerabilities, or concerns are identified. The USCG is
responsible for interpreting and implementing the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) requirements as well as any other
commercial maritime cyber requirements for U.S. vessels, including on
RRF ships.
MARAD encourages all commercial operators to adopt effective
cybersecurity measures and to report vulnerabilities as appropriate to
ensure safety and continued, effective operations of ships, ports, and
the networks that support them. We also, support industry efforts to
adopt best practices and see promise in the forward-looking guidance of
the IMO to align cybersecurity as a component of safety.
Finally, MARAD's contract for services of the onboard network known
as the Ready Reserve Force Management System (RMS) includes
cybersecurity elements, response, and authentication processes. We will
consider increasing the breadth of cybersecurity requirements, and a
focus on more support for response to any breach or vulnerability, in
future contracts.
MARAD also hosted cybersecurity penetration tests, and will
continue to do so during FY20.
There is no current classification society standard that is
required. We have worked with ABS Consulting to determine if ABS's
CyberSafety Notation will meet the requirements of the IMO and keep
NDRF/RRF vessels available.
MARAD permitted ABS to assess the Fast Sealift Ship (FSS) Regulus
to fully develop their onboard assessment model. They returned to the
vessel to further refine the model, and much of this effort is now
being used in the version used for MSC.
MARAD believes that the presence of Contract Mariners (CONMARs) on
the majority of sealift ships means that any cybersecurity practice
should reflect commercial practices with which the mariner pool is
likely to be familiar.
MARAD's FY 2020 Ready Reserve Force (RRF) program funding from
Department of Navy included $1 million that was requested for
cybersecurity initiatives. The funding will be used to engage a
cybersecurity contactor to perform a baseline assessment of the RRF
fleet to help develop additional management practices that meet IMO
guidance and are acceptable to USCG and ABS.
MARAD defers to Navy to comment on what it will specify with
respect to classification standards. MARAD already has cybersecurity
requirements in its contract for the operation of the RMS network. The
systems, applications, and networks MSC uses are significantly
different than from those MARAD uses on the RRF fleet. With regard to
the NSMV, the Vessel Construction Manager is responsible for
development of cybersecurity considerations which will align with
commercial best practices.
Mr. Wittman. In recent years, commercial ship owners and operators,
and certain classification societies, have begun using digital analytic
tools and artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities to aid in the
overall maintenance and management of vessels. These tools also apply
to the commercial offshore exploration and drilling industries. These
tools can be particularly important for tracking the readiness of our
nation's fleet, as highlighted in the recent turbo activation of
sealift vessels. The material condition of many government vessels is a
major issue affecting our nation's ability to go to war. These advanced
analytic tools have been incorporated into a pilot program to determine
their effectiveness at Military Sealift Command (MSC) within U.S. Navy.
Ultimately these tools can and will be used with the classification
societies in a condition-based maintenance approach versus the former
time-based methods of periodic maintenance on ships. These tools,
coupled with new classification methods, are expected to streamline
maintenance planning and provide clarity into the readiness status of
MSC's vessels. These tools can equally benefit the U.S. Navy surface
and auxiliary fleet as well as the sealift fleet.
Since Navy already applies commercial classification rules for
shipbuilding and lifecycle operations, the potential exists for these
advanced digital classification and AI tools to assist Navy and MARAD
with ship management and maintenance planning. To that end:
1. With the success demonstrated to date at MSC, is the U.S. Navy
and MARAD considering incorporation of digital analytic tools and AI
methods into other surface vessels?
2. If not, why not? If yes, when does Navy and MARAD plan to
utilize these tools for maintenance planning and condition monitoring
on its ships?
3. Has Navy considered a pilot program with these new tools similar
to the pilot program MSC has underway? If no, why not?
Admiral.Williamson. 1. With the success demonstrated to date at
MSC, is the U.S. Navy and MARAD considering incorporation of digital
analytic tools and AI methods into other surface vessels?
Yes. The digital modeling, data collection and AI
approach is designed to apply to any surface ship. The digital twin
model of the ships structures are built through finite element analysis
tools that would apply to any vessel. Machine learning technology is
used for corrosion and coating analysis applied to the digital twin
model for predictive analytics and repair recommendations.
Similarly, Machinery Health Monitoring (MHM) capabilities
can be applied to any machinery whether on a surface ship or an ashore
facility. Machinery anomaly detection analytics of gauge data is
applied to individual machine digital models. Historical machinery data
is used to train AI anomaly detection that is correlated to past
failures. The resultant machinery models will therefore detect future
anomalies and provide alerts prior to failure. Mature machinery models
will ultimately be able to provide failure projections, which will
support refined maintenance planning and assist with risk-based
decisions.
Based on the progress of MSC's pilot program, the Naval
Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Condition Based Maintenance Plus
Enterprise System (CBM+ES) program intends to complete a data analytics
project with ABS to develop a suite of algorithms (supervised and
unsupervised) to detect early indications of failures on LPD49 Class
Drive Train. They will develop corresponding prototype software user
interfaces to provide situational awareness of condition assessment.
ABS will deliver software requirements to the CBM+ES Program for
implementation of ABS algorithms and user interfaces into the Navy's
data repository for machinery assessment. This data repository is
available to any maintenance technician or engineer to access with a
CAC card.
MARAD continues to review emerging maintenance approaches
proposed by the classification society. MARAD recently attended the ABS
Special Committee for Ship Operations meeting in February 2020, and
recognizes using data analytics in a condition-based approach is a more
effective maintenance strategy compared to time-based approach. time-
based
2. If not, why not? If yes, when does Navy and MARAD plan to
utilize these tools for maintenance planning and condition monitoring
on its ships?
Yes, the Navy's CBM+ES program will complete a data
analytics project with ABS in FY20.
MARAD currently uses analysis of data, resident in
MARAD's commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) system known as Nautical
Systems-Enterprise (NS-E). MARAD is working with ABS Consulting, the
provider for NS-E, to identify greater more in-depth, enterprise-wide
reporting and dashboards that use NS-E data to inform decision-making.
MARAD selected NS, later upgraded to be an enterprise wide application
to support the Ready Reserve Force Management System (RMS). This
comprehensive data repository helps MARAD and contracted Ship Managers
guide preventive maintenance, logistics management, and even resourcing
decisions on a highly adaptable and widely used commercial platform.
3. Has Navy considered a pilot program with these new tools similar
to the pilot program MSC has underway? If no, why not?
Yes. Navy is embracing advanced technology to optimize
maintenance costs while increasing materiel readiness through the use
of sensor based technologies and prognostic health monitoring. NAVSEA
is moving forward to increase use of CBM+ technologies where applicable
and cost effective. The entire shipboard CBM+ portfolio will be managed
by NAVSEA's Chief Engineer. This will ensure tested and validated CBM+
solutions and capabilities are applied across the Navy's fleet, with
common data assessment and ship maintenance strategies that can be
tailored to specific ship classes/hulls and onboard systems/equipment.
Mr. Wittman. Classification societies have developed cyber security
protocols and notations for industry use that promote security and
consequently ensure compliance with government contracting
requirements. These cybersecurity and risk management protocols are a
combination of human and technical factors and are based on an overall
security strategy for the business or organization. Government
contracting requirements for cybersecurity continue to evolve and
tighten as threats evolve.
1. How does Navy/MARAD measure security capabilities onboard
surface ships in ways that allow integration of commercial industry
best practices, but with Government security requirements in mind?
2. What has Navy/MARAD done to incorporate the classification
standards for cybersecurity piloted by Military Sealift Command for
other Navy/MARAD ships and systems?
3. Will the Navy consider specifying classification standards for
cybersecurity and tools similar to the MSC pilot program in contracts
for leased, contract operated and new construction contracts?
Admiral Williamson. 1. How does Navy/MARAD measure security
capabilities onboard surface ships in ways that allow integration of
commercial industry best practices, but with Government security
requirements in mind?
Navy and MSC abide by Department of Defense requirements
to assess cybersecurity via National Institute of Science and
Technology (NIST) 800-53 standards, Risk Management Framework. There is
flexibility in how these standards are implemented as long as the
standards themselves are met. Industry best practices can be used as
long as they meet the 800-53 requirements.
In accordance with Assistant Secretary of the Navy
Research Development and Acquisition memo dated 6 Sep 2019, MSC
incorporates Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS)
252.204-7012 requirements into all contracts with commercial operating
companies, obliging them to abide by NIST 800-171 cybersecurity
standards Industry best practices can be used as long as they meet the
800-171 requirements. MSC will be incorporating the Cybersecurity
Maturing Model Certification (CMMC) as guidance is released by DOD.
CMMC will require third-party certification that contractors are
meeting cybersecurity requirements. The number and granularity of the
cyber requirements will be commensurate with the sensitivity of the
data that the contractor processes.
MARAD ships maintain a current, approved Vessel Security
Plan, approved by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and handled and
protected as Sensitive Security Information (SSI). This document
includes best practices from commercial industry and is routinely
reviewed and updated as new threat, vulnerabilities, or concerns are
identified.
MARAD's contract for services of the onboard network
known as the Ready Reserve Force Management System (RMS) includes
cybersecurity elements, response, and authentication processes.
MARAD plans to host additional cybersecurity penetration
tests during FY20.
2. What has Navy/MARAD done to incorporate the classification
standards for cybersecurity piloted by Military Sealift Command for
other Navy/MARAD ships and systems?
There is no current classification society standard that
is required. MARAD has worked with American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)
Consulting to determine if ABS' CyberSafety Notation will meet the
requirements of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and keep
National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF)/Ready Reserve Fleet (RRF) vessels
available.
Navy and MSC are guided by the same Department of Defense
requirements to assess cybersecurity via NIST 800-53 standards via the
Risk Management Framework process for cybersecurity of Navy-owned ships
and systems.
3. Will the Navy consider specifying classification standards for
cybersecurity and tools similar to the MSC pilot program in contracts
for leased, contract operated and new construction contracts? Not yet.
To date MSC has been focused on the pilot, the results of which will
determine how the classification standards can be incorporated for
leased, contract operated or new construction contracts. However, MSC
has been working with ABS to develop a government-specific CyberSafety
notation, which is an independent review. The notation provides a
foundation for the assessment of a subset of NIST standards required
for government systems (NIST 800-53, Risk Management Framework) and
focuses on the assessment of an organization's overall cybersecurity
strategy as well as the security of operational technology (OT)
systems. The notation is complimentary, but does not replace the Risk
Management Framework requirements.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. NORCROSS
Mr. Norcross. As the Navy continues its modernization to address
great power competition, logistics will be critically important. The
Navy has announced the CMV-22 Osprey as its next carrier onboard
delivery (COD) aircraft. After completing its first flight operation
earlier this year, the CMV-22 is scheduled for its first operational
deployment in 2021 aboard the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson.
Can you talk about how this aircraft will support carrier-based
logistics? Given the enhancements to the CMV-22B, are you considering
the platform for a larger mission set?
Admiral Williamson. The CMV-22B Osprey re-capitalizes the long-
range aerial logistics support and carrier onboard delivery (COD)
capabilities from the aging C-2A Greyhound, remaining a critical
enabler to carrier air wing (CVW) operations. The CMV-22B is a variant
of the MV-22 with additional range and avionics upgrades that enable
carrier strike group (CSG) integration and is an integral part of the
F-35B/C logistics support at sea Concept of Operations. While the use
of the CMV-22B will be primarily for COD, the fleet will benefit from
the tiltrotor capability in support of a wide variety of other
warfighting areas. CMV-22B secondary missions include: vertical onboard
delivery/vertical replenishment as an adjunct to MH-60S; casualty
evacuation; Naval special warfare support; missions of state to
included distinguished visitor movement and humanitarian assistance and
disaster relief; search and rescue as an adjunct to MH-60S. The
increased capability of the tiltrotor CMV-22B over the legacy C-2A will
allow evolution of the long range aerial logistics mission from a
central point that supplies the CSG, to a point-to-point concept. This
flexibility will improve the Navy's ability to maintain forward
presence by enabling forces to sustain prolonged operations with
credible combat capacity. Given the enhancements to the CMV-22B, we are
currently considering the CMV-22B for an expanded mission set. Analysis
of this requirement increase and the associated force structure
requirements is ongoing and expect to be completed in the future.
Currently, the CMV-22B program is only resourced to support re-supply
of the CSG. With the evolution of Distributed Maritime Operations and
Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations concepts, the intra-theater
airlift requirement will increase. Following initial operational
capability in fiscal year 2021, the CMV-22B program will begin post-
production integration of additional capabilities to better enable
great power competition and civil aviation requirements. These
additional capabilities include: Link-16; required navigation
performance area navigation; secondary beyond line-of-sight
communications; upgrade to the Mobile User Objective System satellite
communications system; Joint Precision Approach Landing System. These
capabilities will be critical to ensuring CMV-22B logistics support in
a high-end fight.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. VELA
Mr. Vela. What activities are you doing to further advertise and
recruit more mariners? Can you talk to how you've balanced having the
right qualifications onboard, while having a large enough pool of
citizens to recruit from?
Admiral Buzby. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is exploring a
range of options to ensure that a sufficient number mariners are
trained and available to crew the U.S. Government owned fleet in times
of crisis. This is a challenge, due to the number of vessels in the
U.S. flag commercial fleet and jobs available to U.S.-citizen mariners.
Maritime Security Program vessel operators employ up to 2,400 of these
mariners, which provides some reserve of crew needed. However, concerns
exist about having enough mariners to meet sealift needs during a full
mobilization exceeding 4-6 months in duration. There continues to be
significant interest in working in the industry. Each of the maritime
academies has more qualified applicants than they can accept, which is
also true of the union, commercial, and community college maritime
schools. MARAD is researching ways to ascertain mariner availability
and willingness to serve in times of crisis. The goal of this research
effort is to help us better determine the numbers of mariners who might
be available. MARAD continues to pursue opportunities to encourage
private operators to internationally sail U.S. flag vessels that employ
U.S. mariners. MARAD further supports the industry by operating the
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) and assisting the six State
Maritime Academies (SMA) to keep the pipeline of qualified mariners
going. Also, pursuant to Congressional authority, MARAD established a
program to recognize Maritime Centers of Excellence (CoE) for domestic
maritime workforce training and education offered through qualified
community colleges and maritime training centers. MARAD leverages its
resources to aggressively advertise the opportunities available in the
maritime industry. We publish informational booklets and pamphlets and
maintain a dedicated phone line for the public to call and have their
questions answered. For almost a decade, MARAD, in cooperation with the
USMMA and SMAs, has co-sponsored the Annual Women on the Water
Conference at one of the seven maritime academies. This gives an
opportunity for all aspiring mariners, especially aspiring women
mariners, to learn about current issues and opportunities, and network
with leaders and role models in the maritime world.
Mr. Vela. The Navy has stated it will purchase two used sealift
ships this year. Can you provide this committee the actual or planned
dates for RFP release, when proposals are due and when the Navy will
award the contract for those two ships?
Admiral Williamson. The used vessel contracting strategy will be
executed through a joint Department of Navy (DON)/Department of
Transportation (DOT) acquisition program. DOT's Maritime Administration
(MARAD) will lead program management activities using a Vessel
Acquisition Manager (VAM) with assistance from the Navy's Program
Executive Office, Ships, as the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA).
While DOD retains overall oversight, MDA and MARAD are finalizing the
processes, roles and responsibilities associated with the stand-up of
an Integrated Program Office for the acquisition of sealift used
vessels. The acquisition of the used ships is contingent on having a
Vessel Acquisition Manager who will assist the DOD/DOT team with
identifying and selecting used vessels to fulfill DOD sealift
requirements (VAM) under contract. On February 24, 2020, MARAD released
a Request for Proposal (RFP) to hire a VAM for the recapitalization of
the aging surge sealift fleet. VAM offers were originally due April 1,
2020 to facilitate acquisition of the first two vessels in FY21.
Proposals have been delayed 30 days to May 1, 2020 due to COVID19
impacts. Navy and MARAD will evaluate proposals and anticipate awarding
VAM contract in July 2020. Following the VAM contract award, the
program can proceed with the acquisition of the first used sealift
ship, expected in Q1 of FY21, followed by the second ship later in the
FY.