Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower Holds Hearing on FY2004 Defense Authorization Budget Request for Navy and Marine Corps Development

FDCH TRANSCRIPTS
Congressional Hearings
Apr. 1, 2003
Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower Holds Hearing on FY2004 Defense Authorization Budget Request for Navy and marine Corps Development and Procurement

REED:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen for your testimony and for your service to the nation. I appreciate both. Both the fleet and the corps is stretched awfully thin at the moment. And I just wonder can you let me know and the committee know, in terms of equipment, because I think the personnel will do whatever they're told to do, what is the constraining items that you're finding in this deployment and this operation? And is the constraint in numbers or design technology obsolescent, Admiral Clark?

CLARK:

Well, at the top of the list comes precision ordinates. And, of course, we've, you know, the issue with tomahawk is documented. Until this program delivers and we look toward going to full-scale production in '04, the acquisition executive, Secretary Young, perhaps, would want to address this, but I would just say this about it. The goal, especially given now what's gone on the last couple of weeks, and without getting into specific numbers, which I will—you wouldn't want me to do because we get into classified issues right away. But, clearly we're going to need more tomahawks. The way the program is designed today, we don't get to full capacity until FY '05. And I do believe there are things that could be done to remedy that solution and that they ought to be looked at very carefully so that even though we're not at full scale, we haven't gone to production yet, that we could make the investment that when we're ready to go to production we get to capacity at a much earlier in the period.

I would say with regard to the rest of the precision munitions issues, fundamentally the nation has made the investments as part of DERF (ph) last year and we're in pretty good shape. We're reaching toward capacity. I will tell you there's one other area that I've learned in Afghanistan and I've learned here. Boy, I want JSF as fast as I can get it. I am so pleased with the ENF is—this is a first deployment for ENF, the combat range of this airplane, 40 to 50 percent more combat reach, major issue, and the ability to get to the target area and the drain on the refueling resources because when you have a big operation and large refueling requirements. If I had JSF I could get to the target area without ever bothering them.

What I've learned from this is the investment that we have in JSF in this budget is absolutely—boy, is it an incredibly wise thing to do. What I've said—I've said before, I desperately want the operational availability that is present in this aircraft. What else I've learned is how desperately I want the combat range that's in this aircraft.

REED:

Can you comment here on the decision to suspend launches over Saudi Arabia and other countries of the tomahawk? Is that something that you...

CLARK:

I certainly could.

REED:

Is that an indication of—what's the problem there, let me put it that way, if you can comment.

CLARK:

Well, let me just tell you that no combat system in the world is a 100 percent system. And I would tell you that this system is operating, with the data that I have today, better than our historic averages. With regard the kind of capability that it has, I can say this, that if this system gets lost it will sit down. And we had some sort of a failure on a component in a couple of these systems that that happened. And that's about what I can about it. But, the performance has been improved over previous operations and previous numbers.

REED:

Thank you.

General Hagee, from the perspective of the corps?

HAGEE:

Sir, I'd like to associate myself with Admiral Clark's comments on legacy systems. I, too, would like to see the joint strike fighter here. As you know, we're flying our assault helicopter, the CH-46. I'm ashamed to say that some of those helicopters that are flying in Iraq I flew in Vietnam, and that was a long time ago. So, we need the Osprey. But, if you set those legacy systems aside, because of the funding, that both Admiral Clark and I talked about in our opening statements, that the Congress has given us over the past couple of years, we are ready to fight today, as you're seeing on television.

My concern, my short-term concern is when this war is over we have to reconstitute. And we've been using our equipment and some of the legacy equipment we've been using it hard. And it's going to have to be maintained. And some of it's going to have to be replaced. So, that is really a larger concern to me than the current fight.

REED:

And, in effect, what you're saying is that you'll the perennial tradeoff between reconstituting your legacy systems and modernization and it'll be even worse after it's been used so aggressively. Is that fair?

HAGEE:

That's correct, sir. But, facing reality we know that we're going to have to maintain some of these legacy systems until the new ones come on.

CLARK:

May I just comment further? I believe that that shows the importance of some of the investments that are in this budget. For example, the 18G, a new program to replace EA-6B's. I think vital because of the point you just made. And, if I could also add about tomahawk?

REED:

Yes, sir.

CLARK:

The tomahawk question you raised, you know, it's been said, but let me reiterate. Precision is of utmost importance and we're doing everything we can in the way we conduct this operation to make sure that we minimize the potential for collateral damage. I'd like to say with this system that doesn't involve just the end point. We have meticulously planned these routes so that we could do everything that we know how to do to ensure that if there was a problem with the system as it was conducting its path into the target, that it would minimize any collateral damage. And, so far that's been very successful.

REED:

Just a follow up question, does this budget reflect those refurbishment costs that you already anticipated?

HAGEE:

No, sir, it does not.

CLARK:

There was no way for us to know about that during its submission.

REED:

So, that's something...

CLARK:

And, frankly, I don't know how to even calculate it right now to tell you the truth.

REED:

But, I suspect, given the pace of activities and the extent of activities that's going to be a sizable number.

CLARK:

We absolutely—I have several teams working the whole issue of reconstitution and I'm working various options because I don't when I will be able to start, depending on as the equipment is not required.

REED:

Mr. Chairman, I think we have a vote coming up. Thank you.

And, gentlemen, again, thank you and your forces are performing as we expect, magnificently. And we're all very proud of the sailors and the marines that are doing the job. My father was a sailor and my brother was a marine. I was a soldier. But, two out of three ain't bad, right?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REED:

I'm being punished for being prompt, Mr. Chairman. But, no, thank you very much for your courtesy.

Mr. Secretary and Admiral, thank you again for your testimony. And, let me first begin by can you give me and the committee an update on the conversion program, the SSGN conversion?

YOUNG:

The Ohio was inducted into Peugeot Sound Naval Shipyard on schedule. And, so, the work on it is progressing in the very early phases, but going very well. We are working—the budget request, the funds needed to execute the four ship program, less an amount we need to try to work and we're working through on a reprogramming right now, we've built the structure that puts about six months stagger between each conversion. And we have a strategy that uses electric boat as the overall conversion manager. And they will try to gain some learning advantage by moving key people between those conversions. So, we have a very aggressive, as you well know, and a fast paced program, but we've been allowed to build a structure that tries to seek some learning curve benefit and opportunity for efficiency. So, I'm optimistic and we're off to a good start.

REED:

Great.

With respect to the amphibious forces, I understand that the model is a 12 ship amphibious ready group, able to lift simultaneously two and a half...

MULLEN:

Yes, sir.

REED:

... MVE's.

MULLEN:

I think it's a very important question and important to reiterate the overall requirement. I talked about the 19 independent strike groups in the new global concept moving to 37. That's based on 12 carrier strike groups, 12 expeditionary strike groups, which would include the kind amphibious capability we have today in our ARG's in addition to additional surface combatants and submarines in order to give them some more punch and some more striking power. And that the requirement in particular for LPD-17 of 12 is still one we very strongly support.

YOUNG:

And, that—if I could?

REED:

Yes, sir.

YOUNG:

The program that's laid in place, albeit there's some slippage in the budget and that's an issue we'll take a look at because building out those 12 LPD's efficiently will be—is important, both from an acquisition point of view and then from the strike group point of view because they replace ships that will be easily approaching or exceeding 40 years old by the time we get the LPD's out there.

REED:

Let me understand it, since I'm more comfortable with tanks than ships to land tanks. We're building the eight (inaudible) class, LHD, is that correct?

MULLEN:

Yes, sir.

REED:

And then we have five tower R class (ph) ships to comprise basically RG at the moment, is that correct? The five tower R class ships are rather old, about 35 years or so. And there's an issue about, you know, how do we continue this transition, particularly with the introduction of some of the Osprey aircraft stability of the ships. Are those questions that you're considering?

MULLEN:

Yes, sir.

REED:

And, as I understand it, there's a study ongoing underway to try to determine how best to deal with this whole issue of reaching that 12 ship ARG. Can you talk about some of the options and your thinking at the moment about what should be done, you know, building additional WOS (ph) class ships redesigning a new ship, where are we in that process Admiral?