Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee - Nominations

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: NOMINATIONS OF ADMIRAL VERNON CLARK TO BE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS; AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES CARTWRIGHT TO BE COMMANDER, U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND

CHAIRED BY: SENATOR JOHN WARNER (R-VA)

WITNESSES: THE NOMINEES

LOCATION: 222 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): I just want to welcome both Admiral Clark and General Cartwright and thank them for their great service to the nation.

Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
SEN. REED: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, again, thank you for your service to the nation, to the Navy and the Marine Corps.

Admiral Clark, there are current reviews of the size of the submarine fleet. Admiral Sestak, who's a very competent, capable officer, did a serious study, but that's classified, I don't want to get into that. But the last report in 1999 by the Joint Chiefs of Staff suggested that the appropriate level was 55 submarines, but in the middle of the next decade, which is presumably several years out, would be anywhere from 68 to 72. Do you have a number in mind right now in your view which is the right number of submarines to be deployed in the fleet?

ADM. CLARK: We are in a process this year with the Joint Staff, actually. The Joint Staff has a study going on on undersea warfare, and it will address this issue. We are in the process, as you indicated-Admiral Sestak has done some work for me. Admiral Sestak's work talks across a span of responses. Here's what I guess I would-how I would respond to this. And when the chairman asked the question about transformation, there are so many things to talk about. I said, you know, there are pages and pages in my answer to my written.

But when I look at the submarine force, I look at the incredible capability they bring to the table. And I will tell you that the '99 study was done primarily and driven by peacetime requirements and what we call ISR requirements. And my focus is on warfighting requiremets first and then what are the options after the warfighting requirements. And I can tell you that coming at that from a different position is likely to give me a different perception of what I think we will need.

But here's where we are with regard to requirements.

There are a lot of studies out there. We have a study that says we need 168 surface combatants. And I've got 96. I've got another study that says I need 135. We've got studies that say we need 15 carriers, and I got 12. We've got studies that say that-that say that we need 3.0 MEF lift for the Marines, and we had between 2-1/2 and 2.8. And we assess all of the-and by the way, the studies are important, but what's even more important are what are the assumptions that cause the studies to turn out the way they have.

Here's what I have asked of the submarine forces. I said, Look, I believe that as we look to the future-and this is a transformational point. Speed is going to be more important than ever before, which is why we moved three submarines to Guam, because the Pacific is important, we want to be ready to respond faster; this is why in our transformational concepts from-we'll be coming forward to next year, we'll be talking about delivering twice as much combat power in half the time with the Marine force right-speed is important to 21st century warfare.

I believe the submarine force, we've got to exploit the stealth capability that they bring to get more return in the pre-hostilities phase, because I believe this is their greatest advantage that they bring to the war fight. And we have to make the investments so that it is possible for us to exploit that capability. And I believe, Senator, over the course of the next number of months we'll-we will come down to a, again, a spread of potential numbers where we might go. And I can tell you that I don't know what the joint staff is going to say on this. And so, I'm not in on their study. And so, when we get them side by side, we want to-we want to put this --

And here's the rule set I'm using, Senator. I want to-in the-with the submarine force, I'm going to apply exactly the same kind of analytical rigor to the requirements that we apply to every other platform set. And when that number comes out, whatever comes out, that's what we're going to bring up to-through the administration as the requirement for what we need to be able to win in the 21st century.

SEN. REED: Well, Admiral, I think in your written comments and also in your response you indicate that if you-if you take a different scenario you can have a different bottom line. And --

ADM. CLARK: You are absolutely correct.

SEN. REED: -- the war-fighting scenario, as you point out, depends on assumptions about duration of the fight, even the scenario itself --

ADM. CLARK: Yes, sir. Exactly.

SEN. REED: -- is it a quick win, or is it a prolonged operation? Then the other aspect you mention is that this intelligence ISR mission is a-might be a peacetime mission, but I don't suspect it's going to go away, or-and I think it's something that has to be factored, too. And I presume from your answer all of those missions and those assumptions will be included.

ADM. CLARK: Well, let me make sure that I don't get misrepresented. The big-the numbers were driven by a peacetime rotation requirement, but certainly you're right. In wartime, one of the most valuable things that the submarine brings to the task is they can go conduct covert-kind of ISR collection missions.

Now, having said that, let's cut to the chase here. Cost is important in every platform that we have. We're examining are we going to-how can we afford what we need for the future.

I've been talking about the challenges in changing the manpower profiles and all of that to the tunes of billions of dollars to try to create the 21st century Navy. We've got the record here; the CBO study lays this out clearly: We, as a nation, have not been able to invest the resources to sustain the shipbuilding structure.

And so I am constantly looking to compete every potential capability against another capability to see is there a better and more effective way that I can accomplish the mission. And that's the way I take my task. That's what I'm getting paid to do.

And so we're concerned about-we just had-just this last week we had another indication that we're going to have an increase in the Virginia Class. We have got to get a hold of costs.

And by the way, there was an article in the New London Day this morning. And I want to praise the leadership of the submarine community, the PEO, Admiral John Butler, was talking to the suppliers and saying, "Look, we need your help to figure out how to produce this product in a competitive way." And we do, we need that-that's what we need to be able to do because we can't make it without the tremendous capability that the submarine force brings to the fight. We cannot dominate the undersea battlespace without them.

SEN. REED: Thank you, Admiral.

My time's expired. So, General Cartwright, I'll have some written questions. Thank you.