Opening Statement by Ranking Member Reed at SASC Hearing on Posture of the Department of the Navy
I want to join Senator Inhofe in welcoming Secretary Spencer, Admiral Richardson, and General Neller to the Committee this morning to testify on the plans and programs of the Department of the Navy in our review of the fiscal year 2019 authorization request. We are grateful to each of you for your service, for the service of the men and women under your command, and for the support of all Navy and Marine families.
As the leaders of the Navy and Marine Corps, you face huge challenges as you strive to balance the need to support ongoing operations and sustain readiness with the need to modernize and keep the technological edge so critical to military success.
The Department of the Navy faces serious readiness problems, caused by deferred maintenance, reduced steaming and flying hours, and cancelled training and deployments. We are all keenly aware of the number of ship collisions and want to work with the Navy to implement changes that should help to prevent such incidents in future operations.
These challenges have been made particularly difficult by the spending caps imposed in the Budget Control Act. Fortunately, we have a budget deal on the defense topline for two years, but additional challenges loom on the horizon, as the Budget Control Act will be back in force for Fiscal Year 2020. I look forward to hearing your testimony on progress you are making in correcting these readiness problems while the funding levels are increased.
All areas of our naval forces are maintaining an extremely high operations tempo. Demand is overwhelming for attack submarines, air and missile defense cruisers, destroyers and strike fighter inventories. In addition, the Navy in now in its sixth year of operating with fewer than the required 11 aircraft carriers. And during the next decade, as a first priority, the Navy will need to buy the new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines to replace the Ohio-class submarines. I am interested in hearing how the Navy is managing current demands on its assets and how it plans to manage future modernization demands – particularly how it is using the additional authorities that are granted under National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund beginning with Columbia-class program funding in fiscal year 2018.
The Marine Corps continues to make modernization of ground vehicles a priority by balancing the procurement of new systems, while upgrading existing platforms to meet current operational needs. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle will replace the aging inventory of Assault Amphibious Vehicles in order to provide marines with increased force protection and enhanced lethality. The Marine Corps is also partnering with the Army to develop the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) to replace the HumVee. I would welcome an update from our witnesses on the status of these programs.
Last year, we were presented with a document that identified a new force structure goal as recommended by the Chief of Naval Operations. That was the new Force Structure Assessment (FSA). The Navy’s current high level of operations contributed in part to the CNO’s conclusion in this assessment that calls for increases in the goal for the Navy fleet from 308 ships to a level of 355 ships.
The Navy submitted a new 30-year shipbuilding plan with the fiscal year 2019 budget request. While that plan would lead to increasing the size of the fleet, it would not meet the new 355-ship goal. This 30-year plan would achieve the attack submarine force goal of 66 boats in 2048. However, in the same year we would have a force of 9 aircraft carriers, compared to a goal of 12 carriers, and 92 large surface combatants versus the goal of 104. We need to understand the steps the Navy will be taking to address these shortfalls.
In addition, a significant factor that bears on our discussions this year is that Secretary Mattis has published a new defense strategy that is intended to guide force structure development and modernization programs to increase capability. It is reasonable to speculate that the implications of this new defense strategy on the Department of the Navy could yield increased demand for naval forces and complicate the Navy’s plans to achieve its force structure goals. I am interested in hearing how the Department is implementing these strategy decisions and how this might affect future force structure goals for the Navy and Marine Corps.
I again thank the witnesses and I look forward to their testimony.