Congress this year is less willing to boost shipbuilding
funding above the Trump administration’s request than in recent years and has
shown some skepticism over the U.S. Navy’s push for rapid adoption of unmanned
systems, the two top congressional analysts on naval issues said June 19.

While still generally supportive of shipbuilding and
unmanned systems, Congress appears to be shifting some money to improved
readiness and isn’t willing to sacrifice conventional capabilities, such as the
aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman, to accelerate the move to unmanned
vessels, analysts Eric Labs and Ronald O’Rourke told an American Society of
Naval Engineers forum.

At the same forum, a panel of senior civilian Navy officials
said the emphasis in designing the future combat fleet was on greater
commonality of systems to improve flexibility, interoperability and lethality
and on acquiring combat systems that could be updated quicker and cheaper. Both
of those priorities would help reduce the sustainment cost of the future fleet,
the officials said.

Labs, the senior naval forces analyst at the Congressional
Budget office, described a “leveling off” of support in Congress for funding
shipbuilding above the requested levels and a willingness to “substitute their
own priorities” for the Navy’s push for new technologies including unmanned
systems. He noted shipbuilding funding in preliminary congressional actions of
about $1 billion less than requested, compared to an average $2 billion
increase in recent years.

O’Rourke, the naval affairs analyst at the Congressional
Research Service, saw similar reduction in shipbuilding funding by the panels
that have acted on the fiscal 2020 budget and a reluctance to fund the third
Virginia class attack submarine. He also cited congressional concern over fleet
readiness following the two fatal at-sea collisions and over the delayed
maintenance of attack submarines.

Responding to questions, the analysts cited congressional
support for funding to bolster the shipbuilding industrial base, opposition to
the Navy’s plan to retire the Truman at midlife to add funds for unmanned
surface vessels and said the effort by the House Armed Services Committee to
prohibit the Navy from accepting the USS John F. Kennedy, the second in the Gerald
R. Ford class of carriers, until it is able to operate the F-35C could add to
the cost of the ship.

The panel of four officials on the Navy staff also expressed
concerns about fleet readiness and rising sustainment costs. That led to the
stress on requiring the maximum possible commonality in future ships and
systems, which can reduce the cost of procuring and sustaining the fleet and
the cost of training sailors to operate them. A key goal was a common combat
system that could be scaled to equip the future frigate, which is close to contract
award, and a future large surface combatant, which still is under review. But
commonality should extend to the hull, mechanical and electrical components of
future ships, they said.

The House Armed Services Committee’s ranking Republican says
his vote to pass the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act will depend
on whether the final bill continues the recent progress is preparing the
military to confront Russia and China or slides back into the readiness crisis
that started with the 2011 Budget Control Act and sequestration.

To ensure continued gains in readiness and future
capabilities, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said June 11 that he will offer an
amendment to increase the bill’s funding by $17 billion, which includes about
$4 billion for additional U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps aircraft, ships,
unmanned vessels, weapons and emergency repairs of hurricane damage to two East
Coast Marine bases. Thornberry said he also will propose restoring cuts made by
the majority Democrats in strategic nuclear programs, ballistic missile defense
and personnel issues.

But for national defense to receive even the $733 billion
total offered by Democrats — let alone the $750 billion Thornberry and Republicans
seek — Congress and the Trump administration would have to approve a budget
bill to override Budget Control Act spending caps, which would take nearly $90
billion from 2020 defense spending.

Some conservative Republicans and Trump aides oppose raising
the caps for domestic issues, which the Democrats insist must accompany higher
defense spending. But in a breakfast meeting with defense writers, Thornberry
said he would remind fellow Republicans that the first job of the federal
government is to defend the country. And “if we are going to fulfill our
duties, we will have to take some things that we don’t necessarily like or
want.”

When Republicans fully controlled Congress, they agreed with
the Obama administration on a bill that waived the caps for fiscal years 2018
and 2019, which allowed substantial increases in defense spending and some
growth in domestic programs. So far, no such agreement has been reached for
fiscal 2020 and 2021, which are the last two years covered by the Budget
Control Act limits.

Thornberry said one of the “greatest accomplishments” of the
last two years was “to rebuild our military after it was deeply damaged by sequestration.
… We have seen the consequences of cutting our military, in accident rates and
other things. It’s not like these are just number on a spread sheet. These are
real lives, life-and-death decisions that we make.

“As I look at this year’s bill, the question is for me, does
this continue the gains we have made in rebuilding our military and in being in
a competitive position with Russia and China?”

Within the $17 billion spending increase Thornberry’s
amendment would authorize is funding for four additional Navy F-35Cs Lightning
II strike fighters; two Marine vertical-lift F-35Bs; one more E-2D Hawkeye
early-warning aircraft; more funding for aircraft carrier construction; 38
long-range missiles and additional mission modules for Littoral Combat Ships;
the second fleet oiler and unmanned surface vessels cut by the Democrats;
$748.8 million for Navy hypersonic research; $211 million for the overhaul of
the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74); $1.2 billion for various
personnel programs; and $2.3 billion for emergency repairs of hurricane damage to
Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point and Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in
North Carolina.

The Republican funding plan also would restore authority to
field the low-yield nuclear warhead for the submarine-launched Trident D-5
ballistic missiles and funding for modernization and expansion of the nuclear
weapons production facilities.

Their draft NDAA also sharply criticizes the Navy’s handling
of the new USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier (CVN-78), which ran far past its
planned budget and production schedule and, due to numerous mechanical and
technical problems, is not expected to be ready for operations until this fall
— more than two years after the Navy accepted it. The NDAA protests that the Gerald
R. Ford is not capable of fully supporting operations of the F-35C Lightning IIs
and it would bar the Navy from accepting the second ship in the class, USS John
F. Kennedy (CVN-79), currently under construction, until it is made compatible
with the F-35C.

Thornberry would not say if he supports the
restrictive language on the Kennedy but said: “Sometimes we need to put things
in the bill to get their attention.”

The
House Armed Services Committee chairman downplayed the partisan differences
over the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization but said the “biggest
threat” to adequate defense funding was the failure to reach agreement on
lifting punishing spending caps.

Although
the chairman’s mark he released would ban funding for low-yield nuclear warheads
for a submarine-launched ballistic missile and defense money to build U.S.-Mexico
border barriers and provide $17 billion less in total defense spending, which
the Republicans oppose, “the overwhelming majority of this bill, that is
incredibly important, is not controversial,” said the chairman, Rep. Adam Smith
(D-Washington).

Addressing
a Defense Writers’ Group breakfast June 10, Smith cited a 3.1 percent military
pay raise, funds to continue improving readiness, efforts to fix deteriorating family
housing, funding for 11 Navy battle fleet ships, including three attack
submarines, and “countless other projects, all of which we agree on,” that are in
the Democrats’ proposal. “The amount of stuff that we disagree on is about 2% of
the bill.”

But
in response to a Seapower question about the impact on defense funding if
Congress and the administration cannot agree on lifting caps enacted with the
Budget Control Act of 2011, which would cut nearly $90 billion from the base
defense budget, Smith said: “You have correctly identified the biggest threat
we face.” Senate Republicans were expected to plead for a deal to lift the caps
during a White House meeting on June 10.

The
committee will take up the NDAA on June 12, and the debate is likely to go well
into the night as Republicans have attacked provisions that came out the
subcommittee process as an unusual breach of HASC’s tradition of
bipartisanship.

Smith
defended the proposed total defense funding of $733 billion as the number
initially recommended by the Pentagon and said the $750 billion requested later
by the Trump administration “would encourage inefficiencies.” Committee
Republicans, however, insisted $750 billion was necessary to meet the 3% to 5%
real growth recommended by last year’s Strategic Capabilities Commission.

Although
Smith repeated his long-held view that the military wants to spend too much on
nuclear arms, he noted the Democrats would fully fund the new B-21 strategic
bomber and the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine to replace the aged
Ohio class and would increase overall spending on strategic programs. Smith and
some arms-control advocates argue that the new W-76.2 lower-yield warhead for
the submarine-launched Trident D-5 missile would reduce the strategic load of
the Ohio boats and increase instability.

Other
controversial issues in the proposed NDAA are a ban on use of defense funds to
build President Trump’s border wall, would require that any use of troops for
border security not affect combat readiness and would be paid for by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security. It also would restrict the administration’s
ability to reprogram defense funds to use for border security, which the
president did this year.

Although
the proposal would increase the purchase of F-35s for the Air Force, it would
fence some of the funding for the Lightning II pending analysis of ways to
improve the parts supply line for the fighter. Similarly, funding to buy more
of the Marine Corps’ CH-53K heavy-lift helicopters would be curtailed until the
U.S. Navy submits reports on how it will fix technical problems hampering the
program.

There
also will be debate on the nature of a future command to manage space programs,
with the Democrats resisting the president’s demand for a separate service,
which Smith called too expensive and bureaucratic. But Smith said he believes
the Air Force has done a poor job managing space.

The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) took initial steps June 4-5 toward passing a fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization, with the HASC’s six subcommittees approving the “chairmen’s marks.” But a partisan dispute broke out over the Strategic Forces panel’s language that would block or restrict several new nuclear weapons programs called for in last year’s Nuclear Posture Review.

The full House Armed
Services Committee will take up the subcommittees’ recommendations and other
issues next week.

Other than the partisan controversy in the
Strategic Forces committee over nuclear issues, the recommendations from the
six subcommittees contained generally bipartisan provisions such as a 3.1% pay
raise, added support for service members and their families and approval of
most of the major aircraft, ground equipment and shipbuilding procurement
programs.

The
Seapower and Projection Forces panel, for example, would authorize construction
of 11 battle force ships, including three Virginia-class attack submarines,
three Arleigh Burke destroyers, one new frigate and two towing, salvage and
rescue vessels, which the U.S. Navy had requested. But it cut one of the two
John Lewis-class fleet oilers requested and replaced it with incremental
funding for the second of the Flight II amphibious transport docks that the U.S.
Marine Corps seeks.

The
Seapower mark formally barred the Navy from retiring the aircraft carrier USS Harry
S. Truman early and restored $17 million in advanced procurement for the
carrier’s refueling and overhaul. And it reauthorized the Maritime Security
Program, which subsidized operations of commercial sealift ships and
recommended creation of a tanker security fleet of 10 commercial tankers
supported by that program. The panel also moved to force the Navy to act on the
congressionally mandated program to start building new or buying used vessels
to modernize the aged reserve sealift fleet.

Seapower’s
mark expressed anger that the cost caps imposed on the Gerald R. Ford-class
carriers prevented the Navy from including the capability for Ford to support F-35C
Lightning II fighter. It orders the Navy to include F-35C capabilities before
accepting delivery of the John F. Kennedy, the second ship in the class.

The
subcommittees did not provide details on the numbers of aircraft they were
authorizing, leaving that for the full committee. But Seapower’s ranking member,
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Virginia), said its mark increased the buy of V-22s, P-8As,
E-2Ds and C-130Js. Tactical Air and Land Forces adopted “economic order
quantity” language allowing purchase of parts and material for future F-35s to
help reduce cost. The panel ordered an independent study of the procurement and
lifecycle costs and sustainability of the multiservice F-35 and the latest
Block 4 software.

The
panel restricted half of the authorized funding for the Marine Corps’ CH-53K
until the Navy provides briefings on the technical problems that have delayed
operation of the heavy-lift helicopter. It also demanded detailed plans on
modernization and sustainment of the Navy’s MH-53E helos.

The
Personnel subcommittee increased efforts to stop the epidemic of sexual
assaults and harassment by adding counseling support and protection for
victims, but did not make sexual harassment a crime, which Senate Armed
Services did. The panel authorized personnel increases of 5,100 for the Navy,
3,700 Air Force and 100 Marines and a cut of 7,500 for the Army. It barred the
Pentagon from cutting 18,000 uniformed medical personnel pending an independent
analysis of the impact on medical care.

The
Intelligence and Emerging Threats panel called for “comprehensive and robust”
science and technology and research and development efforts to stop the erosion
of technological advantage, requiring action of 56 specific areas including
artificial intelligence and hypersonics. It also required additional programs
to increase cybersecurity for government and defense industry systems. And it
ordered an independent assessment of the roles, missions and force structure of
the Special Operations Forces, which are shifting from counter-extremism to
great power competition.

The
HASC subcommittees’ proposals traditionally are bipartisan documents crafted by
the majority and minority staffs and passed with minimal discussion, reserving
major debate and conflict for the full committee process, which is set for next
week.

But
the Strategic Forces subcommittee’s mark clearly showed the strong opposition
of HASC Chairman Adam Smith (D-Washington) to the expansion of nuclear weapons
programs advocated by the Trump administration. That included blocking
development of a “low-yield” nuclear warhead for submarine-launched ballistic
missiles and restricting the accelerated production of the plutonium “pits”
that are the explosive core of atomic arms. The mark also prevents the Navy
from developing a hypersonic “conventional prompt strike” missile designed
solely for submarines but leaves open work on a missile for surface warships.

The
partisan nature of the proposed authorization was shown by only the name of
subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tennessee) appearing on the draft,
without the ranking Republican’s name, which was on all the other
subcommittees’ proposals. That was amplified by a statement from the HASC’s top
Republican, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and subcommittee ranking member, Rep.
Mike Turner (R-Ohio), who called it “a partisan and irresponsible” mark “that
makes us less safe, hinders our ability to defend ourselves.” That ensures a
prolonged fight in next week’s full committee markup.

Because
of the strong partisan dispute, the subcommittee had to engage in a prolonged
debate over a Republican amendment that would have removed the language banning
the submarine-launched low-yield weapon, opposing building a second plant to
produce plutonium pits and maintaining participation in the Open Skies Treaty,
which allows the United States and Russia to fly over each other’s countries to
confirm compliance with arms control treaties.

The
amendment was defeated on an 8-10 party line vote. The Republicans then
demanded unprecedented votes on adopting the mark and on sending it to the full
committee, both of which passed by 10-8 party line votes. The fight will be
repeated next week.

The
Readiness Subcommittee completed its markup June 5, calling for action to
address the recent crisis in privately managed family housing, including
adopting a “tenants bill of rights.” The panel also ordered assessments and
long-term plans to mitigate the threat to military installations from the
extreme weather and rising oceans caused by climate change. Because of the risk
to off-base water supplies, the mark would ban the use of fluoride-based
firefighting foam except in actual emergencies and ordered the Navy secretary
to develop requirements for nonfluoride foam by 2025. And it ordered action to
improve the supply of parts for the F-35 and other actions to address the
readiness impact of supply line problems.

Subcommittee
Chairman Rep. John Garamendi (D-California) made a short statement opposing the
president’s use of military funds for the Mexican border wall, while the ranking
member, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado), supported the action because of the
“crisis” on the border. But to maintain the bipartisan nature of the mark, the
panel deferred any action of the border wall money until the full committee
acts next week.

The nation’s top military officer validated the
intelligence that raised concerns of possible Iranian attacks on U.S. forces in
the Persian Gulf region and said the deployment of troops to the U.S.-Mexico
border was legal and an appropriate mission to “fill gaps” in the Department of
Homeland Security’s capabilities.

In a detailed survey of global and domestic
national security issues May 29, Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said U.S. and South Korean forces are still “ready
to go to war tonight,” despite reductions in large-scale military exercises,
and he defined the rising tensions with China in the South China Sea as a “rule
of law” issue that must be addressed by other than military means.

With his four-year term as Joint Chiefs chairman
nearing an end, Dunford advised his successors to ensure that whatever future
funding the military receives emphasizes “capability” rather than just
“capacity” or numbers.

Taking questions at the Brookings Institute,
Dunford repeated the view he expressed at his Senate confirmation hearings in
2015 that Russia is the “existential” threat to the United States, but said he
has worked hard to maintain a dialogue with his Russian counterpart to reduce
the chances that President Vladimir Putin’s belligerent actions would lead to
conflict.

Asked about the controversy over the alleged
threats from Iran that led to dispatching the Abraham Lincoln carrier battle
group and B-52 bombers to the Central Command region, Dunford said U.S. intelligence
had detected Iranian actions and statements that created the appearance of a
possible “campaign” against U.S. forces and allies, rather than the persistent
hints of “a single action.” The intelligence also indicated that Tehran
questioned U.S. willingness to hold Iran responsible for any third-party
attacks on Americans in the region.

He said the initial reinforcements were part of
an effort to “address that gap in perception” and to let Iran know that if
anything happened “it would be attributed to them.” The later decision to send
about 1,000 additional troops and extend the deployment of a Patriot air and
missile defense battery was to enhance force protection of U.S. personnel in
the region.

On the politically controversial border issue,
Dunford did not address the use of defense funds to build a border wall and
said his focus was to ensure that the troops sent to the U.S.-Mexico border
were properly equipped and trained and were performing legitimate military
functions. He acknowledged that the work at the border might reduce combat
readiness but said that was no different than when troops are sent on
humanitarian relief missions and is addressed by rotating units to minimize any
erosion of capability.

Dunford disputed the claims that the reduction
in large military exercises in South Korea because of President Donald Trump’s
courtship of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un had reduced the coalition’s
combat readiness.

He said the field exercises had been reoriented
to focus on ensuring the infantry battalions and Air Force squadrons were
combat ready, while table-top drills kept commanders sharp. He said U.S. Army
Gen. Robert Abrams, the joint forces commander in Korea, knows that if he
became “uncomfortable” about his readiness all he had to do was tell him.

On the disputes over China’s creation of
militarized artificial island in the South China Sea, Dunford said he does not
view that as an issue of “a pile of rocks,” but as violations of “the rule of
law” and the need to hold the violators accountable. He stressed, however, that
did not mean by military action, but the use of “other tools” such as
diplomatic and economic efforts.

Looking at the overall condition of the military
since he became chairman, Dunford said the increased defense budgets the last
three years have helped fill depleted munitions stocks, improve the condition
of aircraft and ground equipment and the combat readiness of the troops. But,
he added, the U.S. technological “competitive advantage” over potential
adversaries has eroded due to the earlier budget cuts and spending by Russia
and China.

A detailed analysis by the Joint Chiefs showed
the need for future defense budget increases of 3% to 5% a year to meet the
services’ drive to increase force levels. To those who will come after him,
Dunford said, “if you are going to grow capacity, make sure it has
capabilities. I wouldn’t grow the force more than can be sustained.”

The Navy’s current and planned maritime logistical force “is
inadequate” to support the new National Defense Strategy and major military
operations against China or Russia, and failure to correct that deficiency
“could cause the United States to lose a war,” an in-depth study by the Center
for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment warned May 16.

Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer praised the CSBA study and
declare: “We really have to get after it.”

Addressing the CSBA forum that released the study, Spencer said:
“It is key that we focus on this now. Over the past two decades, our naval
logistical enterprises have performed admirably in an environment of truly
expanded responsibility and resources that were constrained. But the world has
changed. The National Defense Strategy (NDS) recognized that and we have to
stay ahead of it.”

The 120-page CSBA report said that although the NDS said
“resilient and agile logistics” was one of the eight capabilities that had to
be strengthened to prepare for the return to great power competition, the
Navy’s latest 30-year shipbuilding plan reduced the funding for maritime
logistical forces and “further reduces the logistical forces as a proportion of
the fleet.” It also noted that “decades of downsizing and consolidation” have
left the maritime logistics forces “brittle” and contributed to the decline of
the U.S. shipbuilding industry and the Merchant Marine,” which is expected to
carry the bulk of military material and equipment for an overseas contingency.

“Failing to remedy this situation, when adversaries have U.S.
logistics networks in their crosshairs could cause the United States to lose a
war and fail its allies and partners in their hour of need. An unsupported
force may quickly become a defeated one,” the report warned.

The report spelled out in detail the shortfalls in the size of the
Navy logistical support fleet of oilers, supply and repair ships that would be
necessary to support and sustain combat formations in a conflict in the western
Pacific, and the even greater deficiencies in the Military Sealift Command’s
and Maritime Administration’s fleets of aged ships that are approaching or
already past a normal service life.

It also highlighted the risks that China’s vastly expanded Navy
and commercial fleet and its ability to interdict U.S. naval forces and forward
support stations would pose to the ability to project and sustain power in a
major conflict.

The report proposed major increases in the numbers and types of
logistical ships, dramatic changes in operational formations and concepts of
resupplying deployed Navy and Marine Corps forces. It estimated the cost of
buying the additional and different ships and capabilities at $47.8 billion
over 30 years, which it said would be $1.6 billion a years above what the Navy
plans to spend on its maritime logistics capabilities.

Spencer noted that the weakness of the Navy’s maritime logistics
was brought up by members of Congress during a visit to Capitol Hill the day
before. He said a member of the Senate Armed Service Committee who was
particularly strong on the issue told him the Navy was not funding what was
needed. “And I said, ‘you’re exactly right, and we have to get after this’.”

 He promised that the
audience was going to hear him and the new chief of naval operations “talking
about the battle. And it’s not steaming to the battle. Our first battle is
getting off the pier. And we have to start addressing this in earnest.”

The Chinese navy
already is larger than the U.S. Navy and is building ships four times as fast,
with a firm goal of achieving sea control by 2030 and naval superiority by
2039, a former Pacific Fleet director of intelligence warns.

“The biggest
challenge for U.S. national security leaders for the next 30 years is the speed
and sustainability of the [People’s Republic of China] national effort to
deploy a global navy,” retired Navy Capt. James Fanell said.

By 2220, the
People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) will have more than 450 surface warships
and a submarine force approaching 110, Fanell told a May 14 Hudson Institute
forum. And in its rapid move from a force of small ships mainly engaged in
coastal operations into a large fleet capable of extended blue-water operations,
the PLAN now exceeds the U.S. Navy not just in numbers but in tonnage, Fanell
said.

The U.S. Navy has
289 ships in the active battle fleet, including 80 submarines and counting the
14 ballistic-missile subs and four guided-missile boats. Navy leaders have set
a goal of a 355-ship battle force, but the fleet would not reach that strength until
the 2030s at projected building rates.

In the last
decade, China has launched more ships that any other country in the world,
outbuilding the U.S. Navy four to one, Fanell said, displaying a slide showing the
United States building 22 ships to the PLAN’s 85 warships from 2015 to 2018. “I
expect the [PLAN] will continue to surpass the U.S. Navy in new ships in the
next decade.”

And the Chinese
have an even greater advantage in ship-based anti-ship missiles, Fanell added,
with more weapons and missiles that have longer range and are faster than what
the U.S. Navy fields. He noted that a new class of PLAN guided-missile
destroyers has 132 vertical-launch missile tubes.

Over the last
decade, the PLAN has gained valuable experience with task force deployments not
only in its regional waters but in the Eastern Pacific, the Indian Ocean and
recently into the Atlantic Ocean, Fanell said. He predicted there would be even
more operations closer to U.S. coastlines.

A career
intelligence officer who served most of his time in the Pacific with aviation
units, carrier strike groups and then with the Pacific Fleet staff, Fanell said
that, for most of his time in uniform, U.S. national security officials have
refused to acknowledge the growing threat from China and its determination to
supplant the United States as the dominate power in the western Pacific. He
said that changed with the new National Security and National Defense
Strategies released last year, which recognized China — and Russia — as
strategic rivals and acknowledged the return to “Great Power Competition.”

The rapidly
growing PLAN “will increasingly challenge us,” and given its ship production
projections and its experience of operating farther from China, “we can assess
that the PLA Navy is on track to gain sea control by 2030 and superiority by
2039,” Fanell said. The only way to prevent that is by acknowledging the threat
and conducting a whole-of-government campaign to counter its power, which he
said the Trump administration has shown the willingness to do.

NATIONAL HARBOR,
Md. — The Navy Department is showing progress in its drive to increase
readiness and prepare its forces to “fight tonight and win,” Navy Secretary
Richard V. Spencer said May 8. But in a luncheon speech at the Navy League’s
annual Sea-Air-Space exposition, Spencer spoke directly to the defense industry
representatives in the audience, telling them: “We cannot do this alone.”

“We need the
support. We welcome the support of industry if we are going to increase readiness
and meet the operational demands of today and tomorrow,” he said. “Our goal is
true partnership,” based on the concept that “shared risk produces shared
rewards.” He offered industry “a clear line of sight to our needs and resources,
and industry understands that our security, stability and prosperity rely on
ready and combat-capable forces that are capable of projecting naval power. …
We must work together to provide solutions to our challenges.”

The secretary
noted the message he has presented in congressional hearings that the
department‘s budget “we truly believe is prioritized on a strategy-driven,
balanced approach, building on prior investments, while sustaining the
industrial base and maintaining our competitive advantage as we transition to a
more cost-imposing, survivable and affordable future force.”

The process is
showing results, he said, noting that when he took office the readiness rate of
the Navy and Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornets was “abysmal. “Today, the Navy is
tipping at 70% mission-capable rates, and the Marine Corps is in the high 70s,”
he said. He also mentioned a major program that has been accelerated two years
ahead of its original schedule, but he did not name the program.

“Our vision is for a more agile, sustainable and superior force.”

Secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spencer

“We are getting
after these issues and readiness is increasing daily,” he said. The goal now is
“to increase our velocity.”

As part of its
reform of the acquisition processes, Spencer said, “we’re migrating from a
culture of risk eradication to understanding and managing risk,” while
conceding that completely eliminating risk is “unaffordable.” And referring to
the results of the investigations into the two fatal at-sea collisions of Navy
destroyers last year, he said the fleet was moving from a culture of
“normalization of deviation” from standards to increased focus on performance
and safety.

At the end,
Spencer said, “Our vision is for a more agile, sustainable and superior force. …
We want to be able to dominate future conflicts from the seafloor to space, in
blue waters, littorals, mountains and desert, and also throughout the
information domain.”

NATIONAL HARBOR,
Md. — The meeting of Navy leaders with submarine shipbuilding industry
officials, planned for this month, will focus on integrating the production of
the Columbia-class ballistic missile sub and the future Virginia-class attack
boats, the Navy’s top acquisition executive said May 7.

The biggest issue is removing any conflict in the production of the two classes of submarines, which will be built by the same two shipyards — Newport News and Electric Boat, James Geurts, the assistant Navy secretary for research, development and acquisition, told reporters after his luncheon speech at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space exposition. The concern is the impact on Columbia if Virginia production “gets out the box,” Geurts said. That issue could become acute in five years when both submarines are in serial production.

The planned
meeting was announced by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson, who
said it would seek to add back some of the schedule margin for Columbia that
has been eroded by production problems. Maintaining the schedule for Columbia
is crucial, because the first boat must be ready for its strategic deterrence
patrol in 2031 when the first of the Ohio-class ballistic missile subs is
forced to retire.

If any conflict in production emerges, Geurts said, the priority will be Columbia.

One another
current acquisition issue, Geurts minimized the impact from President Donald
Trump’s decision to reverse the Navy’s budget proposal to retire the aircraft
carrier Harry S. Truman rather than put it through the planned mid-life nuclear
refueling and overhaul, which would give it 25 years of additional service
life. Geurts said the change affected very little money in the fiscal 2020
budget, which is being processed in Congress. The cost of keeping Truman in service
and paying for the refueling and overhaul will be worked into the fiscal 2021
budget, and “we’ll do what needs to be done,” he said.

In his speech at
the Navy League luncheon, Geurts urged the industry and Navy officials in the
audience not to focus on sequestration and other budget problems but look at
what the Navy has accomplished in the last 18 months. “I’ve been incredibly
impressed with how fast this organization has changed,” he said.

He said the Navy
has saved about $30 billion through acquisition reform and has accelerated some
production systems by six to eight months, and industry is saving money through
innovation. He noted that the Navy would deliver 12 ships this year, more than
it has produced in decades. “We are getting tools out to the fleet,” he said.

NATIONAL HARBOR,
Md. — The Navy is investing $21 billion in a multiphase program to improve the
efficiency of its government shipyards, which have struggled to get ships and
submarines back into service on time. The program is called the Shipyard
Industrial Optimization Plan, said Steve Lagana, program manager for the plan
in the Naval Sea Systems Command Industrial Division.

Speaking at a NAVSEA
briefing at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space exposition May 7, Lagana
said the plan was developed in response to criticism from Congress, which has
complained about ships and submarines languishing in the yards or unable to get
in for required maintenance. A prime example of the problem is the three Los
Angeles-class attack boats that have lost their certification to sail due to
the overdue maintenance. The USS Boise has been waiting 18 months for its
required yard period.

The plan was
developed by a team of 40 engineers, Lagana said. The first two phases of the
plan were surveys of the yards and detailed analysis of the problems. Those
studies showed enormous inefficiencies created by the physical layout of the
yards, which had facilities providing parts or services to the dry docks in
some cases more than a mile apart.

Lagana showed
diagrams of the existing arrangements at the major yards and the planned
realignments, which would produce more compact and efficient facilities. At the
Puget Sound and Norfolk yards, the facilities serving submarines and
nuclear-power carriers would be separated and combined with their supporting
components.

“This is a whole
new way of thinking about the problem,” Lagana said. Ships in the yards do not
produce a lethal Navy, he said.