Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Request
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
Autonomous systems, AI, are gonna be crucial to meeting our war fighting needs, as is our ability to build the munitions and equipment that we need at a far greater scale, at a far more affordable pace. And some progress has been made. I particularly want to thank the Marine Corps. I know Commandant Burger, who came before Commandant Smith, really took the lead in recognizing this and took a hell of a lot of heat for saying, We have to change. He made the changes.
I think the Marine Corps has adapted to what the modern battlefield looks like. And, also, you passed your audit, which makes everybody around you okay. Yeah. Three times everyone around you is jealous, but I think it should also make them aspirational, to do that as well. I also think on the navy side, I've been particularly impressed with workforce development.
I've been up to Bath, and I was just down at Newport News a few days ago. You know, three, four years ago, it really looked like, you know, we were just not gonna be able to find the workforce. And we still have a long way to go. We do not have enough people, but emphasizing training, bringing people into shipbuilding has made a difference. We have a much younger workforce now in the shipbuilding, and that certainly helps move us forward.
And, also, as the chairman mentioned, our passage last year of acquisition reform to try to help the Pentagon get to the point where you can innovate faster at scale is making a difference. We have a long way to go there as well. I will point out, however, I do disagree with the chairman on one point. Yes. We are way behind on shipbuilding, but it's not because we haven't spent enough money on defense.
Where we are behind is on commercial shipbuilding because we, well, we're behind on both, to be honest. But commercial shipbuilding is the main area, because we were no longer competitive in that space. The economy changed. We cannot spend our way out of this problem. And that is my single biggest concern about the way we approach this.
We are still trying to imagine that we can do everything if we just spend enough money. That, I think, is a very unwise strategy. We have a debt pushing up close to $40,000,000,000,000. We continue to not be able to support any sort of revenue increase to pay for it. We're gonna have to get smarter, and I've used this quote in this room many times, so I apologize for repeating myself.
But I think we are at that Winston Churchill point. Gentlemen, we're out of money. Now we have to think. The good news is we have really good options. We have very smart people.
We have modern technology that can show us how to build the systems we need in a cheaper, more affordable way, put out a platform that enables us to achieve our objectives by taking advantage of having asymmetric advantages and figuring out what weapon systems we can have that can meet our needs. That's the way we need to be thinking. And we've discussed this, but all of what I've just said, the personification of the problem is the decision to go out and try to build a $22,000,000,000 battleship. I doubt seriously whether we can build that. I doubt even more seriously whether or not it is what we need at this point, when we need to be focusing on autonomous systems, on how we can do affordable solutions to what we face.
If we continue to spend ourselves into oblivion, we will not accomplish the national security objectives that we desperately need. We also have partners and allies that we can use. And here I know all of you have discussed, you agree with that. But let's look at that as a way to grow our ability. South Korea, Japan, Norway, they are capable shipbuilders who, at least this morning, were still our allies.
So we need to build on that, build the partners and allies that we can have to meet our needs. I still see a budget that I've been seeing here for 25 years, which is we have all these disastrous problems. Let's just imagine that we'll have an infinite amount of resources going forward, and that's going to be our solution. That's not gonna get us there. We need to make cost-effective decisions to get us to the point where we need within a realistic budget framework.
With that, I look forward to the discussion, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
I thank the ranking member. Now I'll introduce our witnesses. The honorable Hung Kao is the acting secretary of the Navy. Admiral Daryl Caudal is the chief of naval operations, and General Eric Schmidt is the commandant of the Marine Corps. Welcome our witnesses.
Secretary Cowell, we'll start with you. You're recognized.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Chairman Rogers. Ranking member Smith, distinguished ladies and gentlemen of the health service committee. Thank you for allowing me to testify to you this morning. American sailors and marines are currently on the front lines of freedom in operations to protect our republic. Lincoln and Bush.
Speaker 4
Alright. We try can we reset the time then, sir? We're good, sir. American sailors and marines are currently on the front lines of freedom in operations to protect our republic. Lincoln and Bush carrier strike groups and triple e amphibious ready group with the 31st marine expeditionary unit are in the Arabian Sea protecting merchant ships and stopping illicit shipping by terrorist regime.
Destroyers, Arleigh Burke, Bulkeley, Oscar Austin, and Gonzalez are protecting our allies in the Mediterranean against cruise missile attacks from Iran. In The Caribbean, Iwo Jima is stopping narcoterrorists from poisoning our Americans with illegal drugs. In The Pacific, Boxer, ARG Mu, and destroyer squadron seven are enforcing the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. At home, we're preparing Macon Island, ARG Mu, US's Dwight D Eisenhower, a 49-year-old nuclear-powered aircraft carrier for deployment. On our southern border, our sailors and marines stand watch tonight saying, nothing will hurt you.
Not on my watch. Three weeks and about 17 hours ago, I was tasked by President Trump to lead the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps. My three priorities are to take care of our sailors, marines, build ships, and protect our homeland. 120 years ago, the great white fleet extended America's reach across the globe. We're currently at the forefront of history, with a budget that will create the golden fleet, which renews that maritime dominance.
We have the obligation to give our sailors and marines the very best equipment to do their jobs. In our historic budget of $377,500,000,000, we're adding 34 new ships varying from small to large combatants, 123 new aircraft along with five unmanned ships. In five years, we will add 122 manned and 63 unmanned ships. We are funding the readiness of our fleet to 95%. We're procuring exquisite munitions that will keep our forces outside the weapons engagement zone while investing in research for the fight of the future.
More importantly, we're increasing our service member pay, investing in family and unaccompanied housing, child development centers so that our sailors and marines have safe, clean, and comfortable places to live and not have to worry about their families when they're deployed in harm's way. We have greatly exceeded recruiting and retention goals, and that is due solely to the sheer leadership of President Trump and Secretary Hegsev. Last week, I was on board USS Gerald R Ford, USS Winston Churchill, and USS Bainbridge as they return from an 11-month combat deployment in two theaters. Do not believe the fake news that claims food shortages, backed up toilets, and low morale. What I witnessed were motivated and professional young sailors pushing the boundaries of performance for their country.
It is imperative that we pass this budget. Ship construction and readiness were bill pairs for Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years. While our industrial base atrophied, peer competitors grew stronger and threatened our sovereignty. Their hundred-year plan had one goal, total global domination. But only one thing stands in their way, the United States of America.
The Navy and Marine Corps are America's 911 force capable of being anywhere as a carrier strike group or marine airground task force with overwhelming firepower, as we saw in Absolute Resolve and Epic Fury. A year ago, I testified in my confirmation hearing that I would create the most lethal Navy Marine Corps team the world has ever seen. I will keep that promise, having worn the cloth of our nation for 32 years, most of which was in combat. I do this also because I will not allow my oldest son, who will be commissioned a week from tomorrow as a second lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps, to go to war the way I did without the equipment that we needed. I will not allow this for any of America's sons or daughters.
They signed a blank check to this nation to clean their lives, and we owe to them to do our due diligence to fund this historic budget that will care for them and their families while giving them the tools to answer the call. I've seen firsthand what communism and authoritarian regimes have done to thriving nations. Members of my family were murdered by communists. In 1975, we had no place to go. We had no flag to stand under or a country to call our own, but this place called United States gave us hope and a home and a future.
I've dedicated my entire adult life to defending this nation under God so that this would never happen to my children, your children, or our grandchildren. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before you. Before I end, this is Admiral Miguez, my chief of legislative affairs' last hearing before you. And I wanted to thank him for his service, and thank you for your time, chairman. Again, I know your time is very important.
If you wanna cut this down to less than five hours, I think we're ready to support you. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2
Thank you. And I'm proud that you have a very strong voice, and I apologize that we're having audio problems with your microphone. We're working on that. Ad McCaudle, you're recognized.
Speaker 5
Chairman Rogers, ranking member Smith, and distinguished members of the committee, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to testify on the posture of the United States Navy. I'm honored to be joined by acting secretary of the Navy, Cal, and my good friend, General Eric Smith. We appreciate the committee's steadfast support for our sailors, our marines, our civilian workforce, and their families, as well as for the resources you provide to defend our nation. This past year, our Navy celebrated 250 years of American sea power. Today, our founding fathers would scarcely recognize the modern fleet: ballistic missile submarines deterring strategic attack, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers projecting power across the globe, and an all-domain naval force delivering precision lethality at scale.
And while the platforms have changed, one truth has not. The sailor remains our most and greatest competitive advantage, and the heartbeat of our fleet. This July, on our nation's 200th birthday, our sailors will carry that legacy forward wherever our nation requires presence, power, and resolve. Since assuming the duties of the chief of naval operations, I have been focused on one central objective: ensuring the navy never loses its differentiated value. In February, we released the United Navy fighting instructions, which is designed to operationalize my priorities of foundry, fleet, and the way we fight, and provide clear guidance on how we will build, generate, and employ Navy combat power for the conflicts we must be prepared to win.
These instructions reflect a simple reality. The navy's value lies in our ability to generate decisive combat power from the sea with tailorable formations, sustain them forward, and deliver lethal effects across every domain at the time and place of our choosing, globally. Operation Epic Fury is providing in real time what the navy delivers. Forward, persistent combat power from the sea, sovereign options independent of basing, survivable and resilient under pressure, and able to strike decisively. That is our differentiated value on full display.
To preserve that advantage, we are executing a hedge strategy to ensure the fleet will be built today. It's ready for the fight we face now, and adaptable and scalable to the one we will face tomorrow. That strategy is realized through the Golden Fleet initiative, a fleet design that blends high- and lower-end combatants, integrates robotic and autonomous systems, and enables scalable formations to outpace emerging threats. This approach increases our ability to scale combat mass, distribute risk, and maintain escalation dominance against the operational challenges our combatant commanders face globally. It also requires integrating technologies like artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, directed energy, and containerized systems as operational capabilities that expand our reach, persistence, and lethality across our kill chains, and our FY 27 budget request is strategy driven.
It's aligned to the Department of the Navy's priorities and the objectives of the National Defense Strategy, leveraging the concepts outlined in the United States Navy fighting instructions to ensure our investments directly strengthen the foundry, the fleet, and the way we fight. It reflects disciplined choices to ensure we first always feel the credible and highly effective sea-based strategic deterrent. And second, we invest in the right capabilities that preserve our warfighting advantage. To do that, we focus on four priorities. First, sailors.
Quality of service is not a luxury. It underwrites combat readiness and must always be our first priority. Second, the foundry. The founder is where combat power is forged, and we must not use it as a bill payer. A hollow foundry results in a hollow navy.
Third, the fleet. Our fleet is the most decisive and flexible military instrument of national power. Therefore, we must fill the right mix of forces to realize the Golden Fleet's full potential through a smart application of the lead strategy. And fourth, the fight. Winning will depend on the strength and adaptability of our kill chains and kill webs.
From robust counter targeting to leveraging new stealth technologies, to an abundance of longer range munitions to enhance mission command, we must integrate and synchronize our capabilities seamlessly with our joint force teammates, our partners, and our allies. It is truly the honor of my life to serve as your Chief of Naval Operations. With your continued partnership, we will ensure the United States Navy remains the most capable, most ready, and most lethal maritime force in the world, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Well, good morning, Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm honored to appear before you today alongside acting Secretary Cow and Admiral Caudill to represent your Marine Corps. I'd like to start by recognizing the significance of this year's president's budget. It is a generational investment that supports the Marine Corps' top four focus areas. One, restoring a 3.0 amphibious ready group marine expeditionary unit presence.
One argue off the East Coast, one off the West Coast, and thirty-first marine expeditionary unit episodically deployed out of Okinawa, Japan. Two, setting the theater. Three, accelerating modernization and lethality. And four, building and sustaining a lethal force. Restoring a 3.0 amphibious ready group marine expeditionary unit presence is the Marine Corps' north star.
It consists of three continuously deployed amphibious ready group marine expeditionary unit teams. Again, one source in the East Coast, one from the West Coast, and one episodically deployed out of Okinawa, Japan. Each embarked on three amphibious warships, one big deck and two small boats. The amphibious ready group or ARG with the marine expeditionary unit is the most agile, total, and responsive formation of the joint force, hands down. It is how our nation's leaders sustain forward posture, deter aggression, and respond to crisis or conflict across the entire globe.
Today, we have three point 0 amphibious ready group marine expeditionary unit presence. It is a strategic value, and that strategic value is clear. The 22nd MU is combating narcoterrorism in the Caribbean, while the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit and the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit are providing operational flexibility to maintain security and stability in the Middle East and the Indo Pacific. But this is not something we can sustain. We need to enhance our amphibious warship readiness and increase the size of our amphibious force.
I want to extend my sincere appreciation to the secretary of war, the acting secretary of the navy, and my shipmate, Darryl Coddle, for their unwavering support towards our shared goal of restoring a 3.0 amphibious ready group marine expeditionary unit presence. Our second focus area is setting the theater. We're committed to protecting our interests, deterring adversaries, reassuring allies, and creating a more agile and resilient global sustainment network, one that seamlessly integrates with the joint force. To achieve this, we're ensuring an optimized force posture while also investing in motor mobility, prepositioned equipment and supplies, digital manufacturing, and enhanced installation resilience. We're refining our approach to logistics, prioritizing resilience, speed, and adaptability to generate and sustain our forces.
Our third area of focus is accelerating modernization and lethality. Force design underpins everything that we do. We remain committed to modernizing everything from our marine expeditionary units to our marine expeditionary forces, focusing on precision fires, air defense, unmanned systems, resilient command and control, and electromagnetic warfare. We're gaining momentum, but we have to accelerate to ensure that our marines are most lethal, survivable, and resilient the day before a conflict starts. And finally, we're building and sustaining a lethal force.
The quality of life of marines and their families directly impacts readiness, retention, and lethality. We are deliberately investing in marines and their families to improve living conditions, institutionalize Marine Corps total fitness, and ensure support for family resources. Before I close, I wanna take a moment to recognize the members of this committee and other committees with jurisdiction over national defense who will be retiring. On behalf of all marines, thank you for your service to this nation. We know it, it comes at great personal cost.
Thank you for your leadership, but most of all, for your partnership. Your constant and steadfast support has ensured the readiness of the Marine Corps. We wish you the best in the next chapter of your service as we say fair winds and following seas. I'd like to close by stating that your Marines are ready. The Marine Corps is a globally responsive, lethal, combined arms, naval expeditionary force that is capable of projecting power from sea to land and from land to sea, and to maneuver across multiple domains in contested environments to deter, deny, and defeat our adversaries.
Thank you again for your trust and support, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 2
Thank you, General. I recognize myself for the questions first. We all know that a continuous strong demand signal is critical to getting our shipbuilding industrial base back on a healthy footing. Mister secretary, can you tell us how you're ensuring that fleet requirements and the acceleration of production rates is happening in the shipbuilding industry?
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, we have many levers we're pulling. Obviously, the SIOP program allows us to invest in our industrial base. We have, for example, for submarine building, a very talented officer, vice admiral Rob Gautcher, who I've known for 36 years, who is leading and basically moving the submarine construction to the left. But, again, we need to explore every single avenue of ship construction in this country. It's not just about warships.
Right now, there's only 180 flagged US merchant ships and 105 military seal of command ships, whereas the Chinese have 11,000 ships. We are a maritime nation bordering both the Pacific and the Atlantic. We depend on that maritime dominance for our trade and for the good of our nation as well. And so if we pull all the levers, we're looking at 540,000 jobs in the United States for shipbuilding alone, and that's for every single one of your districts. And this is why we need to fund this bill, sir, so we can get shipbuilding going and get this nation going.
Speaker 2
Admiral Caudal, what operational impacts will you feel if Congress doesn't pass supplemental funding, and when do you think you'll start feeling those impacts?
Speaker 5
Sir, as you know, the FY26 budget didn't bake in epic fury. And, we're you know, the navy, if you see any news channel and you look at the graphic there, you see a large navy force in The Middle East. So we're burning bright, and that's what navies do. And we're built that way. But it does come at a cost, and it comes at operational cost.
Things like fuel cost, operating hours, air, you know, training airframes, and all the sorts of incremental things, munitions that you actually expend during wartime. And so, without supplemental funding, I do fear that I'll have to start making decisions in the July time frame on how I do fourth generation. I could make differences between how I do exercises, how I do routine operations in order to make sure that I do not, you know, have the funds necessary to continue the war effort, for Epic Fury. A bigger piece too that I would tell you is in people. You know, I'm incurring additional costs in the manpower accounts as well.
And so, without additional funding, I'm gonna end up having a hold on station, a number between 12 and 15 thousand newest sessions that I'm trying to push through. So my record recruiting is gonna be thwarted without additional funding to PCS those individuals from boot camp, and to pay enlistment and reenlistment bonuses. So those efforts could be challenged if I don't get additional supplemental funding, sir.
Speaker 2
Another point, admiral. What steps have you taken, fleet-wide, to improve your maintenance outcomes and improve your readiness rates?
Speaker 5
Well, I think the secretary handled most of it. You know, this has been a full court press effort to expand our maritime industrial base and certainly the submarine industrial base. I think the acquisition reform is putting with the Durpham and other PAE structural changes to put more accountability at our supervisors of shipbuildings to be more intrusive, oversight while construction's going on. The idea of developing, no kidding, getting the US to, no kidding, build ships through a modular distributed type of framework, we're doing that to some extent with Virginia class and Arleigh Burke, but we need to expand that. We need better integration of artificial intelligence.
We need better integration of robotics to do more welds robotically for higher output and reproducing higher quality. We've got workforce talent management going on across the country, but we need more of that as well to make sure we recruit and retain and lower the attrition of our key workforce. And that's not just, you know, kind of wage grade and vocational. This is middle level engineer management coming out of engineering STEM schools that I desperately need for doing the planning and oversight of the work. And then, I'd say that's most of the things we got going on, sir.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. Building off the theme of the opening statement in terms of, you know, how can we get to more cost effective solutions, I've been very impressed by the fact that when it comes to shooting down drones, we've invented some new systems. We were shooting them down with 23,000,000 missiles. L three Harris has come up with the Vampire system. This $30,000 is shot, very effective.
Another private company came up with MIRROR OPS. By the way, I think Vampire is a much better name than MIRROR OPS if you're gonna name a system just for those paying attention to those things. $15,000 a shot. And it was all about figuring out, okay. We have our needs.
How do we meet them in a very cost-effective way? What is the equivalent in the Navy and Marine Corps in terms of how you're thinking about meeting your needs in a more cost-effective way? And that's one of the many things that troubles me again, about the battleship. We look at new technology, new ways to deal with things, all these demands, asymmetric advantages. And we come up and say, you know what?
We're gonna go with a massive $22,000,000,000 solution. That seems to be the exact opposite of taking advantage of modern technology to meet your needs in a more cost-effective way. So how are you all thinking about options equivalent to, instead of 2,000,000, we're gonna do 30,000 and achieve the same objective, and using new technology to get there?
Speaker 4
Rekke, remember, you're absolutely right, sir. I mean, when we're launching an SM-2 missile that costs 2.25 million dollars per shot to take down a thousand dollar drone, it's ridiculous. And that's why electronic warfare is so important. I mean, we need to cover everything from 30 megahertz to 8 gigahertz with no band breaks in between, but also, we need static radar to look at it, but also gimbals because a lot of their radar cross sections of these drones look very similar to our aircrafts as well. So there are many options out there, and you mentioned, like, a large ship.
Well, there's as far as I was in the navy, even all the way back to 2011 when I worked in Abnad in ninety six, the surface warfare division, we a requirement for large combatant. It's called CGX at the time. Because we've
Speaker 3
Got a lot of requirements, mister. Yes, secretary. One of the things that I would suggest that we're gonna need to do is get out of the requirements based approach. I mean, so much that goes on at the Pentagon, and I think the chairman agrees, is we all sit around and come up with requirements. Okay? And there's, gosh, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of pages of them.
Let's focus on what actually needs to be done instead of, well, we got a requirement for it. We gotta think through it a little bit more than that. Sorry to interrupt. Just had to make that point. Go ahead.
Speaker 4
Thank you for that, Dunkie member. Again, there's again, I pay bills at home, and there's, you know, the kids need braces. They need everything, and that's why we have to balance all those things. But, again, with the battleship, the problem is that your DDGs are so decked out right now. The pink knee, USS pink knee, is the only ship in our fleet that has a slick 32V7 for electronic warfare.
And, I mean, I told you yesterday, I mean, it looks like a big chipmunk with a mouthful of nuts right now because it's so overburdened. And that's why we need a large combatant that has all electronic warfare, as well as 200 VLS cells, conventional prompt strike. Imagine a missile that can go from here to the West Coast in 16 minutes, that the enemy can't stop, and this is what's gonna deter the enemy. Meanwhile, we need to also invest into our shipyards. We need to invest in our electronic warfare as well as our sailors and marines.
And this is why the job of balancing the budget is so difficult. And.
Speaker 3
Yeah. One other question on that. There are a lot of different companies now making autonomous ships. They're really and, yes, the autonomous aspect is important, but they're also looking at new ways to do shipbuilding in general. How can we do it more rapidly, more cost-effectively?
They seem to have made a lot of progress. What are the principal lessons that have been learned from that, that regardless of what we're building, whether it's a battleship, an aircraft carrier, or something smaller, that we could do it more quickly and more cost effectively? Do you and I both, admiral and mister secretary, if you can use.
Speaker 4
Well, again, I'll turn the old coddle in a second, but it's just about using AI so we can streamline our processes as well as adding manufacturing. But, Admiral Coddle?
Speaker 5
You know, sir, I would say when we were upside down, as the secretary's talking about on kills, you know, calls per kill with s m two, s m six, we filled it and rallied very quickly during Red Sea operations, Rough Rider, to actually get on board our strike groups, Roadrunner, Coyote, and Hellfire, instantiations of that to really turn that very quickly. That took collaboration from our surface warfare and mine development center, from Surflant, from Dahlgren, and, of course, NavWar to get those TTPs, bake that in, get it certified, and every striker has deployed with that. It's much more effective, and that learning happened very quickly. Directed energy, of course, is part of electronic warfare. Some of the
Speaker 3
things that, you know, in the I'm out of time. I apologize for that. But I think I don't want to take too much time. But those are exactly the types of answers that I think we need more of. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister secretary, I am the co chair of your I am the co chair of the congressional military sexual assault prevention caucus. Several of us have received information of a change in the navy policy concerning how investigations and reports of sexual harassment are handled. I'm going to submit to you a letter requesting written answers to concerns about those changes. I ask unanimous consent to submit this for the record.
That's good. Thank you. And then ask for your written responses to those. Mister secretary, Wright Patterson Air Force Base is in my district, and it is home to the 711th human performance wing. It is also home to the Naval Medical Research Unit, Dayton.
It is the site where those two come together as a joint center of excellence for aerospace medical research that was established in 2005. It's a place where the Air Force and the Navy are supposed to come together, conducting aerospace medicine research for the purposes of advancing human performance in aerospace. Unfortunately, the Naval Medical Research Unit in Dayton has been neglected in 2022. A study for the US Army Corps of Engineers identified that this medical unit was in desperate need of just basic maintenance, and it continues to struggle for funding and basic infrastructure improvements. As a result of that, I put a request in the last year's NDAA, for the navy to respond to how is the navy going to respond to this report from two that has yet to be answered.
That report in the NDAA had a deadline of this year of March 31, which was missed this year. So the navy hasn't even responded to the request to respond to the lack of responding to the army corps of engineers' response, which was in 2022. We're missing the opportunity for the Navy and the Air Force to work together in aerospace medicine research, which is supposed to advance human performance in aerospace. Mister secretary, I'd ask you, are you aware of this missed opportunity? And, you know, can we remedy this opportunity so that we can advance, obviously, this incredible opportunity to advance human performance in aerospace?
Speaker 4
Congressman, I apologize. I was not aware of this, but, you know, this is the problem when we have a lot of these, you know, units attached to air force bases. I had the problem in Tinker Air Force Base two where we had large number of suicides, and that I've gone there personally, and I've made a lot of headway in order to curtail the suicide rates at Tinker Air Force Base. But for Wright Patterson Air Force Base, human forensics is so important. We have to treat every sailor and marine like a weapon system.
We need to take care of them. That's whether it's through human performance or medical treatment or even mental health. We will do that. So you have my word that I will, not only look into this, respond quickly, but also come visit you, sir. And in response to your sexual assault and sexual harassment, we are gonna investigate every single issue with license and/or trained investigators, and we will respond to that request as well.
And, again, I have five children, three daughters. I will not allow this to happen.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister chairman, you and ranking member Smith as well as the secretary spoke to the issue of the commercial fleet that America does not have. Draw to your attention, there is a piece of legislation called the Ships Act that deals directly with that. I bring that to the attention of the committee, and perhaps that could be an integral part of our work as we form the NDAA. Rather important in meeting all of the requirements that we have.
So I'll let it go with that. Thank you for bringing the issue up, and I'll drive it forward. I have two questions here. Ed McCaudle, the West Coast of the United States, I believe, borders on the Pacific. The Pacific is going to be, has been, and will continue to be a major theater with enormous challenges.
Do we have sufficient facilities on the West Coast of the United States to meet the needs of the navy as it looks to its larger fleet and to the challenges of the Pacific?
Speaker 5
Congressman, we do not have sufficient facilities in general, and I would argue that we do not have sufficient on the West Coast. As our theater of importance and our priority of how we've split the navy, our sixty-forty split predicates that to prevent transits through the Panama Canal or other ways we would get around to the East Coast. The more options I have as the CNO prepare ships without those transits to East Coast public yards, the way I can, you know, have to share those yards and keep them level loaded, improves quality of life for people if they can stay on the coast and not such large PCS moves, and just improves combat and damage control that I can do when I actually need to repair in that capacity. So we are tasked in this budget to go look hard at a fifth shipyard, and that study is, you know, we will take a lot of time and understand that very clearly where to lay down that capacity. But I would answer your question bluntly, no.
I do not have sufficient capacity.
Speaker 7
I look forward to working with you on developing opportunities on the West Coast for the need of the navy for its ship repair and perhaps also for the development of additional fleet. I wanna go to General Smith. You spoke in your opening testimony about the amphibious ready groups and the MEUs. What do you need to carry out your plan? Do you have sufficient ships, amphibs, large and not so large?
And what is the plan to develop? What is your plan, and what is your need to develop the necessary fleet for the Marine Corps?
Speaker 6
Well, sir, thanks for that question. So our requirement is a 3.0 army. Again, one off the East Coast, one off the West Coast, and one episodically deployed out of Okinawa, Japan. We're currently required to have a minimum of 31 amphibious warfare ships, but that was predicated on 80% readiness. And we're well short of 80% readiness in the amphib fleet.
We're closer to 50%. So we're gonna need more ships. I defer to my shipmate, Daryl Caudle, on exactly how many ships are gonna be required to maintain that 3.0 army presence, but my requirement is a 3.0 army presence regard the number of ships that are available.
Speaker 5
Yes. Well, sir, I just can tell you, we have an LHN, LPD, and LSMs in the budget. So.
Speaker 7
Both of the three of those ships are in the budget. Have sufficient number to meet the needs of the Marine Corps? Yes, Congress. Very good. With that, I will yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank our witnesses for joining us today. Secretary Cow, Admiral Caudal, General Smith, thanks so much for the incredible job that you do. Secretary Cow, wanna start with you. Yesterday, at the House Subcommittee on Appropriations for Defense, you talked about nuclear power generation, specifically onshore nuclear power generation.
We all know our nuclear navy is the best ever in the history of humankind, how it utilizes nuclear energy to power our ships. That's seventy years of record with naval reactors, is beyond reproach. What I wanna look at is how we are taking that technology and then applying it in different ways. And I got language in last year's National Defense Authorization Act that directed pilot projects on navy bases to actually do onshore nuclear power generation with small modular reactors, and to do that in a way where we can pair that with data centers. Listen.
The future of what we need to make sure we win the race in AI is gonna center around data. You wanna have your power generation sources close to where your data centers are, the power demand. There's a need for the military for that power to have organic capabilities on a base to make sure we're not at peril with the larger grid if somebody tries to take it out, and then making sure we have our own organic capability with the data that we need for that. All those things make sense. They're also in line with what's happening, externally with other efforts to generate more power, to respond to this nation's increased energy needs and making sure that we're doing data center development in a very responsible way.
And I argue the nation and the navy and the military benefits from that. Give me your perspective on how you think we can aggressively pursue this to, as quickly as we can, get these SMRs permitted and under construction on navy bases, how we can look for partners in the data center realm to put those on military bases or on navy bases, and how you would look at executing now.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Congressman. This summer, Norfolk naval base is gonna be powered by an aircraft carrier. We're gonna export the energy from the air's aircraft carrier to the base. But imagine having this power generation from within the base. Mhmm. That we can even export the energy to the surrounding area and work, use that as a working capital fund to now actually fix our bases.
And the energy that's produced from these, we can power also, or, you know, use it for a four stage distiller, making water, fresh pot of water. I mean, on a carrier, we're pumping millions of gallons over the side every day of fresh potable water that tests a pH seven, right, that we can now export in places like California where you have a drought. You can actually export that energy, that water to put it in the surrounding area. Now the president has named the army, which breaks my heart, as the executive agent for shore-based thing. This is, as a matter of honor, we are the nuclear navy.
So I do wanna turn over to admiral Coddle who is more in tune of nuclear power than I can ever be.
Speaker 5
Mhmm. Congressman, you know, one thing we need is a champion. Okay? You're doing that over here, but we've gotta have an overall programmatic champion for the SMR program. I think we're dithering a bit there and not really landing on, you know, the pilot and laying out the program of record.
Yes. So, you know, while the army may be tapped to be the overall lead for it, I see no world in which the navy's not gonna be part of that discussion. Yeah. And bring our expertise through our long-established naval reactors, a deep understanding of reactor physics, and understanding of safe operation. But we need to get a pilot established, a target date, and get one going.
Speaker 9
Yep. And, Ricardo, thank you. And we will be laser focused on that again this year in the National Defense Authorization Act. I wanted to follow on with that on a shipbuilding issue. There's $1,850,000,000 in this year's president's budget in the request for advanced shipbuilding industrial base and future ship experimental, essentially looking at the proposal of taking foreign designs and then putting those in place for our shipbuilding.
I just have a question about that. I have a hesitation about that because we tried that with FREM with an Italian design, and we took an Italian design. And we said, okay. It's 85% complete, and then made adjustments to it. All of a sudden, it only became 15% complete on design.
And today, we have two Constellation-class ships, and that will be it. We will cancel the rest of the program. So I guess my question is how do you see this going forward? And how are we going to reconcile the effort to say, let's grow the industrial base. Let's grow shipbuilding in the United States.
And on the other hand, say that we're going to now look at foreign ship designs and how we're going to build and sustain a US shipbuilding industrial base for the US Navy.
Speaker 5
Well, you know, there are a lot of lessons we learn from constellations. This can be done right. I think the icebreaker program is an example of where, you know, this.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen's time expired. Chairman, I recognize this gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross.
Speaker 1
Thank you, chairman. I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today. We're focusing on our shipbuilding capacity for good reason. Thanks. It's not working.
It's getting better. Back when Pearl Harbor happened in 1941, our shipbuilding capacity was in shambles. Within two years, President Roosevelt brought those leaders of the great industrial companies in this America, and within two years, we're pumping out one ship a week, plus. We got behind it. We know we got into this problem by investing in our own industrial base.
That's why back in '21, we put a Buy American Act to step up the percentage of American-made products in our shipbuilding. Back in '24, the mines act expanded on that to say you're going to go from 65 to 75 and eventually 85%. Well, we put that in. It's the law. We have not received one report from the repository we created to say how much of our industrial base starts and is made here in the United States.
Repeating the problems that's got us into it. Yet this year's shipbuilding plan states that the strategy for growing the industrial base, the expansion of through direct foreign investment, that the plan's contents, the table contents, an entire section dedicated to foreign investment and support. This is contrary to those last two pieces we put in the NDA. And time after time, people in your position say, have to build our industrial base, yet we haven't. Goes on.
At the same time, the acting secretary of the navy, the entire plan was about restoring maritime industrial strength. Secretary, you stated it five minutes ago. So here we are. We know the plan that we need to do is to invest in ourselves like we've done before. Yet the shipbuilding plan goes the exact opposite direction and says, how do we get foreign investment?
This is what got us here. Do you need a little boost at the beginning? Potentially. We're not saying that's not the way to do it. But the idea of foreign investment got us into this problem, the offshoring of our industrial base.
So, mister secretary, how do you square these circles?
Speaker 4
Congressman, thank you for that question. We're not investing in foreign shipbuilding. What we're doing is seeing what these models work, whether they work in our fleet, and then they will bring that to The United States. Some of these foreign shipbuilders are cranking out the shores at a rate of one every two years. It's taking 6 to 8 years.
Speaker 1
Me a moment. Yes. Page 17 of that plan potentially from overseas shipyards, along with the fuel tankers, and that acknowledgment this work may be performed from outside of United States. So if what you're saying is true, you have to change that saying, we're not going to get these made outside of the United States.
Speaker 4
Again, we're also bringing our workers over there to learn their techniques, sir, because we're just not doing it fast enough over here. We're it's one of those things where, you know, they use a lot of AI to map out their workload every day so that we're not wasting time on just paperwork. 40% of our time at our shipyards are spent doing just paperwork on literally a clipboard and an Excel spreadsheet instead of doing it
Speaker 1
So invest in the United States, so we don't do this. The idea that you've opened up the door here, contrary to what we've been saying for foreign investment on their side of the water, is completely different than what we talked about in this committee, what you talked about. I have no problem sending people over to learn it better. No problem. But the idea that somehow it's because we didn't learn how to do it better.
No. We didn't make the investment. So, please, I wanna hear from Admiral and from you that you're not gonna build these ships overseas. You're gonna build it here.
Speaker 4
The United States, where our industrial base needs to grow. We have to push every lever, congressman, to make this work. I mean, it's like going honestly, it's like going to a candy machine. Your Snickers bars get stuck. You know, you can do two things.
You can call that 800 number, and no one's gonna respond. You're not gonna get your money back. You can put more money in, but that's not going to work. You can shake the machine. It's just not gonna get or you can go, you know, next door to the other candy machine and get it.
That's what we're trying to do, sir. We're trying to make sure that we are invigorating the industrial base and energizing them.
Speaker 1
I advised that competition. Thank you. I appreciate your speaking directly to this, but the fact of the matter is we're not investing here in America to the point we need. Thank you. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, as time has expired, chairman, I recognize a gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Desjardins.
Speaker 10
Thank you, chairman, and thank you our witnesses for being here today. Mister Whitman started the subject, and mister Norcross continued it. I had a question for secretary, Cow. In your opening statement, you mentioned how the department has been focusing on expanded distributed shipbuilding efforts. Can you expand on what those efforts will look like in a practical sense, and how foreign shipbuilding efforts will impact domestic shipyard production?
And just as an aside, yesterday I met with South Korean ambassador Kang in my office, who was offering shipbuilding capabilities in South Korea. And what other allies of ours around the world can help us fill the gap while we're trying to rebuild America's shipbuilding capacity?
Speaker 4
Thank you, Congressman. We're trying to, like I said, energize our industrial base here. I think some of our primes have gotten very comfortable, with the way they're doing things, cranking out ships at six to eight years. I mean, we're better than this. We're Americans.
We can do a lot better than this. And sometimes it just takes a little competition to get us going. And this is where we're bringing in foreign shipbuilders to say, you know what? Let's bring our American workers over there, see how they build things, and bring it back over, and industrialize our, really, our capacity. Along with that, we are looking in a few weeks.
I'm hoping we'll be able to announce to you guys some of the things we're gonna build in America that's, you know, it's being worked on right now as we speak by the deputy secretary of war. And so I love to come in basically twenty-four hours before we announce these things to inform you how we're gonna do that. But let me turn over to admiral Coddle and so he can talk about the SIOP program that his officers are working on.
Speaker 5
Well, I've been tackling this for the last 6 years. I'm sub force commander to the fleet forces commander to the CNO. And, to some extent, the secretary's got it right. He's been pushing a rope on getting the improvements we need to see. I live in a real threat-based world, and threat-based analysis means I actually have to have, no kidding, ships.
And while I love everything to be built in the United States, we do have to expand the aperture. This budget to be executed, we'll have to expand the industrial base and actually go in a smart way, in an optimized way, lay down that ship demand signal across the different yards that can actually produce this in an effective way. In my worldview, that will actually require some foreign shipyards to help me do that, to actually deliver the actual ships I need in a time frame when that's important. And so, I think it's an all hands on deck and execute this budget at the size and scale that's gonna take that approach.
Speaker 10
Okay. And, Adam, Kyle, staying with you. Let's go underwater. The navy had a plan to potentially extend the service lives of several Ohio class submarines known as Pyra to ensure sea based deterrence requirements continue to be met during the transition from Ohio to Columbia. My understanding is this plan continues to evolve, and the Navy is now looking at smaller life extensions for a greater number of Ohio class submarines.
Can you update us on the current approach and the importance of ensuring at-sea deterrence requirements continue to be met as we transition from the Ohio to the Columbia.
Speaker 5
Sir, there will be no chinks in the armor of delivering a credible, safe, and effective sea based deterrent. It underwrites every single thing we do, from continuity of government to continuity of decision making to continuity of operations. We will actually fill that in accordance with US Strategic Command requirements. So to make sure that happens, I am making sure that as Columbia comes online that I have a, what I would call, a make before break transition between Columbia as we sunset the Ohio class, which has served so well. To do that, we will extend some Ohio class to give us the breathing room necessary for that transition.
And so that's our plan of record for that. The total number of that is still being refined, but you can look at a number between four and five Ohio-class to actually make that transition effective. And, we will extend them through the pyro availabilities of you as you have described.
Speaker 10
Okay. Thank you. And, Secretary Cow, we've only got 47 seconds, but we know we've had some setbacks in both the conventional prompt strike programs, Army's land-based long-range hypersonic weapons. And due to previous test failures involved, meet army launchers and all up round both CPS and LRHW have undergone a replan. Can you speak to the progress of the replan and how Congress can work to support the advancement of the hypersonic mission in 20 seconds?
Speaker 4
Congressman, I worked on moving the conferencing prompt strike from AT and L, OSD AT and L to Navy in 2016, and we were supposed to deliver it. And we're running out of time. So we are accelerating as fast as possible, but slick amend is also another deterrent that will really be a game changer, sir.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ammo Caudo, a few weeks ago, Indopaycam commander Ammo Paparo testified that the AUKUS security agreement is essential and that pillar one of the AUKUS optimal pathway, quote, is on track in every regard. As you know, congress has made direct investment in the submarine industrial base $10,000,000,000 since 20 starting in 2018. And we're seeing some positive results in 2025 in New England. There was a 13% increase in submarine tonnage.
We had the commissioning of the 25th and 26th Virginia class submarine just a few weeks ago. The acting secretary was there for Idaho, the number 26. And the twenty-seventh and the twenty-eighth are pressure hull complete, and they're in the process of going through sea trials, knock on wood, delivery, and commissioning sometime within the next twelve months or so. So my question to you is, you agree with the findings of the AUKUS review last December that endorsed continuing our commitment to that security agreement as well as Amel Paparo's testimony?
Speaker 5
Congressman Courtney, I wholeheartedly agree with it. I was part of it. I was in bed creating it. I made a lot of the recommendations in it that were actually adopted, and fully support August pillar one, fully support Sam Paparo's statement. And, look forward to standing up submarine squadron three later this year, and making sure that submarine rotational force west becomes alive, and getting the first Virginia class transfer to Australia next year as we continue to build out where they eventually buy US submarines.
So fully support, sir.
Speaker 11
Thank you. You know, another aspect of this is having surge readiness in place. And I know when Admiral Houston took over at Naval Reactors, it was hovering around 60%, in terms of submarine availability. It's sort of gone up a little and down a little. And, but can you talk about, again, how something that doesn't get talked about a lot, but if you're really talking about making sure that our undersea fleet is gonna be in a position to complete the commitments that AUKUS calls for, but also make sure that all our combatant commanders like Admiral Paparo, you know, have the access to the undersea fleet at the same time.
Speaker 5
Mean, this is really about, you know, posture. You know, where do we put our submarines and home port them in a way that we can sustain them and operate them. That's why Guam is so important. The submarine squadron fifteen there, That's why, you know, Hawaii and, of course, San Diego become very important. And then what we've done is, and I think in a very thoughtful way, is, for once in a lifetime, shared technology with a close partner in Australia to give them a, no kidding, submarine force that will add an entirely new dimension to the threats we face in the Indo-Pacific.
And so that under the submarine squadron and the way we will command and control that, working with the Australian Navy, who are great partners and have been for decades, will give Admiral Paparo access to those submarines as well.
Speaker 11
Thank you. So, and General Smith along the same lines. I mean, making sure that the amphibious ship industrial base, both in terms of production and repair and maintenance, I mean, that's pretty key to making sure that we have the mu levels that you have, again, testified over the years about. Can you sort of give us your perspective about where those efforts, that enterprise stands?
Speaker 6
Sir, I can. The three what I base it on is a three point o ARG mute presence. Our the 31
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.