Hearings to examine maritime unmanned surface vessels.
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
Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower U.S. Senate
Rick Scott
The importance of this fact cannot be overstated. Unlike our an unlike authoritarian countries, the foundation of The US Alliance network is built upon the explicit support of its respective electorates. Our alliances depend on each nation's internal domestic political support. Again, this is crucial. Every military alliance requires negotiation and compromise.
Every military alliance requires negotiation and compromise. Alliances by definition are a two way street. They require patience and appreciation for the political drivers of the parties and a willingness to undertake political, military, and economic risk on behalf of one another. Popular support from free people gives legitimacy to those necessary compromises. We must continue to modernize our alliances to match today's threats and capabilities, but any reform should make us stronger and safer.
They should not detract from the strategic imperative of deterring aggression and coercion by China, North Korea, and Russia. I look forward to hearing how our witnesses are working with our Japanese, South Korean, Filipino, Australian, and Taiwanese allies among others to strengthen our strategic position in the Indo Pacific. With that, I thank our witness for being here and I turn to my colleague ranking member Reed. Senator Reed.
Speaker 6
Well, thank you very much, mister chairman. And admiral Paro, general Brundtson, welcome, and thank you for your distinguished service over a lifetime of dedication to the country and to the men and women that you lead. Please convey our appreciation and support for these extraordinary Americans that you command and lead. President Trump's war of choice in Iran has resulted in significant military posture changes in the Indo Pacific region and on the Korean Peninsula. Over the past two months, president Trump has transferred major military capabilities out of your theaters to central command including a carrier strike group, an amphibious ready group, various missile defense capabilities, and other munitions.
Speaker 2
Admiral Papparo and General Brunson, I would like to understand your assessment of the effect of these transfers on your capabilities. Long range strike weapons and missile interceptors are not quickly replaced. At current production rates, reconstituting what we have expended could take years. The decisions president Trump has made in Iran will impact your readiness in the Indo Pacific for a long time to come. I'm also deeply concerned about what our adversaries are learning.
China and North Korea have watched The United States engage in sustained high intensity warfare requiring massive expenditures of the exact musicians that munitions that are most critical for deterrence in the Indo Pacific. I would like your candid assessments of what lessons Beijing and Pyongyang are drawing from this conflict and how those lessons may affect their long term planning. Relatedly, Admiral Paparo, on December 8, the president announced that he would allow the sale of advanced h 200 semiconductor chips to China, a category of chip previously prohibited because of its ability to accelerate Chinese military capabilities including artificial intelligence. This committee has long agreed on a bipartisan basis that our national defense is predicated on maintaining a qualitative technological edge over China. I want to know whether INDOPACOM was consulted before this decision was made and whether you believe selling advanced semiconductor chips to China is consistent with maintaining a favorable balance of military power in the Indo Pacific.
General Bronson, there are also persistent and troubling reports that the administration is considering significant reductions to US force posture in South Korea. Last year, you testified that America's forward presence in Korea provides, in your words, unmatched access, unmatched deterrence at minimal cost. You also made clear that US force presence in Korea is not solely about North Korea. Our present creates dilemmas for China and the Yellow Sea and imposes costs on Russia in the East Sea. I would ask for your assessment of what troop reductions would mean for deterrence across those threat vectors.
I would also note that this committee voted to include a provision in the fiscal year 2026 NDAA to prohibit any reduction of troops and career without a full assessment of the risk involved and certification to congress. Admiral Papparo, general Brunson, you lead our forces in the most strategically consequential theater in the world, partied against the most capable potential adversaries The United States faces. The decisions being made in the White House right now on its wars of choice, on munitions, on semiconductor sales, on America's alliances will determine whether deterrence holds. I thank you for your leadership at this critical time, and I look forward to your testimony. Thank you, mister chairman.
Rick Scott
I understand each of you has, opening statements. Who'd like to go first? Admiral Peparo, you are recognized, sir.
Speaker 3
Chairman rank and member members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you, today. First, I'll call attention to sergeant major Eric Cook, United States Marine Corps right behind me, and his charge is the fighting force's morale, that combination of physical, mental, and spiritual readiness that is the key factor in combat. This is the essence of readiness and the ability to prevail, this morale that sergeant major Cook leads, and our enlisted force led by our highly professional NCO corps are the backbone, the body, and the soul of the joint force. And I'd like to acknowledge sergeant major Cook and all that he represents. As discussed, the Indo Pacific is the defining strategic theater of the twenty first century where all four lines of effort in the national defense strategy converge.
That is safeguarding The United States homeland, especially including those elements that are in the Indo Pacific, deterring China, deepening burden sharing with our allies and partners, and supercharging the defense industrial base. Indo Pacific Command puts those priorities into action every single day. The sea has long been a highway for trade and a vector for power projection, and it's also becoming increasingly an end unto itself as a source of food, energy, minerals, and strategic leverage. China's force design since 2009 reflects that reality. Since 2024, China has delivered 12 submarines, including nuclear attack submarines and nuclear ballistic missile submarines, an aircraft carrier, two cruisers, 10 destroyers, seven frigates, as well as amphibious and combat logistics force.
That scale is for the projection of power, coercion, and to enforce the rules in every relationship. North Korea continues to threaten The US homeland and our allies with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and Russia has increased its force posture of air missile maritime in the Indo Pacific, and the increasing strategic part, cooperation among them all is deeply concerning. Our strategy is clear to deny China from achieving its objectives through military aggression to deter it. Deterrence is our highest duty. We deter with dynamic combat power, conducting operation every day with allies and partners and across domains.
Our allies and partners increase our combat capability and capacity, expand our maneuver space, and extend operational reach and strengthen deterrence. Yesterday, we began the largest ever exercise, Balakutan, and The Republic Of The Philippines. This exercise demonstrates a significant leap in allied firepower integrating US land based Tomahawks with Philippine BrahMos missiles and Japanese anti ship missiles. Our alliances are rapidly fielding advanced capabilities. We're adapting to the changing character of warfare, and we're driving towards information and decision superiority.
We're accelerating decision making through our AI enabled headquarters and our AI enabled commands, strengthening our posture, improving integrated air and missile defenses, hardening key infrastructure, and increasing munitions throughput. Congress and the department have provided the resources now industry must deliver. With your continued support, we'll preserve peace through strength and defend a free and open Indo Pacific. I now defer to general Brunson and most especially your questions.
Speaker 4
Thank you, chairman Wicker, ranking member Reed, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today alongside emerald Paparo regarding the security environment in The Republic Of Korea and Northeast Asia. I would like to first thank those who sit behind me, who got me here to this hearing today, have helped me to prepare and represent the members of our force forward in the United States Forces Korea. I'd also extend my gratitude to the 17 other United Nations member states: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, The Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, and The United Kingdom. But I especially thank the Korean people for their continued partnership, hospitality, and commitment to our alliance.
The Korean Peninsula is key strategic terrain, vital to defending the American homeland and advancing American interest in the region. Our forces in Korea are modernizing to address rapidly evolving strategic dilemmas. That's why my focus remains strictly on capabilities over numbers. While our presence is a baseline, it's imperative that we maintain focus on the precise capabilities that must be resident on the peninsula. To truly understand this shift from capacity to capability, I encourage the committee to observe the tri command firsthand.
Should you visit us, you will see, as Senator Shaheen has, the readiness exemplified by our service members, civil servants, allies, and interagency partners who defend the homelands. Across the peninsula, our warfighters build readiness. Some examples include Eighth Army's continued work along with our rotational force, which has led them to exceed 90% on most of their readiness metrics. The continued integration of Seventh Air Force, Marine Corps Forces Korea, Naval Forces Korea, Special Operations Command Korea, and Space Forces Korea those components into INDOPACOM exercises demonstrate the potential to project power from Korea in support of deterrence across the greater Indo Pacific. A key component of readiness is our facilities.
We are improving our infrastructure to synchronize U. S. Space Forces and other components while seizing theater opportunities to conduct integrated sustainment and forward repair with our allies, partners, and the joint force. And across the information domain, we not only communicate the centrality of the region to American interest, but actively maneuver to neutralize misinformation and disinformation. The TRI command, United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command, and U.
S. Forces Korea stand ready and capable to support a favorable balance of power across the region that deters aggression, supports a free and open Indo Pacific. Our presence in the region is a driving force that has evolved our alliances over decades from dependencies to true partnerships. While our cooperation and commitment to the region has maintained the armistice and deterred large scale conflict, our forces must remain vigilant. Together with the department, our energy agency teams, the United States Congress, and our multi multinational allies and partners, we will continue to demonstrate American strength in the region so that a fair favorable peace prevails.
Under one flag, we go together.
Rick Scott
You may have to help the transcriber on that last sentence, general. You you gave us a a number of countries. Why did you list them specifically, sir?
Speaker 4
Chairman, what I hope to do is to thank them for their continued contribution to the core of the United Nations command. Each of those companies that I'm countries that I mentioned has over the year and a half or so that I've been in command had officers and soldiers within our headquarters in United Nations Command, sir.
Rick Scott
Okay. Thank you very much for that. Admiral, I I wanna ask about our overseas military bases. Of course, we we know they're not sovereign US territory. The territory belongs to the various countries who host us.
All allies and partners require some form of prior consultation before allowing US forces to operate from their sovereign territory. That is a correct statement, is it not, admiral?
Rick Scott
And as it previewed in its national defense strategy and the AUKUS review, DOD is now pressing allies to provide uncaveated uncaveated and unimpeded access from bases located in their country. Is this realistic? And I have three questions which I'll just ask all at once. Our overseas bases provide enormous benefit. Is it realistic to seek uncaveated and unconstrained access to these bases?
Is there anything you want to do now that you cannot do under existing basing arrangements? And is it realistic to expect our allies, even our closest ones, to provide unfettered access basing and overflight with no operational restrictions.
Speaker 3
Chairman, I I think that it's sensible to gain assurances that in the unforgiving hour, we'll be able to employ those bases for our own planning. And I think it's pragmatic to understand that each of our allies and partners will experience various civil pressures within those that they govern. And I think going a long way to gain assurances from our partners is a practical and sensible approach. I think it enhances our plannings, but I think it also must be approached with the pragmatism that each government is accountable to their people and will make deeper decisions when the unforgiving hour comes.
Rick Scott
Okay. It's is the the my my second follow-up question was, what can we not do now? Is there anything we cannot currently do under existing basing arrangements?
Speaker 3
Chairman, there are frequent occasions when we would prefer to execute certain operations or certain live fire operations, and our host nations are sensitive for domestic reasons. And so it's always a negotiation with our allies and partners. And we always do so within the faith that our allies and partners want to go as far as they practically can. But certainly, there's always limits on, or there's, you know, I should say there's frequently instances where there's things that we would like to do, but we can't do it because the host government is sensitive to public opinion, it is in the presence of populations, and we work through it with good faith.
Rick Scott
Okay. And then in the minute and a half we have, let's talk about replacing both exquisite traditional munitions and newer low cost munitions. We fired a lot of weapons in operation epic fury. Secretary Feinberg has a plan to increase production of exquisite munitions such as those made by Lockheed and Raytheon. Will that take time?
And can you give us an idea of how much time? And is it time also to go all in on low cost munitions including cruise missiles, hypersonics, long range drones, and unmanned surface vessels? Senator, yes and yes. And the the traditional defense primes have to innovate to go faster. I think it'll take one to two years for them to scale.
It won't be soon enough. And I think that we really must press the system with nontraditional vendors bringing into bear new, low cost munitions,
Speaker 3
such as hypersonics, low cost cruise missiles, and then across a variety of droned and, unmanned systems.
Rick Scott
Is it possible, thank you for your answer there, particularly on the, low cost munitions. Is it possible for us to incentivize the exquisite manufacturers such as Lockheed, Raytheon, and others to go faster?
Speaker 3
It most certainly is. And I, you know, I think that the department is putting a great deal of accountability and pressure on the primes. Thus far, the progress is good and I'm eager for more.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, mister chairman and general Papparo and general Brundt. First, let me commend your staff. From my early experience, know how hard it is to sit at attention. So thank you. Well done.
Well done. Admiral Paparo, I'll just follow on the chairman's question, which is basically we've extended a great deal of ordinance in the Iranian combat. It has some effect on you. The question going forward though is is if we resume a rate of fire similar to what we were doing, did you do you have an idea of how long we could fire without creating severe effects on your command?
Speaker 3
First, I acknowledge your statement, ranking member, and, you know, I delivered that in a classified setting, but there are finite limits to the magazine and I have all the faith in the world that they're being employed judiciously.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Admiral. General Bronson, our present military situation in South Korea, I assume, but you could confirm, that is creating some significant strategic and operational dilemmas for the Chinese. Could you indicate or discuss those?
Speaker 4
A ranking member in open, what I would say is that we have positional advantage currently. I've written articles that are out there right now that talk about the positional advantage achieved by changing our perspective of looking at a map differently. It places us with interior lines inside the first island chain. And what that allows us to do from that position alone is, as we operate on OAIs given to us by INDOPACOM, it allows us to operate from a different aperture, if you will, to project power into the region and achieve effect, significant effect, I might add. I also believe that the imposition of cost is a thing that happens when we marry capabilities with position on the ground geographically.
And that, I would call, or term posture truly, is the marrying of the capabilities with the right positioning, and then to be able to achieve significant effect.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. In my opening statement, Al Pavaro, I talked about the proposed sale of chips, the h 200 chip. Do you have any concerns that you would like to comment upon?
Speaker 3
Ranking member, I want every competitive advantage that The United States Of America can have, and that includes AI powered warfare. INDOPACOM is an AI powered headquarters. The Chinese, by their philosophy, are fast followers. They've taken every bit of intellectual property that's ever been shared to the trade and technology stack, and they've not only implemented it, but they've improved upon it. So I have deep concerns with anything that enables them to become a better AI powered headquarters than our headquarters.
Speaker 2
Well, I share your concerns, Admiral. I think they're legitimate and compelling, and thank you. Admiral Parle, what lessons do you think the Chinese have learned from, Operation Epic Fury?
Speaker 3
Rankin Member, I think that number one, I think they're impressed by the operational acumen that's been demonstrated by The United States and our partners. Number two, I think they see the power of small, low cost munitions on the ability to hold key geography at risk, and so have we. And we see that. And who implements that the fastest is absolutely the best, is going to be the best here in the twenty first century. And I think the key is that our forces learned a lot, including a lot of combat experience.
We have to continue to accelerate that learning and bring that to bear. That's a key advantage that the Indo Pacific forces that have engaged in combat in this operation that our would be adversaries have not had, and we need to accelerate that.
Speaker 2
A quick final question. I have a few seconds remaining. There is roughly analogies between the situation in Taiwan and Ukraine. Asymmetric warfare will be what the Taiwanese practice against the the the Chinese. So are we focusing now on the the lessons from Ukraine, drone warfare, all the ingenuity of the Ukraine?
Is that the the approach that we're taking with the Taiwanese?
Speaker 3
Sir, that's a, you know, that's a key emphasis. You're quite well aware of the hellscape strategy, the fact that low cost munitions, drone war makes assault much, much more costly to assaulting forces. Bringing those lessons to bear to the max extent possible is an imperative.
Speaker 13
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank, both of you gentlemen and the the members of our military that you serve with for the important work you do every single day. Thank you. Admiral, the current program of record for at least 100 b 21 bombers, that's not sufficient. When accounting for both nuclear and conventional bomber requirements, would you agree that we need to procure at least a 145 b 20 ones? And shouldn't we be seriously considering at least 200?
Speaker 3
Senator Fisher, good morning. I would favor 200 b one or, b 21 bombers, not just for the nuclear deterrence mission, but for penetrating strike capabilities, and I couldn't be a stronger advocate.
Speaker 5
Thank you. We need to consider both Stratcom's requirements and yours and EndoPACOM as well, correct?
Speaker 3
Senator, I would say that, and Stratcom is, you know, absolutely among my strongest partners. We are in lockstep on this, and we don't view a separateness of our individual requirement. We view ourselves as teammates side by side on the journey.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Also, while the nuclear threats are often considered stratcom, they obviously have serious implications in INDOPACOM and your mission. Can you describe your view of China's nuclear expansion and the impact that more numerous and capable Chinese nuclear forces in the region have from your perspective as a geographic combatant commander?
Speaker 3
Senator, in the next five years, I expect China's nuclear arsenal to nearly double, and that, taken in some with their comprehensive strategic partner, their no limits partnership with Russia and with their arsenal, It's a it's a concern. We've got to overmatch that capability. We have to continue to modernize The US nuclear deterrent, including tactical nuclear forces.
Speaker 5
You've mentioned the importance of allies and partners. And in the Indo Pacific region, that includes several that depend upon our nuclear umbrella, our nuclear deterrence guarantees. Based on your interaction with these allies and partners, how do you believe they would view a delay or cancellation of our nuclear modernization effort, or rhetoric to that effect? And to what extent would they be concerned?
Speaker 3
Senator, you rightly identify it would be a deep concern on the part of our allies and partners. They defend very strongly, they depend, I shouldn't say they depend, we, together, rely very strongly on extended deterrence. They'd view that with the concern, and they'd be right to.
Speaker 5
Admiral, you know as well as anyone the challenges that are posed by the vast distances in the Indo Pacific. And being able to connect those ships and the aircraft with fuel, that's going to be crucial. In your opening statement, you stated, Our tanker fleet falls below requirements. How are you working with General Reid at Transcom to address those refueling needs and really shortfalls that we have?
Speaker 3
Senator, you know, I could tell you in a classified setting how many millions of pounds it takes to be in the air to support our air refueling requirements. And I'd also add our combat logistics force and our at sea fuel requirements as well. I strongly applaud the Air Force's standing back up the tanker fleet and refreshing it. And, you know, I'd be in favor of anything that accelerates our ability to put fuel in the air.
Speaker 5
Thank you. General Brunson, back to our nuclear deterrence and the importance it has for our allies and our partners. Can you, comment on how important that relationship is, between, The US and ROK?
Speaker 4
Yes, senator. It has a has a tremendous it goes tremendously far in helping us to assure our allies of our will and our intent. So, to that end, we've developed a staff section, the J-ten, which works along and serves as an interface between rocstratcom and usstratcom. We've also participated fully in the nuclear consultative group. And these things all allow our allies to focus on other things in the region, vice being confounded about, are they protected, are they covered?
So our assurance through extended deterrence is incredibly important for our us being allies.
Rick Scott
Thank you, senator Fisher. I have senator Hirono and then senator Tuberville. Senator Hirono.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much for your service and leadership. Admiral Pappar, you've been, very candid about your concerns with the US military's magazine depth over the last several years and, of course, with the illegal war in Iran. And you noted today that you're you believe that the these the magazine is being judiciously employed. I'm not so sure about that. But you did note that we need to have a better mix.
I think I think that's where you were going. Better mix of the exquisite high cost, low volume systems with affordable high volume munitions. You did note that we are working with nontraditional vendors to help us produce these other types of munitions. So I'm curious to know that how are we doing that? Are we providing encouragement to these nontraditional vendors to help us with providing the unmanned systems and the other munitions that you are seeking to develop?
Speaker 3
Yes, most certainly. First is that we've working with the Defense Innovation Unit, we have funded multiple tests including the employment of a low cost hypersonic weapon off of a US aircraft this summer. And so, yes, we've encouraged. Yes, we've advocated for DIU experimentation, and we've advocated very strongly with the department for contracting these capabilities. Those contracted capabilities are reflected in this year's budget submission with orders in the hundreds, if not thousands, of these systems.
Speaker 6
That's an area that I would like to provide more support. Because clearly, we need to really move toward the kind of innovations that you have very much advocated for the times that I have worked with you. So thank you very much for your continuing leadership in this regard. I did want to mention that although you are not directly involved with the military services continued negotiations with the state of Hawaii regarding extending the use of very critical military training lands in Hawaii. Without those training lands, for example, they it would be very hard to justify the army's presence in Hawaii and therefore the the impact on national security.
So I just wanted to bring the importance of the significance of these negotiations and particularly for the Army to continue to negotiate in good faith with the state to come to a resolution acceptable to all parties and not short circuit the discussions by seeking to condemn the land without fully exhausting the avenues. And I just wanted to get your brief thoughts on the importance of these negotiations and how these negotiations should proceed.
Speaker 3
Senator, engagement is critical. Pahakaloa is absolutely indispensable to the nation's defense. It's indispensable to deterrence here in the Indo Pacific. And I'm strongly in favor of every every effort that leads to favorable outcome to maintain twenty fifth ID, and in fact, United States Army's continued usage of Pahakaloa training area, as well as all of the other key land lease issues that we're dealing with in the state of Hawaii, which also includes Air Force, Navy, Space Force, and then marine usage. And so across the joint force, I'm strongly in favor of building towards consensus and sensible solutions.
Speaker 14
I think the keywords here are consensus because I think it would be not in the interest of our the military's presence in Hawaii if these negotiations are somehow short circuited and there is resort to condemnation. That would not go over very well, I would say, with the people of Hawaii. So any input that you have toward those kinds of negotiations would be much appreciated. Amar, we are seeing increasing cooperation between Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China. And as US forces remain heavily engaged in the Middle East, how are you working with the regional allies, particularly Japan, Republic Of Korea, and Australia to increase cooperation and coordination among our partners in Indo Pacific AOR.
Speaker 3
Senator, all those relationships are on a strong, strong upward trajectory, including the relationships among them. And it is a daily matter of duty to work closely with all the allies.
Speaker 6
I just also want to mention that as we talk about the importance of strengthening our allies, we should not forget that our compact island nations and the fact that we should be working very closely to support the the our compact nations and other island nations as China
Speaker 6
extending itself in the Indo Pacific area with regard to establishing stronger relations with Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, other island nations. Let us not forget our, island nation partners.
Speaker 3
Will do, senator. And and, Republic Of Palau, Federated States Of Micronesia, Republic Of The Marshall Islands, continue to be areas of Chinese encroachment across the gray zone, across elements of elite capture, and maintaining a close focus on those relationships is incredibly important to the defense of The United States Of America.
Rick Scott
And our relationships with with those peoples are very strong and appreciated. Senator Tuberville.
Speaker 9
Thank you. Good morning, gentlemen. Admiral, what flexibility and capability does INDOPACOM gain if we were able to fill 16 Columbia cast class submarines versus 12?
Speaker 3
Senator, good morning. It's the addition of 64 missile tubes. It enhance it would enhance our ability to provide extended deterrence. It would enhance our overall readiness, not just for strategic weapons, but for tactical weapons, and I'm strongly in favor of enhancing that. And you'll find me a strong vote yes on increasing our Columbia inventory.
Speaker 7
Thank you. To another subject, our competition with China isn't just about military strength, it also includes monetary strength as well. You know, last year, the Chinese Communist Party's main monetary think tank published research on Bitcoin as a strategic asset. You know, this came after president Trump moved to establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve. Admiral, how does leadership in Bitcoin impact leverage resilience deterrence for Indo Paycom against China?
And do you think that a strategic Bitcoin reserve helps America compete against China?
Speaker 3
Senator, our, you know, our research into Bitcoin is as a computer science tool. It's the combination of cryptography, a blockchain, and a proof of work. And Bitcoin shows incredible potential as a as a computer science tool that through the proof of work protocols is a it actually imposes more cost than just the algorithmic securing of networks and our ability to operate. And Bitcoin is a reality. It is a valuable computer science tool as a pro power projection.
And outside of the economic formulation of it, it has got really important computer science applications for cybersecurity.
Speaker 7
Thank you. What what recommendations do you have for us here in congress on how to how The US can lead on Bitcoin competition?
Speaker 3
You know, I'd I'd have to go deeper on that with you, for the record, and I can I go I can go deeper on that case, but bitcoin is a reality? It is a peer to peer zero trust transfer of value. Anything that supports the all instruments of national power for The United States Of America is to the good.
Speaker 7
Thank you. I'll have to go back and listen to that answer to kind of decipher it. Most of us entered. You're way over our head. Go ahead.
General, what we're seeing as far as changes in strategic environment with respect to North Korea, what are we seeing?
Speaker 20
Senator, thank you for the question. One of the things that we're seeing, if we were to just take this from, you know, political, military, and then just informational or intelligence view, what we're seeing with them is, politically, KJU is firmly in his seat. I think militarily, what we see is a more experienced force that's been forward into the conflict in Ukraine, come back, trained other forces, and taken best advantage of the offsets that were learned in that fight and begun to employ them in their training. Informationally and through intelligence, what we find is a continued isolated population in that country, and less communication south with the government in Korea. There are no overtures toward peace from the North to the South, and we see increasing hardness, if you will, in terms of that relation.
Speaker 4
So every overture is rebuffed, and there are no more outreaches from the North to the South.
Speaker 7
What kind of reactions are you seeing from the conflict in The Middle East from the North Koreans?
Speaker 4
Senator, as as mentioned in closed, we are seeing reflections, and I I would just say they're watching that with a wary eye by virtue of the the use of of munitions and the things that we've done in that conflict currently and how quickly that occurred.
Rick Scott
Thank you, senator And, admiral Papparo, I believe you told senator Tuberville that that you hope to supplement your answer on the record with regard to Bitcoin.
Speaker 3
Yes, sir. I will I will respond on the record also. Thank you very I'll put it in plain English too.
Rick Scott
Yes. Thank you. Well, senator Tuberville will not be the only one who goes back over that. Senator Blumenthal.
Speaker 8
Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you both for your service and really critical roles. Admiral, I apologize that I was unable to attend the closed session because of a conflict. So my question really is based on public reporting, and I know that there was some coverage of various topics in the closed session. But I am tremendously concerned about the impact of the transfer, the drawdown of munitions and capabilities to The Middle East.
I'm under the impression that the impact has been serious. Would you agree?
Speaker 3
Senator, I I think, we maintain deep magazines, and, there there's no walking away from the quantitative use of of weapons. And, our way forward is to supercharge our defense industrial base, and equally important is to innovate with nontraditional primes.
Speaker 8
Would you agree with me that the American people really need and deserve to know more about what the impact will be so they can appreciate the seriousness of the costs of the Iran war and the really urgent need to replenish and restock munitions and other resources for your command and others?
Speaker 8
Well, I hope that there will be more truth telling to the American people about the need to build the industrial base and to provide more of the resources that you need because otherwise, the American people are just gonna assume we don't have any need to do it. The cooperation between Russia and North Korea is deepening militarily. My understanding is that North Korea has transferred millions of artillery shells, rockets, ballistic missiles, and other resources to Russia for use in Ukraine and that North Korea has provided more than 10,000 troops right now fighting, actually fighting, on the front line in Ukraine. Is that correct? That's that's correct, senator.
Thank you, general Bronson. And in turn, Russia is providing North Korea with food, energy supplies, and maybe most importantly, technology. Correct?
Speaker 8
How significant, in your view, militarily, is that cooperation? And I understand it's growing.
Speaker 4
Yes, Senator. It's significant due to the fact that they're able to alleviate their research development training and evaluation or testing and evaluation. They're getting ready made equipment. They're receiving training. They're putting those things into operation immediately.
Speaker 15
Admiral, I was very interested in your three meta trends in your testimony, and particularly as to the growing capability of asymmetric warfare, cheap, masked, unmanned warfare we've seen at Ukraine. I assume your comments are based on the Iran war as well. How does that bear on the Chinese calculus given that Taiwan is smaller, fewer numbers of troops, but highly capable in cyber and also in providing those unmanned asymmetric forces against maybe a very significant Chinese invasion, but maybe something that the Chinese ought to be more wary about.
Speaker 3
Senator Blumenthal, I think the Chinese are deeply worried about it, and they're trying to reckon with it as we do, which I think that why all of us together have got to reckon with these three meta trend and the mega trend around it and the changing character of warfare. I think that their view is is that they want to build a drone force that would be a vanguard of an assaulting force. And in the end, all things being equal, the mass deployment and employment of cheap expendable munitions will favor the defensive so long as we pursue it fully, with masks, with numbers, with sustainability, and with AI tools that enable us to command it and outmatch our potential adversaries.
Speaker 8
In other words, as long as we continue supporting Taiwan with those resources.
Speaker 3
Yes, sir. And, Taiwan's continued pursuit in and of itself of its own defense, which is a key factor.
Speaker 9
Thank you, mister chair. And, again, thank you so much, gentlemen, for being here today. We appreciate your service as well as your teams in protecting our great nation. When Iran closed the Strait Of Hormuz, it it directly threatened the energy security of a number of our allies in the Indo Pacific, Japan, South Korea, The Philippines. And these are key allies for us, and they assist us with the deterrence in that region.
President Trump's national security strategy rightly treats American energy dominance as a strategic asset. It's not just an economic one. So admiral Peparo, does does INDOPACOM currently treat allied energy dependence as a strategic vulnerability when doing its planning?
Speaker 3
Senator Ernst, good morning. Yes, absolutely. We do. We track energy reserves for each partner, including also potentially each potential competitor as well. And we do view we do view the vulnerabilities of not just where the energy is coming from, but also through the straits through which they travel Malacca, Lumbach, Sunda, among others, as being key critical geography, as the ability to impose costs, as well as the ability to defend key strategic waterways.
And I affirm the ability of The United States increasingly to be a net energy provider also in the Indo Pacific to escape the vulnerability of those key choke points.
Speaker 9
Okay. And that's a key point too. I think greater US oil and and LNG supplies to our allies can reduce the leverage that any of our adversaries would have on those countries. In your assessment, do you think we are moving fast enough to make American energy a meaningful pillar of allied resilience in the Indo Pacific?
Speaker 3
I never ever affirm satisfaction with where we are in terms of national strength.
Speaker 9
Okay. Well, thanks for the truthful answer there, and and I would concur with that. Thank you. Now, moving on, General Brunson, for you. Russia's war in Ukraine has become kind of a two way military exchange between Putin and Kim Jong un.
Speaker 16
See a lot whether it's the liquid fuel ballistic missile program that goes back to, North Korea, Russian military and technical assistance personnel coming from North Korea to assist Russia in the war in Ukraine. We could go on and on. So what we have seen means that Iran is taking a look at what's going on. There's a real world test bed going on in Iran right now. We've seen the same in Ukraine.
Speaker 9
So with all of these exchanges going on, what specific capabilities are you seeing that the DPRK has actually gained from these experiences? What do they stand to gain today or immediately that would assist them, as they're assessing, The United States and our partner nations in the Indo Pacific?
Speaker 4
Senator, you know, as mentioned previously, we're seeing it in their training. We're seeing the things that they're doing. Those are immediate gains. Mhmm. I think at the operational level, what they're finding is they are far more they're learning to become far more accurate with their employment of their fires.
I think that's a thing when you see that Seoul sits some 60 miles south of the DMZ. I also believe that in terms of technology that they've garnered from this association, it's allowed them to operate in spectra that they haven't before. So they're operating the EMS. They're working on electronic warfare. And it's also enabled them to do things in the cyber realm that they hadn't been able to do before.
So when you look at the cryptocurrency theft and other things that they're learning from this, you know, almost this Levant that exists now
Speaker 4
Russia into DPRK into China and then beyond into Iran, I think that we have to be concerned about the the transitive nature of technology and TTPs that are gonna move across that same Lebanon over time.
Speaker 9
So, general, would you assess those all of those different areas that you had just you just spoke to? Would you say that these are incremental gains, or are these significant meaningful shifts for DPRK?
Speaker 4
I would say, senator, for DPRK, these are significant shifts in their ability to do these things that they never had to work on themselves, largely given. The quid pro quo nature that we would talk about initially when this first started, this is a full partnership between two nations now.
Speaker 9
Yeah. Thank you. I think this is something we really need to set up and pay attention to. So thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you, mister chair.
Rick Scott
Thank you, senator Ernst. We have Shaheen and then Sheehy. Senator Sheehy.
Speaker 18
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you, admiral Papparo and General Brunson for being here, for your service, and thank you both for all of the time and support you provided to our bipartisan codel that went to the Indo Pacific a couple of weeks ago. Admiral Papparo, we very much appreciated the briefing in Honolulu, and your insights into Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, which we visited. And while we were in Taiwan, we had a a very good meeting with president Lai and with members of their yuan, their legislative body. And we talked with them about the importance of passing the $40,000,000,000 special defense budget that they are still debating. Can you speak to why this is important, and your perspective on how important it would be for, Taiwan to pass that special defense budget?
Speaker 3
Good morning, senator Shaheen. First of all, nothing has changed in the, American policy on Taiwan and the three communiques, the Taiwan Relations Act, the six assurances. Our foreign military sales with Taiwan are not out of the norm over the almost fifty years of Taiwan Relations Act. And so we can't want Taiwan's defense more than they want it itself. And it's not a chicken and the egg because you're not gonna get chicken or eggs if you starve the chicken.
So it's very important for them to fund their own defense.
Speaker 11
Well, thank you. I agree. And we made the case that there were two reasons to pass it. One was to send a message to China, but also send a message to the American Congress, which is very supportive of Taiwan and would like to see this action taken. General Brunson, you kindly mentioned our visit to Camp Humphreys.
I was very impressed by that visit, and it was my first time. So, it was nice to hear the perspective from all of the men and women serving there. And in South Korea, we also had a very good meeting with the Lee administration, who President Lee was very focused on reaching the transfer of OPCOM by the end of his administration. Now, you talked about the importance of capabilities versus capacity, which was a point that we made to him as well. But can you outline what the key capabilities are that The US provides and that we need to continue to provide for the foreseeable future.
Speaker 4
Senator, first, thank you for your visit. It it means a lot when we get a touch of home, when you're thirteen hours off. Like, I know my wife's not watching this right now. But it means a lot when we have you all come out and visit us, so please come back again. When we look at the things that we provide right now, is no true analog to critical but more limited in Hangul.
So what we have to do is really take a look at and as I'm sure you were involved in conversations about this wartime op con, and that it's a conditions based transfer As we continue to ferret out the conditions and the capabilities that have to be resident within that Republic Of Korea force for us to do this, maintaining conditions based for this transfer, I think that we'll learn over time what things we're going to still need to do alongside our partner. I can't give you an answer on that right now, ma'am, because we have to continue to work to ensure that political expediency doesn't outpace the conditions. We've got to stay focused on the conditions, because The United States is safer that way, and The Republic Of Korea is safer that way. So we'll continue to focus there. Ma'am, I'll sort of take that for the record to come back to you
Speaker 4
on that would be what we find out as we continue to work through our roadmap to get to op con transfer.
Speaker 11
Right. Admiral Papparo, you've answered this question, sort of in various ways. Senator Reid raised it. A couple of other people raised it. But can you talk about how ultimately you think, or I guess we can't say until we know the outcome, but how what's happening in The Middle East and Iran affects how the PRC views The United States and how it might affect their thinking about their other activities in the region?
Speaker 3
Senator, there's, you know, there's no substitute for prevailing on the battlefield. So I I could not be more stronger in favor of of the operation that's ongoing in CENTCOM right now. And the success of that is very important for deterrence in the Indo Pacific. And then as we bring those combat lessons learned into our own operations, and we're directly involved, including in the theater itself with potential missile strikes on Diego Garcia, maritime interdiction operations we're conducting, as well as actioning of Iranian combat vessels. And so I think that, you know, what I want the PRC to see is that The United States employs capability and will in response to aggression.
And I don't want them to doubt that in any way. And that that supports deterrence and deterrence is our highest duty.
Speaker 19
Good morning, gentlemen. Last time we we faced an adversary in the Western Pacific where both of you currently have dominion over, we were fighting, you know, a nation that was roughly the size of my home state of Montana with a population of fraction the size of America with an economy also the fraction of size. And we had a robust industrial base that was capable of mass manufacturing at scale relatively quickly. Today, adversary will be the size of our entire nation with a population roughly four to five times the size of our own with an economy that's comparable. We'll face a considerably more challenging military and economic picture should the unthinkable happen.
Speaker 12
Admiral, I'll start with you. Do you feel our current fleet makeup both in size and and ship composition is what you would need if you were fighting the fight in the Western Pacific? And if not, what does it need to look like from a quantity as well as composition standpoint to be fleet that you need to win?
Speaker 3
Yes, sir. The year I Senator, good morning. The year I came into service, America delivered an aircraft carrier, five attack submarines, a ballistic missile submarine, two cruisers, five DDG 51 class destroyers, a Knox class destroyer. In fact, in total, forty years ago, America delivered 31 warships in a single year. That was on a 4 and a half trillion dollar economy with a total population that is two thirds of the current size of The United States Of America.
So re industrialization of America is a strategic imperative, especially per my opening statement. So I think that and I think new habits of mind, new habits of action, commercial and defense innovation, commercial and defense integration are strategic priorities for the twenty first century. And despite the changing character war of drone warfare, of cheap strike, is that moving energy, mass, and people over long distances by sea most efficiently and by air most quickly will continue to be a timeless element of combat power.
Speaker 3
I don't have enough amphibious ships. We don't have enough surface destroyers. We certainly don't have enough attack submarines, and our trajectory is on the wrong side. I would favor greater amounts of combat logistics force ships. I'd favor great number of medium USVs, unmanned surface vessels with the ability to provide fires, sensors, decoys, the ability to do long range distributed ASW.
So I'd see that. And we are currently on a trajectory to employ, or rather to acquire thousands of smaller unmanned surface vessels. And so I think our fleet designs within the last battle force assessment, our last BIFSAR is a really good leaping off point for what the future force design is going to be. But I'd I'd favor greater mass and scale across every class of ships and then include medium and large unmanned surface vessels for that purpose.
Speaker 12
Well, quantity has a quality all its own and replaceability and speed of that replaceability are key. I'd like to I think it's fantastic that we have a White House and a bipartisan Senate and House and, of course, our Secretary of the Navy and SEC were all talking about shipbuilding, which is the first time we've ever heard that in, you know, forty plus years. I think that's a good thing. But I think we're still lacking specificity. It's like every day I see a new press release about shipbuilding this, shipbuilding that.
But we need to get very specific on what how many frigates, how many destroyers, how many cruisers, what those capabilities have to be. How are we going to put a lot of lead from ships onto ground before we land Marines there? Because right now we don't have ships that send lead anymore. We have ships that have lots of electronic gadgets. But when we have to put a lot of lead through the air and land it on an island before our 18 year old kids hit that beach, we can't do that anymore.
And that's a problem. So I think we need to have a very clear eyed and specific discussion about that. And finally, my remaining time, I'd ask you to talk about our base infrastructure, either one of you across the Pacific. We used to have island bases that spanned the entire Pacific command, and those were key unsinkable aircraft carriers. We've closed a lot of them down.
We've let them decay. I'd like to hear about what you view our path is here in the near future to revitalize those pieces of infrastructure that'll be critical.
Speaker 10
Senator, we are in the process of greatly building out our key critical basing infrastructure throughout The Pacific with key projects Tinian, Saipan, and The Marianas that's US sovereign homeland with projects in The Federated States Of Micronesia in The Republic Of The Marshall Islands, our efforts in Palau, and then through our UMMC enhancing our capabilities for our rotational forces with Australia, as well as upgrading our bases currently. For a lot of our basing support, we ask for the committee's continued commitment to H-2B visas. Without the extension to 2035, our projects will go ten years over and be 1.5x the money on achieving that kind of a posture. As we're thinking about the twenty first century, we think about it as in terms of bases, or rather I should say places, and not necessarily bases with that kind of footprint, but having distributed stores, having distributed piers, ports, energy capability throughout the Indo Pacific that diversifies our footprint. It doesn't concentrate us in one place and allows us the principles of expanded maneuver.
Speaker 12
Well, thanks for your time, gentlemen. I agree. Decentralizing our base infrastructure is a strategic imperative. We're over concentrated in too many spots, and that that's a vulnerability. I also think from an acquisition standpoint, have to get more creative base leasing, public private partnerships.
The traditional MilCon process is too slow, too inefficient. We can't expect this to be government run and get there on time. Pan Am built our bases before World War II as a commercial company. So, when you get creative on that, but thanks for your time, gentlemen. Safe travels.
Speaker 8
That's that's good to know. Let let me just point out, senator Sheehy and and admiral in general, that over a decade ago, on a bipartisan basis, this committee and the congress and the president of The United States enacted a law that established 355 ships as the minimum fleet we should have. Clearly, there's going to have to be more specificity as we actually begin to order those and and start laying the keel. But that has been the bipartisan policy of The United States Of America for over a decade. And and I too join senator Sheehy in being heartened that that even in a climate when there's much disagreement on very significant issues between Democrats and Republicans and, and house members and senate members.
Rick Scott
There is, consensus on that, and and we need to take this opportunity to move on that. With that, I will, recognize senator Kane.
Speaker 13
Thank you, mister chair, and to our witnesses. I appreciate your testimony. My first question is sort of some news of the day. So, Admiral Papparo, you talked about the joint exercise going on between The US and The Philippines right now. During that exercise, Japan is a participant for the first time rather than just an observer.
And prime minister Takaiichi just in the last couple hours announced that Japan is now going to allow robust export of lethal defense technologies. The sort of pacifist post World War two Japanese constitution meant they did not allow export of defense items. More recently, they've allowed specific exports of search and rescue, mine sweeping, surveillance. But now they're gonna allow the export of of lethal defense items to the 17 nations with which they have defense agreements, including The United States, UK, and other allies. I know what China thinks about this.
They hate it. How is this how does The US view this, and how do allies in the region view this?
Speaker 3
Well, senator, you know, I could not be any more, supportive of The US Japan alliance. I mean, that's the understatement of the year, is that it's absolutely the centerpiece of our system of network and alliances in the Indo Pacific. And my appreciation for Japan's leadership in this is meeting the day, is that in the way Minister that Shinzo Abe coined the phrase the free and open Indo Pacific, Prime Minister Takichi is demonstrating that same kind of leadership, transformational leadership. And Japan is demonstrating transformational leadership in the Indo Pacific, including their participation in exercises, the bilateral, the reciprocal access agreements that they're executing with our partners and allies throughout the Indo Pacific. It's important to continue co production with the Japanese under conditions of
Speaker 13
operational and information security. And, you know, we're we're we're strongly supportive. It's one of the absolute bright spots in the strategic environment. One of the issues that we've often had in the past is the history of some of challenge between Japan and Korea. You know, we might we have great relations with both, and I think there's strong relations between both nation.
But sometimes moves in the defense space in one nation or the other can create some potential friction. I read the the Korean statement about this Japanese announcement, and I thought it was sort of measured and generally positive. Is that your sense as well, general Brunson, admiral Papparo?
Speaker 3
You know, I'll say that the trilateral cooperation between The United States, The Republic Of Korea, and Japan continues to be on an upward trajectory. It's been the it's been the sign of great leadership both in Japan and Korea. And in my view, that continued progress has continued into the Lee administration as it was in the Yun administration. And I'll I'll pass over to general Bronson. General Bronson.
Speaker 4
Yes, sir. Senator, I would wholeheartedly agree with that. And and there are future opportunities. You know, we're talking about Balekatan right now.
Speaker 4
But we've got RIMPAC that's coming up soon, and they'll be ship to ship. They'll be side by side in that. We had Cobra Gold recently, where both Japan and Korea were there on those exercises. So we've got to continue to, through the INDOPACOM exercise program, continue to make sure we bring our teammates together. And then existentialism has a quality all its own as well, when you have two great nations, partners of our own, who are increasingly under threat and coercion from China.
Speaker 12
Well, I think the a lot of credit goes to Japan and and Korea for this. But I also think there's while we're on the subject of bipartisan advances, this is something where The US has really played, I think, a very helpful role in dialogue with both of these allies to help them grow closer. And so give them credit, give their civilian and military leadership credit. I think presidents of of both parties in recent years have really helped them grow closer, and you guys get credit for that too, and I appreciate it. One last question about about AUKUS.
Speaker 13
I was in Australia recently, Admiral Papparo, and really trying to dig in in 37 events in seven days in four cities. Is Australia sort of meeting its commitments under pillar one and pillar two. And I heard a lot, answered some tough questions on our end, and I was impressed. But I wonder, are you satisfied with the pace of upgrades to Sterling that could support the increased rotational presence of US Virginia class submarines?
Speaker 3
Sir, from a sure shore power standpoint and for the capability that they have, with a tender and a marine security detachment, we could move submarines to Sterling today. That's been the progress at Sterling. I laid eyes on it multiple times. The commitment is there. The progress is there.
The place where we have to make the most progress is in the defense industrial base to deliver the capability. But our partners in Australia, UK, through pillar one and pillar two, it's been full throttle. Now it's now as much up to industry as anything else to deliver.
Rick Scott
Thank you, senator Kane. Our two senators from Florida keep tripping over themselves trying to defer to each other. I think the latest is that senator Scott is recognized.
Speaker 15
Thanks, senator Miyadhudi. Admiral Corral, general Brunson, thanks for being here. Thanks to the men and women that serve with you. So thanks for defending the freedom of this country. So I think we all travel, talk to allies, and here's what I keep hearing.
They wanna buy our weapons, but the FMS process has got a bunch of issues, and they can't get the weapons in a timely manner. I think part of it's the government, part of it's our defense prime's fault. Can each of you explain why it's so beneficial for our allies and partners in the Indo Pacific to buy American made military equipment?
Speaker 3
Morning, Senator Scott. It's the interoperability of the capability and the absolute product superiority of the weapons themselves. Those two fat those two factors. The ability to fight and win today with each other, the ability to interchange weapons so that we can gain the flexibility of the of the magazines, and it's the fact that American military commitment is the best in the world, and it ain't even close.
Speaker 4
Yes, sir. I would wholeheartedly agree with that. From the human technological and procedural interoperability that comes up buying that great American equipment, It just makes our work a lot simpler, and it ensures that we've got the right capabilities in place.
Speaker 15
Do the current lead times for foreign military sales hinder our ability to build capacity and deter communist China?
Speaker 15
senator. Given the recent deployment of the thirty first Marine Expeditionary Unit from INDOPACOM to CENTCOM area of responsibility, How has this shift affected you and your crisis response capacity in the Indo Pacific?
Speaker 3
Well, we've accounted for it using other marine expeditionary units. And so, you know, as you'll know, a marine expeditionary unit is approximately 1,600 troops. But Marine Rotational Force Darwin has responded. Other MEWS, KMEF, has responded. And so between third MEF and one MEF, we've been able to provide that combat capability.
Thirty first MEW is a seaborne power projection capability that is designed as a flexible worldwide responsive force. The Marine Corps has accounted for that with other ready forces out of one MEF and out of three MEF. And so don't view that there so certainly from a seaborne crisis response force standpoint, that force is also available as being inherently mobile in times of crisis to move back into the Indo Pacific. And it's my job to identify the indications and warnings and place the demand signal if we need that. Our amphib readiness is a driving factor for our seaborne readiness, crisis response capability with the Marine Corps.
And we've got to continue to pay close attention to our amphibious force and increase our number of amphibious ships and the readiness of those ships.
Speaker 11
Thank you. Admiral, in prior testimony, you said logistics remain a critical challenge in the Indo Pacific because of long distances and widely distributed operations. So is it correct that the Pacific Air Forces are working with innovative companies to demonstrate dual use autonomous air cargo operations in theater this year?
Speaker 3
Yes, sir. AFWORKS, in coordination with PACAF, is doing experimentation in order to be able to put a 20 foot shipping container anywhere in the world employing unmanned capability, and we can't go fast enough on that.
Speaker 15
So do you see a role for aircraft autonomy for addressing logistics challenges going forward?
Speaker 3
Well, I think innovating faster, investing faster. I think that taking risk in our investments, risks in such a way that program failure means that you can rededicate those monies to another vendor that's able to do it. But cultivating a competitive environment by allocating funds to innovative and experimental companies, by getting the technical community to rapidly grant the authority to operate to those companies and to trade our strategic risk by taking a little bit of program risk as we've done in the past.
Speaker 7
Thank you, mister chairman. So, admiral Papparo, congress right now is actively considering my Ships for America Act alongside the president's Maritime Action Plan, and this is to rebuild US commercial shipbuilding and shipbuilding capacity, and to strengthen our maritime industrial base, grow the workforce, all those things I think we all recognize that we need. And it's because of decades of decline in commercial shipbuilding, which has created, in my view, a national security risk. It's also weakened our ability to build and sustain naval vessels. With senator Scott, you talked about amphibs.
Speaker 16
So given that linkage, do you agree that revitalizing our commercial maritime industrial base is essential to strengthening navy shipbuilding and reducing the delays in delivering ships like amphibs or another Virginia class submarine, etcetera? And how urgent urgent is it that we make these investments now to ensure that we can meet the demands in the Indo Pacific?
Speaker 3
Senator Senator Kelly, good morning. I strongly affirm that statement. US overall commercial shipbuilding is point 1% of global capacity. China enjoys over 50% of global shipbuilding capacity. Their civil military fusion system is how they've employed so much more naval shipbuilding capacity.
Having the workforce that can move with alacrity from one type ship to another, just the basic trades, regaining that, is absolutely essential for our defense in the twenty first century.
Speaker 16
Yeah. We need to train the welders, pipe fitters, electricians, but also have the companies that supply pipes and valves and steel. You have a bigger overall maritime industry that's gonna help us build naval vessels. Another topic I wanna touch on, we talked a little bit earlier today about Ukraine and how it relates to the Western Pacific in a fight with China, which I do not believe is inevitable. I think we should do, what we can to avoid a conflict with a near peer adversary, especially one who has nuclear weapons, with an arsenal that's growing.
The Ukrainians and the Russians, you know, have learned that autonomous systems in a land war is very the key to success. I was in a hospital in Ukraine about a year ago and met with 10 injured soldiers. Nine of them were injured because of FPVs. One had stepped on a line landmine, which may have been put there by a drone. So drone warfare is where the casualty the casualties are created in this war.
When you think about the Western Pacific with islands fighting from one island to the next, maybe eventually on Taiwan, How do you how do you think these systems will evolve to be useful? And what should we be doing here at home? We're certainly gaining, you know, gaining an education here, but what should we be doing now to make sure we have the autonomous systems that'll work in a fight in the Western Pacific?
Speaker 3
Senator, it's not just it's not just land warfare too. In addition to that point, it's assault warfare, you know, which is one power wants to take another power's land and subjugate its citizens. And those those principles of assault matter from ground assault, air assault, airborne assault, amphibious assault. And so the lessons are all salient, which is that you raise the cost of assault, which doctrinally is always three to one, but the proliferation of mass cheap kill makes it more like a 20 to one or a 100 to one ratio. And all things being equal, if all sides are employing to their utmost, it makes assault much more costly and favors the defender.
And so we can't move fast enough in this meta trend. And what characterizes it is not that it is unmanned, it is that it's cheap. The unmannedness is what makes it cheap kill. And so, you know what, I think moving quickly, innovating quickly, granting authorities quickly, experimenting, taking risk by programming and by feeding those industries as it is in the 1.5, in, you know, in this year's budget submission. I think that's the way ahead.
Speaker 10
Thank you, mister chairman, Admiral, general. Good to see you both. Thank you for your great service to our country and your staffs too. I know they're doing all the hard work there, so I appreciate that. Admiral, I wanted to actually, general and admiral, I wanted to follow on senator Ernst's question on energy.
You know, my state, we're working on a huge LNG project. We've been working on it for a number of years. We were the first place anywhere in the world to export LNG. We started exporting LNG to Japan in the late 1960s from Alaska. No choke points, six day cargo shipment.
There's a lot of choke points around the world. The Panama Canal is one too, so all the Gulf LNG we get to Asia also takes a lot of time. You mentioned well, she asked you the question, senator Ers, are we moving fast enough? I like your answer. We can never move fast enough.
Speaker 17
But would it help our allies, and of course, our military, that you're responsible for, Admiral, in Alaska to have a hundred fifty to a hundred year supply of clean burning Alaska natural gas? We have one of the largest reserves of natural gas on the North Slope Of Alaska, anywhere on the planet. But it would help would it help to get that to our allies very soon? Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, The Philippines, they're all really interested in this project. And we're trying to get the federal government, federal agencies to focus on the president.
Speaker 10
He's made it a top strategic priority, highlighted it in his state of the union last year. How would that help you?
Speaker 3
Senator Sullivan, good morning. It would first of all, we track the number of LNG reserves among our Indo Pacific partners is in single and low double digit weeks.
Speaker 3
And LNG as a as a, key critical element of powering the, societal resilience, the economic resilience of tightening our partnerships across the security, energy, trade, technology stack, and then to do so unfettered by choke points that would be adversaries could close, where we could do the ticking and choosing of our partners to link those things, all those would be greatly enhancing for security in the Indo Pacific.
Speaker 10
So this project would literally be like a virtual pipeline to Japan and Korea. You couldn't touch it.
Speaker 3
And it would power economies. It would power economies of the twenty first century tigers such as Vietnam Yep. Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia. It'd be a game changer.
Speaker 10
I had one of my colleagues talk about this being the private sector American energy counter to the China Belt and Road Initiative. Would you agree with that assessment?
Speaker 10
sir. So you're a strong supporter of the Alaska LNG project, I take it.
Speaker 3
Very strong supporter and of maintaining the sea lines of communication in the North Pacific Great. Including dominance.
Speaker 10
Good. I'm hoping the White House well, they're they're they're great on this too. Department of Energy, everybody seeing this is really important. Let me let me turn to progress on basing. We've talked about before, Admiral.
Do you think we're over concentrated on Guam? I think the mil con that we're looking at is about 50,000,000,000 over the next four to five years. As you know, we are able to get. Your help was great. The reopening of the NADAC naval base out on the Aleutian Island Chain, which just for people who aren't familiar with that, that's 1,100 miles west of Hawaii.
How important is ADAC to this idea of being over concentrated in a place like Guam, and do we need to distribute our forces more?
Speaker 3
I don't think we're over concentrated on Guam. I think it's important we don't gold plate the solution. I think it's an imperative to defend it, but I don't think that it it it it is the single point of power projection. I think that there are I, you know, I see in the behavior of our would be adversaries, particularly together, direct threats on Alaska as a key economic center of gravity for The United States Of America as a, you know, as a key point that they'd like to attack. I see alas I I see it as a different firing vector.
And so over concentrated? No. I think we're under concentrated on other areas.
Speaker 10
But how's how does ADAC reopening that help with regard to distributing our forces and having that capacity, which we're now starting to build up because of the Working Families Tax Cuts Act last year?
Speaker 3
You know, I well, Guam is a is a closer firing position than Hawaii, San Diego, almost every point of Pacific.
Speaker 3
Not Guam, ADAC. Yeah. Yeah. The geography of it on the Great Circle Route, if you look on a non Mercator map, it looks like it's way far away. But geographically, you know, it's it's on par with Guam and other firing positions.
It's another vector of projection of American power, and it's also another vector that our would be adversaries would like to strike.
Speaker 14
Thank you, mister chairman. Gentlemen, thank you, for being here, and thank you, for your service to our country. Admiral Papparo, you have, often, spoken about the importance of allies, and partners and have highlighted the critical role they play in supporting INDOPACOM. These allies and partners have become even more important with INDOPACOM, resources being shifted to The Middle East for the ongoing war in Iran. So my question for you, sir, is how are you ensuring operations in Iran do not impact our regional deterrences, including ongoing collaboration with our regional allies and partners in the area?
And how are you ensuring we maintain these critical relationships during a time of increased global insecurity?
Speaker 3
Morning, senator Peters. I think our entrepreneurial approach to maintaining our operations, our activities, our exercises with our Indo Pacific partners has been one key. And Balakutan is an example, where there are 18,500 plus troops, 19,000 in the biggest Balakutan ever, in the way that we've been able to shift capabilities around to maintain those operations and our exercises. Japan is participating for the first time ever in Balakutan, and that's an example of our deepening alliances and our partnerships. Our Indo Pacific allies are stepping up from a presence standpoint in the dynamic demonstration of combat power.
And then we continue to maintain a deep reserve of ready combat forces, including forces on Japan and forces in San Diego, forces in fact all across the Western United States. I'm not saying that there's not been some INDOPACOM forces that have gone, and that it's nothing at all, but we have been able to account for those forces that are in CENTCOM. And there's no substitute for the combat experience those those forces in CENTCOM are conducting. That's a advantage our would be adversaries do not have.
Speaker 14
Right. Right. Well, thank you. General Brinson, following the war the war with Iran, the the DOD has withdrawn THAAD missile defense systems from the Korean Peninsula and has repositioned them to the Middle East. This move was opposed by the Korean government in part because they believe that it basically weakened deterrence against North Korea.
So my question for you, sir, is how do you assess the impact of moving these systems out of the Korean Peninsula and the resulting impact on your deterrent strategy against North Korea?
Speaker 4
Senator, thanks for the question. We we've not moved any THAAD systems. So THAAD still remains on the peninsula currently. We we are sending munitions forward, and those are sitting right now waiting to move. Okay.
So there were previous moves where radars were taking forward. This was in advance of Midnight Hammer. Some of those things have not come back yet, but the SPAD systems themselves, sir, remain on Peninsula.
Speaker 14
And you expect them to to remain there, Sir? And you expect them to remain there?
Speaker 4
Yes, senator. We we do. We we moved them around. I think that's what got into the information space.
Speaker 4
I was dynamically moving those around so that I could then sequence them into Osan Air Base to prepare them to move the munitions, and that caused a big kerfuffle on the peninsula.
Speaker 14
Well, good. So then you clarified it for everybody here today. Yes, sir. Good. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Admiral Papparo, yeah, as you know, the KC 46 refueling tanker not only strengthens our ability to project power despite China's growing threats, but also the enhances our interoperability with our partner nations as well. So my question for you is given the sheer size of the Indo Pacific, how critical are KC 46 tankers for enabling, these operations? And with Japan now acquiring KC 46, how does that shared platform enhance our operations, in the region?
Speaker 3
And, Senator, at a classified level, you'd be awed by how many millions of pounds of fuel we must have airborne during our our most pacing operations in order to succeed in conflict. I applaud the Air Force's, you know, accelerated acquisition acquisition of KC 46 reopening the line, and we can't go fast enough.
Speaker 17
Thank you, mister chairman. And admiral general, thank you for being here today and for having so much energy to get through all of this in one morning. I guess that's no unique thing in the military. This is my first open hearing as a member of this committee. It's certainly an honor, and I am in awe of anyone that signs up to make this their professional career and dedicate their lives to this.
The oldest boy in our family has done that, and I so respect you and thank you. I appreciated also the opportunity to meet with you personally prior to today, and I hope you know I am here to support your men and women and forces in whatever way you need. Certainly, it's my hope that everyone on this committee comes here with that intention. As I look to the future of America's military, I know much of what we are trying to do now is align our military power with our industrial and innovation base here at home. I think you said that is something that we should prioritize and that moving forward to keep pace with innovation and technology, we have to do that.
I'm my question for you is and I I wholly support that. I see that this our president and this administration has placed an emphasis on that and has stood ready to support that. Is that what you think we must do to keep pace with China, and what ranks equal to that and prioritization to do that?
Speaker 3
Senator, I, you know, I think the extent to which in the early nineteen nineties is that the defense space went into the defense space and left some of the commercial spaces. I think that was a I don't want to call it a strategic error, but it was a strategic accident in the way that it used to be that commercial and military integration was a key strength, and each fed off of each other. So refinding that connection between civilian innovation and military innovation, I think is really key and essential in this changing character of warfare while we meet the strategic moment with the changing technical environment, the technical revolution that we're living in now at this time. And then having a military that is the most tech savvy military in the world is going to be a key competitive advantage.
Rick Scott
In addition to to trying to bring innovation, industrialization back to the homeland, this administration, and certainly, many of us on this committee also are eager to see and are valuing more of our both formal and informal allies throughout the world stepping up, being more players, and ensuring peace and stability throughout the world. I think watching what's happening in in in your the theater under your command, I think watching what some of our allies and partners are doing in that region where they're responding more actively, asserting sovereignty, pushing back against course of action, certainly as it relates to China encroaching upon some territorial waters. Are you noticing that happening more? Do you think there are things that we can do in Congress or even with your within the military to encourage more of that?
Speaker 3
Senator, I I do see increasing cooperation. One of these examples is Japan's active member participation in Balakutan. The fact that Japan is actively participating in a Philippine exercise that affirms its ability to defend itself. This reciprocal access agreements that Japan has made with Australia, the growing relationships in every exercise program, including with Indonesia, in Super Garuda Shield, in Malaysia with Cara's Strike and Bersama Warrior, throughout the theater, we see the partnerships nation to nation are growing. Certainly, our role at Indo Pacific Command is one to cultivate that.
But we're frequently very pleasantly surprised at the nation to nation connections that they're making in and of themselves, and rightly so, because each is a sovereign and each lives in the neighborhood and those are relationships that go back centuries.
Rick Scott
Admiral, thank you for your answer there. And, senator Moody, thank you for directing our attention to that to that aspect of what we need to consider. Let me also just observe. Welcome to the committee. And let me observe that looking down the dais at senator Slotkin and looking down the dais at you, senator Moody.
It seems to me that only a month or two ago, I was down there at at the end of that dais. And here here I am in in this capacity. So thank you very, very much. And with that, I recognize senator Slotkin.
Speaker 18
Thank you, chairman, and welcome to senator Moody. Happy to have you on the committee. Admiral Papparo, thank you for everything you do. You're one of our our country's greatest experts on Asia and on China. And I I'm thinking about the summit that's about to happen in a month.
Huge summit between president Trump and Xi Jinping. And I'm I'm having I'm personally struggling with what our policy and our plan is going into that summit. And just to review the bidding, we put tariffs on a whole bunch of things. At one point, we had more tariffs on Canada than we did on China. On ag, China used to be our biggest purchaser of soybeans.
Now we're approving billions of dollars to bail out US farmers. Unfair trade practices, which we know China is legend for, there's been zero moves made to hell hold them accountable. On technology, we've given China our most sophisticated AI chips, chips that our own American companies are desperate to get their hands on. We've picked a fight with Anthropic, which is our most advanced AI tools embedded in DOD systems when we're in the middle of a really important AI race with China. We've cut plans to impose sanctions on China for assault typhoon for cyber attack.
Speaker 2
We've cut research and development in our universities while China is surging ahead, and now we're headed to this summit. So I will admit that I am concerned about what we're going to offer and get from this summit. And in particular, I'm from Michigan, so we're watching you know, the president came to Detroit in January and said out loud in Detroit that, you know, it might be time to allow Chinese vehicles to be sold in The United States. A bit of an earthquake in my state. So I've asked general Austin this years ago because I am really concerned for the national security implications of having Chinese vehicles with all the data and all the surveillance and all the cameras and all the three d mapping, all that stuff sent back to Beijing.
Speaker 18
So I'd just like to ask you from a security perspective, Would you want an adversarial nation to have high fidelity three d maps of every military base and installation in The United States?
Speaker 18
Would you want your adversary I'm just thinking about war planning from being at the Pentagon, you know, the data we we'd like to have on an adversary when we do war planning. Would you want an adversary to have maps, three d high fidelity maps of every power plant, port, highway, and bridge in America?
Speaker 18
Would you want an adversary be able to hack cars in The United States and remotely pilot them from Beijing?
Speaker 18
Would you want an adversary to be able to conduct cyber espionage through any phone, any Bluetooth device into a vehicle in The United States?
Speaker 18
You get my point. I mean, I know this isn't your your area, you know, of expertise, but I will say from a national security perspective, let alone an economic security perspective, we are watching the potential deals that this president is going to make in that summit with deep concern. And it is not missed anyone's notice that some of the biggest investors in the Chinese firms are, you know, big American investors, Berkshire Hathaway, big whatever. And so we are we are very concerned that in the hustle and bustle to make deals, we are gonna give away the farm. We're gonna give away security issues here in The United States.
So I just wanted to get one of our nation's experts on record on the national security implications. I think it's like a driving surveillance package. I think they are chomping at the bit to get access to The United States Of America and map every corner of this country and have geolocation on every leader in this country. And I just wanted to raise that to the attention. We have a bill coming up in NDAA just to ban Chinese vehicles from any sensitive military location as a bare minimum.
But I I would say my first bill in this body was to ban Chinese cars from ever being sold here, and I pray that that is not where we are going from a national security perspective in less than a month, though. Thank you for your time, and I yield back.
Speaker 19
Welcome, admiral general. Thank you for being here, and thanks for your service and the men and women you represent. Admiral Parr, I know there's been a lot of conversation today about our munitions and the effect the Iran war is having on it. But in in reality, it's not just the Iran war, and it's only lasted for seven weeks. We've been supporting Ukraine now for four years, and some critics of that effort had cited the munitions challenges we have as well.
But isn't it fair to say that neither Ukraine nor Iran caused the munitions challenges we have, but rather exposed just how brittle our defense industrial base is and why it's so important to rebuild it rapidly?
Speaker 3
I acknowledge and agree with you. It's it most of our problems are our own.
Speaker 19
So, look, in a hypothetical world where you never had Operation Epic Fury or Midnight Hammer, or for that matter, you didn't have Vladimir Putin's second invasion of Russia, it might not have been exposed, but our defense industrial base, especially when it comes to munitions production, would have still had those underlying challenges. It just might not have been focused on quite so much.
Speaker 19
Thank you. On Taiwan, I know you talked with senator Shaheen about their defense budget. There's also the question about national resolve. What's your I mean, that's a hard thing to judge, and and it's it's more a question of political judgment and statecraft than it is military matters. But what what's your sense as a career military man of Taiwan and and their willingness to go to the mattresses to defend their nation?
Speaker 3
I have a great deal of faith in Taiwan's military age population's willingness, capability, and will to defend themselves, orders of magnitude above others?
Speaker 19
I was gonna ask you to name the others, but I guess that would be in politics. So I won't ask you to do that.
Speaker 3
Well, what I'll say is that Ukraine demonstrated relatively no no low numbers in polling pre conflict, and they've responded as admirable as admirably as a society can. Taiwan's polling is orders of magnitude above that, leading me to positively assert their willingness to defend And
Speaker 19
just common sense. Like, you don't have to have access to that kind of data. Just I think common sense would say, if you're sitting in Taiwan and you're a mom or dad and you're worried about your son's or daughter's future, grandma or grandpa, and you look at what communist China has done in, say, Macau and Hong Kong, once they gain control of those territories, you wouldn't want them to gain control of your territory. Is that correct?
Speaker 3
Yes, sir.
Does the military have full and proper focus on that threat? You know, for for us, we're a globe spanning superpower. And Bob Gates once testified in this committee after he had left the department and was probably a bit more free to speak that we have a perfect almost perfect record of predicting our next war since Vietnam. We've gotten it wrong every single time, whether it was Grenada or Panama or Iraq the first or second time or the Balkans, Ukraine, what have you. That's why our military plans for so many different contingencies, why we have guys up in Arctic Warfare School or in Jungle Warfare School or in Desert Warfare School.
Speaker 19
Obviously, if you're Taiwan's military, from the time you raise your hand to enlist as a private to the time you're the chief of defense, there is one and only one military contingency that you should be thinking about and planning for. Does their military have that kind of single-minded focus in your assessment?
Speaker 3
I do see that in their military, and I think that they're working really hard, and I'm seeing success in their building the kind of operational concepts that will lead for them to be successful in thwarting an invasion.
Speaker 19
Okay. And I I know, again, you talked to senator Sheen about the defense budget. The the leader of the opposition recently took a trip to communist China, a pretty chummy trip, if you ask me. Does that raise concerns with you? I don't want to expect you to comment on the domestic internal politics of Taiwan, but about the direction of defense spending in the future?
Speaker 3
I think the proof will be in the pudding. The passage of the special defense budget will tell us how committed they
Speaker 20
Thank you, chairman Wicker, ranking member Reed for holding this hearing. Of course, general, admiral, good to see you both. And we just recently were hosted us in your beautiful office. And thank you. Thank you for that.
And thank you both for your service to the country. I know we're focused a lot on China, and I just wanna focus a little bit for a second on their cyber threats. So Admiral Peparo, as you stated in our recent meeting, the cyber threat landscape in the Indo Pacific is increasingly complex. China's emerging as a significant and evolving actor in the cyber domain. So as we look to enhance our posture and partnerships in the critical region, it's essential we understand the scope of Chinese activities and how we can effectively counter their influence, particularly when it comes to cyber threats, disinformation rampant, and the targeting of infrastructure.
So Admiral, how do you assess the Chinese cyber threats, their capabilities? How's INDOPACOM working to expand your mill to mill cybersecurity cooperation with our regional allies and partners to, defend against, I guess, an all of the above attack from the PRC secretion?
Speaker 3
Morning, Senator Rosen. Cyber is the first battle, and in fact, you know, we're engaged in cyber the PRC are engaged in cyber operations worldwide, and that includes not just SALT Typhoon and Volt Typhoon. From a mill to mill standpoint, our essential operations were exposing the PRC's penetration of our allied and partners is really key, and then assisting them in closing those vulnerabilities. And it's very important for the allied force moving forward that we're operating under the conditions of operational security, and cyber is the biggest vulnerability on that.
Speaker 20
Could you expand on their cyber enabled disinformation that they use to sway the regional allies and shape the South China Sea narrative?
Speaker 3
United Front is absolutely unfettered. And in the way, in The United States Of America, the government is constrained to the truth and the press is free. In the PRC, the press is constrained and the government is free to lie, and they spread lies about The United States, about our allies and partners and their political enemies worldwide. They are active, and that's all over the theater, and in fact, all over the world, their united front.
Speaker 5
We have a lot to do in that regard. I'm going to ask my next question to both of you a little bit about the INDOPACOM strategy because the 2026 National Defense Strategy removes the designation of the Indo Pacific as a priority theater and no longer refers to China as the pacing challenge, placing increased emphasis on the Western Hemisphere instead. Compounded with the ongoing military operations in other theaters, it raises concerns, of course, that the resources and attention required to maintain stability in the INDOPACOM area of responsibility, but that they're being diverted elsewhere, degrading our US and allies' readiness in the Pacific. So I'm gonna ask this to both of you for the short time that I have left. What do you assess the Chinese and North Koreans are learning about the US military and our military strategy from Operation Epic Fury?
Speaker 20
And what challenges does that face for us as we think about the NDAA and what we have to maybe readjust for. To both of you, please.
Speaker 3
Senator, I'll I'll offer that the National Defense Strategy knows that deterring China is the second line of effort right behind defending the homeland. And so I will say that the department is focused on a denial defense starting at the first island chain, and the Department of Defense is focused on deterring Chinese aggression. And so I'll say that. In our alliances and partnerships, these alliances and partnerships continue on a growth trajectory, really, across the Indo Pacific, including North American and our Canadian partners. And so, you know, I and our operations elsewhere are accounted for with some entrepreneurial creativity, and for now, I don't see any real cost being imposed on our ability to deter China.
And I, you know, I'm sorry to take exception with the statement, the four pillars of the NDS, I really do see
Speaker 20
I guess my question was more I'll give a moment for general Bronson. Was more, what do you think as we're in a war right now, our adversaries are learning about us, our capabilities, and our strategies? Yeah. And how will that change the But I I only have a few seconds.
Speaker 4
Ma'am, as we look at our our friends, partners, and allies in the region, one of the things that I think is absolutely noteworthy is where we sit. So you were just in Korea. We sit right there with our partners, right there with our ally, to be more exact. And what that gives us is an opportunity to absolutely demonstrate to them every day by our continued involvement with them, settling disputes face to face, by having our officers inside their headquarters, planning alongside them for the defense of that land. And so I think that you you could look at the document.
You you also don't have the secure or secret annex to that. Yeah. You could just take that at its face, but I think our presence means so much more. If you look at the the triangle of mutual defense treaties in and around The Pacific and Japan, Korea, and The Philippines were there. And I think that speaks abundantly and makes abundantly clear what it means to us to be allied alongside folk in the region.
And we're a buttress. We're a hedge, a true hedge against the coercion that's there because we're paying into the things that are going on in the region.
Rick Scott
send him a non answer? No, senator. No. Admiral Pappara, I'm yes. Not gonna Yes.
Go ahead.
Speaker 3
Thank you. One, they're impressed by the operational acumen that's being demonstrated by the joint force. Number two, they see the power of AI and intelligized warfare, as they call it, as a twenty first century advantage. They're right to see that. And then I think they see the power of unmanned technology as an imposer of costs.
And we see the same thing. And I'm really sorry for giving you a non answer when you asked.
Speaker 20
Oh, no, that's fine. We're just thinking about what we have to plan for in this NDAA and just wanna be focused on some lessons we might be learning now. Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman.
Rick Scott
Senator Rosen, I think you'll agree that actually the answers from both of these witnesses have been very open and and candid, and we appreciate that.
Speaker 21
Thank you, mister chairman. Admiral, let's pick up on what you just said. Pick up from there. Can you be more specific and talk about how the PLA is using artificial intelligence to enhance its military capability?
Speaker 3
Yes, sir. At this level, I think they see AI's power from a targeting standpoint, mass data analytics to quickly discern where the target is, given the covariance among all of the factors that come into various sensors. I think they see the power of AI for strategic decision making, to know the game that you're playing, to be able to suss out what an adversary's intentions are. I think they're right to see that and who masters that technology, and more importantly, the adoption of that capability is the one that's gonna have the offset advantage in the twenty first century.
Speaker 21
Can you measure do they have an edge on us? I mean, have you measured them versus us when it comes to AI with military I
Speaker 3
think The United States has product superiority in agentic tools and as well as LLM tools. I think The United States has product superiority in compute, which powers those. I think the PRC has got some key advantages in robotics, and we've got to move faster. And those robotics can be employed for cheap, at scale kill capabilities, and we have to increase our game on that. And I think that our lead is a tenuous lead of six months to twelve months at the most.
And we've got to maintain and advance that lead with an emphasis on data, on compute, on application, including AI application, and most importantly, on human adoption.
Speaker 21
So that's really concerning, especially coming from you, because no one in the world understands all of this stuff and how important it is than you do. And I take it from that, that you would agree that AI is a dual use technology that enables military power.
Speaker 21
How big of a strategic advantage is it for The US, to have more and better high end chips than China does to develop our AI?
Speaker 3
This is at the heart of compute. High end chips enables fast compute at lower sources of energy, at greater volumes. High end chips is is Moore's law personified, and having that advantage is an absolute critical pillar Maybe of those
Speaker 21
dumb this down for us and explain a little bit more why why that's the case.
Speaker 3
You know, the the the The complexity, the short distance of compute and the exchange of electrons makes our chips faster, able to compute more data faster at lower energy levels. It increases the efficiency of our computers. It enables us to compute faster and at higher volumes and at lower energy requirements. It's a key critical advantage. That along with data and then the software and firmware applications that pile on top of it, we've got to maintain our lead on that, including our AI tools, both our large language models and our agentic models at frontier AI.
Speaker 4
So take that a step further. How what would happen if our advantage was eroded by the Chinese getting access to advanced chips that they otherwise don't have access to, that they can't produce domestically. How how would that impact us militarily in this in this AI competition that we have with China?
Speaker 3
Increasing with with AI, the ability to compute better and faster is the ability to think better and faster. And every other form of warfare, whether it is drone warfare, missile warfare, all of those forms of warfare are commoditized. And so the overarching factor around all of it is compute and decision superiority that's the combination of our ability to compute and the ability of our ability to adopt.
Speaker 21
So I want I wanna be really clear about this. If the PLA has access to more advanced AI, it would likely improve its war fighting capabilities, as you just said, at the expense of American service members in the event of a conflict.
Speaker 21
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you again for your for being candid and for your leadership and all that you general, thank you for your service as well. I yield back.
Rick Scott
And and thank you, senator Banks, for that line of questioning. I wanna thank both of our witnesses, and also I wanna thank the the team of, servicemen and civilian leadership seated behind you for their service to our country. This has been a very good hearing. Feel free and feel encouraged to supplement your answers on the record if if you so choose. And I think we will ask for questions for the record to be due within two business days of the conclusion of this hearing, which occurs right now.
We are adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.