[H.A.S.C. No. 116-80] Hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs Bef, House hearing transcript (March 11, 2020), GovInfo CHRG-116hhrg41866, PDF
Summary
This printed hearing, H.A.S.C. No. 116–80, covers the March 11, 2020 joint session of the House Armed Services Subcommittees on Seapower and Projection Forces and on Readiness on sealift and mobility requirements in support of the National Defense Strategy. Joe Courtney and John Garamendi, who chair the two subcommittees, heard Gen. Stephen R. Lyons of U.S. Transportation Command, RADM Mark H. Buzby of the Maritime Administration, VADM Ricky L. Williamson of the Navy and Lt Gen David S. Nahom of the Air Force. Ranking Member Doug Lamborn said that in the September 2019 turbo activation exercise only 60 percent of the organic surge fleet was considered ready and only 40 percent of those were able to get underway in the time allotted. Material in the appendix says sealift vessel proposals were delayed 30 days to May 1, 2020 due to COVID19 impacts.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
i
[H.A.S.C. No. 116–80]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED
PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND
PROJECTION FORCES
MEETING JOINTLY WITH
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
SEALIFT AND MOBILITY REQUIREMENTS
IN SUPPORT OF THE NATIONAL
DEFENSE STRATEGY
HEARING HELD
MARCH 11, 2020
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41–866 WASHINGTON : 2021
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut, Chairman
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
JIM COOPER, Tennessee K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
FILEMON VELA, Texas MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, Jr., California VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey PAUL COOK, California
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia, Vice Chair TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York
PHIL MACNAUGHTON, Professional Staff Member
DAVE SIENICKI, Professional Staff Member
SEAN FALVEY, Clerk
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
JOHN GARAMENDI, California, Chairman
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
ANDY KIM, New Jersey, Vice Chair AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma JOE WILSON, South Carolina
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania ROB BISHOP, Utah
JASON CROW, Colorado MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico MO BROOKS, Alabama
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
MELANIE HARRIS, Professional Staff Member
JOHN MULLER, Professional Staff Member
SEAN FALVEY, Clerk
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative from Connecticut, Chairman, Subcom-
mittee on Seapower and Projection Forces ........................................................ 1
Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative from California, Chairman, Subcom-
mittee on Readiness ............................................................................................. 3
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative from Colorado, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Readiness ................................................................................ 4
Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative from Virginia, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces ........................................... 2
WITNESSES
Buzby, RADM Mark H., USN (Ret.), Administrator, U.S. Maritime Adminis-
tration ................................................................................................................... 6
Lyons, GEN Stephen R., USA, Commander, U.S. Transportation Command .... 5
Nahom, Lt Gen David S., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Pro-
grams, Department of the Air Force .................................................................. 9
Williamson, VADM Ricky L., USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Fleet
Readiness and Logistics (N4), Office of the Chief of Naval Operations,
Department of the Navy ...................................................................................... 8
APPENDIX
PREPARED STATEMENTS:
Buzby, RADM Mark H. .................................................................................... 54
Courtney, Hon. Joe ........................................................................................... 35
Garamendi, Hon. John ..................................................................................... 39
Lamborn, Hon. Doug ........................................................................................ 40
Lyons, GEN Stephen R. ................................................................................... 42
Nahom, Lt Gen David S. .................................................................................. 69
Williamson, VADM Ricky L. ............................................................................ 59
Wittman, Hon. Robert J. .................................................................................. 37
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING:
Mr. Kelly ........................................................................................................... 83
Mrs. Luria ......................................................................................................... 83
Mr. Norcross ..................................................................................................... 83
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING:
Mr. Norcross ..................................................................................................... 91
Mr. Vela ............................................................................................................. 92
Mr. Wittman ..................................................................................................... 87
(III)
SEALIFT AND MOBILITY REQUIREMENTS IN SUPPORT
OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJEC-
TION FORCES, MEETING JOINTLY WITH THE SUBCOMMIT-
TEE ON READINESS, Washington, DC, Wednesday,
March 11, 2020.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Courtney (chair-
man of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces) pre-
siding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE COURTNEY, A REPRESEN-
TATIVE FROM CONNECTICUT, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE
ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
Mr. COURTNEY. [Mic off.] 2:30 because, again, we have got votes
coming in about an hour and 15 to an hour and a half and we want
to, obviously, make sure we get a chance to hear from the wit-
nesses and ask questions.
So, good afternoon. Today’s Seapower and Projection Forces Sub-
committee and the Readiness Subcommittee are meeting to exam-
ine sealift and air mobility capabilities, two critical elements of our
Nation’s defense strategy.
Before I introduce our witnesses, I want to note that this year
marks the 100th anniversary of the Jones Act. For a century, the
Jones Act has helped promote a robust domestic maritime industry
while preserving our Nation’s security.
We are a maritime nation and the Jones Act is one of the founda-
tion pillars of a strong maritime policy now and in the future.
In beginning here today, I just want to—it is also the 75th anni-
versary fast approaching for the end of World War II and Winston
Churchill was quoted right after that conflict by saying, ‘‘Victory is
the beautiful bright flower. Transport is the stem without which it
could never have blossomed.’’ And right now, I think the stem is—
for a lot of us is we are concerned about and that is really, obvi-
ously, the focus of today’s hearing.
Again, because of the time issue, I am going to submit my re-
marks in writing to the record and, again, we want to, obviously,
give members a chance to ask a lot of questions. The briefing we
had a couple months ago I think shows that there is, certainly,
high interest.
And with that, I would now yield to Mr. Wittman, the ranking
member of the Seapower Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Courtney can be found in the Ap-
pendix on page 35.]
(1)
2
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE FROM VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE
ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
Mr. WITTMAN. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
you yielding. I especially want to thank Chairman Garamendi and
Ranking Member Lamborn for this enduring interest in our Na-
tion’s logistics capabilities. We know how extraordinarily important
this is and I can think of no better panel to discuss sealift and air-
lift than the folks we have before us today.
As I assess the state of our Nation’s military logistics, there are
many areas that allow us to rapidly project power to include our
tanker and airlift forces.
These capabilities are foundational to a great power and I believe
that we have done a good job of providing this force. However, it
is essential that our subcommittees take aggressive action to
staunch the bleeding occurring in our logistics forces today.
For example, our lack of strategic vision in our Nation’s sealift
forces is particularly wanting. I think that this lack of vision is a
relic to years of strategic hubris and complacency.
My friends, sometimes we are not aware of what is rapidly
changing around us. We continue to support legacy sealift force
that is designed for regional conflict and presumes sea control.
Both of these assumptions have been invalidated with our new Na-
tional Defense Strategy.
Yet, it is almost as if the Navy forgot to read the strategy when
they put together their budget plan or, worse, I think that we have
a strategic seam between the Army and the Navy.
For me, I think that the Navy’s budget is overtaxed with support
for the $110 billion Columbia ballistic missile submarine program.
I believe it is time for the Army to pick up the budget responsi-
bility for the surge sealift forces that uniquely support the Army’s
ability to go to war.
As to our subcommittee’s response to our surge sealift plight, I
am opposed with the administration’s legislative proposal that
would solely rely on procuring used foreign-built vessels to recapi-
talize our surge sealift.
I continue to support a combination of procuring used vessels
through the National Defense Sealift Fund and procuring new sea-
lift vessels. At the same time, I do not believe that we can sustain
a new construction option to support the administration’s $550 mil-
lion per hull assessment and look forward to pursuing other op-
tions that reduce this $25 billion new construction recapitalization
effort.
As for our air logistics component, while I am satisfied with our
current aviation refueling capacity, I think that we need to tailor
the response to mitigate KC–46A deficiencies. There are some that
believe that we should cancel the KC–46A aircraft contract in its
entirety. I do not believe this is a prudent strategy. However, until
we can deliver a capable KC–46A aircraft, I think that we should
slow both the ordering and delivery of KC–46A aircraft and we
need to retain legacy tankers to cover these shortfalls and we need
to ensure that we have adequate competition at the conclusion of
the current KC–46A contract.
3
And while I could sit here and pontificate about the shortfalls of
this program, simply put, I think we need to now look at making
the best move in a bad situation and one that is, sadly, of our own
making.
In conclusion, I am reminded of a quote from Alexander the
Great when reflecting on his extensive logistics train required to
resupply his battle lines where he indicated, ‘‘My logisticians are
a humorous lot. They know if my campaign fails they are the first
ones I will slay.’’
While I don’t espouse the slaying of our logisticians, I think this
clearly paints an indomitable reality that a failed logistical plan
will allow potential adversaries to dictate the circumstances of fu-
ture warfare, a future which our great United States of America
can ill afford.
I believe it is essential that we take aggressive steps in the Na-
tional Defense Authorization Act to staunch the bleeding and ad-
dress these substantial logistic issues.
Again, I appreciate Chairman Courtney and Chairman Garamen-
di’s support for having this important hearing and I yield back the
balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the Ap-
pendix on page 37.]
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Rob, and we will now have to call
you Wittman the Great.
[Laughter.]
Mr. WITTMAN. No. No. No. No. No. No, absolutely not.
[Laughter.]
Mr. COURTNEY. And I yield to my colleague, the chairman of the
Readiness Subcommittee, John Garamendi.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READI-
NESS
Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was watching our witnesses as Alexander the Great was speak-
ing, something about slaying, which I find it fully understandable.
[Laughter.]
Mr. GARAMENDI. But we do have a problem. I am going to short-
en this. I ask that my testimony or my opening statement be put
into the record.
KC–36—excuse me, KC–135, KC–10s, and the 46 [KC–46]—what
is going on here? We need to get this squared away. General Lyons,
you think we need more. The Air Force thinks we don’t. We are
going to have to sort that out. The reality is it is a very, very seri-
ous problem and I could probably echo most of what Mr. Wittman
said but I won’t right now.
But that has got to be addressed. The sealift is an ongoing prob-
lem. I don’t think the Navy is going to be able to afford the sealift
capacity necessary to meet the new National Defense Strategy.
I am not even sure they can meet the old one. Some very useful
work had been done by the Center for Strategic and Budget Assess-
ments. Draw it to your attention, I think I deliver this to all of you.
It basically calls for the rebuilding of our merchant marine, using
that with military useful ships to address what we will never be
4
able to accomplish or not likely to accomplish with the Navy budg-
et, even if we are to raid the KC–46 budget to do it.
So, I think there is a strategy, a national fleet strategy that we
can employ. I will be asking questions about that and we can con-
tinue with what we presently have but even that is woefully inad-
equate.
So, we need to build those ships and if we do it on the private
sector side, guaranteeing that they have cargo, which I think we
can do, and provide the necessary support, we can, I believe, quick-
ly within the next decade, provide the necessary sealift capacity.
I guess I am going to have to deal with something that—it is
called luggage, personal property. Ongoing issue. General Lyons, it
is your turf and that will be my last question.
If I run out of time, I will get you personally later and we will
go through it as this is the annual whipping of the—of the problem.
Excuse me, the semiannual whipping. I will let it go at that and
we will get on with it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in the
Appendix on page 39.]
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi.
I now recognize the ranking member of the Readiness Subcom-
mittee, Congressman Lamborn.
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM COLORADO, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
READINESS
Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Chairman Courtney. I truly appre-
ciate the collaboration that you and Ranking Member Wittman con-
tinue to show Chairman Garamendi and myself on these issues
that are critical to both of our subcommittees.
There is an old saying. Amateurs talk about tactics, but profes-
sionals study logistics. An examination of the issues before us re-
veals the wisdom of this statement. Our witnesses today are at the
very heart of projecting and sustaining the joint force.
General Lyons, I really appreciate your recent visit and the op-
portunity to discuss the major issues facing USTRANSCOM [U.S.
Transportation Command]. As you highlighted in your opening
statement, which will be presented here soon, the world is chang-
ing and we need TRANSCOM to focus on great power competition.
I am particularly concerned about the cyber threats posed to our
distribution networks by Russia and China and their ongoing ef-
forts to erode access to the U.S. and our allies. We must assume
that logistics support for future operations will take place in highly
contested environments.
Given how central these two—the two issues dominating today’s
hearings are to our overall military readiness, I want to add my
concerns to those of my colleagues. With 85 percent of the joint
force based within the United States, our military readiness risks
being irrelevant without the capability and capacity to project those
forces to the fight.
During the turbo activation exercise in September 2019, only 60
percent of the organic surge fleet was considered ready and only 40
percent of those were able to get underway in the time allotted.
5
As General Lyons stated in his written statement, by the mid-
2030s over half of the sealift fleet will be unusable. Congress had
provided the Navy with authority to begin recapitalization through
a combination of buying used vessels and some new ship construc-
tion.
But to date, we have seen very little action. The fiscal year 2021
budget would provide funding to purchase two.
The KC–46 program, as has already been discussed, is yet an-
other example where poor contractor performance is severely de-
grading warfighter capability and requiring the government to
underwrite the cost of retaining legacy aircraft longer than
planned.
Given the unsafe conditions created by the biggest Category One
deficiency on the KC–46, the remote vision system, it would be ir-
responsible for us to allow the U.S. Air Force to proceed with its
planned tanker retirements.
According to Air Force Chief of Staff General Goldfein, we are
close to a way ahead with Boeing on the KC–46, but it will take
two to—excuse me, 3 to 4 years to implement.
I am not one who is calling to cancel this program but if we don’t
see progress this year the Department may need to reconsider re-
competing the program.
Finally, I am encouraged by the progress that TRANSCOM has
made regarding the Defense Personal Property Program. The busi-
ness case analysis [BCA] for the Global Household Goods Contract
was delivered on time to the committee and it appears to dem-
onstrate a significant increase in performance and capability.
My understanding is that GAO [Government Accountability Of-
fice] will complete its review of the BCA shortly and I want to com-
mend TRANSCOM’s efforts to address industry concerns.
Thank you to our witnesses for your testimony, for what you do
for our country, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn can be found in the Ap-
pendix on page 40.]
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
Now we will start with General Lyons and just go right down the
table, and the floor is yours, General.
STATEMENT OF GEN STEPHEN R. LYONS, USA, COMMANDER,
U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND
General LYONS. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Courtney, Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Members
Wittman and Lamborn, distinguished members of the committee, it
is my honor to represent the men and women of the United States
Transportation Command who, at this very moment, are employed
around the globe conducting mobility operations 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, 365 days a year.
Our mission at TRANSCOM is enduring and that is to project
and sustain the joint force globally at our time and place of choos-
ing, thereby representing multiple options for our national leader-
ship and multiple dilemmas for potential adversaries.
With 85 percent of the force element stationed in the United
States, as you mentioned, it is TRANSCOM’s job to move forces
6
and materiel in support of the Secretary of Defense’s strategic pri-
orities.
Our National Defense Strategy underscores the importance of ad-
vancing our national security interests, deterring potential adver-
saries and, should deterrence fail, responding with overwhelming
force to win.
Power projections are a distinct U.S. comparative advantage, but
we are not alone in this effort. Our vast global logistics network
are underpinned by a deep bench of allies and like-minded partners
that facilitate critical access basing and overflight activities.
Our world is changing and the defense strategy describes a fu-
ture in which TRANSCOM must be able to project the force under
all-domain persistent attack. We acknowledge that our success
today does not guarantee success tomorrow and we are actively
preparing to meet tomorrow’s challenges.
Today, I am confident in our ability to successfully execute our
mission but the risk, as noted, is increasing. Our aerial refueling
and sealift forces require immediate attention to meet current and
future challenges. We are actively exploring the feasibility of a
specified sealift appropriation to mirror DOD [Department of De-
fense] and congressional efforts to recapitalize the Ready Reserve
Force in the 1990s.
Before I close, I do want to highlight the Department’s ongoing
work to improve the Defense Personal Property Program, an area
of great interest for Congress.
The Department, we acknowledge, can no longer afford to oper-
ate a disparate confederation of government activities supervising
a similarly disparate collection of hundreds of transportation pro-
viders.
My message for DOD families: We have heard your call for im-
proved accountability, transparency, and quality capacity and we
are committed to deliver.
My message for industry providers: If you provide quality service
today for our military members you have a place in the future pro-
gram.
It is an exciting time to be the commander of USTRANSCOM
and I could not be more proud of the team of professionals that cre-
ate the strategic comparative advantage called the Joint Deploy-
ment and Distribution Enterprise.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Lyons can be found in the
Appendix on page 42.]
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, General.
Now, I will move to Admiral Buzby who is joined here this after-
noon by his wife. Thank you. You are welcome to join us here today
and, again, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF RADM MARK H. BUZBY, USN (RET.),
ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
Admiral BUZBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon
to you, sir, and to Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Members Witt-
man and Lamborn, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you
for the opportunity to discuss the Maritime Administration’s role in
supporting strategic sealift.
7
As the members well know, America’s strategic sealift capability
is comprised of government-owned ships, assured access to a fleet
of U.S.-flagged commercial vessels under civilian mariners, and in-
termodal systems.
While this is an efficient and effective force for moving cargoes
worldwide during peacetime, I am concerned about its ability to re-
liably project and sustain power globally in a contested environ-
ment.
To address this, we must strengthen our sealift capability and re-
verse declines in U.S.-flagged commercial fleet and U.S. shipbuild-
ing repair industry.
The top of our priority list is the recapitalization of the Ready
Reserve Force, or RRF. Along with the 15 Military Sealift Com-
mand surge sealift’s ships, the 46-ship Ready Reserve Force pro-
vide the initial surge of ready sealift.
These vessels’ average age is 45 years old and, consequently, we
have struggled to maintain readiness. The results of the September
2019 turbo activation are reflective of the current readiness of
these ships despite focused and valiant efforts by their crews to
maintain them.
We continue to work with the Navy on a recapitalization strategy
that includes a combination of targeted service life extensions
which have begun; by acquiring and converting used vessels, which
is also now in progress; and eventually building new vessels in U.S.
shipyards.
MARAD [U.S. Maritime Administration] has recently released a
request for proposal for a vessel acquisition manager who will iden-
tify, purchase, modify, and after purchase potentially operate these
new vessels.
The decline in our domestic capacity to build and repair large
commercial ships is a major concern. Of the seven large shipyards
involved in the last major effort to construct or convert large com-
mercial-type ships for sealift several decades ago, three of those are
now closed, one no longer does commercial work, and two perform
conversion work only. Of that original seven, only one retains its
expertise to build large commercial-type sealift ships.
Last year, I reported 81 ships in our international commercial
fleet. Today, we are 87 but still down from the 106 in 2010. The
overall decline in the size of the U.S.-flagged fleet makes the Mari-
time Security Program essential.
Maritime Security Program ensures access to a fleet of 60 com-
mercial vessels to meet DOD contingency requirements. MSP oper-
ators also support the employment of 2,400 of the trained, skilled
U.S. merchant mariners that our country depends upon to crew
surge sealift ships.
I thank the committee for its reauthorization of MSP through fis-
cal year 2035. The Maritime Administration is also ensuring com-
pliance with cargo preference requirements. We are significantly
expanding our outreach and engagement to maximize the use of
U.S.-flagged vessels. More cargo means more U.S.-flagged vessel
operators employing U.S. citizen mariners, many of whom will be
needed for sealift.
We also remain committed to our domestic Jones Act fleet. Jones
Act requirements support U.S. shipyards and repair facilities, sus-
8
tain supply chains that produce and repair American-built ships,
and the employment of U.S. citizen mariners. It is the indispen-
sable foundation of the U.S. maritime industry and our economic
and national security.
Due to declines in the U.S.-flagged fleet, I am concerned about
our access to enough qualified mariners. We are working to better
track our pool of available mariners who could be available for sea-
lift and are exploring a range of options to ensure that a sufficient
number of mariners are trained and available to meet potential
contingency operations.
The Maritime Administration continues to support mariner edu-
cation and training through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy
and the six State maritime academies. Congress’s funding of the
National Security Multi-Mission Vessel [NSMV] program will help
provide our State academies with modern training vessels to pre-
pare future mariners.
The President’s budget requests $300 million for a fourth ship
designated for Texas A&M [Agricultural and Mechanical] Maritime
Academy. We expect that our vessel construction manager, TOTE
Services, will have a shipyard under contract shortly in order to de-
liver the first NSMV in fiscal year 2023.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address this committee
on the state of American sealift. I look forward to your questions
and ask that my testimony be entered into the record, sir.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Buzby can be found in the
Appendix on page 54.]
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. So, ordered.
Admiral Williamson.
Could you push the button on that? Yes.
STATEMENT OF VADM RICKY L. WILLIAMSON, USN, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, FLEET READINESS AND LO-
GISTICS (N4), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERA-
TIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Admiral WILLIAMSON. [Inaudible.] Sorry, sir. [continuing] And
distinguished guests of the House Armed Service Subcommittee on
Seapower and Projection Forces and Readiness. I am honored to be
here today to provide a Navy perspective on the sealift and support
of the National Defense Strategy.
One of my primary responsibilities as Navy’s logistics champion
is making sure that the strategic sealift fleet has a strong resourc-
ing advocate on the Navy staff. I can tell you from my personal ex-
perience this issue of sealift readiness has the attention of my en-
tire chain of command.
Since assuming my role 7 months ago, I have spoken personally
with the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] several times, the Sec-
retary of the Navy, and Secretary of Defense as we worked hard
to balance the needs of the sealift fleet with those of the combat-
ants that enable ships to deliver their cargo.
As the CNO said in his testimony a few weeks ago, we are begin-
ning to make investments in strategic sealift where we haven’t
made significant investments in a while.
We expect that investing now will yield returns of increased long-
term readiness as we work to recapitalize the sealift ships using
9
the multi-pronged approach delivered in the March 2018 ‘‘Sealift
That the Nation Needs’’ report to Congress.
We continue to demand analytic rigor that provides actionable
data to guard our investments in maintenance and repair to return
the fleet to our agreed readiness goal of 85 percent.
Finally, I see no barriers to our plans to recapitalize the sealift
fleet. I will continue to work alongside General Lyons and Admiral
Buzby to provide the sealift readiness our Nation needs.
I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Williamson can be found in
the Appendix on page 59.]
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Admiral.
And lastly, but not least, because he is a native of the State of
Connecticut, Lieutenant General Nahom.
STATEMENT OF LT GEN DAVID S. NAHOM, USAF, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF FOR PLANS AND PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT
OF THE AIR FORCE
General NAHOM. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Courtney, Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Members
Wittman and Lamborn, distinguished members of the subcommit-
tee, thank you for having us here today with U.S. Transportation
Command and Maritime Administration to discuss the state of the
mobility enterprise and provide testimony on Air Force’s role in
supporting the Department of Defense’s air mobility capabilities.
The Air Force provides capabilities, crews, fleets essential to mo-
bilize global support. The mobility fleet faces many challenges pro-
viding the force and fleet readiness needed to meet ever-increasing
demands our Nation relies upon.
Our most significant challenge today is the move to a two-tanker
fleet as we must stretch our resources to meet demands while bal-
ancing the appropriate risk by divesting the legacy aircraft to move
toward the future force.
As we modernize to counter growing threats, we must also en-
sure that forces remain ready and able to offer options to our Na-
tion’s leaders and combatant commands.
There is no doubt the demand for mobility capabilities remains
high. With the support of Congress, we have made major improve-
ments to mobility readiness and hope to continue increasing our
ready forces.
I am looking forward to the discussion today and to continue to
work with this committee for a more ready and capable mobility
force in the future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Nahom can be found in the
Appendix on page 69.]
Mr. COURTNEY. Great. Thank you, General.
So, we are going to go into questions. Again, we are going to
apply the 5-minute rule to everyone, including folks near the micro-
phones here and, hopefully, we will at least get through one cycle
and if there is extra time then we will keep going, depending on
next votes.
So, Admiral Buzby, thank you for at least recognizing we got a
couple things right last year in terms of restoring the funding for
10
the National Security Multi-Mission Vehicle. Great to hear things
are on track with that program, and also the extension and reau-
thorization of the Maritime Security Program.
We also backed a three-pronged approach which, again, was
mentioned earlier about extending current sealift ships, buying
used vessels, and requiring the start of a domestic new-build ship
and gave some additional authorities to build these new ships
using alternative contracting approaches.
Again, that alternative contracting approach I would like to focus
on just here for a moment, again, is being deployed in the case of
the multi-mission vehicle.
Can you talk about what, you know, knock on wood, you know,
how that is proceeding and then whether or not that we could use
that model again as a way of getting more sealift ships built and
with a little more flexibility.
Admiral BUZBY. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
As I mentioned in my testimony, we are about that close to actu-
ally having our vessel construction manager TOTE Services get to
contract with the shipyard.
The process has been a learning process for all involved, both the
government, us in Maritime Administration, TOTE Services, our
contractor, and the potential shipyard.
I think that it offers great promise because what we are going
to be doing is using a commercial practice to deliver a ship at a
fixed price and a fixed timeline and contract, and I think that it
offers—I think we are going to see a great savings from it.
I mean, the proof will be in the pudding. I know we have been
talking with the Navy, with Naval Sea Systems Command on this.
They have been watching it very closely, and I think they have got-
ten more comfortable as time goes on.
I don’t want to speak for them but, you know, as we have ma-
tured it and gotten through it and worked through the bumps, I
think—I think it definitely offers great promise and needs to be se-
riously looked at if we go forward to procuring more sealift ships.
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. I don’t know if, Admiral Williamson,
you want to comment at all. But, again, as you said, the committee
sort of expressed its, you know, support for this approach that he
just described in terms of just what is the Navy’s take on it.
Admiral WILLIAMSON. Yes, sir. As the CNO testified earlier, you
know, we are working really hard to close these gaps from our—
us not investing in the past 15, 20 years.
You know, we see this as an opportunity. We will partner with
MARAD and do the analytical rigor necessary to ensure that, you
know we can find executionable solutions within the constraints of
our budget, sir.
Mr. COURTNEY. Well, thank you, and we will be, you know,
again, really anxious to see how this unfolds again because we
have got to get sort of a different approach here if we are going to
really start getting some momentum in terms of filling some of the
gaps here.
Admiral Buzby, our subcommittee also for a number of years has
been sort of tracking the progress about getting a national mari-
time strategy sort of on the books, which have been decades since
we have done that as a nation, and I know it is a challenge because
11
there is a lot of different Federal offices and agencies that touch
the maritime realm. But maybe you could just give us an update
in terms of how that is proceeding.
Admiral BUZBY. Yes, sir. I am very happy to report to the com-
mittees that our report back to Congress as was directed in the
2014 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act], actually the
Coble Act, is complete and has been submitted. It is entitled ‘‘Goals
and Objectives for a Stronger Maritime Nation,’’ our report to Con-
gress.
It lists 4 goals and about 39 objectives to get to a stronger mer-
chant marine. It is not a global maritime strategy, one that encom-
passes the Navy and the Coast Guard and all the—all of the facets
of maritime America.
It really is kind of focused on the commercial side and those
things that we in the Department of Transportation could, clearly,
focus on. But I enjoin everyone to take a good look at it and, you
know, it is a starting point. It is a place where I think we and in-
dustry can all stack our hands together and move forward from.
Mr. COURTNEY. Well, we are, you know, glad to hear that is hap-
pening. Again, if we can sort of get progress in the commercial sec-
tor that will spill over and benefit, obviously——
Admiral BUZBY. I would agree.
Mr. COURTNEY [continuing]. Other parts of shipbuilding, whether
it is Navy, Coast Guard, or, you know, sealift and, you know, if you
look at the aerospace sector, you know, the fact that they are able
to sort of balance their industrial base with commercial work in ad-
dition to military work, I mean, that has really been the missing
sort of ingredient in the shipbuilding area and your description of
the shipyard decline that is happening, you know, that is just—we
have to turn that around——
Admiral BUZBY. Yes, sir.
Mr. COURTNEY [continuing]. And really glad you finished that re-
port. So, thank you.
I recognize Mr. Wittman for 5 minutes.
Mr. WITTMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank our witnesses for joining us.
Admiral Buzby and Vice Admiral Williamson, I want to go to you
to begin with. As we look at the fiscal year 2021 budget request
for recapitalizing the logistics fleet—the Ready Reserve Fleet as it
is formally called—we look at a $550 million per ship cost in con-
structing new ships.
I am not confident that we can afford ships at that price and
build the fleet back at the pace that we need to build it back. But
I do think there are a lot of different ways that we can think about
how we can make those things happen.
Chairman Courtney talked about several. I think we have to en-
gage the industry. But I want to get your perspective. I think, look-
ing at U.S. shipbuilding companies, looking at their potentially
partnering with other companies across the globe that are in the
shipbuilding business and how we can make sure we have critical
U.S. systems on board those ships here, make sure they are de-
signed specifically for the purpose of the military, looking too at the
idea of the use of those ships by the private sector and then con-
tracting for those ships to be made available for the United States
12
military and then at a certain point maybe the sealift—our Mari-
time Administration purchasing those ships as kind of a reverse of
the MSP program.
I think all those things are efforts that should be on the table.
I want to get your perspective about how do we, as quickly as pos-
sible, rebuild that capacity, much like Secretary Lehman did back
in the 1980s. Time is not in our—in our favor now and we have
to be able to do this quickly.
Admiral Buzby, I want to get your perspective. And then, Admi-
ral Williamson, I want to get your perspective, because it really
doesn’t seem that the Navy is really serious about this.
It seems like the Navy is saying, you know what, doesn’t make
a big difference to us. We don’t need ships to get to the fight. We
got them. And if the Army wants to get to the fight, we will let
them worry about it.
So, it seems to me it is pretty doggone parochial and it seems
like to me we are not making any progress in getting where we
need to be. So, I would like to get both of your perspectives on that.
Admiral BUZBY. Thank you, sir. Thanks for the question.
I absolutely agree, we need to get on with this. You know, we
have to kind of approach it kind of two ways right now.
We have to—we have to fix and get as ready as we can the ships
that we have for the very near term and we have to do some of
the replacement using the authorities that Congress has granted
us to get us moving. You know, some of the things that we are dis-
cussing here is going to be, you know, kind of a mid-term sort of
set of actions.
We have to, I think, kind of make a fundamental set of decisions
here on where these ships are going to come from. The current
Ready Reserve Force now is virtually all foreign built.
There are a few U.S.-built ships in there. But for the most part
they are in fact foreign-built ships. Ships that we will be talking
about bringing in near term are foreign-built ships.
So, you know, we are going to need to, you know, have a real se-
rious policy discussion on how critical is it that those ships be built
in the United States and there is some criticality to that, and, you
know, it goes to the comments that I made earlier about our indus-
trial base.
That is something to be taken into account and something we
don’t want to, I think, just throw away. So, I think that seriously
needs to be taken into account against the need to get ships quick-
ly, very quickly.
But, you know, we are going to be working really closely with the
Navy and, obviously, with TRANSCOM setting the requirement on
what that mix—proper mix should be.
Mr. WITTMAN. Very good.
Admiral Williamson.
Admiral WILLIAMSON. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
As I said in my opening remarks, my leadership is taking this
very seriously, is closing this gap as quickly as we can, and I think
that is representative in our 2021 budget proposal.
You know, the funding of the two used ships at $60 million I
think helps, to Admiral Buzby’s point, get us added capacity and
readiness now. I also believe that as far as the costs of building
13
new, we are committed to building new that is also represented in
our submittal of $37 million to do a design of a ship to be built in—
start build in 2023 and delivered in 2026.
Additionally, we are working with your staff right now to address
this, to find solutions that are affordable but also at the same time,
to echo what Admiral Buzby said, working very closely with him
and TRANSCOM how do I get after the divot that was about 10
years out, as identified in the CBSA [Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments] study.
And I believe through a combination of the service life extension
program, additionally with the used ship buy, two planned in
2021—we have an additional one in planning for 2022—I think
that helps us lessen the impact of the—of the shortfall identified
in the CBSA study. So, we will continue to partner with US-
TRANSCOM and MARAD to get after this, sir.
Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wittman.
Chairman Garamendi.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you.
Reality. A little reality check here. With regard to this sealift ca-
pacity, it isn’t going to be done in the traditional way. It is not
going to happen. There is not money in the naval budget to build
the sealift capacity. There is no money to rebuild the Ready Re-
serve Fleet. It just isn’t there.
So, we need to think differently. Fortunately, there is a pro-
posal—a plan, if you will—that has been proposed to us and we
need to get real about this.
We either say this plan laid out in these documents is not worth
our effort to even think about or it is, and I would suggest that this
year we make a decision to pursue a different strategy than the
one that we know will not work, and that strategy is something
along the line that was laid out by the Center for Strategic and
Budget Assessments in this document ‘‘Sustaining the Fight’’ and
then in its followup document.
It basically calls for the rebuilding of the American merchant
marines system using things that are already in place such as the
Jones Act, celebrating its 100th birthday, as Joe told us earlier,
and utilizing stipends, subsidies, and other programs that have
been on the books for more than 50 years but not used in the last
25 years.
Essentially, building a fleet that is militarily useful, and we can
do this. The United States is now one of the largest exporters of
oil and natural gas, none of which is on American-built ships. Keep
in mind that Russia is requiring that its LNG [liquid natural gas]
from its northern Siberian area be on Russian-built ships and Rus-
sian-flagged ships.
Why are they doing that? Because they see it as an opportunity
to build their merchant fleet, useful for their purposes.
Similarly, we could, using legislation that we proposed called the
Energizing the American Shipbuilding Industry, requiring that a
small percentage of that oil and gas that we ship overseas be on
American-built ships with American mariners, solving two prob-
lems simultaneously.
14
And if those ships are built appropriately, for example, with a
center—what do you call this, Mr. Buzby?
Admiral BUZBY. A construction differential subsidy.
Mr. GARAMENDI. That is it. That is one of the subsidies. But also
built so that that ship can be used for resupplying the Navy fuel
at sea with a center post, I think you called it.
Admiral BUZBY. King post. Yes, sir.
Mr. GARAMENDI. King post. And also some sort of a reel of pipe
at the back?
Admiral BUZBY. Stern refueling capability.
Mr. GARAMENDI. There you go. Good words all the way around.
We could do this, and in the process reenergize and build in our
shipyards and all the things that we have been talking about here.
So, we need an overarching strategy that is in place. Hopefully,
Admiral Buzby, your new maritime strategy, should it ever emerge
from OMB [Office of Management and Budget]—where I under-
stand it is still stuck.
Admiral BUZBY. It is out, sir. The Secretary has signed it out. It
is——
Mr. GARAMENDI. Oh, my.
Admiral BUZBY. It is for real.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Oh, my, my. At last.
Admiral BUZBY. Yes, sir.
Mr. GARAMENDI. In any case, better now than never.
What I am—what I basically want to get into a deep discussion
on is in this year, in this year’s NDAA, build upon what we have—
what we already have in place and stretch it further so that we can
do two things—leading the national security requirements of this
Nation.
So, let it go. I talked to all of you about this. Your comments?
Let us begin with Admiral Buzby and then go both different direc-
tions.
Admiral BUZBY. Sir, I would concur that we definitely need a bit
of a more bold approach if we want to get ahead of the bow wave
of obsolescence that we know that is coming, it’s well-documented,
of our—of our sealift forces.
So, taking the outlay that is laid out in the CSBA report is one
way to do it. We have to just find the right mix, the affordable mix,
that still meets the capability requirements that General Lyons
lays out to meet the OPLAN [operations plan] square footage and
dry fuel—and wet fuel movement.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Admiral Williamson.
Admiral WILLIAMSON. Yes, sir. As I said, my leadership—we are
absolutely committed to closing this gap in the near term.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Are you willing to think outside the box?
Admiral WILLIAMSON. Sir, we are willing to partner with anyone
to be able to close that gap sooner, and we will work shoulder to
shoulder with Admiral Buzby, TRANSCOM, industry, and your
staff.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield back.
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. LAMBORN. Thanks.
15
Boeing’s performance issues with the KC–46—and by the way, I
am going to ask about refueling and tankers because I share con-
cern on the sealift capability but I think we have been addressing
that really well so far.
But on the KC–46, it puts everyone in a bind. It is hard—it
seems like it is going to be hard to even support day-to-day combat-
ant commander requirements not to mention the surge required in
case of major contingencies.
So, given the safety issue of the boom operators not being able
to see that last 18 inches, and I am not sure that it is an accept-
able risk to say they are still ready to go into a major conflict.
So, General Lyons, could TRANSCOM meet its refueling require-
ments if the Air Force was permitted to retire its KC–10s but Con-
gress were to direct it to retain additional KC–35s so as to have
23 or so additional craft?
General LYONS. Sir, as you know, we have been working with the
Air Force and the delay in the KC–46 does in fact cause about a
30 percent reduction in outputs and day-to-day competition space.
So, we are talking about non-mobilized enterprise.
We would like to remediate that down to about 10 percent reduc-
tion and that is where the delayed retirement for the legacy fleet
KC–10s and the KC–135s come into play. And I know the Air
Force—I know Dr. Roper and so forth has talked to you and they
are working very, very hard with Boeing, and Boeing has got to
come through and deliver a technical solution.
I want to talk to the Air Force on the programmatic piece. But
for an operational piece, we are approaching a high window of risk
if we continue to retire those jets.
Mr. LAMBORN. And, General Nahom, is contract refueling a via-
ble option to bridge the gap as one way to meet this need in case
of further—either a contingency or the need of a surge?
General NAHOM. Sir, we are looking at contract refueling, and
that wouldn’t really be for so much contingency. That would be
some of the CONUS [contiguous United States] requirements.
Mr. LAMBORN. For day-to-day?
General NAHOM. Some of your training, your tests.
Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Okay.
General NAHOM. Things that you do here at CONUS, not more
of your day-to-day overseas.
Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. I understand. I understand.
So, if so, would TRANSCOM or the Air Force be the more appro-
priate party to manage the contracting process?
General NAHOM. Sir, I don’t want to speak for TRANSCOM here
but I believe—I believe that would fall under the Air Force as we—
you know, it is our duty to supply the air refueling that is needed
for the joint force and we take that seriously right now.
The KC–46 is giving us—it is quite a challenge and we have 31
of them sitting on the ramps right now and, as you said, day-to-
day usage—the risk is just too great to use those in a day-to-day
usage.
The chief did say recently that we would use these in time of a
national emergency. We would use the airplane to whatever capa-
bility we would—we could get out of it. But we are not willing to
use it day-to-day.
16
This is where our partnership with TRANSCOM is critical right
now, to make sure that we do retain enough legacy refueling that
we have for day-to-day operations. But we are going to have to ac-
cept some risk in the near term so we can correctly modernize too
our two-tanker fleet, which is our 135 and our KC–46, and I think
this is going to be the balance that we are going to look to—obvi-
ously, the guidance from this committee and working with TRANS-
COM to make sure we get that balance correct.
Mr. LAMBORN. And, General Lyons, any last thoughts before I
turn back my time?
General LYONS. No, sir. The air component—the Air Mobility
Command is in fact at the direction of Congress as well, looking at
the feasibility, the business case, of outsourcing some level of com-
mercial aerial refueling options, much like we do in the CRAF
[Civil Reserve Air Fleet] program for commercial augmentation.
And my commitment to General Miller is to support her in any
way that she requires support and we will take a look at that, sir.
Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
Congresswoman Luria, the floor is yours.
Mrs. LURIA. Thank you.
General Lyons, in your statement you noted that the readiness
of sealift today is 59 percent against the stated goal of 85 percent.
That 85 percent goal, is that against the 10.5 million square feet
of sealift that we currently have?
General LYONS. That is correct, ma’am. Nineteen——
Mrs. LURIA. But is 10.5 the requirement or is that requirement
actually significantly higher?
General LYONS. Well, the requirement is 19.2 million square feet
of roll on/roll off space.
Mrs. LURIA. So, 19.2. So, if we have 60 percent of the 10.5 million
that is about 6.3 million square feet currently, and if you actually
find the percentage of that 19.2 million it is only about 30 percent
that we currently have.
So, I am just looking at this number and I am confused because
if we are only meeting 30 percent of that requirement, it seems like
this would have been a much higher priority over the preceding
year.
And when I asked this question last year about our ability to
meet sealift demand, both you and your deputy stated that we
could meet that demand but just not in the time required was what
was said this year.
So, I kind of see one of two things is either true. Either you don’t
need the 19.7 million square feet or the combatant commanders’
timeline in their TPFDD [Time Phased Force Deployment Data]
doesn’t matter.
So, which is it if you are saying that you can meet the require-
ment but you don’t have the square footage or you can’t do it in
the amount of time? Which one is the answer?
General LYONS. No, I think that is quite a reasonable question.
The 19.2 million square feet requirement has been really consistent
throughout multiple strategies over the years. We do the force siz-
ing work on that, as you know.
17
And so, when you don’t have that, and we don’t have that today,
there is direct implications on the arrival of the forces relating to
the TPFDD, relating to the global [inaudible] war plan.
And so, to your point, that is the requirement and we are unable
to meet that today. That is the bottom line.
Mrs. LURIA. Thank you.
And in this budget year, I understand that Military Sealift Com-
mand—MSC—has allocated $50 million towards building a new
headquarters building and I also understand that this is not com-
ing from MILCON [military construction] construction. It is coming
from their O&M [operation and maintenance] account so actually
money that would go towards fuel, maintenance.
So why, if you are at 59 percent readiness on sealift, why is the
MSC spending $50 million of that money that could be going to-
wards maintenance and these other upgrades for these sealift ships
on the new headquarters?
General LYONS. Well, I won’t talk to the—from the Navy’s posi-
tion on headquarters on the title 10 requirements. But I will say
this. When the MSC headquarters got BRAC’d [base realignment
and closure] from the Navy Yard down to Norfolk, it is currently
in probably two dozen or more different facilities.
This is the headquarters that, over time, has migrated to an ad-
ministrative headquarters. We are trying to migrate that back to
a warfighting headquarters consistent with the strategy.
So command and control is a very important part of the warfight-
ing function and it really is important that Admiral Wettlaufer has
a command and control capacity that is facilitated by a facility
down there at Norfolk and I think that is what they are working
on.
To be honest with you, I don’t exactly know the costs associated
with that. But there is a lot of work to be done in that area.
Mrs. LURIA. But do you agree with that funding for that facility
coming directly out of the operations and maintenance funding that
could be going to fix the problem with sealift rather than a military
construction project, which would be the normal means for funding
a building and a headquarters?
General LYONS. Well, to build a new headquarters would be mili-
tary construction, as you know. There are other ways to improve
and modernize your facilities within SRM [sustainment, restora-
tion, and modernization] and other accounts.
It is not an either/or trade, right. You must have mission com-
mand capacity to command and control your fleet that is a global
fleet. So, we have to address the command and control construct
for the maritime component. We also have to address the readiness
issues on the fleet.
Mrs. LURIA. So, I understand that that is being prioritized this
year over fuel for our MPSRON [Maritime Prepositioning Ship
Squadron] forces, over maintenance on these sealift ships. That has
become a priority this year is this $50 million towards the head-
quarters over those urgent needs for the sealift fleet?
General LYONS. Again, Congresswoman, this is—we are not talk-
ing about—you know, we are not talking about plush headquarters
here. We are talking about a warfighting apparatus to command
18
and control a global fleet that we must employ in combat opera-
tions. It is a warfighting function.
Mrs. LURIA. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you.
Mr. Kelly.
Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman, and thank each of you for
being here today and thank you for your service to our great Na-
tion.
I want to talk a little bit, General Lyons, about—we just recently
did an EDRI [Emergency Deployment Readiness Exercise]. I guess
about a year ago out at Gulfport where we’re exercising alternate
and contingency ports. I think that is great.
Tying that in, how much are you working with AMC [Air Mobil-
ity Command] to make sure that what we lack currently in sealift
capacity or air capacity to make sure that we have preposition
stocks that are not too much at risk but are in where we think the
next fights may be?
Because there is one way—you either get them there after the
conflict starts or either you have to have them there, which puts
them at a little bit at risk, so that we make sure we can go.
Everybody has a plan—do you get hit in the mouth, and so you
want to make—you have enough. We don’t want another Korea
where we almost get pushed off the peninsula by the time we get
forces there.
So how much do you work with AMC to do that?
General LYONS. Sir, we work very closely with the services who
are responsible to determine their preposition requirements. In this
case, I think you are talking about Army—Army Materiel Com-
mand. So, we work very, very closely with them both in maritime
prepositioning as well as supporting their preposition ashore pro-
grams.
Mr. KELLY. I think that is real important. And General Nahom,
if you can kind of—the same way with the Air Force, either
through staging, basing, or prepositioned planes or stocks or muni-
tions, what are you doing to make sure that we have the right stuff
forward quickly enough. Are you working with the—I guess the
AMC of the Air Force to do the same thing?
General NAHOM. Sir, I don’t want—I would say there is a lot of
prepositioning forward that happens through our overseas combat-
ant commands and, certainly, our major commands that support
that in the Air Force and we work very closely to make sure they
have the necessary—the necessary, you know, tools.
In terms of the equipment we would need to get to the fight, ob-
viously, we work very closely with TRANSCOM to make sure we
have the appropriate capacity in which to defeat the fight as nec-
essary.
Mr. KELLY. Because I think while we wait on the sealift or airlift
to get to where we need to be, we are much leaner everywhere
around the world than we were when I was a young guy.
You know, we were doing Defender 2020 which is kind of like the
old Reforgers but we had 300,000 troops forward then. We had all
kind of airbases forward then. We don’t have those same things.
But we also have better allies probably who are more prepared
today, but a combination—I just want to make sure that we are—
19
until we get the sealift gap closed we need to make sure that we
are ready to fight tonight.
General Lyons, I am concerned about the future of the C–17
Globemaster sustainment. The current PBL [Performance Based
Logistics] contract between Boeing and the Air Force seems to be
a model program which has delivered 80 percent-plus mission-capa-
ble rates every year for more than 20 years, a readiness rate that
makes the C–17 have the highest OR [operational readiness] rate
in the Air Force.
I understand the Air Force is considering a change to the
sustainment strategy for the C–17 and concluded a business case
analysis last year. Is that accurate?
General LYONS. Sir, I am not familiar with that. I will take that
for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on
page 83.]
Mr. KELLY. I guess that answers my next question. Was TRANS-
COM consulted in the business case analysis? General Nahom, do
you have an answer to that?
General NAHOM. Sir, the change to the PBL, I don’t have that
information at hand. I am going to have to get back to you for the
record, sir.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on
page 83.]
Mr. KELLY. Okay. And which goes to my next question, which I
know you can’t answer but I am going to ask it for the record. And
would this change to the sustainment strategy affect the Air Force
Reserve and Air National Guard, which have C–17s?
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on
page 83.]
Mr. KELLY. Finally, I guess I just want to talk about the—a little
bit—we have talked a little bit about the tankers—the refueling
tankers. And, guys, we just got to get this right and it goes back
to we got to think outside the box if we have to do something dif-
ferently in the interim.
But I don’t think we can ever again put ourselves in a position
like we did in Korea or like we did at the early stages of World
War II or World War I where we don’t have enough to go toe to
toe, because what that means is we are fighting for footholds or
ports or airbases.
Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines die. And so, we have got
to get the long-term solution. But in the interim I just ask that you
guys think outside the box to use every tool in the box that we
have to be able to close and fight tonight.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Norcross, you are recognized.
Mr. NORCROSS. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to thank the
witnesses for being here today. I want to focus on three quick
issues: aerial refueling assets, the strategic sealift, and if I have
time, the CMV–22.
First one. Three major issues left on the tanker—the tie-downs,
which has been addressed and is being fixed; the boom stiffness,
20
which was actually on us; and the remote visual system, which is
absolutely a critical problem.
But one thing we have to remember is that cost is on Boeing.
This is a fixed contract which needs to be looked at the way we do
it because the requirements has been an issue on this piece, lit-
erally, going back years.
So, when we look at that, and I have great respect for my col-
leagues on the other side of the aisle, but the idea of halting this
contract to me would be an absolute critical mistake. Ninety-five
percent of the time of building that plane doesn’t involve the re-
mote vision system.
We can build those, continue its mission while it is being fixed.
We are too far behind and we are talking about great power com-
petition, I don’t want to send an F–35 up when we are in a major
fight, especially if some other rather negative things happen. They
are not going to be able to fly. The KC–46 can still fly.
So, the idea of stopping a contract because of Category One—we
wouldn’t have aircraft carriers, we wouldn’t have an F–35, we
wouldn’t even have submarines. We need to go at this. Boeing’s on
the hook here. They need to perform. There is no question about
it.
But the idea of delay, I think, would be an absolute critical mis-
take and something that we shouldn’t go into.
But shifting over to the sealift, corona [coronavirus] has taught
us something in a lesson that we should take—that when our sup-
ply chain is outside the United States, we are at risk. First sup-
pliers that are coming in from China, we are seeing things delayed
and that also goes with human capital.
So, those mariners that I have heard Mr. Buzby talk about time
after time, you don’t grow them overnight. This is a focus and we
can only do it with an American fleet.
So, I echo the comments of my colleagues here that this is a crit-
ical component that we don’t fix overnight. Training takes a tre-
mendous amount of time and we need to make sure that in our
budget that the money is where it needs to be to supply that next
generation.
So, to Admiral Williamson, talk to me about the next generation
of supply chain going to our aircraft carriers, the CMV–22. What
is the transition that will take place when that comes in? I think
it is 2020, 2021 when your first one gets delivered for the Carl Vin-
son.
Admiral WILLIAMSON. I am sorry, sir. I didn’t hear the first part
of your question.
Mr. NORCROSS. The CMV. The Osprey.
Admiral WILLIAMSON. Yes.
Mr. NORCROSS. Is that next chain of supplies for our carriers that
is coming on in 2021. Talk to us how that support mechanism is
going to transition from what we presently have with the CODs
[carrier onboard delivery] and others.
Admiral WILLIAMSON. Sir, I am not familiar with that in my
portfolio. I would love to take that for the record and get back with
you. I can speak to how we have incorporated the 22 onto other
platforms and how we are using that to look at distributed mari-
time ops.
21
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on
page 83.]
Admiral WILLIAMSON. For example, EPF [Expeditionary Fast
Transport], which is an auxiliary platform, we are building small,
fast, light auxiliary. Looking at the next phases of that with the
VS–22 gives it about a 350-mile nautical range capability. In addi-
tion to that, we have incorporated it into our refits of our hospital
ships, offering that an additional 350-mile capability as well.
And so when you look at the distributing—the supply chain
across the Log [Logistics] Continuum from the inter to intra, the
last tactical mile, obviously, I think the—and looking at the dis-
tance of which we have to do in distributed maritime ops, the VS–
22 provides us some extremely good capability to ensure that our
sailors and Marines keep supplied.
Mr. NORCROSS. So, we will follow up on the carriers’ supply ship
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Norcross.
Mr. Bergman.
Mr. BERGMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Buzby, you mentioned about building ships on time, on
budget. Did I get that right?
Admiral BUZBY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BERGMAN. Okay. Vice Admiral Williamson, I have never
heard that from the Navy. On time and on budget for ships. We
have had hearings over the last couple of weeks and many mem-
bers of the committee here have expressed concern about the Navy
shipbuilding plan. Okay.
I just wanted to—I am not expecting you to answer. I am not
asking you a question. So, Admiral Buzby, back to you. What is it
that is unique to the maritime industry that allows you to be able
to make that statement? What plans, planning, whatever you want
to call it—P2s, P3s—have been put into place to allow you to make
that statement?
Admiral BUZBY. Excellent question, sir.
The key point to commercial contracting for new-build construc-
tion is a couple of very key points. You go in with a very mature
design that is well understood, with the requirement is well laid
out and that the shipyard fully understands what they are going
to have to build. So, the requirement is crystal clear, and right up
front before they sign the contract all of the risks are negotiated
out.
You know, you are—you know, the risk is either retired through
understanding of the requirement or it is retired through costs that
is added in by the shipyard to take care of any fluctuation in the
design as they are building it.
So right up front, that is, you know, agreed to rather than hav-
ing it sort of float along and be a surprise as the ship is being built.
That is really the beauty of it.
Mr. BERGMAN. As you are—as you are working with industry to
work out to see where the risk is, these ships are going to sail
across the seas. There is no guarantee that they won’t face some
level of enemy threat, if you will.
22
As part of the risk mitigation, is that part of the discussion to
some level of extent as to what kind of risk we are assuming if this
ship was to take a hit?
Admiral BUZBY. The risk primarily that we are talking about is
really design risk——
Mr. BERGMAN. Okay.
Admiral BUZBY [continuing]. And construction risk. The risk that
the ship faces once it is in the custody of the government and off—
or the commercial entity doing its thing, that is operational risk,
which is separate than this construction risk.
Mr. BERGMAN. Okay. Well, I guess, again—again, this is more of
a statement, Vice Admiral Williamson, about I would really—I
think a lot of us would like to see the Navy at least consider at
what level can we use this industry model and then as we got our
warfighting ships—you know, it takes on a different character but
still be able to get as close to a budget, if you will, a business pro-
posal that makes sense that this committee can look at and say it
is—you know, this is—we can fund this because it makes sense.
Back to you, Mr. Buzby. While the maintenance of the Ready Re-
serve Force is important, so too is the development and training of
the mariners to command the vessels and to crew the vessels.
How are you leveraging modeling and simulation and other
emerging training technologies to better prepare our merchant
mariners?
Admiral BUZBY. Sir, that—using simulation is basically mainline
now in the training of today’s mariners both on the unlicensed side
and on the licensed side. Matter of fact, I visited all the State mari-
time academies, all six of them, plus Kings Point on a regular
basis.
All of them have fairly sophisticated simulation capability. The
Coast Guard recognizes 30 days of sea time in exchange for simu-
lator time as it stands right now and probably more going forward.
At Kings Point we are rededicating an entire building and rehab-
bing it just to be a simulation center, going forth, with the most
modern simulators.
So absolutely critical to the training of a modern—to do it effi-
ciently, to do things in the simulator that you can’t do without very
high risk of failure and potential calamity if you try and do it for
real at sea.
Mr. BERGMAN. As a veteran of simulation in my flying career, the
whole object of simulation is to be able to scare, if you will, the pi-
lots or the mariners to the point where they learn, and you don’t
hurt anybody or destroy any equipment in the process.
Because if you are not in their minds when they get into the real
thing, they are not as prepared as they could have been and we—
through the failure to leverage the simulation.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Bergman.
Mr. Golden.
Mr. GOLDEN. Thank you.
Just a question for the panel. Anyone can field this one. I imag-
ine that USTRANSCOM is looking to remain on the cutting edge
of technological innovation as part of this discussion as well.
23
Just as an example, back home in Maine at the University of
Maine Composite Center it is also the advanced additive manufac-
turing facility that they have up there for research and develop-
ment.
They have the largest 3D printer in the world where they re-
cently did a 25-foot 5,000-pound boat in about 72 hours; if you
think about that in regards to potential for just design, testing, re-
search, and development. They’ve got a big basin up there for test-
ing these types of things out as well.
But I don’t think they believe they are going to continue to have
the largest 3D printer in the world for long. They are going to go
bigger and they are thinking about unmanned and things of that
nature as well.
They also have made composite shipping containers, as an exam-
ple, where you can, first of all, think about the fuel savings to the
Navy, potentially, with shipping containers that are half as heavy
as steel, the kind of logistics potential that comes with something
that is stronger than steel but also able to collapse in upon itself
and stack in case you are not using it all, but also fiber in the com-
posite material so now you are attached to the grid so you can do
inventory scans. You can do security scanning. It doesn’t block GPS
[Global Positioning System] and transmission signals and things of
that nature. You know, they are working hard for the future.
So, I just wanted to give you all the opportunity to discuss ways
in which TRANSCOM is partnering with industry in general to
adapt and innovate to meet the sealift requirements that the joint
force needs in the future.
General LYONS. Congressman, I will start and I will defer to
the—particularly to the services.
But I think you are right, it is absolutely amazing the technology
and innovation that we see across all of our universities and cam-
puses.
At TRANSCOM, specifically at the headquarters, we are really
focused on decision support systems and command and control sys-
tems, big time into enterprise data environment, enabling machine
learning, thinking about artificial intelligence, and these kinds of
things.
And then at the weapons systems level, I mean, the services,
largely, work the weapons systems level and those kinds of things.
So, I will defer to the services if they have additional thoughts on
this.
But I agree, the rate of change is impressive.
Admiral WILLIAMSON. Sir, thank you for the opportunity to com-
ment. Additive manufacturing, we have already started to experi-
ment with that on our ships. Stennis used this on her last deploy-
ment.
And to your point, being able to get a part that is necessary to
continue combat operations in a short period of time, we think
there is some incredible opportunities there. When we look at—you
know, earlier we talked about the supply chains and being able to
get those things done.
Additionally, digitalization of our supply chains, being able to
take, obviously, various different systems, bringing that together to
give not only at the tactical level but the operational level and stra-
24
tegic level the commanders real-time information to make real-time
decisions I think is a road we are exploring and already making
some progress.
Thank you.
General NAHOM. And, sir, obviously, no ship examples. But I
would say for the Air Force if you look at where we are going with
digital design it is going to really revolutionize how we—how we
build aircraft in the future.
The perfect example that doesn’t apply to the portfolio here but
our new trainer, the T–7, which is the first aircraft 100 percent
digitally designed, and you look at how we are manufacturing it is
not about a different aircraft. It is about building an aircraft dif-
ferently, and that is going to lead into the future as we go beyond
some of the current mobility assets we currently fly right now.
Mr. GOLDEN. I thank you all for that, and let me extend an invi-
tation up to the University of Maine on their behalf, if you are in-
terested, you know, from the perspective of additive manufacturing.
I know they are looking at potential jet fuel, you know, composite
and additive manufacturing. Makes sense in Maine. We’ve got the
largest contiguous forest—working forest in North America. So, we
are the wood basket, so to speak, and you can do an awful lot with
it. So, thank you.
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Golden.
Mr. Conaway.
Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A couple of real quick questions. It won’t take long.
General Nahom, KC–46A is not qualified for tanker missions but
it can do other things—air ambulances, other things. Have we ac-
tually used any of those aircraft in a mission of anything other
than training yet?
General NAHOM. Sir, right now, it is—the use of the aircraft is
currently in a beddown in the testing. We are looking for the other
capabilities, the cargo and, certainly, our medical evacuation, and
we are looking to certify those capabilities very quickly.
You know, unfortunately, those will be certified before the air re-
fueling but we will be able to get to those kind of missions very
quickly.
Mr. CONAWAY. I am sorry. Did you say they should have been
certified for that before the air——
General NAHOM. No, but for—I mean, we would have—in a per-
fect world we would have air refueling before those capabilities.
Mr. CONAWAY. Okay.
General NAHOM. But it looks like, based on the remote visual
system, we are going to have the other capabilities first.
Mr. CONAWAY. For those capabilities, I mean, they are obviously
planned for ahead of time. I have been on board one of those—the
planes and there is a lot of room.
General NAHOM. Yes, sir. And that is—we are just bedding down
the first airplanes. You know, they are at McConnell now, soon to
be at Pease down in North Carolina, and we are—right now, we
are working on those missions to get those certified and out to the
fields.
Mr. CONAWAY. Okay.
25
A little more mundane. General Lyons, you have got a—gone to
a single-move manager for movements. I guess the idea was to be
more efficient and customer friendly.
How are you going to make sure that it doesn’t devolve into just
the big guys getting the moves and the smaller movers get weeded
out or pushed out of the way and customer service deteriorates
rather than improve?
General LYONS. Congressman, it is a great question. I will tell
you, the way we started this is we recognized that the current pro-
gram we have was never going to deliver the level of accountabil-
ity, transparency, and incentivize the level of capacity we needed
for peak.
So, the restructure in our relationship with industry through the
single-move manager construct was really about making sure that
our relationship with industry was clearly delineated with key per-
formance parameters.
As I always say to the moving companies that are out there
today, the same moving companies if you are performing well you
will still be performing well in the future program. So, the single-
move manager will absorb the global network as it exists today.
We will measure the level of performance and incentives that
will incentivize growth over a longer period of time in a contractual
relationship.
And let me—I guess to be more clear, Congressman, I will give
you a couple of examples. So, if I—if I asked—if you asked a ques-
tion what company, and I won’t name the company publicly but
what company has the most suspensions and warnings?
I can tell you that company has got over a thousand suspensions
and warnings, and under the current program they did $26 million
of business in the Department of Defense last year.
So, we think that is unacceptable. We think it is unacceptable
that the 950th company of 950 still show up at your curbside.
So, what we are really trying to do is keep the good companies,
incentivize the growth of the good companies, push out the bad
companies and incentivize the performance inside that relationship
and hold industry accountable inside the Department. The Depart-
ment can hold me accountable.
Mr. CONAWAY. So there is a recommendation, though, that there
could be new companies come into the scheme that would have
some sort of a fair shot at getting to be able to build a reputation
that they are either good or bad, and you are looking at making
sure that new folks can come in, because there will be companies
that go out of business, especially ones you push out of the—out
of the system if they are not functioning.
But you are looking at the whole package, not just allowing some
single-source—single-move manager to create a fiefdom of good
friends who get all the business.
General LYONS. No. No, sir, you are exactly right and we want
to incentivize new players that come into the market that are not
incentivized to come in today.
Mr. CONAWAY. All right. Thank you.
General LYONS. We actually want that. Thank you.
Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Yield back.
26
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Conaway.
Mr. Brindisi.
Pass. Okay.
So, all right. We have done one run-through of the committee. It
looks like that votes are still a little ways off. So, I think we, again,
have an opportunity for a second round of questions and, again, I
will just lead off.
I just have, actually, just one question for General Lyons, which
is, again, last Congress, you know, we definitely dug into the issue
of, again, our shortfall in terms of maritime tanker support and
during the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] we estab-
lished a tanker security program modeled off the successful Mari-
time Security Program, which Admiral Buzby referred to earlier.
This program would have helped maintain a fleet of 10 U.S.-
flagged tankers to augment our fleet during contingencies. Unfortu-
nately, that mark fell out during the conference process. But,
again, we are very interested in moving forward on it.
Again, I just, for the record, can you state whether or not you
favor a program like this and can you speak to—if so, can you
speak to the benefit of a program like this in helping TRANSCOM?
General LYONS. Chairman, thank you, and thanks for the lan-
guage in this—last year’s bill. As you know, we will conduct the
study for the Department to really assess our accessibility to the—
to the market—to the global market in time of crisis.
And so, I think you are alluding to, as you well know, we have
a high dependency on foreign-flagged tankers in crisis in the mari-
time tanker area, and so we are looking at this. We are ready to
report back in about the middle of the year, June timeframe.
We are working with Admiral Buzby. I acknowledge I think
there is value in a Maritime Security-like program for tankers. We
just need to take a look at the economics of it. Yes, sir.
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, and, again, I think our subcommittee
is definitely serious in terms of taking another run at this. So,
thank you.
Mr. Wittman.
Let us see. Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. Just a quick question for General
Lyons or Lieutenant General Nahom.
On global fuel distribution, just to think a little bit toward the
future here, given the challenges associated with fuel distribution
in a contested environment, I am wondering if DOD needs to des-
ignate an organization to manage this for the joint force.
While the Defense Logistics Agency does an effective job of pro-
curing and distributing fuel for day-to-day operations, I am not
sure that they are equipped to manage distribution during a major
conflict with a near-peer adversary.
And I guess, General Lyons, I will start with you. Have we
reached a point where the Nation needs to become the global fuel
distribution integrator and would TRANSCOM be an effective
choice for that?
General LYONS. Sir, we—you know, in the fall up at Newport
with the Joint Chiefs and the combatant commanders, we looked
at a war game and that red team looked at the end-to-end liquid
energy value chain.
27
I agree with your assessment. I think inside the Department we
need to take a look at end-to-end global integration role to make
sure that in global posture, not just in the procurement that DLA
[Defense Logistics Agency] does, but in global posture, in maritime
transport, in air transport, the entire end-to-end view needs to be-
long to somebody.
I have mentioned to the Department—I think at least to the vice
chairman—that I believe TRANSCOM is the right place to do that
in the future if they so desire for us to take on that mission, much
like we do for global mobility. And so, we are working with the De-
partment on that, sir.
But I think as we move forward and to great power competition
in contested environments, this is something we have to look at.
Yes, sir.
Mr. LAMBORN. Anything to add to that, sir?
General NAHOM. No, sir. Nothing to add to that.
Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
Chairman Garamendi.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. Gentlemen, the Congressional
Budget Office and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assess-
ment have both recently identified phased replacement of the Na-
tional Defense Reserve Fleet assets with a fleet of privately owned
militarily useful commercial sealift and tankers as the most cost-
effective approach to rebuilding our strategic sealift fleet.
The CBO recommends a phased replacement plan of five ships
per year, while the CSBA goes further by recommending complete-
ly replacing the government-owned MSC [Military Sealift Com-
mand] prepositioned fleet with MARAD-chartered commercial ships
and expanding the Maritime Security Program to replace today’s
MARAD Ready Reserve Forces.
So, the question, Admiral Buzby, should the U.S. Government
transition to a unified national fleet approach that leverages the
best attributes of the U.S.-flagged commercial industry to meet our
strategic sealift requirements?
Admiral BUZBY. Thank you for the question, sir.
I could—I can’t give you an absolute right now. I think, you
know, the proposals that CSBA has made are very attractive. I
think they need to be more fully teased out.
The right balance of where our capability lies on the commercial
side and the government-owned side I think it is worthy of further
pulling apart and making sure that whatever we decide upon
meets the requirements of General Lyons and the combatant com-
manders.
So, there is a—there is a couple pieces to it. There is the absolute
square footage piece of it. There is the timeliness piece of it and
when it is required; the reliability of both of those forces and how
much we pay for those forces.
All those factors, I think, need to be put together in a calculus
to come up with what is the right mix. That is an option. It makes
sense on its surface. I think before we pull the trigger on anything
like that, we need to kind of make sure we are marching down the
right road.
28
Mr. GARAMENDI. So, we will pursue it.
General Lyons, your thoughts on it and also, perhaps, first what
about the cargo? What about requirements that all military cargo,
including fuel, be on American-flagged ships, and then on to the
question that I just asked Admiral Buzby?
General LYONS. Chairman, as you know, cargo preference rules
require cargo—general cargo—to move on U.S.-flagged ships. For
petroleum, there are not sufficient U.S.-flagged ships in the inven-
tory, to your point, to move all petroleum needs on a U.S.-
flagged——
Mr. GARAMENDI. And there never will be until the only place you
could use it is American ships.
General LYONS. That is correct.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes.
General LYONS. That is correct.
Mr. GARAMENDI. So therein lies a solution, doesn’t it?
General LYONS. Potentially. Chairman, I am open to solutions.
Many different ways to approach this. I am really wedded to the
outcomes.
I do think, to your point, though, sir, on the—whether you could
completely outsource the organic sealift fleet for the Nation, for the
Department, I don’t see us ever going there. I think we will need
a DOD-owned fleet at least for the first traunch out.
But the linkages to the commercial industry are inextricable,
both in terms of mariners, in terms of additional capacity, and in
terms of global networks.
What the report didn’t specifically address is how you would gen-
erate the cargo required to move under the U.S. flag that would
then generate the ships and then generate the crews.
I think cargo is king. If we have the cargo, to your point, moving
under the U.S. flag, we have got—we have got a viable U.S.-flagged
fleet.
Mr. GARAMENDI. The report does recommend several strategies to
develop the cargo, one of which is you use American ships when
you are moving military equipment—Coast Guard, on and on and
on.
So that is one way the cargo can be generated. The rest of it is
we are going to have to find some way to make these ships avail-
able and that is either going to be done with the Navy budget or,
as Mr. Wittman suggests, the Army budget.
Either way, it is coming from the DOD or a strategy that would
leverage the commercial side of it with militarily useful ships with
king’s post or—is that it? Thank you.
General Williamson, or Admiral Williamson, your thoughts in
the next round of questions.
I yield back.
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you.
Ms. Luria.
Mrs. LURIA. Thank you, and Admiral Williamson, I wanted to
turn to you on the buy used that we have talked about a few times
during this hearing and about the authority that was given to buy
seven ships used, and we talked a little bit about the timeline of
why it has been so slow to purchase these ships.
29
But can you confirm what you are on track to move forward for
now within this year?
Admiral WILLIAMSON. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for the question.
We are on track right now, provided we get the funding in our
request to purchase two ships in 2021 and we are planning for an
additional ship in 2022. Obviously, this is tied to a commitment by
the SECNAV [Secretary of the Navy] to demonstrate to the com-
mittee and to Congress that we are going to buy new, and that is
reflected in the $37 million RDT&E [research, development, test,
and evaluation] for the purchase—the purchase of the design for
the ship to start build in 2023, delivery in 2026.
Additionally, we put forward a legislative proposal that decouples
the procurement of the used ships from the mandate to acquire the
used ship—to get away from the mandate to buy the new ships.
That does not mean that we are walking away from the construc-
tion of new ships. But what it does is allow us to procure used
ships at a faster rate to get after the gap identified in the CSBA.
Mrs. LURIA. So, I understand that the approximate costs esti-
mated to purchase a used ship that would have military utility is
approximately $30 million per hull.
But do you in—anywhere in the budget take into account the
costs that it would take to upgrade these ships both to make them
meet ABS [American Bureau of Shipping] standards—which I have
heard approximately up to $30 million to take a foreign-flagged
ship to meet ABS standards—and then any additional upgrades to
ramps, cranes, equipment for the type of cargo that they would
carry plus anything that would make them militarily compatible
such as comms [communications] and other electronics? What is
the total price tag and have you included that in the request?
Admiral WILLIAMSON. Ma’am, obviously, that is a very detailed
question. I would love to get back to you with the details on that
if that is okay to work with you and your staff.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on
page 83.]
Mrs. LURIA. Thank you, but that is very important. That is very
important for the committee, because if it is a $30 million price tag
to buy the ship but then you need to come back and ask for $30
million more to make it useful for its purpose, we need to know
that going into this process.
Admiral WILLIAMSON. Yes, ma’am.
Mrs. LURIA. So, thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. Mr. Golden. Okay.
Actually, I did mean to ask one more question to General Lyons,
and as long as we’ve got a few more minutes before the next vote
series, again, the last time this country recapitalized the Ready Re-
serve Fleet, Congress created the National Defense Sealift [NDS]
Fund as the mechanism for doing so in an affordable and nondis-
ruptive way which, again, sort of spread the costs throughout the
Department of Defense, as we heard earlier.
Again, I just want to just ask you for the record, General, do you
support and see value in this fund as we begin a new recapitaliza-
tion effort?
General LYONS. Chairman, I absolutely do. I think we are going
to have to have an appropriation that is NDS-like to move forward.
30
I think that is a—and when I met with Secretary Spencer back in
the September timeframe he mentioned the same kind of approach
and the CNO, I believe, is on board as well.
Mr. COURTNEY. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. It is helpful
as, again, we move more towards the mark.
Chairman Garamendi.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Where to go here?
The—perhaps I will just let it go at this point. My colleagues
have asked most of the questions that are out there. What I am
going to do is my last series of questions indicated that there was
a path that we ought to explore and that we should thoroughly
analyze a different strategy than the one we have been on.
So, General Lyons, Admiral Buzby, and Admiral Williamson, I
would like to do that with you and with the Air Force.
Oh, there is one thing on the KC—excuse me, on the C–17s.
They really cannot get into a contested environment and survive.
There is an upgrade that we ought to be looking at for the C–17s.
I will leave that to another question.
But back to the sealift capacity here. Looking forward to a robust
discussion about a different way of accomplishing our goal and
where we presently are. We can do the oil piece of it. That is just
a small part of the 86 oilers that are said to be necessary. How do
we get the rest of them?
So, let us spend some time working our way through that and
use this year to get us on a new charted path.
Thank you. I yield.
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Chairman.
Again, thank you to all the—thank you to all the witnesses. You
know, your testimony was really helpful and I am sure the dia-
logue will continue as we get closer to the April markup.
Thank you very much, and with that we close out the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
MARCH 11, 2020
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
MARCH 11, 2020
(35)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
MARCH 11, 2020
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. NORCROSS
Admiral WILLIAMSON. There is no shift in the chain of supplies for our carrier
moving from C–2A to CMV–22. In the Navy Aerial Logistics Concept of Operations,
Navy-unique Fleet-essential airlift, composed of fleet logistics support squadrons op-
erating the C–130T and C–40A aircraft, supports the forward logistics movement of
critical wartime supplies and personnel from the aerial point of debarkation to the
forward logistics site (FLS) or other fleet support location as dictated by the forward
deployed nature of naval operations. Fleet logistics multi-mission (CMV–22B) de-
tachments then provide the final link to finish the last leg of the logistics trail from
the FLS to the Carrier Strike Group via the CVN. In great power competition, the
goal is to ensure survivability of this logistics trail through unpredictability and use
of dispersed/mobile logistics sites. [See page 21.]
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KELLY
General LYONS. Yes, the Air Force completed a C–17 Product Support Business
Case Analysis in March 2019. Although I will defer to the Air Force to elaborate
on the details of that BCA, I am confident knowing that Air Force senior leadership
continues to assess options to improve C–17 sustainment in terms of cost, perform-
ance and risk—which, as you know, is critically important to our strategic airlift
fleet. [See page 19.]
General LYONS. The Air Force’s Air Mobility Command (AMC) represented the in-
terests of all C–17 users throughout the Product Support Business Case Analysis
effort. AMC is the air component of the U.S. Transportation Command and is re-
sponsible for a Total Force effort to execute Rapid Global Mobility and enable Global
Reach missions. [See page 19.]
General NAHOM. The Air Force’s Air Mobility Command (AMC) represented the
interests of all C–17 users throughout the Product Support Business Case Analysis
effort. AMC is the air component of the U.S. Transportation Command and is re-
sponsible for a Total Force effort to execute Rapid Global Mobility and enable Global
Reach missions. [See page 19.]
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. LURIA
Admiral WILLIAMSON. The President’s Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 requested
$60 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy funding to purchase two used, for-
eign built ships. In the March 2019 market survey, there were 58 vessel responses
of which nine were roll-on/roll-off vessels that met or exceeded the minimum oper-
ational requirements. Of those nine, five vessels are enrolled in the Maritime Secu-
rity Program, therefore, they are U.S.-flagged, deemed military useful by the U.S.
Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), and do not require major modifications
or conversions. Three of these five vessels are between the ages of 20 and 25 years
with an average estimated procurement cost, including reflagging and reclassifica-
tion to meet ABS standards, of $30 million each. Vessel surveys scheduled to be con-
ducted on proposed ships for purchase will be conducted in the 4th Quarter of FY
2020. Any additional upgrades required to make the used ships militarily compat-
ible, such as communications and other electronic equipment, would be assessed and
the total price tag for those additional upgrades would be included in a future budg-
et submission. [See page 29.]
(83)
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
MARCH 11, 2020
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN
Mr. WITTMAN. In recent years, commercial ship owners and operators, and certain
classification societies, have begun using digital analytic tools and artificial intel-
ligence (AI) capabilities to aid in the overall maintenance and management of ves-
sels. These tools also apply to the commercial offshore exploration and drilling in-
dustries. These tools can be particularly important for tracking the readiness of our
nation’s fleet, as highlighted in the recent turbo activation of sealift vessels. The
material condition of many government vessels is a major issue affecting our na-
tion’s ability to go to war. These advanced analytic tools have been incorporated into
a pilot program to determine their effectiveness at Military Sealift Command (MSC)
within U.S. Navy. Ultimately these tools can and will be used with the classification
societies in a condition-based maintenance approach versus the former time-based
methods of periodic maintenance on ships. These tools, coupled with new classifica-
tion methods, are expected to streamline maintenance planning and provide clarity
into the readiness status of MSC’s vessels. These tools can equally benefit the U.S.
Navy surface and auxiliary fleet as well as the sealift fleet.
Since Navy already applies commercial classification rules for shipbuilding and
lifecycle operations, the potential exists for these advanced digital classification and
AI tools to assist Navy and MARAD with ship management and maintenance plan-
ning. To that end:
1. With the success demonstrated to date at MSC, is the U.S. Navy and MARAD
considering incorporation of digital analytic tools and AI methods into other surface
vessels?
2. If not, why not? If yes, when does Navy and MARAD plan to utilize these tools
for maintenance planning and condition monitoring on its ships?
3. Has Navy considered a pilot program with these new tools similar to the pilot
program MSC has underway? If no, why not?
Admiral BUZBY. The same challenges that exist for ensuring the readiness of our
Nation’s aging surge sealift fleet exist with respect to adopting new technologies. To
that end, MARAD has always been open to incorporating new technologies into ves-
sel management and maintenance when appropriate and resources are available to
do so. For example, MARAD will evaluate technology to perform tank inspections
and robotic hull cleaning, which could decrease resource requirements and increase
availability of vessels. In addition, the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) has in-
troduced Image Recognition Technology that has received class approval. There are
more than 20 approved providers that perform these surveys. It is anticipated that
all these processes will become more available for the ship manager/owner; however,
there is presently a long lead time to apply for these services.
It is difficult to make any type of gains for a fleet that exceeds 46-years of age;
however, MARAD recognizes that improving maintenance means a reliance on data
and effective maintenance protocols that don’t simply focus on time. MARAD re-
cently attended the ABS Special Committee for Ship Operations meeting in Feb-
ruary 2020, and we continue to review emerging maintenance approaches proposed
by the classification society.
In 2016, MARAD provided Chief of Naval Operations staff (OPNAV N2/N6E) with
points of contact at MSC for development of a digital twin for the LMSR ships and
fleet oilers (T–AO), however these digital twins are most relevant for new ships
where automation, and instrumentation are included from new construction.
Additionally, MARAD operates and maintains the National Defense Reserve Fleet
(NDRF), including both Ready Reserve Force (RRF) and the training ship fleet made
available to state maritime academies, under memorandums of understanding
(MOUs) with both the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the ABS. These MOUs have
defined requirements that MARAD must meet, which do not necessarily align with
advances in AI and new conditions-based maintenance protocols. In short, advances
in data analysis have exceeded legacy procedures, due to technology or regulatory
requirements (e.g. 46 CFR Subchapter R for public nautical school ships). MARAD
expects the National Security Multi-Mission Vessel (NSMV) Vessel Construction
Manager to incorporate as many new capabilities as possible in constructing the
NSMVs. The Navy and MARAD will do the same when acquiring used vessels to
recapitalize the legacy RRF fleet.
(87)
88
MARAD’s NDRF, including RRF vessels were last recapitalized during the 1990s,
and these ships contain a wide-range of technology and instrumentation from the
1960s through 1990s. Despite modernization that is often limited by available re-
sources, a significant segment of the analysis requires greater instrumentation than
is currently available to us.
MARAD has a continuous dialogue with ABS staff and with ABS Consulting to
identify relevant tools or analysis that could improve readiness and availability of
aging vessels. During these engagements, the promise of gains quickly conflicts with
the existing conditions onboard an aging fleet of vessels where data for analysis is
simply unavailable. While in Reduced Operating Status (ROS), the RRF vessels are
effectively in a continuous maintenance availability vice the selective restricted
availability of similar Navy vessels. MARAD is working with ABS to identify main-
tenance protocols that change from time-based requirements to conditions-based re-
quirements. Often, these conditions-based requirements are queued to operating
vessels and some are therefore unsuitable for ROS vessels, in long-term lay berth
conditions.
When practical, MARAD analyzes data resident in MARAD’s commercial, off-the-
shelf system known as Nautical Systems-Enterprise (NS–E). MARAD is working in
conjunction with ABS Consulting, the provider for NS–E, to identify greater and
more in-depth reporting and dashboards that use NS–E data for informed decision
making. MARAD selected NS–E to support the Ready Reserve Force Management
System. This comprehensive data repository helps MARAD and contracted Ship
Managers guide preventive maintenance, logistics management, and even
resourcing decisions on a highly adaptable and widely used commercial platform.
MARAD defers to Navy for comment on development of a pilot program.
MARAD is actively participating in the Performance-to-Plan effort being con-
ducted by the Center for Naval Analyses funded by the Director, Strategic Mobility/
Combat Logistics Division, Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV N42). The goal of
this effort is to develop decision tools and ‘‘levers’’ that can affect readiness to has-
ten gains in vessel availability and readiness.
Mr. WITTMAN. Classification societies have developed cyber security protocols and
notations for industry use that promote security and consequently ensure compli-
ance with government contracting requirements. These cybersecurity and risk man-
agement protocols are a combination of human and technical factors and are based
on an overall security strategy for the business or organization. Government con-
tracting requirements for cybersecurity continue to evolve and tighten as threats
evolve.
1. How does Navy/MARAD measure security capabilities onboard surface ships in
ways that allow integration of commercial industry best practices, but with Govern-
ment security requirements in mind?
2. What has Navy/MARAD done to incorporate the classification standards for cy-
bersecurity piloted by Military Sealift Command for other Navy/MARAD ships and
systems?
3. Will the Navy consider specifying classification standards for cybersecurity and
tools similar to the MSC pilot program in contracts for leased, contract operated and
new construction contracts?
Admiral BUZBY. MARAD ships maintain a current Vessel Security Plan, approved
by the USCG, and handled and protected as Sensitive Security Information. This
document includes best practices from the commercial industry, and it is common
practice that these are updated as new threats, vulnerabilities, or concerns are iden-
tified. The USCG is responsible for interpreting and implementing the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) requirements as well as any other commercial mari-
time cyber requirements for U.S. vessels, including on RRF ships.
MARAD encourages all commercial operators to adopt effective cybersecurity
measures and to report vulnerabilities as appropriate to ensure safety and contin-
ued, effective operations of ships, ports, and the networks that support them. We
also, support industry efforts to adopt best practices and see promise in the forward-
looking guidance of the IMO to align cybersecurity as a component of safety.
Finally, MARAD’s contract for services of the onboard network known as the
Ready Reserve Force Management System (RMS) includes cybersecurity elements,
response, and authentication processes. We will consider increasing the breadth of
cybersecurity requirements, and a focus on more support for response to any breach
or vulnerability, in future contracts.
MARAD also hosted cybersecurity penetration tests, and will continue to do so
during FY20.
There is no current classification society standard that is required. We have
worked with ABS Consulting to determine if ABS’s CyberSafety Notation will meet
the requirements of the IMO and keep NDRF/RRF vessels available.
89
MARAD permitted ABS to assess the Fast Sealift Ship (FSS) Regulus to fully de-
velop their onboard assessment model. They returned to the vessel to further refine
the model, and much of this effort is now being used in the version used for MSC.
MARAD believes that the presence of Contract Mariners (CONMARs) on the ma-
jority of sealift ships means that any cybersecurity practice should reflect commer-
cial practices with which the mariner pool is likely to be familiar.
MARAD’s FY 2020 Ready Reserve Force (RRF) program funding from Department
of Navy included $1 million that was requested for cybersecurity initiatives. The
funding will be used to engage a cybersecurity contactor to perform a baseline as-
sessment of the RRF fleet to help develop additional management practices that
meet IMO guidance and are acceptable to USCG and ABS.
MARAD defers to Navy to comment on what it will specify with respect to classi-
fication standards. MARAD already has cybersecurity requirements in its contract
for the operation of the RMS network. The systems, applications, and networks
MSC uses are significantly different than from those MARAD uses on the RRF fleet.
With regard to the NSMV, the Vessel Construction Manager is responsible for devel-
opment of cybersecurity considerations which will align with commercial best prac-
tices.
Mr. WITTMAN. In recent years, commercial ship owners and operators, and certain
classification societies, have begun using digital analytic tools and artificial intel-
ligence (AI) capabilities to aid in the overall maintenance and management of ves-
sels. These tools also apply to the commercial offshore exploration and drilling in-
dustries. These tools can be particularly important for tracking the readiness of our
nation’s fleet, as highlighted in the recent turbo activation of sealift vessels. The
material condition of many government vessels is a major issue affecting our na-
tion’s ability to go to war. These advanced analytic tools have been incorporated into
a pilot program to determine their effectiveness at Military Sealift Command (MSC)
within U.S. Navy. Ultimately these tools can and will be used with the classification
societies in a condition-based maintenance approach versus the former time-based
methods of periodic maintenance on ships. These tools, coupled with new classifica-
tion methods, are expected to streamline maintenance planning and provide clarity
into the readiness status of MSC’s vessels. These tools can equally benefit the U.S.
Navy surface and auxiliary fleet as well as the sealift fleet.
Since Navy already applies commercial classification rules for shipbuilding and
lifecycle operations, the potential exists for these advanced digital classification and
AI tools to assist Navy and MARAD with ship management and maintenance plan-
ning. To that end:
1. With the success demonstrated to date at MSC, is the U.S. Navy and MARAD
considering incorporation of digital analytic tools and AI methods into other surface
vessels?
2. If not, why not? If yes, when does Navy and MARAD plan to utilize these tools
for maintenance planning and condition monitoring on its ships?
3. Has Navy considered a pilot program with these new tools similar to the pilot
program MSC has underway? If no, why not?
Admiral.WILLIAMSON. 1. With the success demonstrated to date at MSC, is the U.S.
Navy and MARAD considering incorporation of digital analytic tools and AI methods
into other surface vessels?
• Yes. The digital modeling, data collection and AI approach is designed to apply
to any surface ship. The digital twin model of the ships structures are built
through finite element analysis tools that would apply to any vessel. Machine
learning technology is used for corrosion and coating analysis applied to the dig-
ital twin model for predictive analytics and repair recommendations.
• Similarly, Machinery Health Monitoring (MHM) capabilities can be applied to
any machinery whether on a surface ship or an ashore facility. Machinery
anomaly detection analytics of gauge data is applied to individual machine dig-
ital models. Historical machinery data is used to train AI anomaly detection
that is correlated to past failures. The resultant machinery models will there-
fore detect future anomalies and provide alerts prior to failure. Mature machin-
ery models will ultimately be able to provide failure projections, which will sup-
port refined maintenance planning and assist with risk-based decisions.
• Based on the progress of MSC’s pilot program, the Naval Sea Systems Com-
mand (NAVSEA) Condition Based Maintenance Plus Enterprise System
(CBM+ES) program intends to complete a data analytics project with ABS to
develop a suite of algorithms (supervised and unsupervised) to detect early indi-
cations of failures on LPD49 Class Drive Train. They will develop corresponding
prototype software user interfaces to provide situational awareness of condition
assessment. ABS will deliver software requirements to the CBM+ES Program
for implementation of ABS algorithms and user interfaces into the Navy’s data
90
repository for machinery assessment. This data repository is available to any
maintenance technician or engineer to access with a CAC card.
• MARAD continues to review emerging maintenance approaches proposed by the
classification society. MARAD recently attended the ABS Special Committee for
Ship Operations meeting in February 2020, and recognizes using data analytics
in a condition-based approach is a more effective maintenance strategy com-
pared to time-based approach. time-based
2. If not, why not? If yes, when does Navy and MARAD plan to utilize these tools
for maintenance planning and condition monitoring on its ships?
• Yes, the Navy’s CBM+ES program will complete a data analytics project with
ABS in FY20.
• MARAD currently uses analysis of data, resident in MARAD’s commercial, off-
the-shelf (COTS) system known as Nautical Systems-Enterprise (NS–E).
MARAD is working with ABS Consulting, the provider for NS–E, to identify
greater more in-depth, enterprise-wide reporting and dashboards that use NS–
E data to inform decision-making. MARAD selected NS, later upgraded to be
an enterprise wide application to support the Ready Reserve Force Management
System (RMS). This comprehensive data repository helps MARAD and con-
tracted Ship Managers guide preventive maintenance, logistics management,
and even resourcing decisions on a highly adaptable and widely used commer-
cial platform.
3. Has Navy considered a pilot program with these new tools similar to the pilot
program MSC has underway? If no, why not?
• Yes. Navy is embracing advanced technology to optimize maintenance costs
while increasing materiel readiness through the use of sensor based tech-
nologies and prognostic health monitoring. NAVSEA is moving forward to in-
crease use of CBM+ technologies where applicable and cost effective. The entire
shipboard CBM+ portfolio will be managed by NAVSEA’s Chief Engineer. This
will ensure tested and validated CBM+ solutions and capabilities are applied
across the Navy’s fleet, with common data assessment and ship maintenance
strategies that can be tailored to specific ship classes/hulls and onboard sys-
tems/equipment.
Mr. WITTMAN. Classification societies have developed cyber security protocols and
notations for industry use that promote security and consequently ensure compli-
ance with government contracting requirements. These cybersecurity and risk man-
agement protocols are a combination of human and technical factors and are based
on an overall security strategy for the business or organization. Government con-
tracting requirements for cybersecurity continue to evolve and tighten as threats
evolve.
1. How does Navy/MARAD measure security capabilities onboard surface ships in
ways that allow integration of commercial industry best practices, but with Govern-
ment security requirements in mind?
2. What has Navy/MARAD done to incorporate the classification standards for cy-
bersecurity piloted by Military Sealift Command for other Navy/MARAD ships and
systems?
3. Will the Navy consider specifying classification standards for cybersecurity and
tools similar to the MSC pilot program in contracts for leased, contract operated and
new construction contracts?
Admiral WILLIAMSON. 1. How does Navy/MARAD measure security capabilities
onboard surface ships in ways that allow integration of commercial industry best
practices, but with Government security requirements in mind?
• Navy and MSC abide by Department of Defense requirements to assess cyberse-
curity via National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) 800–53 stand-
ards, Risk Management Framework. There is flexibility in how these standards
are implemented as long as the standards themselves are met. Industry best
practices can be used as long as they meet the 800–53 requirements.
• In accordance with Assistant Secretary of the Navy Research Development and
Acquisition memo dated 6 Sep 2019, MSC incorporates Defense Federal Acquisi-
tion Regulations Supplement (DFARS) 252.204–7012 requirements into all con-
tracts with commercial operating companies, obliging them to abide by NIST
800–171 cybersecurity standards Industry best practices can be used as long as
they meet the 800–171 requirements. MSC will be incorporating the Cybersecu-
rity Maturing Model Certification (CMMC) as guidance is released by DOD.
CMMC will require third-party certification that contractors are meeting cyber-
security requirements. The number and granularity of the cyber requirements
will be commensurate with the sensitivity of the data that the contractor proc-
esses.
91
• MARAD ships maintain a current, approved Vessel Security Plan, approved by
the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and handled and protected as Sensitive Security
Information (SSI). This document includes best practices from commercial in-
dustry and is routinely reviewed and updated as new threat, vulnerabilities, or
concerns are identified.
• MARAD’s contract for services of the onboard network known as the Ready Re-
serve Force Management System (RMS) includes cybersecurity elements, re-
sponse, and authentication processes.
• MARAD plans to host additional cybersecurity penetration tests during FY20.
2. What has Navy/MARAD done to incorporate the classification standards for cy-
bersecurity piloted by Military Sealift Command for other Navy/MARAD ships and
systems?
• There is no current classification society standard that is required. MARAD has
worked with American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Consulting to determine if
ABS’ CyberSafety Notation will meet the requirements of the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) and keep National Defense Reserve Fleet
(NDRF)/Ready Reserve Fleet (RRF) vessels available.
• Navy and MSC are guided by the same Department of Defense requirements
to assess cybersecurity via NIST 800–53 standards via the Risk Management
Framework process for cybersecurity of Navy-owned ships and systems.
3. Will the Navy consider specifying classification standards for cybersecurity and
tools similar to the MSC pilot program in contracts for leased, contract operated and
new construction contracts? Not yet. To date MSC has been focused on the pilot, the
results of which will determine how the classification standards can be incorporated
for leased, contract operated or new construction contracts. However, MSC has been
working with ABS to develop a government-specific CyberSafety notation, which is
an independent review. The notation provides a foundation for the assessment of a
subset of NIST standards required for government systems (NIST 800–53, Risk
Management Framework) and focuses on the assessment of an organization’s overall
cybersecurity strategy as well as the security of operational technology (OT) sys-
tems. The notation is complimentary, but does not replace the Risk Management
Framework requirements.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. NORCROSS
Mr. NORCROSS. As the Navy continues its modernization to address great power
competition, logistics will be critically important. The Navy has announced the
CMV–22 Osprey as its next carrier onboard delivery (COD) aircraft. After com-
pleting its first flight operation earlier this year, the CMV–22 is scheduled for its
first operational deployment in 2021 aboard the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson.
Can you talk about how this aircraft will support carrier-based logistics? Given
the enhancements to the CMV–22B, are you considering the platform for a larger
mission set?
Admiral WILLIAMSON. The CMV–22B Osprey re-capitalizes the long-range aerial
logistics support and carrier onboard delivery (COD) capabilities from the aging C–
2A Greyhound, remaining a critical enabler to carrier air wing (CVW) operations.
The CMV–22B is a variant of the MV–22 with additional range and avionics up-
grades that enable carrier strike group (CSG) integration and is an integral part
of the F–35B/C logistics support at sea Concept of Operations. While the use of the
CMV–22B will be primarily for COD, the fleet will benefit from the tiltrotor capa-
bility in support of a wide variety of other warfighting areas. CMV–22B secondary
missions include: vertical onboard delivery/vertical replenishment as an adjunct to
MH–60S; casualty evacuation; Naval special warfare support; missions of state to
included distinguished visitor movement and humanitarian assistance and disaster
relief; search and rescue as an adjunct to MH–60S. The increased capability of the
tiltrotor CMV–22B over the legacy C–2A will allow evolution of the long range aer-
ial logistics mission from a central point that supplies the CSG, to a point-to-point
concept. This flexibility will improve the Navy’s ability to maintain forward presence
by enabling forces to sustain prolonged operations with credible combat capacity.
Given the enhancements to the CMV–22B, we are currently considering the CMV–
22B for an expanded mission set. Analysis of this requirement increase and the as-
sociated force structure requirements is ongoing and expect to be completed in the
future. Currently, the CMV–22B program is only resourced to support re-supply of
the CSG. With the evolution of Distributed Maritime Operations and Expeditionary
Advanced Base Operations concepts, the intra-theater airlift requirement will in-
crease. Following initial operational capability in fiscal year 2021, the CMV–22B
program will begin post-production integration of additional capabilities to better
92
enable great power competition and civil aviation requirements. These additional ca-
pabilities include: Link-16; required navigation performance area navigation; sec-
ondary beyond line-of-sight communications; upgrade to the Mobile User Objective
System satellite communications system; Joint Precision Approach Landing System.
These capabilities will be critical to ensuring CMV–22B logistics support in a high-
end fight.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. VELA
Mr. VELA. What activities are you doing to further advertise and recruit more
mariners? Can you talk to how you’ve balanced having the right qualifications on-
board, while having a large enough pool of citizens to recruit from?
Admiral BUZBY. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is exploring a range of
options to ensure that a sufficient number mariners are trained and available to
crew the U.S. Government owned fleet in times of crisis. This is a challenge, due
to the number of vessels in the U.S. flag commercial fleet and jobs available to U.S.-
citizen mariners. Maritime Security Program vessel operators employ up to 2,400
of these mariners, which provides some reserve of crew needed. However, concerns
exist about having enough mariners to meet sealift needs during a full mobilization
exceeding 4–6 months in duration. There continues to be significant interest in
working in the industry. Each of the maritime academies has more qualified appli-
cants than they can accept, which is also true of the union, commercial, and commu-
nity college maritime schools. MARAD is researching ways to ascertain mariner
availability and willingness to serve in times of crisis. The goal of this research ef-
fort is to help us better determine the numbers of mariners who might be available.
MARAD continues to pursue opportunities to encourage private operators to inter-
nationally sail U.S. flag vessels that employ U.S. mariners. MARAD further sup-
ports the industry by operating the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) and
assisting the six State Maritime Academies (SMA) to keep the pipeline of qualified
mariners going. Also, pursuant to Congressional authority, MARAD established a
program to recognize Maritime Centers of Excellence (CoE) for domestic maritime
workforce training and education offered through qualified community colleges and
maritime training centers. MARAD leverages its resources to aggressively advertise
the opportunities available in the maritime industry. We publish informational
booklets and pamphlets and maintain a dedicated phone line for the public to call
and have their questions answered. For almost a decade, MARAD, in cooperation
with the USMMA and SMAs, has co-sponsored the Annual Women on the Water
Conference at one of the seven maritime academies. This gives an opportunity for
all aspiring mariners, especially aspiring women mariners, to learn about current
issues and opportunities, and network with leaders and role models in the maritime
world.
Mr. VELA. The Navy has stated it will purchase two used sealift ships this year.
Can you provide this committee the actual or planned dates for RFP release, when
proposals are due and when the Navy will award the contract for those two ships?
Admiral WILLIAMSON. The used vessel contracting strategy will be executed
through a joint Department of Navy (DON)/Department of Transportation (DOT) ac-
quisition program. DOT’s Maritime Administration (MARAD) will lead program
management activities using a Vessel Acquisition Manager (VAM) with assistance
from the Navy’s Program Executive Office, Ships, as the Milestone Decision Author-
ity (MDA). While DOD retains overall oversight, MDA and MARAD are finalizing
the processes, roles and responsibilities associated with the stand-up of an Inte-
grated Program Office for the acquisition of sealift used vessels. The acquisition of
the used ships is contingent on having a Vessel Acquisition Manager who will assist
the DOD/DOT team with identifying and selecting used vessels to fulfill DOD sealift
requirements (VAM) under contract. On February 24, 2020, MARAD released a Re-
quest for Proposal (RFP) to hire a VAM for the recapitalization of the aging surge
sealift fleet. VAM offers were originally due April 1, 2020 to facilitate acquisition
of the first two vessels in FY21. Proposals have been delayed 30 days to May 1,
2020 due to COVID19 impacts. Navy and MARAD will evaluate proposals and an-
ticipate awarding VAM contract in July 2020. Following the VAM contract award,
the program can proceed with the acquisition of the first used sealift ship, expected
in Q1 of FY21, followed by the second ship later in the FY.
Æ
File and source
- File
- CHRG-116hhrg41866.pdf
- Size
- 800,412 bytes
- SHA-256
- d279ed73ed59df64162041c3b2ec8ac3d5341d7ea34621a10ddba2d64fca7f6e
- Our copy
- CHRG-116hhrg41866.pdf
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov