Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Request for Seapower and Projection Forces

The subcommittee will come to order. I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to declare a recess at any time. Without objection, so ordered. Good afternoon and thank you all for being here t- for today's hearing. As we discuss the Navy's needs and the Sea Power and Projection Forces subcommittee's jurisdiction for the upcoming fiscal year I am pleased that we have thirty year shipbuilding plan and the Future Wars Defense Program to help inform our discussion here today. The global threat environment has only grown more complex and nuanced over the last year. Now more than ever, we have had to turn the tide of divestment, retiring more holes than we procure is simply not an option anymore. We're not going to sacrifice capa- capability in a critical window for deterrence. For starters, we need to keep our rate of procuring two Virginia class submarines per year, and ensuring our production rate improves. We also need to speed up both production and procurement of amphibs. Our current procure- procurement timelines are hamstringing our Marine Corps and making a continuous three point O R mu presence more and more difficult. These and countless other programs have long been hampered by hot and cold demand signals from Congress. But as we work together to revitalize our maritime industrial base and begin putting money towards the arsenal of the future there is no way th- this is not a way to be doing business. We could discuss ship building for the entire hearing, as we often do around here, but I cannot neglect the aviation and munitions programs that are needed to g- for great power competition. I look forward to discussing the plans for critical platforms like the P-eight and the KC-one-thirty J's as well as critical munitions like the SM-six and heavy weight torpedoes that underpin our deterrent posture. These and so many other programs are central to projecting peace through strength around the globe. I'm encouraged by the strong budget authority for shipbuilding, aviation platforms, and critical munitions requested in the President's historical budget. But I also recognize that these are the first steps in what will be a long effort towards a thriving national defense and a rejuvenated defense industrial base. Only then can we truly deliver on the promises of peace through strength. I rec- I now recognize my good friend, ranking member Joe Courtney, for any opening remarks he might have.

Thank you. Um Mister Chairman, thank you um to our great panel uh today. Um as a member of this committee for the last twenty years, I want to preface my remarks with the observation that there is a lot to like uh in the budget that was sent over uh by the department and the administration which I will lay out. I have to say at the beginning though that the insistence of the Office of Management and Budget to once again splinter the budget in two via a reconciliation bill in my opinion undercuts the goal of procurement stability, uh which again is really necessary to achieve the goal of supercharging the industrial base, which again, Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith have indicated is really sort of the number one priority um in this this year. Starting with a positive, the request for thirty-four billion dollars across Columbia, Virginia and next generation submarine programs will enable our shipyards to continue their positive momentum and to to gr- to grow Navy's undersea fleet which today still dominates uh across the the globe. and further enables us to fulfill our AUKUS commitments. US submarine tonnage output has now in in twenty twenty uh six reached Cold War levels and Columbia's first of class submarine the District of Columbia actually moved up its delivery date to twenty twenty eight from twenty twenty nine wage improvement funding which Congress first appropriated in FY twenty five is also integral to our ability to increase submarine production. In southern New England attrition is now below eight percent in the shipyards, which is the lowest uh that they've seen since the pandemic. I'm pleased that the Navy has continued its commitment to these wages in this year's discretionary budget requests. I'm also pleased to see significant requests for auxiliary and support vessels including submarine tenders oilers and strategic sealift. It is not possible to revitalize the US maritime industrial base with combatant vessels alone, and I'm glad to see that this subcommittee's long held belief uh in terms of supporting this end of the fleet is finally getting uh traction. The robust request for twelve P-eights is a needed boost. P-eights are critical assets to our Navy and also uh to those to our allies and partners uh who help defend our homeland from adversaries' sub-C capabilities. The recent news that news of the PMI MQ twenty-five A completed milestone C and will move the program to production and deployment, also is um welcome news and is gonna really help uh the Navy with the more diverse aerial refueling options and greatly improve naval aviation read readiness. As I said at the outset, the entire department of the Navy's uh shipbuilding, twen- thirty-eight point eight billion is locked behind the administration's insistence on using uh a reconciliation process for again the total budget in the in the department uh which is one point five trillion uh three hundred and fifty billion of that is gonna be reconciliation. This bifurcated funding in FY twenty-six created a lot of confusion last year in the industrial base because the office of management and budget which has unfettered control over that money rather than appropriated congressional line items. It has also come to my attention yesterday that there is concern about a potential ambiguity in the FY twenty-six appropriation language and how it relates to FY twenty-four's multi-year authorization uh for uh the block six contract. This last minute development is yet another example of the need to follow regular appropriations order and of authorizations order and stop relying on CRs and reconciliation pa- packages which again because of the confusion can allow boilerplate language to suddenly create some new challenges and and concerns. And I will be asking uh the witness uh Mister Potter uh again a question about that in a few minutes um you know under the purview of this uh subcommittee five point six billion of total ship building funds are locked behind reconciliation And chief among my concern is that again the six medium landing ships, which is again a a, you know, much needed uh asset for the Marine Corps, uh is a part of that five point six billion reconciliation. It's critical that we need to grow our amphibious fleet. And hopefully uh that's not gonna be jeopardized in terms of um uh putting that funding in in reconciliation. I also disagree with the decision to procure only one Arleigh Burke destroyer, which is a staple of our fleet. Um and the battleship uh again which I talked about last week has gone from a poster board to one billion dollars in this year's budget request, six hundred and ten million of which is going towards long lead items and outfitting despite not even having a design anywhere close to finished. And again seeing uh a a request in that fit up for year two of seventeen point six billion dollars for this program, uh again that's just an amount of money um that really defies um I think logic, in terms of the fact that we just do not have anything close to design and now with the new nuclear powered uh proposal uh out there um again is really a prerequisite to having any program, let alone this one, really uh move forward with the kind of money that's been uh requested. So, sufficient to say there's a a road ahead of us in terms of just determining what the next large surface combatant will be and what will be the plan to insure that we ad- address looming shortfalls in in vertical missile tubes which again we discussed yesterday uh at a a meeting in my office lastly i would uh like the committee to continue working with the navy on on resourcing unmanned capabilities while these program lines have received significant funding last year there was minimal funding in this year's request this sector is rapidly evolving and last year's NDA and the pentagon have done good work to facilitate improved acquisition so again a long-term and sustainable strategy in this area is required from the Navy and that certainly will be one of the focuses uh for our subcommittee for FY twenty-sevens and DAA. And with that I yield back.

Uh thank you, Mr. Courtney. We now have today, we have Mr. Jason Potter performing the duties of Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research Development and Acquisition. We have Rear Admiral Mark Binning, Acting Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfighting Requirements and Capabilities. And Lieutenant General Eric E. Alston. Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for the Combat Development Integration. Uh with that, Mister Potter, I'm gonna recognize you and Admiral and General Yalkin, go in whatever order you like.

Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member Courtney, distinguished members of the subcommittee, good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Department of the Navy's fiscal year twenty twenty seven budget request. I'm honored to be joined by General Austin and Admiral Benning. We appreciate the subcommittee's steadfast support for our sailors, Marines, civilian workforce and their families, including the resources and authorities you provide to defend our nation. This past year our Navy and Marine Corps celebrated two hundred and fifty years of teamwork which continues to underpin American sea power. Our founding fathers quickly recognized that protecting our commerce and defending the homeland required a strong Navy and Marine Corps. At the turn of the twentieth century, President Roosevelt's vision to expand American influence centered on deploying the sixteen battleships of the great white fleet around the world to project peace through strength. In the twenty-first century, Russia, China, and other nations continued to expand militarily, and as Acting Secretary Cao has stated, we are at another strategic inflection point where strong action is needed to shore up American maritime dominance. The President's maritime golden age strategy is driving that action with a generational investment that began last year with one big beautiful bill and continues with the fiscal year twenty twenty seven request. Our historic Department of the Navy budget request of three hundred and seventy-seven point five billion dollars includes thirty-four new ships, varying from small craft to new large combatants to recapitalizing a host of auxiliaries. Over the next five years we plan to procure a hundred and twenty-two manned and sixty-three medium unmanned vessels reaching four hundred and fifty total naval vessels in twenty thirty-one. The administration's Golden Fleet initiative, the strategic approach to deliver more combat capability to the fleet consists of three pillars. First, maintain and enhance maritime dominance. We're expanding the ways the naval service will ensure victory over any adversary, with a high-low mix of capabilities, through investment in current and new classes of combat ships, recapitalization of auxiliaries, and new capabilities such as unmanned vessels, that multiply effects. Second, revitalize the industrial base. We're revitalizing the defense industrial base across America with tens of billions of dollars in stable predictable long-term investments to get more systems fielded bolstering high skill, high wage American jobs. By prioritizing the auxiliary ships that get us to and sustain us in a fight far from home, we'll both meet the needs of the fleet and assist in regenerating capacity for commercial ship building. Third, change how we do business. We're moving from an acquisition system uh that's compliance-based, to an outcome-focused war-fighting enterprise, restoring accountability, rewarding performance, and embracing advanced technology to deliver capability at speed, by enforcing discipline, leveraging distributed production, and enabling stable, repeatable work. We are deploying innovative contract structures to better balance risk and opportunity. Canceling or restructuring programs that were not delivering, too expensive or too late. Initiating programs that will better meet war-fighting and operational requirements. And transforming Navy acquisition through the establishment of ten portfolio acquisition executives, as required by the fiscal year twenty twenty-six National Defense Authorization Act to streamline acquisition and more rapidly deliver, capabilities to the fleet. General Austin is one of these ten PAEs. Beyond ships, we're funding the readiness of our fleet to ninety-five percent, buying a hundred and twenty-three new aircraft, procuring both high-end and low-cost munitions to fill our magazines, accelerating Marine Corps forced design investments, and prioritizing research and development to ensure sailors and Marines can defeat any adversary for decades to come. The challenges the challenges ahead are real, but so are the opportunities. Rebuilding our industrial capacity is a long-term effort that requires a broad, sustained commitment. The Department of the Navy is fully committed to this mission. With your continued support, we will ensure the United States Navy and Marine Corps remain the most capable, ready, and lethal naval force in the world. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

Chairman Kelly, Ranking Manager Courtney, committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the U. S. Navy's sea power investment. priorities for twenty twenty seven. Thank you also for your efforts both on Capitol Hill and in your districts to support our servicemen and women as they protect our great nation. Your oversight and funding ensure they are properly equipped to face the challenges of twenty first century warfare. At this very moment, tens of thousands of service members are forward deployed across multiple oceans and time zones. Their resilience and lethality m- remain the true measure of our naval power. The imperative for this maritime combat power is no longer theoretical, It is observable and urgent. Across multiple theaters, U. S. Naval Forces are actively engaged in operations to deter aggression, and to ensure a free and open maritime domain. Today's security environment is faster, more lethal, and more contested than anything we have experienced in modern history. Meeting this challenge requires more than an incremental upgrade, it requires fundamental shift. This shift is the driving force behind the President's twenty twenty seven budget. This is a bold reimagining of American sea power. Instead of relying solely on traditional fleet architectures, we're building a highly adaptable distributed maritime force. We are teaming premier high-end carriers, surface combatants, and submarines with increasing number of tailorable unmanned and rapidly deployable platforms. This high-low approach expands our reach, increases our flexibility, and complicates our adversaries' targeting calculus. It ensures that even in the most heavily contested waters, we can see further, hit harder, and adapt faster than any competitor. The President's twenty twenty-seven budget request reflects the need for both sustaining our fleet while also driving transformative efforts to extend our maritime dominance into the future. It includes critical investments to modernize our aging shipyards, to advance the production of munitions, and to reinforce the industrial base that builds, arms, and sustains our fleet. This committee is a central partner in preserving American maritime supremacy, Your steadfast support is what makes this transition possible and is what will help us build the naval force capable of not only deterring but also if called upon, to win decisively in any future conflict. Thank you again for your time and uh continued dedication and support to our men and women in uniform. I look forward to your questions.

General Olsen. Chairman Kelly, Ranking Member Courtney, and distinguished members of this subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I'm honored uh to join you alongside Mister Potter and Rear B- Admiral Benning. The pacing threat is not standing still, and neither are we. This budget as submitted balances crisis response with modernization and enables the Marine Corps to field war fighting capabilities at scale. We are implementing for our force-designed twenty-thirty vision. We are rapidly and responsibly modernizing and fielding capabilities that make our formations lethal and survivable. As we sit here today, over forty-three thousand Marines are forward-deployed or forward-stationed, campaigning, deterring, strengthening alliances, and in many cases they're fighting and they're counting on us. No formation combines Navy sea power with the Marine air ground task force in a more meaningful way than an amphibious ready group paired with a Marine expeditionary unit when a crisis erupts combatant commanders need capable, uh credible, and often lethal options that can respond within hours of tasking, operating forward from sovereign US territory afloat. The ARGMU provides deterrence, immediate global response options, it is the Swiss army knife of the joint force. In the last year alone, ARGMU's have combated narco-terrorism in the Caribbean, provided disaster relief in Jamaica, in Guam and in the Northern Marianas Islands. They've conducted combat operations across multiple geographic combatant commands and more campaigning and strengthening our relationships with allies and partners worldwide. Today as we sit here we have three Argamus deployed but unfortunately it's episodic, it is not sustainable. To best support global demand the Secretary of War has directed and the Acting Secretary of the Navy supports a continuous three point O Argamu posture is our North Star it is a shared goal, there is no daylight between the Navy and the Marine. to this end. The President's budget for physical year twenty-seven as submitted is a generational investment in the readiness and procurement of amphibious warfareships and enablers necessary to restore this model. Beyond physical presence, deterrence and crisis response rely on incredible combat power. To this end we're adapting and diversifying our fires portfolio with a focus on a high-low mix on the low end we're investing in low-cost attack drones and similar capabilities that provide precision, reach, mass and lethality, organic to our infantry battalions. An example of the high-end is the Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System, NEMESIS, which is being fielded today. Marine's leveraged NEMESIS to provide land-based fires that contribute to sea control and sea denial. This is new and this is important. This budget balances lethality and survivability. It makes necessary investments in our layered ground-based air defense and counter-UAS capabilities more than doubling last year's investments in this essential portfolio. Littoral surface mobility is a gap for today's force. The medium landing ship will provide Marines with organic surface mobility and maneuver essential for campaigning in the Indo-Pacific and applicable worldwide when operating in littorals it is late to need. We learned a hard lesson in execution of our initial acquisition strategy and rapidly reworked it which was resolved in the selection of a mature, nondevelopmental design. We're leveraging a vessel construction manager, multiple shipyards and have the resources to begin procurement of LSM. We will bend metal on our first article. year we are grateful for the support of the present congress, our navy partners, which all of which underpin our ability to rapidly pivot to this innovative acquisition strategy. Speaking of acquisition, we must go faster, we support and are fully engaged in the department-wide acquisition, reformed centered around the transition to the new portfolio acquisition executive construct. This construct provides the tools necessary to increase velocity, deliver integrated and lethal capabilities to the hands of our marines on an operationally relevant timeline. It is essential and notable that in this context, your Marine Corps remains committed to responsibly invest and fully account for every dollar we are provided. We recently earned our third clean audit opinion. We'll continue to account for the resources Congress and our nation provide. We're proud of this fact. And ladies and gentlemen, the FY twenty-seven budget as requested balances readiness with modernization and allows the Marine Corps to procure and field key capabilities at scale and enables us to remain first to fight our nation's expeditionary force in readiness with We're grateful for your continued support and I look forward to your questions.

I thank the witnesses. I now recognize myself for five minutes in questions. Mister Potter, strengthening and stabilizing the demand signal we are sending to the Defense Industrial Base has been a particular focus of this subcommittee and the full committee in recent years but the department also has a role to play in righting the wrongs of the past when it comes to acquisitions. Mister Potty Cur- Potter, can you shed some light on the efforts y'all are making on your end to steady the demand curve?

Uh, Chairman, thank you very much, and we agree that uh steady demand in providing uh the shipyards uh with as much kind of work as they can produce is a a key uh to how we grow the fleet. And so we're focused on um, you know, multi-year procurements are one of the best practices that we've got for um providing steady demand and ensuring through the budget cycles uh we stay uh committed to that. as you know we've got uh multi-ship procurements or multi-air procurements on amphibious ships on submarines, on destroyers, aircraft carriers are under a block by currently and uh oilers are under a block by so a number across all classes of ships, once we have a stable design uh we like to move into some kind of multi-ship procurement arrangement. Um beyond that this budget uh provides uh two additional um uh amphibious ships to really spool up the amphibious uh ship building production line and grow it, uh that gives it even uh greater demand and uh an incentive to reduce the intervals in those builds. So I think this this budget, sir, with the eighteen um battle force ships, sixteen non-battle force ships, thirty-four ships total, uh we're gonna send a strong demand signal to industry. There's there's we think about eighteen competitive um procurements in the the fit-up uh versus you know less than five in normal years because of how much new um activity and ship building programs were able to bring in the budget this year. So that is also additional demand opportunity um for our ship building industrial base and for us to work with them on how that fits um into their workload.

And I really want to thank you all for the thirty year ship building plan. Uh it's a start and we need to continue to refine and improve, but that's a big deal for sending a demand signal. Thank you for that. Uh, General Halston and Admiral Binning. Recent events have also been a reminder of the value and versatility of the three point O RGME presence as the tip of the spear as we project peace and strength throughout the growth. To that end, we're working on faster amphib production and procurement, but we also need to stop procrastinating on maintaining the odds we do have. General Halston, what kind of hurdles is that causing for the Marines and Admiral Binning? What is the Navy doing to get amphibs turned around quicker for maintenance?

Chairman, thank you for the question. Uh, it's obviously important to the Marine Corps, and uh I mentioned in my opening comments, as did you, the three point O ARGMU construct, which we think is necessary to provide uh the maximum coverage that we can for our nation uh in terms of campaigning and responding to crisis. Right now uh the uh readiness of our amphibious warfare ships does not support a three point O AR ARGMU uh which impacts both training and preparation, and certainly our coverage worldwide. As I stated today, we have three uh uh ARGMUs forward deployed. and they're doing glorious work. One will return soon, we'll we'll have two and then we'll start to experience more gaps. So uh the the the biggest thing I would say is the the gaps in coverage and the l- lack of support to our combatant commanders uh as articulated uh direct from them to, to the uh to the Chairman. Uh I will tell you that uh at the present time uh I said it in my statement, there is no daylight between the Navy and Marine Corps and we're in a good place. And one of the the key bodies that I'll I'll hand it off to uh Admiral Benning in a second here sir is the the uh amphibious forces uh readiness

Chairman, sir, thank you for the question. Chairman, sir, thank you for the question. Uh, Uh. as indicated, fully agree with with General Austin, no daylight between us. And as you highlighted, you know, readiness is not where it needs to be. We're not satisfied with that and we're working hard to get after that. A couple things that we're doing. There are five lines of effort in the uh amphibious force readiness board. Uh so there's one certainly looking at how do we better generate the force and and maintain it. Readiness in between its major maintenance availabilities, so that's the OFRP model and the and readiness. There's another line of effort that how do we make sure that the equipment that we have, the platforms that we have, we can extend those to to give us the force structure we need and we can modernize them so they remain combat capable uh in the future. And then the last part was certainly the the focus on a new construction. With regards to maintenance in particular, there's a couple things that we're doing uh t- in order to get after us changing how we think, act, operate differently. So there's a signature avails. We have moved the timeline for the planning from three months prior to the avail, to a year in advance, and we're locking those down so that we know what work is gonna be done, we get the parts in advance. We're looking at adding additional port engineers, so two port engineers per availability to help manage the workflow and setting conditions and and ensure we get through the work on time and on sequence we're taking some of the more challenging maintenance items such as diesel maintenance and and uh pulling those out of those avails and doing that at a different time and focused on that so you come in and more like a pit stop and you just focus on the diesel engine you get it done on time and then you you move out uh in addition

I'm I'm gonna take the rest for the record cuz my time's expired and I try to be

we've got

generous with these. too generous with these guys. So thank you, Admiral. Now recognize Mr. Courtney.

Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chair. So, uh, Mr. Potter, as I mentioned earlier, again, there's, um, some concern about some ambiguity that was in the, um, omnibus, uh, spending bill that, you know, some field maybe, um, conflicts or raises a question regarding the authorization of the Block six contract, which again, for the record, happened about twenty-eight months ago, uh, in terms of the uh NDA that was passed back then. We're we're really this is probably one of the longest gaps between authorization and execution of a block contract for the Virginia program. So again, can you just sort of describe what your sort of view is in terms of trying to get this issue resolved and move forward with execution of the contract?

Yes, sir. Um so we are uh aware of the issue and this is uh section at eight zero one zero and the year-long continuing resolution for defense. And I think uh it's it was written differently than either of the committee marks that came out of the two appropriations uh defense subcommittees and we're working very closely uh within the Department of War and with um the Office of Management and Budget and with the the committees were committed to sort of working through uh to find the appropriate uh remedy here cuz we believe uh the intent is to move forward with these contracts and it was not um intended uh the to hold it up. So we just need uh a little more time, sir, and we commit to get back to you with the outcome there.

I I appreciate that. And again, there's no question that um in FY twenty-four s the appropri appropriations bill and NDA both committees um you know were explicitly clear about the fact that you know those contracts were were authorized and and valid in terms and and part of the intent of Congress. So appreciate your efforts the that's there so um you know as i mentioned before i've been around long enough to sort of see some other programs with you know high hopes sort of not really materialize um the cruiser replacement uh program the c. g. x. um program you know zumwalt um again it was big plans to build a a large fleet of those ships that it was truncated after three uh ships uh were built um obviously littoral combat ship was always kind of a moving target and i think um Again, the size of that fleet also was truncated. So this new uh battleship proposal, which um came forward and I'll set aside for a moment any of the questions about its, you know, strategic um tactical value, but um in terms of industrial base um issues, um you know, it was a poster board in December. We we now got a budget document in front of us. There really is no design plans that have materialized yet at this point, yet it's talking about going into production and FYI um twenty eight and you know um i i just think the most optimistic hopes in terms of moving at that pace given the size of this platform the fact that it's now gonna be a nuclear powered uh vessel um and we only have two nuclear certified yards one that does not is not big enough to accommodate that large of a vessel up in uh groton uh and the other is pretty chock-a-block in terms of um uh you know, car- uh carrier construction that's going on there. So I I wanna just sort of raise those issues. If you wanted to comment, um, you know, we we there's a lot of discussions that are gonna go into this issue, I know, in the coming weeks.

Now, Congressman, I appreciate the opportunity to comment and we'll continue, um, to work with you and your staff to provide more information on this. And really we are mindful of the CGX, LCS, DDG one thousand, uh you know, and some of the best practices, lessons learned from those programs. And where we began on this was we knew we needed a larger, large surface combatant as Admiral Benning can kind of walk through the requirements, but to get to this point, uh, the DDG flight three is really full to the point we had to, you know, widen the stern by about six feet to fit the generators in as we added the more powerful radar. So we know we need a larger, large surface combatant to pace the threat in the twenty thirties and beyond. And we've used a design team that we've had together since about twenty twenty three, uh, on DDGX to move, uh, to the battleship, which is just a l- larger, uh, than we originally intended for DDGX. But it has mature systems. So the plan on the battleship is to use the proven SPY-six radar, Aegis baseline ten, proven ASW suite, um, the Mark forty-one vertical launcher. We're gonna bring a low risk, a larger volume missile, um, launcher as well. And then we'll have reservations for, so space, weight, power set aside for lasers and rail gun and things we will acknowledge are not ready to be part of the design today. And so that was always part of the plan with DDGX as well. So we're gonna pull through proven systems. The A one B uh propulsion plant on the carrier is the propulsion plant. So we view this as things that have been designed in in other ships that we need to work through the arrangements and how um on the battleship we're going to be able to design, but with the digital tools and design uh techniques we have, that's kind of how we feel like we can move forward on this time line. We're in what we call indicative design now, that comes before contract design, and we can walk you through kind of how our design build strategy is uh going forward.

Lots of questions. I'll yield back.

Gentleman's time expired like mine. I now recognize Mister Whitman. Thank you Mister Chairman, I thank our witnesses for joining us today.

Pat, I'd like to start with you, and I'm gonna follow up on some of the questions that Mister Courtney had posed. Uh, talking about the thirty year ship building plan, uh, listen,

Mm-hmm.

some good components of it, also some questions about building the platforms that we need and making sure that we can get to executing those construction projects as quickly as possible. One of the questions obviously is with the battleship component, we were originally told it was gonna be conventionally powered, now we're being told it's gonna be nuclear powered, and we know that on submarines, we need to get to a cadence of two point three Virginia class per year and one Columbia class per year. We have an overwhelming advantage against the Chinese in the undersea world. Uh, we need to press the gas pedal so we can continue to maintain that, cuz if you look at the pace at which six six eighty-eights are coming out of the inventory, and the pace at which Ohio class are coming out of the inventory, that should be where the gas pedal is pressed. When we talk about the battleship and when now we talk about being nuclear powered, what we see is there is now a confluence of demand for nuclear reactors. And the question then becomes in meeting the demand signal that we should be meeting for Virginia class for Ohio class and now adding another demand signal there with in addition to the Ford class reactors being built and now we're being told that the Ford class reactor is gonna be used in the in the battleship the question would be

Mm-hmm.

with a challenging industrial capacity and only one supplier of nuclear reactors, uh where are we in looking at being able to meet that demand signal and being able to meet it at the speed of relevance in relation to all the other demands that are coming with that uh and knowing that we don't have a big surplus of reactors standing by in o- in order to be able to meet this so gi- give me your per- perspective there. And also, you know, as we look at the design of that ship, obviously, conventionally powered systems on the ship diesel generators and and those sorts of proponents that are providing other power source generation there uh I'd be interested to get your perspective on how do we integrate all those now different sources of power and try to provide the different fueling for those uh with a ship that has at least the propulsion system being nuclear powered and then the demand signal that comes from that.

Congressman, yeah. Thank you for the question, and I on um Newport News and their workload, I'll start with that one. Um we view dry dock twelve and we've been in uh you know preliminary discussions here on the t the build approach, where it can be partitioned and there is a path here where we need to work on the phasing with CVN eighty-one and eighty-two and the battleship, but there we view there is capacity uh with a way in which that dry dock uh can be um configured. Uh, and so we also agree Newport News is the final assembly yard, um, you know, for the battleship and that would be our intention. Part of how we get there is the distributed ship building and recog- and the build strategy of um these different modules that we are building for the either, Flight Three destroyers or on the carrier today, and how we can build those um most efficiently to bring together for final assembly at Newport News. I think with BWXT, uh, fantastic uh company and a company that um we uh absolutely rely on for nuclear power. We've looked at uh going to three Virginia class submarines a year in the past and how we uh increase nuclear reactor production in Lynchburg and elsewhere I mean that's something we're absolutely looking at uh as part of the battleship plan this has to be an expansion of the industrial base um and not come at the expense of and so we commit to you to again continue to give you um more refined answers.

Well listen I think it's gonna be important because this is threading the needle on this when you look at the sweet spot for carrier production it's right in that five to six year centers and we know too that that is also based upon being able to produce those reactors uh available space there to go ahead and build workforce all those things create a tremendous amount of pressure to make sure we stay on schedule there and we know too when we buy uh carriers two at a time we know we have some economies of scale and some savings there but I I did wanna ask to make sure that you look very carefully at that because that is a tremendously difficult spot that we're putting ourselves in and trying to do all at at the same time. Let me ask uh too, is the Navy coordinating with inter-agency partners, particularly the d- uh the Department of Commerce in how we're trying to coordinate to make sure that shipbuilding efforts there are coordinated to make sure we get the best out of the industrial base cuz the biggest challenge for us in years to come is going to be industrial base capacity and workforce. And things that exacerbate that are gonna affect what we can do to put these ships in the water. And, Mister Chairman, with with that in mind, listen Mister Potter, I I wanna be respectful of everybody else's time. If you will give me that answer for the record, I will yield back.

Thank you, Mister Whitman. Now I recognize Mister Norcross.

Thank you, Chairman, and the witnesses for being here today. Well, yes, I'm gonna talk about the industrial base and and the workforce because we all have been focused on this for years. And it's certainly something that is of great concern, especially with that thirty year plan coming out, that we are going to accelerate what we already were planning for and put it on steroids. The plan certainly calls for that. So, as part of the the the recent March fourth GAO uh report, talked about military readiness, uh to take further action addressing the challenges across sea air ground space domains and the report talks about the constraints of our shipyards everything we've talked about result in the idle times for submarines and dry docks and the cascading readiness issues that continue to happen so and what's your office plan um to integrate these findings with the recommendations from GAO to the shipyard infrastructure optimization plan and then put on top of it what we just spoke about, increasing the tempo almost by seventy-five percent. How the hell are you going to do this without significantly increasing the shipyards?

Uh, I'll start, Congressman, and, uh, again, appreciate the focus on this. This is a priority here, is really expanding in a generational sense our shipbuilding capacity in the country in these investments where we're up forty percent over the twenty-six budget nearly a hundred percent over the twenty-five budget in terms of the amount of funding being requested for shipbuilding. So there's there's no single answer, I think, we're try- we're trying to raise wages at all of our shipyards, including the public shipyards and we're as um ranking member Courtney said we're seeing results uh in the submarine yards already and investing in these shipyards themselves and their infrastructure and working with the companies to do that. Um, and that includes technology and and computer-aided design, computer-aided manufacturing, and and those sorts of things. Distributing the shipbuilding and uh around the country, so we have focus factories that are producing the equivalent of half a Virginia class submarine today.

Sure.

It's, and so so the we're we're we're pulling all the levers and I think on the the public shipyards and the SIOP plan, each of those four shipyards has a master plan now that tells us kind of what we need to execute every single year to accomplish the dry dock uh recapitalization and the other projects in each of those yards and we're committed to funding that so i we're we're really trying to have a detailed um focused approach on where the root causes are uh and with the goal here of really expanding and revitalizing uh the whole industry.

So We saw what happened in the beginning of the Second World War. We had an incredibly low producing ship building capacity here in the US. We got hit in Pearl Harbor and within two years, we're pumping out a ship every week to every day to reinvest here in America. Um, when we had the secretary in last week, I talked about the idea is you are sending the demand signals that everybody talks about. And then in the thirty year ship building plan, you opened the door for sending our some of our ship building capacity overseas. Yes, taking what we did last time, which was our mistake, is offshoring our ability to build, and you've opened the door. Are your plans now, because to complete the plan that you've laid out for us, you need to significantly increase in the United States shipbuilding capacity, yet it talks about increasing the capacity of shipyards on the other side of the ocean. Can you address whether you're going to outsource Snifkin portion of the shipbuilding overseas?

Congressman, the answer to that is no. What we view this as is the shipyards that we have here are largely full and in most of our shipbuilding programs in the budget you'll see there's delays compared to last year. We're still seeing scheduled delays. and we're seeing challenges with the seven or eight large shipyards we have that build ships for the Navy, uh, kind of keeping up with the orders that we've placed. So the overseas, uh, component that's talked about in the shipbuilding plan is similar to the icebreaker collaboration effort, which would be a near t- a short-term means to an end of orders overseas with the requirement that the investment be made here to build and expand our shipbuilding industrial base here. And so that, the same approach essentially that was used with ICEPAC is how we're trying to grow the industrial base here and it wouldn't take away from any of our current shipbuilding.

Well, ICEPAC is under a different set of rules for shipbuilding overseas. In the Navy we don't do that. We actually invested here in America during World War Two and that's a way to get us back without a yield bounce in my time.

I thank the gentleman, I now recognize Doctor DeJarlais.

Thank you, Chairman. Uh, Admiral Benning. Can you expand on the Golden Fleet initiative, and when you look to combine these high, low, mixed platforms, what trade-offs do you consider acceptable, and what metrics or scales are you using to evaluate or mitigate those risks?

Uh, from the high, low, mixed perspective, we've obviously discussed the battleship here. That's certainly on the high end. The the uh d- current DDG, kind of the workhorse of the fleet, is also on the high end. What we're looking at also though is is on the low end, you're talking both the frigate which brings some organic capability and it's also uh a c two node uh unmanned RAS capability or robotic autonomous system capability so with an uncoupled with the unmanned capability and what we're investing in and and prioritizing is containerized capability when you put those on to a medium USV they give you the opportunity to tailor your force package for the mission that you've been tasked to go do or for the threat environment that is there you also are able the organic capability of a lower-end frigate with uh with additional unmanned capability. By doing that, the frigate and uh the unmanned capability helps relieve some of the stress on the, on the current workhorse being the DDG, and allows it to focus on uh the high-end fight and uh stay for readiness. So that's kind of the approach we're taking there.

OK. Mister Potter, the development and production of both the exquisite and lower-cost scalable platforms would require a robust industrial base as you know, What pinch points are you anticipating through the production of development of the Golden Fleet concept?

Congressman, uh, they'll be probably different pinch points than we're used to, because what we're seeing is new entrants, uh, with many of these types of platforms that, uh, are new to the Navy, particularly the unmanned, um, vessel providers. And so, um, we think there's a lot of, uh, capability there. We had a, uh, phenomenal response to our first solicitation for medium unmanned surface vessels. Um, and so that is a, you know, a key outlet for some of the supply chain issues we're seeing is tapping into a new one. I think we do have some of the traditional uh challenges within ship building, uh, where we're using the maritime industrial base and other industrial base tools to focus on suppliers and we've got better visibility than we've ever had before down the supply chain i- where we're having bottlenecks and choke points and we've got uh resources available to address those.

OK. Um moving to submarine tenders, Mister Potter, as we consider the Navy's needs, the increased force posture in operations around the globe, becomes clear how important the next generation submarine tender program is to sustain force readiness and maintenance capacity. Uh when do you expect those ships to be on-line?

Uh Congressman, I think those are probably going to be on-line in the early twenty-thirties. Realistically.

So you're not expecting that there'll be any delays on those ships being delivered, and if so, do you believe that there can be appropriate service life's extensions made to the MRAIS land class tenders?

Yeah, we're continually assessing uh service life extensions for all of our ships and uh MRAIS land, and the the tenders are no exception. We're really focused on finishing the design right now with General Dynamics, and getting the first ship uh under construction and uh we've had a a good process here to work through the requirements. Uh it's the first time we've built a subtender in a while and kinda making sure it's gonna have the maintenance capability to maintain our latest Virginia class submarines and the quantities uh you know took took a uh you know measure twice, cut once approach over the last few years so I think we're there, we need to finish the design and get into construction.

Sounds good. Thank you all for being here, Ch- Chairman, I yield back.

Now recognize Mister Bindman.

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing today. So I have the privilege of representing uh a c- three different military installations, um Quantico, the Crossroads of the Marine Corps, Dahlgren, uh which is a a gem of a a Navy R and D base, and so let me start with with Dahlgren. There's a tremendous amount of R and D that's taking place there, and there are some subsystems that are being developed, including high energy lasers that were for a little while they were mothballed but now are being brought back. um to help in the the fight in the Middle East. Uh they're akin to some of the systems that the Israelis are deploying like iron uh beam. So I just wanna encourage you to continue to support those systems, the tremendous work that's being done at Dahlgren and to feel the sort of next generation uh technology that is coming out of that installation. Uh General Austin, great to see you here, whether it's on the Hill or or at Quantico. Um So Ukraine has been developing uh something of a live laboratory for unmanned systems in contested environments. Is the Marine Corps finding ways to learn from what um the Ukrainians have developed and field tested there? And uh what are we doing to capture those lessons?

Congres- Congressman, it's g- good to see you as well, sir, and thank you for the the question. Uh we absolutely are closely following uh all the activities going on in many theaters to include the the Ukraine and capturing those via deliberate uh process. through our Marine Corps Center for lessons learned, but more importantly turning that into our own experimentation and our own lessons learned, uh with both uh uh our drone dominance task force which nests within the Department of War drone dominance task force, uh which you've witnessed yourself and down looking at some of our attack drone capabilities and the like which has got both a fielding and an you know dot mil PF lessons that we're learning a- and the tactics techniques and procedures that we're employing. And I'll pivot the other thing that we're learning a lot about right now, and we've got a lot of uh uh investments in, is uh counter drone technologies both uh uh in terms of material solutions and the tactics techniques and procedures that we need to s- to for all of our Marines uh and sailors to survive in today's battlefield there's a lot to learn and we're getting after it sir.

I appreciate that and it's great to hear that uh the Marine Corps is learning uh from uh the the environment in Ukraine and that we're not just starting at uh FPV drones sorta like level one basics but advancing rapidly to where the Ukrainians are now, and having fielded in depth and and um so the Marine Corps initiated uh summits to accelerate drone lethality, which is a great program. Are there opportunities deep in that work by partnering directly with Ukrainian forces who are operating drones at scale every day against near-peer adversaries?

So the short answer to that is uh is absolutely uh when we have the opportunities, OK.

And when we talk about uh co-production technology sharing with allied defense industries, is Ukraine one of those um uh allies that we should be looking at more closely, both to help them and to bring manufacturing capacity and know how back to the United States? I'll open that up to

Congressman, I I think the answer is yes, we're always looking uh you know at all our allies and partners for the best technology and the best capability to give our sailors and marines the the edge and Uh, there are active, uh, discussions along those lines.

So how can we help you with any of these efforts? But authorities or there's always a need for funding, but any anything we can do to help you with those efforts.

Uh, um, sir, so I'd say, you'll let us get back to you on that. I think we have a lot of the authority we need. I've not run into an issue yet, um, where we haven't been able to move forward if we felt like we had the, you know, the the readiness to do so. So I think at this point we're we're in good shape.

Yep, look forward to hearing that uh from you. Um so outside of funding procurement, what's the most impactful change that Congress and this committee could do to help the Marine Corps accelerate the adoption of unmanned systems?

So I would uh just uh continue to support our acquisition reform and the uh opportunities for us to move fast. Uh the the accelerant and the enthusiasm that's coming from uh the the White House from the Capitol from the Department of War is all palpable, it's an exciting time to be in the acquisition field, and and we're moving out so we just would uh ask for your continued support uh in that. And we're gonna learn, there'll be bumps and bruises, and we're gonna continue to learn, but we have a mandate to go fast.

And the permission structure to to fail fast, and if you fail, that we can underwrite that risk, so thank you, with that I yield back.

Good time, and now recognize Doctor Jackson.

Thank you Mister Chairman, thank you gentlemen for being here today, appreciate your time. Um, as global threats continue to evolve our naval and expeditionary forces remain central to the nation's ability to deter aggression and to project combat power around the world. Uh today the Navy and Marine Corps are being asked to sustain a persistent forward presence across multiple theaters while simultaneously modernizing for future conflict against increasingly capable adversaries. As a retired Navy veteran I understand the vital importance of maintaining a force that is not only technologically advanced but also fully sustained and ready to respond to the emerging requirements of the future fight. In recent years we have seen a significant rise in suspected sabotage of sub-sea cables and pipelines in the Baltic Sea and now the Straits of Remus, raising concerns about attacks on critical infrastructure. Unmanned surface vessels, offering persistent ISR and detection capabilities, are emerging as a key tool for safeguarding undersea cables and other critical sub-sea infrastructure from sabotage and hybrid threats from foreign adversaries like China Russia in particular and Iran. To counter these growing maritime threats and address critical vulnerabilities in our defense industrial base I believe the US must rapidly scale domestic production of unmanned surface ve- uh vessels uh Mister Potter, what is your assessment of our domestic cap- uh capacity to scale US V production? Furthermore, how is the department establishing a robust network of qualified US based suppliers to meet this need? And how can Congress best support this evident? And part of the reason I ask this question is because uh oftentimes we talk about ship building. Uh one of the issues is the uh that we cannot uh that we we may have to do stuff elsewhere besides United States because the size of our shipyards and uh the capacity to uh to manufacture large ships but it's also been pointed out to me that we we have a uh capacity that's uh that's existing potentially to to build some of these unmanned vessels here so uh with that and with that in mind, can you answer my question?

Yes sir Congressman, so if for the first time I think in you know the first time we've got the four tools we need to really move fast on unmanned surface vessels that's the funding thanks to one big beautiful bill we have more than two billion dollars we have the acquisition tools uh like other transaction authority that this committee has given us we have the performers that are ready to do it and we have the requirements from the operational field uh that we need to get after so with the medium unmanned surface vessel that's really the first uh move that we've made to do things differently And we released a solicitation based on a Chief of Naval Operations' uh urgent requirement uh to to field um thirty of these medium unmanned surface vessels with a containerized payload. And we've got an overwhelming response. So I we know the industry is there. This is a competitive market and we had, you know, more than two dozen offers, which is unheard of in Navy shipbuilding. And so from that we're now in source selection and we're working through, you know, which is a good problem to have, you know, the best uh most capable to meet the cno's requirements that's the model we're gonna use over and over again to solve more and more of these problems undersea cables uh offensive missions you know what contested logistics we think unmanned it's there's a a huge opportunity here we have a whole another industrial base we're able to tap into to get after it and um we have a model to do it and on the the cables we've got um you know established programs in particularly for mine uh countermeasures that are looking for uh buried mines, bottom mines, things on a sea floor with synthetic aperture sonars that are on our Mark eighteen, um UUVs. So between unmanned underwater vehicles, unmanned surface vessels, uh the Navy's been in this game a while and even at a classified level we can give you kind of a full picture of that.

But you agree this is an area where unlike the larger vessels we have the capacity to do almost all of that here and do it at scale if we just uh invest.

Yes sir.

OK, thank you. With that I yield back, Mister.

Now I can ask myself.

Thank you, Mister Chair, gentlemen, thank you for being here. Uh, Mister Potter, I I think you're gonna find everybody on this subcommittee is is all in for supercharging the industrial base to meet our shipbuilding and maintenance needs I I would love to invite you to to my district uh I represent neither any any of your your uh installations but Coast Guard, your Baltimore, which uh hundred and thirty year history of doing all all the things I think we need done here. I mention that because in last year's NDA we were we were able to to set up the the ho- hopeful transfer of about four hundred and thirty-five acres just across the creek from that yard former army depot um to our state's academic development corporation with this very kind of adventure in mind so i would love to invite you out to see that eventually and see how that can possibly fit into all of this i think it meets all the needs we have here industrial zone you know right on the water a future dredging project right there so i just wanna I'm gonna put that on your radar and invite you to have that conversation. I do wanna move to follow up on Mr. Norcross's questioning. And, and, and he has a, an excellent point here. Y- you guys are asking us to trust you that in order to kickstart this, you know, revamped effort, we don't have the capacity at the moment. We're gonna look to our allies and partners who frankly have spent the last century kicking our butts at this. But you're asking us to trust you that we're going to re-shore those projects eventually. So I I I asked this question of of SECNAV last week, but I would love your thoughts on that. How you know, our our job is to trust but verify. So how would you advise us to holding your feet to the fire, that those jobs are going to come back, and we're not gonna sit here two or three years from now and hear how we still don't have the capacity we're gonna need to build more ships abroad. How would you advise us?

Yeah. Congresswoman, thank you, and uh I have actually spent four years in your district and they were uh four of the best years of my life um at the Naval Academy and uh we will absolutely visit Baltimore and I look forward to that and thank you for the invitation. On the um OK on the foreign ship building I think it is fair you know how do you trust but verify and I think we would welcome you know that discussion about the the requirements that would come with that authority to build you know initially overseas while we're building the capacity here to do it here. We see that as a two part process. We want those two parts to be linked. We're not trying to just take jobs and take them overseas. We do expect, you know, whatever is done there, a two, three, four X, you know, investment here. Uh, and I think, you know, we'll as, uh, as, you know, we have a little bit more time here to work our proposal and get it to you in full, uh, we welcome that conversation.

Mr. Chair, I would just suggest that perhaps we should think a little bit about how to actually trust but verify as we go into mark-up. Um, I I also wanna highlight if you if you watched the second half hearing last week you heard bipartisan overwhelming support of getting to the three point O RGMU presence and uh that was really reassuring. I hope I hope, General, that was reassuring to you. I do wanna though kinda dig into the details of of getting there in the budget. Um, so, Jenner Alston, you in your opening statement you discussed the importance of the Amphib fleet and how you are committed to the three point O marker. Um, but you also mentioned that how important the LSMs are to the Amphib strategy, but I'm concerned that LSM funding is in the mandatory portion of the request. Can you explain how LSM's gonna fit into the larger Amphib strategy here? I think the devil's in the details of the budget and I just wanna make sure we're all aligned.

Yes, Congresswoman, thank you. Uh, I honestly appreciate this question and a chance to talk about LSM. And first I will tell you that uh LSM is an opportunity for the Navy, the Marine Corps, and for the shipbuilding industry and for our nation right now because we have the money, we're uh in the final phases of contracting the Vessel Construction Manager, and we're ready to move out. And I think this is gonna be a great warm start for many of the conversations that we're having uh right now. LSM plays an essential role uh in the Littorals uh principally uh for us first in the Indo-Pacific. Because it goes shore to shore enables us to have the mobility and maneuver and move forces small signature light footprint uh in ways and complement the the uh marine air wing which can move some stuff but not everything it's it's tremendously important and I I said it's late to need we've got some opportunities to leverage some uh resources that was provided uh uh last year to uh have what we call a littoral maneuver bridging strategy uh contract solutions. We're also using TEPFs in some cases starting this fall to to to bridge But those are peer to peer, not uh beach to beach, and it's a different capability. So it's tremendously important to us. And I would just say that uh uh I do understand that the LSM in twenty-seven is in the uh mandatory bill. Uh we consider it from the Marine Corps perspective one bill and we need the whole thing to be successful. Uh we are pleased uh to have it uh in the the budget that's submitted now.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now recognized, Mr. Moreland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the panel. Uh, Admiral, Assistant Secretary General, thank thank you very much. You're all very important, of course, to the most forward deployed place there is, so I I thank you for your interest in keeping this going for the island of Guam. Uh, General, thanks for your assistance on uh during disaster relief uh for Guam. If if you don't mind just say a little bit about what what went on.

Thank you, sir. Just as the eleventh MIEU was deploying and they w- left, they deployed early based on the conditions in uh CENICOM, uh that the uh typhoon uh rolled through and both uh Guam and Northern Marianas uh had uh damage and we were honored to be able to support disaster relief with uh uh just moving uh critical uh supplies around both locations something we've done before and will do again and it just highlights the importance and uh again the uh multi-purpose applicability uh of the Marine Expeditionary Unit and the uh amphibious radio groups are I hope that uh that helps.

Absolutely, God bless the Marines. Uh in addition let's talk about uh Camp Blas at this time how do you how do you see it coming along and am with our uh the personnel relocating to uh from Okanawa to Guam.

So first thing I will tell you is Camp Blas is a purpose-built, beautiful facility. Uh they're uh uh on Guam. Uh we're we're proud of it. Uh but uh I I'm we'll take it for the record if I may because it is not my point of my, my expertise and how we are uh taking a look at our specific posture right now. So I'd like to get back to you with that answer, sir.

Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, General. Uh, let's see. Oh, oh, submarine, submarine maintenance, yeah. We enjoy the, uh, our our subs there and of course they enjoy the deep seas of of the island as well. Uh, um, tell us how it's going, Admiral, with, um, our home port of the fast tracks over there and and our maintenance situation and use utilizing of the tenders, and what this budget will invest, uh, to help, uh, the maintenance capacities.

Yes, uh Guam certainly plays a critical role in in in our defenses and certainly from a submarine force perspective the forward deployed squadron fifteen, forward deployed submarines out of there um their presence there, their ability to as you as you said ability to immediately dive when you get outside the point there it it is just a great place to submarine from uh the tenders are a critical role play a critical role there not only in in servicing submarines and surface ships uh in and around Guam but also throughout the entire AOR so a a vital role that expeditionary nature to revive, rearm, and resupply as needed. Um and the investments uh continue for uh Polaris point uh efforts to insure that is uh in a condition and supports the needs of the Navy both today and in the future.

Uh thank you, I don't know. Uh, Mister Potter, uh speaking of about resupply for our forward area of Guam, there are munitions especially Um how how are we doing with that with uh the increased uh will we have a adequate adequate space replacement uh at sea and forward staging capacity for the island of Guam uh in regards to munitions?

Uh Congressman we are uh laser focused on refilling our magazines wherever they are with munitions and I think you know Guam is obviously a part of that. And so um I mean, you're gonna see in this budget obviously we've got um over a hundred percent increase over the FY twenty-six budget for munitions and it's really all types, plus uh new low cost and other munitions to augment um some of our longer term programs. So uh we're you know with that making sure our um munitions activities and our ammo um locations are are up and adequate for that and we're committed to do that. in phase um to make sure we're able to prepare for that.

Uh thank you. And also regarding our our fast tracks over there, uh yeah we're always were requesting or we did have a great ship repair facility at at one time, and there was an incident uh back way back, not too w- long ago, but where the submarine was being repaired on on Guam. It was a tremendous damage right in the nose I believe, uh but we were able to get it done. Do you foresee uh we utilizing the ship uh bringing back the ship repair facility and also a dry dock. Mister Potter.

Congressman, I will um I'll get back to you with a full answer, but I I think at this point, you know, we're always assessing our maintenance repair, lay-down, and our dry docks, and uh where additional investments uh may be needed. And uh at this point I'm not aware of uh increases in Guam along those lines, but I will follow up.

Appreciate it. Thank you to the panel. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mister Spea- uh Chairman.

Now recognized, Mr. Higgins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Potter, Admiral, General, thank you for being here. Mr. Potter, I believe I g- I have you quoted accurately in one of your responses to a colleague and addressing challenges in shipbuilding and the delivery. You said the seven or eight large shipyards are struggling to keep up with demand. Think that's a quote. You said you continue to see delays. Believe that's a quote. And you said your intention, our intention as a nation, and your intention representing the executive is to grow the industrial base here domestically. Um mm all that pretty accurate assessment of

Yes.

your position, OK. So mm My question is regarding acquisition reforms. Cuz our smaller shipyards, they've performed beautifully for, you know, a century for our country. And they in n- n- recent n- in modern history, in the last couple of decades, they've they've been struggling to make it because n- as because the federal government has not managed to deliver like a stable environment for their business model and as the b- their the the construction of our vessels for the Navy and the Marine Corps has shifted to large shipyards. So now we need plenty more ships, the war fighters need 'em, the navies need 'em, we need autonomous and unmanned vessels, we need a lot of 'em and the the the large shipyards can't perform. and we need to re-embrace the industrial base that we you you have here. So in acquisition reforms it's noted that we need predictable long-term um stability that extend beyond one budget cycle. And you have shipyards, you have many platform designs, many in unmanned and autonomous vessels from multiple shipyards that have designed and built their prototypes. And many of them have been tested quite extensively by the Navy and the Marine Corps. They're ready for the contract right now, with immediate production. So it's frustrating to us when we hear, yeah, we're making a transition, we're not quite there yet, our big shipyards are struggling, you you have you have shipyards, small and regional shipyards, dying on the vine. in our country that are ready to deliver the vessels that our Navy and our Marine Corps need right now. So will you address please respectfully what are we doing to reform that the the scenario that I've described which is which is uh quite startling and real.

Congressman, thank you for that question. I I got I have a very similar side picture um to what you just laid out there. I think there's two things that we can do right now. One is a complete design for these small shipyards. Whatever they're gonna build, separate the design from the build, cuz many of them don't have in-house naval architects and ship designers, and if we give them some Navy specification that they're not really ready to put through their design process, we end up having challenges just getting the design done, much less into construction. And so we've seen that in a few of the smaller yards um along the Gulf Coast where we didn't do ourselves any favors kind of overloading them with something that was a little too much for them to handle within their capacity. So they it used to be able to use third party engineering design firms that would kind of do the work for you but those have even atrophied in this country and so we're really at a place where if the design isn't complete and kind of in a build to print place all of our shipyards can struggle.

So regarding design,

Right.

let me say that some of the most brilliant designers for naval vessels, including unmanned and autonomous, especially smaller vessels, under a hundred feet, let's say. Some of those most brilliant designers work for the for the shipyards, not necessarily for the Navy.

Right.

They have like showroom model designs that that they have that they have developed and built prototypes. Um, is there a commitment within the executive to to explore and test those existing models and designs and platforms and buy them.

Yes.

Yes, sir, I think the case in point is the landing ship medium where we've got the LST one hundred dominant done design that is what we turned around um with minimal, Buy America, and other legal compliance things we had to do. Uh that's what was put into our RFP and that's what

I'm gonna have to take the rest for the record,

So

gentlemen's time's expired. I also wanna recognize that Mister Whitesides is here. Mister Whitesides has kindly allowed uh to enter his questions for the record which we would Appreciate a response. Mister Whitesides, thank you for doing that. They've called votes and uh we're several minutes in and I do not wanna miss votes. But with that, thank the witnesses for being here, and the hearing is adjourned.