Jon Tester Leads Senate Appropriations CommitteeHearing On DoD Acquisition Programs

4 months ago

The Senate Appropriations Committee holds a hearing on Department of Defense acquisition programs.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00:00 Bill LaPlante, and the service acquisition executives,

00:00:03 Doug Bush, Nick Gertin, and Andrew Hunter.

00:00:07 Welcome, gentlemen.

00:00:07 Your leadership is vital to getting capability

00:00:11 into the hands of our war fighters

00:00:13 and to modernize our force,

00:00:15 and I wanna thank you all for being here.

00:00:17 I wanna point out that the Space Force brethren

00:00:19 are absent today, and it's because we will have

00:00:21 a classified hearing to discuss space-related matters

00:00:25 in a few weeks.

00:00:27 The FY 2025 budget request for the development

00:00:30 and procurement of weapons systems is $310.7 billion.

00:00:34 While the Fiscal Responsibility Act required you

00:00:38 to make some tough decisions on certain programs,

00:00:40 this is not an insignificant number.

00:00:43 So we're having this hearing to better understand

00:00:45 how the department leverages those resources

00:00:47 to field the programs that we need,

00:00:49 preferably on time and on budget.

00:00:52 After multiple continuing resolutions,

00:00:55 Congress finally enacted the FY '24 Appropriations Bill

00:00:58 just last March.

00:01:00 However, in many instances, the funds necessary

00:01:02 to execute acquisition programs are still not

00:01:06 in the hands of the program managers.

00:01:07 Many factors affecting getting acquisition right,

00:01:11 but it cannot be denied that repeating

00:01:13 continuing resolutions affect the ability

00:01:15 of program managers to effectively get the most bang

00:01:17 for the taxpayer's buck and field the programs

00:01:20 on cost and on schedule.

00:01:23 That said, over the past five years,

00:01:24 Congress has provided the Department of Defense

00:01:26 several new acquisition authorities

00:01:28 and funding flexibilities,

00:01:30 such as rapid prototyping authority

00:01:32 and the establishment of software pilot projects.

00:01:35 Recent appropriations bills have also supported

00:01:37 numerous DOD initiatives to facilitate rapid innovation

00:01:41 outside of a traditional budget cycle.

00:01:43 Yet, the reviews are mixed.

00:01:45 A recent Navy study showed that most shipbuilding programs

00:01:48 are over budget and behind schedule.

00:01:50 The Air Force's Sentinel Program

00:01:52 incurred a non-McCurdy breach and is under review,

00:01:56 and the Army recently terminated its fourth attempt

00:02:00 in 20 years to modernize its scout helicopter.

00:02:02 We will continue to work with the Department

00:02:05 on ways to improve the acquisition process,

00:02:07 but I must say we all share responsibility

00:02:10 for the state of our acquisition enterprise,

00:02:12 and I would tell you that it isn't good

00:02:14 and for a number of reasons.

00:02:15 Number one, Congress needs to enact

00:02:17 appropriation bills on time.

00:02:18 The Department needs to stabilize

00:02:20 program requirements, utilize realistic

00:02:22 acquisition strategies, and request

00:02:24 the right amount of funding and sign good contracts.

00:02:27 And industry needs to flat out deliver on time.

00:02:31 DOD acquisition is not an academic exercise.

00:02:35 It is responsibility for getting the warfighter

00:02:37 what it needs, when they need it,

00:02:39 so that they can do their job

00:02:41 in an increasingly dangerous world.

00:02:43 I look forward to hearing from each of you

00:02:45 on how we can do better.

00:02:48 Senator Murkowski will be joining us shortly.

00:02:51 She will have a few statements.

00:02:52 Susan is not here at this moment in time,

00:02:56 but she will put her opening,

00:02:57 I ask unanimous consent that her opening statement

00:03:00 be put into the record.

00:03:01 With that, we will start with you, Dr. LaPlante,

00:03:05 for your opening statement, I believe.

00:03:07 Hang on for a second, yeah.

00:03:10 Each one of you have three minutes.

00:03:12 I know that your full written testimony

00:03:13 will be a part of the record.

00:03:14 Go ahead, Dr. LaPlante, you have the floor.

00:03:16 - Thanks, Chairman Tester and Ranking Member Collins,

00:03:19 who I know will be here,

00:03:20 and distinguished members of the subcommittee.

00:03:22 Thanks to all of you.

00:03:23 It's a pleasure to be here today

00:03:24 with our service acquisition executives

00:03:26 representing departments acquisition and sustainment.

00:03:29 As the chairman just said, in recent years,

00:03:32 thanks to you all, you've given us more authorities,

00:03:34 more ways to do acquisition, increasing flexibility

00:03:37 and getting to get things at speed and capability,

00:03:40 and we really appreciate it.

00:03:42 We will give you in this hearing,

00:03:43 and to the extent that you have questions and talk about it,

00:03:46 examples of what seems to be working there

00:03:48 where still the challenges,

00:03:49 but an example of what you've given us

00:03:52 and how it's being used

00:03:53 are the middle tier acquisition authorities,

00:03:55 rapid fielding, rapid prototyping.

00:03:57 That is being used right now

00:03:58 by my three colleagues down the table,

00:04:00 as well as the Space Force

00:04:02 and putting together a proliferated LEO constellation,

00:04:04 so a lot of goodness happening there.

00:04:06 The Army, of course, has also done things

00:04:08 with the software pathway as well as others,

00:04:11 and Mr. Bush can talk to the integrated air missile defense,

00:04:14 which uses software acquisition pathway in a hybrid form.

00:04:18 And overall, there's 60 programs that are using software pathway,

00:04:22 and that's only been with us a few years,

00:04:24 so it shows you what we've been able to do with your help.

00:04:27 I think we need to do a lot more,

00:04:28 but anyway, it's a positive sign.

00:04:31 The other piece is flexible contracting.

00:04:34 As the chairman said, contracting is a key part of this.

00:04:37 What we've relearned or learned or relearned in Ukraine

00:04:41 is the department can do contracting extraordinarily fast

00:04:44 when it puts its mind to it.

00:04:45 We have methods like the Undefinitized Contracting Actions,

00:04:49 or UCA, that can be put in place within days or weeks,

00:04:52 and I would say in Ukraine, we've seen that.

00:04:54 There's no reason we can't extend that

00:04:56 and continue that across other contracts

00:04:59 in the Department of Defense.

00:05:00 Another very important tool that you've given us,

00:05:04 and industry has paid attention,

00:05:05 is multiyear procurements for munitions.

00:05:08 Thank you for giving us this, and it shows a degree of trust.

00:05:11 Industry has been saying for years

00:05:13 we don't see a demand signal.

00:05:15 We need to understand a demand signal.

00:05:16 A lot of us have been frustrated by that,

00:05:18 saying, "What else do you need?

00:05:20 We've got all these supplementals coming."

00:05:22 Well, I think what the multiyear shows

00:05:24 is that we're committed in these cases for those contracts,

00:05:28 that it won't be a one and done in one year.

00:05:30 It's going to be in multiple years,

00:05:32 and we'll get the savings appropriate with it,

00:05:35 and your help in getting those multiyears

00:05:37 are a big part of it.

00:05:38 We've also done things with the service

00:05:41 and service-specific acquisitions.

00:05:44 I would say when you're talking about acquisition,

00:05:47 there's really three legs of the stool.

00:05:49 One leg is acquisition, which is the contract.

00:05:52 The second is the requirement.

00:05:53 This is what the chairman was talking about,

00:05:55 about getting what the department needs right

00:05:57 for the warfighter, and the third is having the money

00:06:00 in the right year.

00:06:01 Those three legs of that stool,

00:06:03 moving across all three in an agile fashion

00:06:06 is the secret of really effective acquisition.

00:06:09 And so we remind the service acquisition executives that,

00:06:14 and we work with folks like this committee

00:06:16 to make sure we can move across that.

00:06:18 Again, I think there's a lot that we can talk about.

00:06:21 There's a lot of good that has happened in acquisition,

00:06:24 continues to happen.

00:06:25 We also have a lot more work to do.

00:06:27 So subject to the later questions,

00:06:29 that's my opening statement.

00:06:30 -Thank you, Dr. LaPlante. Secretary Bush.

00:06:32 -Chairman Tester, distinguished members

00:06:35 of the Senate Appropriations Committee,

00:06:37 Subcommittee on Defense, good morning.

00:06:38 Thank you for the invitation to appear before you

00:06:40 to share our views on the successes and challenges

00:06:43 we face in developing, procuring,

00:06:45 and fielding major acquisition programs.

00:06:47 The Army's fiscal year 2025 budget

00:06:49 represents a sustained commitment

00:06:51 to our key modernization portfolios.

00:06:53 It also continues modernization and procurement

00:06:56 of enduring platforms that will remain with us

00:06:58 for some years to come.

00:07:00 However, as members of the subcommittee have,

00:07:02 I'm sure, noted in reviewing our FY25 budget,

00:07:05 the Army's base budget for procurement research accounts

00:07:07 are under pressure in an overall flat budget environment.

00:07:11 In that context, the Army is committed

00:07:12 to getting every bit of modernization

00:07:14 we can get out of the funds we receive.

00:07:17 The Army cannot do that without your support,

00:07:19 and I thank you for your strong support of Army programs

00:07:22 in the FY24 appropriations bills and the FY24 supplemental.

00:07:26 Passage of those bills were critical in ensuring

00:07:29 we stay on track with modernization

00:07:31 and replenish our stocks as rapidly as possible.

00:07:33 In terms of how programs are doing,

00:07:35 I am overall very pleased with where things stand

00:07:38 in most Army programs right now.

00:07:40 With a few exceptions, Army acquisition programs

00:07:43 are delivering on time, on cost,

00:07:45 and providing a level of combat effectiveness

00:07:47 that is world class,

00:07:49 something one can observe in Ukraine and elsewhere,

00:07:51 where our systems are in high demand

00:07:53 and performing exceedingly well in high-intensity combat

00:07:56 against a very capable enemy.

00:07:58 Patriot, Atacams, Javelin, HIMARS, Gimlers,

00:08:00 Bradleys, Abrams tanks, and 155 artillery,

00:08:04 just to name a few, are showing what U.S. weapons

00:08:06 can do on the battlefield.

00:08:09 That combat performance is, in my view,

00:08:10 the only standard that truly matters,

00:08:13 in the end, because whether it's our soldiers

00:08:14 using this equipment or an ally,

00:08:16 it makes the difference between life and death

00:08:18 for the people on the front line.

00:08:20 There are, of course, programs

00:08:21 where everything is not going perfectly,

00:08:23 and I'm happy to dive into the reasons for that with members,

00:08:25 but I am pleased to support that,

00:08:26 with this committee's support,

00:08:28 Army acquisition officials are feeling empowered

00:08:30 to take informed, thoughtful risk,

00:08:32 and when appropriate, where appropriate,

00:08:35 to increase our overall pace of development,

00:08:37 production, and fielding.

00:08:39 From an acquisition policy perspective,

00:08:41 as Dr. Plante said, the Army continues

00:08:43 to aggressively implement and employ

00:08:44 the many reform initiatives provided by Congress.

00:08:47 Middle-tier acquisition is one.

00:08:49 We have 35 programs using it.

00:08:51 We've had many success stories.

00:08:53 The M10 Booker combat vehicle went from program start

00:08:56 to production in four years.

00:08:58 Our new 6.8-millimeter rifle went from an idea

00:09:01 to production in just three years.

00:09:03 And the other very exciting thing

00:09:05 is the software pathway Dr. Plante mentioned.

00:09:08 This pathway is critical to allow us to go

00:09:10 at the same speed industry goes

00:09:12 when they're doing their programs.

00:09:14 And finally, I should mention that the Army

00:09:15 is pursuing multi-year programs.

00:09:17 We did four in FY23 for artillery.

00:09:19 We're, with this committee's support,

00:09:21 we are pursuing two more for PAC-3 and gimmlers in FY24.

00:09:25 And a last thing to mention is this committee's

00:09:29 strong support for rapid acquisition authority

00:09:32 to allow us to respond to urgent threats.

00:09:34 We used that authority doing a contract

00:09:36 in less than 30 days to meet a critical

00:09:38 counter-UAS need in Central Command,

00:09:41 which was under attack last fall.

00:09:43 That kind of flexibility, when used responsibly

00:09:46 with correct oversight, is absolutely essential

00:09:48 to meeting critical warfighter needs quickly.

00:09:51 In closing, I want to say thank you on behalf of the Army

00:09:53 for both the funding and authorities we need

00:09:54 to support our modernization efforts.

00:09:56 With continued support from Congress,

00:09:58 we are building a force capable of competing

00:09:59 across the spectrum of competition and conflict

00:10:02 to deter conflict and failing that prevailing conflict.

00:10:05 Thank you for your time today.

00:10:06 I look forward to your questions.

00:10:07 - Thank you for your statement.

00:10:08 Secretary Gertin, you have the floor.

00:10:10 - Chairman Tester and--

00:10:13 (microphone feedback)

00:10:15 - It's good, yeah.

00:10:16 Chairman Tester and distinguished members of the committee,

00:10:20 thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today

00:10:22 to address our acquisition programs

00:10:25 and the defense industrial base.

00:10:27 We'd like to thank the subcommittee

00:10:28 for your leadership and support to the shipbuilding,

00:10:30 naval aviation, and ground programs

00:10:32 that maintain maritime superiority

00:10:35 in defense of our nation.

00:10:37 Maintaining the health of our acquisition programs

00:10:39 while strengthening the industrial base is a top priority.

00:10:42 Through strategic partnerships

00:10:44 between the Department of Defense, Congress,

00:10:46 our sister services and industry,

00:10:47 we are more efficiently and affordably procuring ships,

00:10:50 aircraft, and munitions by leveraging the advantages

00:10:53 of opportunities such as block buy

00:10:55 and multi-year procurement authorities.

00:10:57 The FY25 budget requests, fully funds,

00:11:00 the Department of Navy's top defense acquisition priority,

00:11:03 the Columbia-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine.

00:11:06 Prioritizes resources in the Navy shipbuilding account

00:11:09 to fund investments in the submarine industrial base

00:11:11 and includes a San Antonio-class landing platform dock

00:11:14 in support of the Department of Navy's requirement

00:11:16 for 31 amphibious ships.

00:11:19 We're also making targeted investments

00:11:22 in critical munitions to address today's threats

00:11:24 and posture ourselves for tomorrow's challenges.

00:11:28 The Department of Navy continues to invest funds

00:11:31 in the weapon industrial base to ensure we can surge

00:11:34 and ramp to production in the immediate future.

00:11:37 The passage of multiple security supplementals

00:11:40 enables us to replenish stocks of US weapons

00:11:43 and provide equipment to key allies and partner nations.

00:11:47 Supplemental legislation also facilitated

00:11:49 and funded our partnerships with industry

00:11:51 to expand capacity, modernize existing production lines,

00:11:54 and improve resiliency by qualified additional suppliers

00:11:58 and streamlining certification capabilities.

00:12:01 These investments positively impact our primes,

00:12:05 their subcontractors, and critical suppliers

00:12:07 across the US while supporting our allies and partners.

00:12:10 With deliberate approach, the Department of Navy

00:12:12 has increased ship and aviation maintenance

00:12:14 and readiness accounts to improve availability

00:12:17 while modernizing existing platforms.

00:12:19 The Department of Navy continues to make robust

00:12:22 strategic investment in our four public shipyards

00:12:25 and ensure they're able to execute ship maintenance

00:12:27 effectively and efficiently.

00:12:29 In aligning with my secretary's priorities,

00:12:31 the Department of Navy continues to identify

00:12:33 and overcome obstacles that threaten the success

00:12:36 of our acquisition programs and the industrial base.

00:12:40 The launch of the Maine Defense Industrial Alliance

00:12:43 in cooperation with federal and local government

00:12:45 as well as industry demonstrates our commitment

00:12:48 to developing and maintaining a well-trained,

00:12:50 skilled, and motivated workforce in support

00:12:53 of growing and fostering the shipbuilding industrial base.

00:12:56 The Department of Navy appreciates the continued support

00:13:00 and investments from Congress.

00:13:01 Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you

00:13:04 and your subcommittee today.

00:13:06 We look forward to answering your questions.

00:13:07 - Thank you for your statement.

00:13:09 Secretary Hunter, you have the floor.

00:13:11 - Thank you, Chairman Chester,

00:13:12 and thank you to the other members

00:13:14 for having me here today to provide testimony

00:13:16 on the U.S. Air Force acquisition programs

00:13:18 and also for the support you provide to us

00:13:21 in terms of resources and flexible authorities.

00:13:24 They are critical to our success

00:13:25 in the acquisition enterprise.

00:13:27 We need that flexibility and those resources

00:13:29 'cause the way in which we have to do acquisition

00:13:31 in the current security environment is changing

00:13:34 and must change, be less platform-centric

00:13:37 and more focused on the integration

00:13:40 and the tight integration between systems

00:13:43 in order to be effective in the future fight.

00:13:45 It requires tight partnerships also

00:13:47 between the operational and acquisition communities

00:13:50 in the Department of the Air Force

00:13:51 in developing the necessary capabilities

00:13:53 to deter and win future conflicts.

00:13:55 The Secretary of the Air Force has also made clear

00:13:57 to the Congress and also to us

00:13:59 within the Department of the Air Force

00:14:01 that we're out of time,

00:14:02 and so we have to reoptimize our organization

00:14:04 to move faster and also to prepare

00:14:06 for a very challenging future fight.

00:14:10 And therefore, we're shifting our focus

00:14:11 from platforms operating individually to mission threads

00:14:14 and capabilities that are required

00:14:16 to close those threads reliably and consistently over time

00:14:19 in a resilient fashion.

00:14:21 This requires us to work across our stovepipes

00:14:24 and integrate in ways that are often stymied

00:14:26 when in our existing organizational structure

00:14:28 and that require flexibility

00:14:29 within our acquisition approaches

00:14:31 in order to execute successfully.

00:14:34 So we're adapting our acquisition approaches

00:14:35 and our capability development organizational structure

00:14:38 to meet the challenges of great power competition.

00:14:41 Recognizing the challenges laid out in the defense strategy

00:14:44 and our operational imperatives

00:14:46 and our reorganization, reoptimization initiative,

00:14:49 we've gone to implement

00:14:50 a next-generation acquisition approach

00:14:53 that builds upon a foundation of government expertise,

00:14:56 technical architectures that enable open systems approaches,

00:15:00 and the constant injection of new technologies.

00:15:03 It ensures there's continuous competition

00:15:06 throughout the lifecycle of a program

00:15:08 to allow the Air Force to take advantage

00:15:09 of new advances in technology

00:15:11 through incremental development

00:15:12 while lowering the barriers to entry

00:15:13 for companies, including nontraditional companies.

00:15:16 I want to particularly highlight

00:15:17 the collaborative combat aircraft program

00:15:19 as the exemplar of our efforts to develop

00:15:21 and field new capabilities,

00:15:23 rapidly affordability, and at scale.

00:15:25 In fiscal year '25, we'll begin the concept refinement

00:15:29 for the next CCA increment

00:15:31 as we continue to explore

00:15:32 international partnership participation

00:15:34 and expand our approach to continuous competition.

00:15:38 Since time is of the essence and capability development,

00:15:40 we're very thankful to the Congress

00:15:41 for providing quick start authority

00:15:43 and the NDAA, and I know this committee

00:15:45 was very helpful in getting

00:15:47 to a successful resolution of that issue.

00:15:49 I also want to highlight that we just

00:15:51 put through that authority and through that process

00:15:56 a program to provide C3 battle management

00:15:58 for moving target indication at scale,

00:16:01 which I think is a very effective use of that authority.

00:16:04 We look forward to working with Congress

00:16:05 as we organize into a more agile

00:16:07 and integrated acquisition system

00:16:09 that delivers capabilities quickly and at scale.

00:16:11 We welcome the opportunity to provide you

00:16:13 more details on our key Department of the Air Force efforts

00:16:16 where we can use help,

00:16:17 including the establishment of our new software directorate,

00:16:21 our implementation of the Defense Acquisition

00:16:23 Workforce Development Account

00:16:25 to build that government expertise that I referred to,

00:16:27 and our approach to digital material management.

00:16:29 Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.

00:16:32 - Yeah, I want to thank all four of you for your testimony.

00:16:34 We'll get into the questions right now.

00:16:35 We have heard a lot in recent years

00:16:37 about the challenge that the defense industry

00:16:39 has to attract and retain a manufacturing workforce

00:16:43 to build weapon systems on time.

00:16:45 This is concerning, and we will be discussing that more today

00:16:47 but my primary question is about

00:16:49 the Department of Defense's own workforce.

00:16:51 This is for all of you.

00:16:53 What is the DOD's acquisition workforce?

00:16:56 Our acquisition budgets have grown significantly,

00:16:59 but do we have enough qualified

00:17:01 and experienced contracting officers?

00:17:03 Do we have enough auditors?

00:17:05 Do we have enough cost estimators to manage this workload?

00:17:08 We'll start with you, Dr. LaPlante.

00:17:11 - Yeah, thank you, and with the authorities

00:17:13 that this committee and others have given us,

00:17:15 they're of course only as good

00:17:16 as the workforce to implement them.

00:17:18 I would say broadly, like a lot of our economy

00:17:21 and our society, there's been a generational change

00:17:23 in our workforce.

00:17:25 I would say that we have put in place

00:17:27 many of the tools that you have given us,

00:17:29 including the one that just was mentioned

00:17:30 by Honorable Hunter on the acquisition demonstration

00:17:34 and the funds to train next generation.

00:17:37 I would say the area that I'm most focused on

00:17:40 really beefing up are contracting officers.

00:17:42 A couple of comments on that.

00:17:44 Number one, I'm biased, but I actually think

00:17:46 that the contracting officers in the Department of Defense

00:17:48 are some of the best in the United States government.

00:17:51 As a result, they're also highly desirable,

00:17:53 both in other parts of the US government,

00:17:55 which is not a bad thing necessarily,

00:17:57 but out in the private sector.

00:17:59 We also, and this is something perhaps

00:18:00 that's not fully appreciated,

00:18:02 during the years in Iraq and Afghanistan,

00:18:04 many contracting officers did service downrange in country,

00:18:09 four or five times in some cases.

00:18:11 Many of those got burned out.

00:18:13 So we're rebuilding many parts

00:18:14 of the contracting workforce.

00:18:17 I would say in pockets, we still have work to do.

00:18:19 Net overall, I'm pretty pleased with where we are,

00:18:22 but I would also defer to my other colleagues here.

00:18:24 - And we'll go to Secretary Bush next

00:18:26 from an Army perspective.

00:18:28 Where are we on those three?

00:18:30 - Senator, I would agree with Dr. LaPlante.

00:18:32 If I worry about one workforce,

00:18:34 it's the contracting workforce.

00:18:35 There's only about 9,000 people.

00:18:37 They've doubled their workload, frankly.

00:18:41 They did COVID, then they rolled straight into Ukraine.

00:18:43 - So is 9,000 optimal, or do you need more?

00:18:46 - Sir, some more would be helpful.

00:18:49 However, we are, in the meantime,

00:18:50 focused on giving them better technology

00:18:52 and tools to be more efficient.

00:18:53 So I think a little help in both realms,

00:18:56 efficiency investment,

00:18:57 and perhaps some more people would be warranted.

00:18:59 - If you could get back to us,

00:19:01 you don't have to do it now

00:19:02 'cause I wanna go to Secretary Gerton,

00:19:03 get back to us on how many more people you would need.

00:19:05 Secretary Gerton.

00:19:06 - Thank you, Senator.

00:19:09 Echo of my colleagues that contract officers

00:19:12 are a key component of our future.

00:19:14 One of the things I've advocated for for years

00:19:16 is a better application of modularity

00:19:19 and open architectures

00:19:20 in order to invoke competition more broadly.

00:19:23 And all of those require contracts.

00:19:25 So we need contract officers to grow.

00:19:29 And honestly, the Navy grows great contract officers

00:19:32 'cause people keep hiring them.

00:19:33 So that's something we continually have to refresh.

00:19:37 Also, a particular note is waterfront workforce.

00:19:42 We need more people out on the deck plates

00:19:44 building and maintaining ships.

00:19:46 It's a big problem for us.

00:19:47 I'll talk more about that later.

00:19:49 Lastly, I'd like to note that we also need to up our game

00:19:54 in understanding how to build ships.

00:19:56 Naval architects and marine engineers

00:19:58 is something that we have a deficit of.

00:20:00 It happened over the course of many years,

00:20:03 something I'm particularly focused on

00:20:04 so we do a better job of understanding our business

00:20:07 of building ships.

00:20:09 - Okay, and from an auditor's

00:20:11 and cost estimator's standpoint, we're okay?

00:20:14 - Well, in one of the key areas of auditing

00:20:18 includes keeping an eye on waterfront ship production.

00:20:23 But in the area of supervisor of shipbuilding,

00:20:25 that's an area we particularly need more help with.

00:20:28 - Secretary Hunter.

00:20:29 - Yeah, thank you, Senator.

00:20:31 We really value the resources that we received in '24

00:20:34 for the DOTA account, that workforce development account,

00:20:37 42 million.

00:20:38 Areas of need for us include,

00:20:41 I would say software expertise.

00:20:43 So while we still rely on industry

00:20:44 to produce the vast majority of our software,

00:20:47 we need enough government expertise

00:20:48 to really be a good customer for that.

00:20:50 And we are also increasingly doing organic development

00:20:53 of software in our sustainment center,

00:20:56 not just for systems that are in sustainment,

00:20:58 but also for new development programs like B21

00:21:01 in partnership with our prime.

00:21:02 So that software workforce expertise is a key area of need.

00:21:06 And I did wanna also mention

00:21:08 our acquisition workforce development pilot,

00:21:11 which has been a pilot since the mid-1990s.

00:21:13 I personally believe it should be permanent.

00:21:16 But at a minimum, we need to extend it

00:21:18 because that is a key way if we keep our talent.

00:21:21 - Last follow-up really quick,

00:21:22 and you gotta answer this very quickly.

00:21:24 I got 20 seconds left.

00:21:25 Do you guys have a plan to fix the shortages

00:21:29 that you perceive within the contracting?

00:21:32 Yes or no?

00:21:32 - Yes, we are executing that plan.

00:21:34 - Dr. or Secretary Gertin.

00:21:35 - Yes, but we could definitely need some help.

00:21:38 - Okay, Secretary Bush.

00:21:40 - Not with the funding I have right now, Senator.

00:21:42 - Okay, thank you very much.

00:21:44 - Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:21:47 Thank you all for being here

00:21:48 and your focus on what we need to be doing better

00:21:55 when it comes to accelerating in the acquisition space.

00:21:59 I think we recognize that sluggish is one of those words

00:22:04 that perhaps best describes what happens

00:22:08 in a bureaucracy like we are faced.

00:22:10 I appreciate your response to the chairman about workforce

00:22:15 because that is key to most everything.

00:22:18 But I wanna start, Dr. LaPlante.

00:22:20 If you were to give the department a letter grade here

00:22:24 on its current efforts to reform

00:22:27 and to improve the acquisition process,

00:22:30 and I noted, Mr. Hunter,

00:22:32 that you said that you've got an acquisition pilot

00:22:35 that has been in place since the '90s.

00:22:38 Maybe sluggish is even too kind of a word.

00:22:43 But if you have to really critically assess

00:22:46 where we are in how we're improving the acquisition process,

00:22:50 utilizing the new authorities

00:22:51 that can help you move faster,

00:22:53 what is that, and really what we need to know

00:22:56 is what more can Congress do to help move you through

00:23:01 to some better reforms here?

00:23:04 - Yeah, I would give it a grade of a B.

00:23:06 And the reason I give it a grade of a B on the positive side

00:23:09 is the American equipment is the best in the world.

00:23:11 The demand for foreign military sales

00:23:13 from US equipment is at record highs.

00:23:17 Everybody wants the equipment.

00:23:18 Everybody sees it work in Ukraine and other places.

00:23:21 They know it can also be trained for and sustained.

00:23:24 The demand for our stuff is through the roof.

00:23:26 We are seeing that every day.

00:23:29 Why is it not higher than a B?

00:23:31 'Cause number one, we still are too slow in certain areas,

00:23:34 particularly when it involves with adapting modern software.

00:23:37 Number two, we still do not have enough parts

00:23:40 and pieces that are interchangeable that we can use,

00:23:43 and they're not proprietary to one company.

00:23:46 The third area, which is still frustrating sometimes,

00:23:48 is we still over, don't get the requirements

00:23:51 and the acquisition right and aligned up.

00:23:53 So we have a lot more work to do

00:23:55 to get faster and to align those.

00:23:58 But I would say there's still,

00:24:00 when you look at cost schedule performance,

00:24:01 as my colleague in the Army said,

00:24:03 largely, net, cost increases are coming down,

00:24:07 performance is good, and schedule is the one area

00:24:10 we still need to make improvement on.

00:24:12 - Let me ask you, Secretary Grutin,

00:24:15 you mentioned that within the Navy,

00:24:20 you need to focus also on how you're building ships,

00:24:25 I think is how you framed it.

00:24:28 It's my understanding that some of what we're dealing with

00:24:33 when we're looking at where the Navy is

00:24:36 and the shipbuilding demands is,

00:24:40 whether it's approving construction

00:24:42 when design is not yet complete,

00:24:45 or perhaps altering existing requirements

00:24:47 during the build itself.

00:24:49 In other words, you don't have a flow here

00:24:53 that is consistent.

00:24:55 Can you expand on some of the internal lessons learned

00:25:00 that the Navy is working to rectify

00:25:03 as it faces some of these concerns with shipbuilding?

00:25:06 I think many of us in this committee,

00:25:10 in this Congress, are very concerned

00:25:12 about where we are with our naval fleet.

00:25:16 - Senator, I share your concern.

00:25:18 I was given a charge by the Secretary of the Navy

00:25:22 to look at shipbuilding when I was fairly new

00:25:25 into the position, and one of the things

00:25:27 that came out of it was to understand our risk balance,

00:25:30 and one of the things we haven't always done well

00:25:33 is have a robust, stable design

00:25:36 prior to launching into ship construction.

00:25:40 One of the things that I intend on doing going forward

00:25:42 is to make sure we're taking better advantage

00:25:44 of modern development tools that we have

00:25:47 for doing upfront modeling and naval acquisition,

00:25:51 naval architecture, prior to going forward with construction.

00:25:55 That's actually a fairly robust set of practices

00:25:58 in the commercial industry,

00:25:59 but we need to take better advantage of them

00:26:01 in how we build our naval ships.

00:26:04 We need the right kind of people

00:26:05 and the right kind of tools in order to be able to do that.

00:26:08 - Let me ask, back to you, Dr. LaPlante,

00:26:12 and this relates to our ground-based missile interceptors.

00:26:16 As you know, in Alaska, we have a pretty important

00:26:21 project up there.

00:26:25 Can you give me an update

00:26:26 on the Next Generation Interceptor program?

00:26:29 Are we on track?

00:26:30 Is it delayed?

00:26:31 Is it possible that it could even be ahead of time?

00:26:33 Where are we?

00:26:34 - Yeah, the program is on track,

00:26:35 the Next Generation Interceptor.

00:26:37 As you know, we were keeping,

00:26:39 and Missile Defense is keeping two contractor teams

00:26:43 much later in the process than we typically do,

00:26:45 almost up to CDR.

00:26:46 They're going through a down-select,

00:26:48 as we know, in the last couple of months.

00:26:50 And I expect that to be on track and on time.

00:26:54 Thank you. - Thank you.

00:26:54 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:26:55 (man speaking off mic)

00:26:57 - Senator Shaheen.

00:26:59 - Thanks.

00:27:02 (people speaking off mic)

00:27:05 - Support families here.

00:27:08 Don't destroy families here.

00:27:10 - Leave one to you.

00:27:11 Blood is on your hands.

00:27:13 We need money for healthcare and education,

00:27:15 not for the horrors of war.

00:27:17 - Thank you all for being here.

00:27:22 I'm gonna begin a little parochially.

00:27:28 Assistant Secretary Hunter,

00:27:29 we're very proud that in New Hampshire,

00:27:31 the 157th Air Guard flies the KC-46.

00:27:35 They were the first unit in the country

00:27:37 to get those KC-46s.

00:27:39 So I have watched very closely the delays

00:27:42 in the rollout of the new remote vision system.

00:27:44 I understand it's delayed yet again.

00:27:47 So what do we need to do to address that,

00:27:51 and how do we make sure that doesn't happen again?

00:27:53 (man speaking off mic)

00:27:58 - I was gonna say, right now,

00:28:00 it's been sort of a deal-up by the 157th,

00:28:02 and using the license to access the right micro-electronics

00:28:07 for that system, and also getting FAA certification

00:28:11 for the (mumbles)

00:28:13 Engineering work requires it.

00:28:15 FAA certification, so having that correct

00:28:18 and engineering (mumbles)

00:28:21 to achieve that necessary thing.

00:28:24 But those are the main things that we need there.

00:28:27 (man speaking off mic)

00:28:30 - So what's the current timeline?

00:28:42 (man speaking off mic)

00:28:47 Thank you, I will hold you to that.

00:28:49 Secretary LaPlante, actually, this is all of you,

00:28:55 mentioned the importance of the flexibility reforms,

00:28:58 the acquisition reforms that have been done

00:29:00 in the last couple of years.

00:29:01 And one of the concerns that I think we all have

00:29:06 is how do those procurement authorities

00:29:13 address the situation in Ukraine,

00:29:16 and allow us to prepare for future conflicts?

00:29:19 So, Secretary LaPlante, do you wanna start with that?

00:29:22 - Yeah, the authorities that have been provided,

00:29:24 and we talked already about the software authorities

00:29:26 and mid-tier acquisition, have really allowed us

00:29:28 to get started very, very fast,

00:29:30 and to move basically in an agile fashion,

00:29:33 if you wanna use the agile term, and go through sprints.

00:29:36 So those were already up and being used

00:29:38 across the services when Ukraine happened.

00:29:41 What we've added to that with Ukraine

00:29:43 was what we learned from COVID

00:29:45 and how to do rapid contracting.

00:29:47 A lot of the PPE and a lot of the stuff

00:29:49 that was done with the vaccines during COVID

00:29:51 was done by the Department of Defense.

00:29:53 That same rapid contracting was put for Ukraine.

00:29:56 So we learned that.

00:29:57 I think the other piece that we've learned from Ukraine

00:29:59 with these authorities is even if you have

00:30:01 these rapid capabilities, you have to do

00:30:04 what sometimes one of my colleagues here calls

00:30:06 the adult stuff.

00:30:08 You have to worry about it being sustained.

00:30:10 You have to worry about being trained to it.

00:30:12 And so you can go fast, but you have to go fast

00:30:15 with putting these other pieces in line,

00:30:17 and that's what we're learning with Ukraine.

00:30:19 But I'll turn over to my other colleagues.

00:30:22 - Senator, I would echo Dr. Plant's comments.

00:30:24 I think the reforms are much appreciated.

00:30:26 They do let us start programs faster,

00:30:28 which is a good thing.

00:30:30 However, the basics still apply.

00:30:31 You need good cost estimates.

00:30:33 You need realistic requirements.

00:30:35 And you need at some point to do the whole package,

00:30:38 which is something we do better than any other country,

00:30:40 which is the logistics, the military construction

00:30:43 that goes with a device, like a new range for a new rifle.

00:30:46 So ma'am, I think as long as, you know,

00:30:49 getting started fast is good,

00:30:51 but it's not the whole story.

00:30:53 However, it is a big deal and lets us respond more quickly

00:30:57 to new technology and new threats.

00:30:59 - Before, I'm gonna follow up on that.

00:31:01 So I don't need to have the other responses.

00:31:06 I was just in the Indo-Pacific.

00:31:09 One of our stops was in Japan,

00:31:10 where as you know, they doubled their defense operations.

00:31:15 And one of the things we heard there was concern

00:31:19 about how fast their industrial base

00:31:21 could respond to that directive.

00:31:24 Have also heard that from our European friends

00:31:27 about responding.

00:31:29 How are we working with our allies to help them respond?

00:31:33 And why has Russia been able to rebuild its systems

00:31:37 in a way that has allowed them to put out

00:31:41 what appears to be so many more munitions

00:31:43 than we've been able to get to Ukraine?

00:31:46 - I'll try to get to this very quickly

00:31:48 and turn it over to my colleagues.

00:31:49 First, the Russia, we're all monitoring

00:31:52 both in open source and other places.

00:31:53 What is Russia doing in its industrial base?

00:31:55 We saw that Putin just replaced his minister of defense

00:31:58 with an economist with an emphasis.

00:32:00 I think a lot of us have taken away that this is not,

00:32:03 they're not in it for the short term,

00:32:04 they're in the long term.

00:32:05 The second is the estimates that they're at 7%

00:32:08 of their GDP for military.

00:32:10 Oh, those are, and they're staying there.

00:32:12 And they're on a wartime footing.

00:32:14 Whatever you wanna say about the United States,

00:32:16 we are not, and I'm not suggesting we should or shouldn't,

00:32:18 it's just we're not.

00:32:19 The second thing, on your point about allies and partners,

00:32:23 across the board, allies and partners are recognizing

00:32:25 both in Europe and in Indo-Pacific

00:32:27 that they need an industrial base basically restart.

00:32:31 For all of the criticism we give ourselves,

00:32:33 rightfully so, they're envious

00:32:35 of what the United States has been able to do.

00:32:37 What we're talking to each of these countries,

00:32:39 and I'll talk about Japan,

00:32:40 and then I'll turn it over as a specific example,

00:32:42 is doing co-development, co-production with them

00:32:44 to help their industrial base and ours at the same time.

00:32:47 The next generation of missile defense interceptors

00:32:50 is gonna be called glide phase intercept.

00:32:52 It's beyond NGI.

00:32:53 That's a collaboration with the Japanese

00:32:56 and Japanese companies and American companies.

00:32:58 So that's where this is all headed.

00:33:00 You're gonna see much more co-production,

00:33:03 co-development, and co-sustain with allies and partners.

00:33:05 - Thank you.

00:33:06 - Senator Moran.

00:33:07 - Chairman, thank you.

00:33:08 One of the things that's taking place

00:33:12 that I think has a consequence to the industrial base,

00:33:15 the defense industrial base,

00:33:17 Spirit Aerosystems is a company

00:33:20 that employs 12, 13,000 people in Kansas,

00:33:24 does a lot of sub work for nearly every prime

00:33:28 defense contractor in the country.

00:33:30 The indications are that it may be purchased by Boeing.

00:33:34 Boeing, I assume, is interested in its,

00:33:39 and Spirit does significant work for Boeing today

00:33:43 on the commercial side,

00:33:45 but there's a significant component of Spirit Aerosystems

00:33:48 that is defense-related.

00:33:49 And I'm interested whether any of you

00:33:53 are paying attention to this issue

00:33:56 in part to understand what it might mean

00:33:59 to our defense industrial base and to supplies

00:34:03 should this merger occur.

00:34:07 I'd be interested in knowing

00:34:09 how this may expand or contract our defense base.

00:34:18 - Say a few words and then I'll ask my air--

00:34:20 - I should have asked Mr. Hunter.

00:34:23 - Oh, maybe Andrew.

00:34:23 - No, I'd be happy to hear from you, Mr. Secretary.

00:34:26 - So I'll give the standard caveat right at the beginning.

00:34:28 We don't comment on any pending M&A, obviously,

00:34:30 because it's a process that go through.

00:34:32 I would also say a couple things.

00:34:33 Number one is each one has to be--

00:34:34 - Do you have input in--

00:34:36 - We do.

00:34:37 On any of these M&As,

00:34:40 what happened whether it's done by the FTC

00:34:42 or Department of Justice,

00:34:44 the Department of Defense provides input

00:34:46 on any collateral good or collateral bad

00:34:50 that would come out of this,

00:34:51 and we take each on a case-by-case basis.

00:34:54 I would just say that.

00:34:55 But obviously, the health of the U.S. industrial base,

00:34:57 particularly companies that do commercial

00:34:59 as well as defense in their portfolio,

00:35:02 is something of keen interest to us.

00:35:04 I'll turn it over to Andrew.

00:35:05 - I only indicated to Mr. Hunter

00:35:07 because he just recently returned from visiting.

00:35:09 - Yeah, Senator, it was a great opportunity

00:35:12 to visit Spirit and developed a deep appreciation

00:35:15 for all the ways in which Spirit is contributing

00:35:17 to a variety of U.S. Air Force programs,

00:35:19 and as you noted, across a number of our key suppliers,

00:35:23 our key prime vendors,

00:35:24 and in particular, the manufacturing expertise

00:35:28 that is resident there and the ability to leverage

00:35:31 new production techniques that are very significant

00:35:34 and important to our more cutting-edge,

00:35:36 newer weapons systems,

00:35:38 leveraged out of the commercial development,

00:35:40 particularly 787.

00:35:42 That is, I think, a key asset for the nation,

00:35:45 and so we'll work closely with Doctoral Plan

00:35:48 in terms of the Department's feedback

00:35:49 to ensure that those capabilities

00:35:52 are still able to be utilized in the best way possible.

00:35:55 - Any other, Secretary?

00:36:00 - So, just camping a little bit on what Doctoral Plan said

00:36:04 about how the Defense Department looks at this,

00:36:06 but we're also looking through the lens of,

00:36:09 is it helping or hurting competition?

00:36:11 We want competition in as many places as we can

00:36:14 that helps us get a better deal from industry,

00:36:16 so that's one of the lenses that we'll look at that through.

00:36:19 - Let me highlight that Spirit Aerosystems,

00:36:24 this Tier 1 supplier, supports programs like the B-21,

00:36:28 the V-280, the CH-53K.

00:36:32 It's wide array across all of the Department,

00:36:35 and in my view, the Defense Department ought to be

00:36:40 at least encouraging me and others,

00:36:43 if not in addition to the administration,

00:36:46 to make sure that if there is a merger,

00:36:48 that the defense capabilities of Spirit

00:36:51 is not somehow lost in the process.

00:36:54 My assumption is that Boeing is almost exclusively

00:36:57 interested in this for commercial manufacturing,

00:37:00 and yet, if the absence of Spirit Aerosystems,

00:37:03 we lose a lot of defense capabilities.

00:37:06 I have visited with nearly, well, four or five of the CEOs

00:37:09 whose companies do work in defense with Spirit,

00:37:13 and there's a general feeling is,

00:37:16 I don't know where else we would go

00:37:19 in the absence of Spirit doing what it does today.

00:37:22 - And rest assured, as the process, as with others,

00:37:26 we will weigh in on the defense implications,

00:37:28 both good and necessarily not good on that case.

00:37:32 We will absolutely weigh in.

00:37:33 - Thank you.

00:37:34 - Senator Reid.

00:37:37 - Thank you very much, gentlemen.

00:37:39 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:37:40 I wanna reemphasize two points the chairman made.

00:37:42 First of all, the responsibility for this predicament,

00:37:45 and it is a very serious one,

00:37:46 is shared by both Congress and the executives,

00:37:48 so we have to work together.

00:37:50 Also, the attrition of our government workforce

00:37:55 is a key factor, and I don't think we're doing enough

00:37:57 to remedy that.

00:37:59 My impression on the decks, as you will,

00:38:03 there's a 27-year-old foreman

00:38:05 talking to a 27-year-old representative of Supt Ships,

00:38:08 where before the pandemic,

00:38:10 there were 50-year-olds talking to each other,

00:38:12 which makes a bit of a difference.

00:38:14 But I wanna go right to the Submarine Industrial Base.

00:38:16 As you know, Congress initiated funding directly

00:38:19 to rehabilitate and strengthen the Submarine Industrial Base.

00:38:22 Four years later, the Navy took up the cause.

00:38:27 But right now, the Columbia is behind,

00:38:29 and it's slipping further.

00:38:31 We cannot produce two attack submarines a year.

00:38:34 We're about 1.2.

00:38:36 And I think everyone can see this platform

00:38:39 is probably the most critical and decisive,

00:38:41 both of them, in our inventory.

00:38:43 So, Secretary Blank, you sent up a budget this year,

00:38:47 the president did, which is only buying

00:38:50 one Virginia-class boat,

00:38:53 but also putting significant amount of money

00:38:55 into the Submarine Industrial Base

00:38:57 for parts for additional boats.

00:38:59 Can you give us the rationale and logic?

00:39:02 - Yeah, thank you, Senator.

00:39:03 And as you well know, and appreciate the help

00:39:05 of this committee on the Submarine Industrial Base,

00:39:07 the department had the difficult choice

00:39:09 of either adding to the backlog that was there,

00:39:12 or take that money and invest it in increased capacity,

00:39:15 knowing that that's gonna be delayed

00:39:18 before we see the increase.

00:39:19 And it's the increased capacity

00:39:21 was what the department chose to do.

00:39:23 - And do you have metrics to measure

00:39:25 whether you're doing this efficiently or effectively?

00:39:28 - Yeah, the closest metrics that we look at,

00:39:31 when I know my Navy counterparts,

00:39:32 I know probably you do as well, and others,

00:39:35 is we look at the work, take Columbia, for example.

00:39:37 We look at the plan of where they are

00:39:39 in the work progress compared to the plan.

00:39:42 Are they maintaining the plan?

00:39:43 Are they falling behind?

00:39:44 Are they ahead?

00:39:45 And we're tracking it, I mean, I know the Navy's tracking it

00:39:48 almost every week.

00:39:50 We watch it at my level every month.

00:39:52 And for example, in Columbia,

00:39:54 we lost some ground in the fall.

00:39:56 It looks like we're gaining some of it back right now.

00:39:59 The question is, can we gain enough back

00:40:01 to get the one year, which is the nominal,

00:40:03 behind on Columbia to get that shortened?

00:40:05 We're watching it very, very carefully.

00:40:07 A lot of it has to do, as you know,

00:40:09 with the technical data packages,

00:40:11 the work instructions, getting to the workforce

00:40:13 in a way that they can implement,

00:40:15 and with proper learning and efficiency.

00:40:18 And we're also tracking how Columbia compares,

00:40:20 which is 826, to the 827, which is the next submarine,

00:40:24 and where that is.

00:40:25 And we're seeing the learning and the growth there,

00:40:28 but we track it all the time.

00:40:29 And I'd ask Nick if you wanna add anything.

00:40:31 - Please.

00:40:32 - So Senator, as you know, we are going to be

00:40:37 to the point where we need to be able to build

00:40:38 two and a third Virginias a year

00:40:40 plus serial production on Columbia.

00:40:42 We need to position ourselves for success in that regard,

00:40:46 and the investments we're getting from Congress

00:40:49 to be able to improve the throughput

00:40:52 of the submarine industrial base is critical

00:40:54 to be able to get to that point.

00:40:56 And it'll be historic.

00:40:57 Even when we were building Ohio's,

00:40:59 we're only building two Los Angeles's a year,

00:41:02 and both of those types of submarines are much simpler

00:41:05 than these Virginias and Columbias will be.

00:41:08 So we absolutely support that investment

00:41:12 so we can get to the point where we can build

00:41:14 two and a third Virginias a year

00:41:16 and serial production of Columbia

00:41:19 and get to that historic high level of throughput.

00:41:23 - Do you think you have the capacity to do that?

00:41:26 - No, sir, we don't.

00:41:28 But with the investments that we're going to be executing

00:41:30 over the course of the next few years,

00:41:32 we will get to that point.

00:41:33 - That would mean investments in additional shipyards

00:41:36 or additional capacity shipyards?

00:41:38 - So the capacity we're looking at right now is

00:41:44 to improve the shipyards we have.

00:41:46 In the near term, that's where we need to put our money.

00:41:50 I would like to, we actually are thinking about

00:41:54 and looking at where else we might have shipyard capacity.

00:41:57 But right now we're driving more of the work

00:42:00 out of the shipyards where they are right at the waterfront

00:42:03 and trying to push more of that work

00:42:05 into other facilities that can support

00:42:08 bringing those submarines together

00:42:10 in the couple of places that are unique to that capacity.

00:42:13 - Thank you very much.

00:42:13 And Secretary Hunter, in 2023 in the NDAA,

00:42:18 we created a site activation task force,

00:42:22 resident at the Air Force Global Strike,

00:42:24 to bring operational views into the process

00:42:27 of the Sentinel program.

00:42:31 How is that task force working and how are they helping,

00:42:35 I hope, with the McCurdy Nunn breach?

00:42:38 - Senator, they are helping.

00:42:41 I work very closely with General Conner

00:42:43 who leads that task force.

00:42:44 Meet with him on a very regular basis

00:42:46 as we go through the Sentinel Nunn-McCurdy process.

00:42:48 But of course we continue to execute that program

00:42:51 while we're going through the Nunn-McCurdy process.

00:42:53 So that's a key partnership.

00:42:55 We view B-21 as the best model

00:42:57 for integrating our operators and our acquirers,

00:42:59 as I referenced in my opening statement.

00:43:01 And that is the model we are looking

00:43:03 to execute with Sentinel.

00:43:05 We haven't reached quite that B-21 level of integration yet,

00:43:08 but we are well on our way.

00:43:09 We have staffed up in the program office

00:43:11 with operators from Global Strike,

00:43:13 both operators and maintainers.

00:43:16 And we are starting to see benefits of that,

00:43:19 especially as we go through some of the design choices

00:43:22 that we have to make to get to where we want to be

00:43:25 with the Nunn-McCurdy process.

00:43:27 - Thank you very much.

00:43:28 - Senator Bozeman.

00:43:28 - Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:43:33 Dr. Plant, we are faced with urgent need

00:43:37 to prioritize critical munitions

00:43:39 and replenish our stockpile commodities

00:43:42 against the backdrop of budget hindered by constraints.

00:43:46 This fiscal year, missiles and munitions

00:43:48 comprise of 10% of the department's investment funding

00:43:52 at $29.8 billion.

00:43:53 Dr. Plant, how will current budgetary restrictions

00:43:57 coupled with inflation affect

00:43:59 your long-term acquisition strategy for munitions?

00:44:02 - Thank you for the question.

00:44:05 I think what we've all seen in the last couple of years,

00:44:08 and actually this is probably the fourth time

00:44:09 it's happened since 2000,

00:44:11 where when a crisis happens within a year or two,

00:44:14 we realize that precision munitions,

00:44:16 that we run low on inventory.

00:44:18 And part of this is because we've bought munitions

00:44:20 historically one year at a time.

00:44:23 As I mentioned in my opening,

00:44:24 the fact that this committee helped us get multi-years

00:44:27 has takes that, it really gives that demand signal

00:44:30 back to industry to say,

00:44:31 we're not just gonna buy these key munitions

00:44:33 one year at a time, we're gonna buy them in multi-years.

00:44:36 And you can commit your own capital,

00:44:37 your own workforce to this.

00:44:39 So what we have for multi-years,

00:44:41 thanks to this committee and others,

00:44:43 we have multi-year contracts we're putting in place,

00:44:45 the Army already for 155,

00:44:48 we're gonna put them in for LORASM,

00:44:49 Long Range Anti-Ship Missile,

00:44:51 for JASM, for Patriot MS-3E,

00:44:54 which is the Advanced Patriot,

00:44:56 and Naval Strike Missile.

00:44:58 That's what we're doing to begin to build this back,

00:45:01 to show the commitment to industry

00:45:03 that not just for this year, but you perform,

00:45:06 you're gonna have this work three, four years from now.

00:45:09 So that's what we're doing.

00:45:10 But I would say overall,

00:45:12 the budget obviously constrains it.

00:45:15 As I've said, we've always dialed down

00:45:16 on manufacturing and production, because you can.

00:45:19 And so it is one of the bill payers,

00:45:21 it's historically been one of the bill payers.

00:45:23 - So again, we've given you this authority,

00:45:26 will you be able to in the next year or two

00:45:28 then be able to give us good data,

00:45:32 working with your partners

00:45:35 as to the positive effect that this is gonna have?

00:45:38 - Absolutely, and I would say we're already seeing

00:45:40 some of the positive effect, but we'll do.

00:45:42 - Good, thank you very much.

00:45:43 Also, I wanna highlight the domestic availability

00:45:46 of ingredients necessary to manufacture

00:45:49 smokeless gunpowder, including nitrocellulose,

00:45:53 nitroglycerin, and acid production.

00:45:56 A supply chain shortage in these areas

00:45:58 could not only impact the ability

00:45:59 to manufacture ammunition, but also increase it cost.

00:46:04 - Dr. Plant, has the department studied

00:46:06 the domestic availability of these ammunition components,

00:46:11 and is the department concerned with the current

00:46:14 limited availability of nitrocellulose?

00:46:17 What are the limitations for current

00:46:19 and future production of nitrocellulose?

00:46:22 - Thank you, and it has been said many times,

00:46:24 that energetics, which some of these

00:46:25 are in the category of energetics,

00:46:26 actually is the limiting factor for some of these munitions

00:46:29 in terms of global, actually.

00:46:31 So in the cases of almost all the items you mentioned,

00:46:34 we are, and I could actually ask the Army

00:46:37 to jump in here, finding alternative sources,

00:46:40 domestic sources, to really replace

00:46:42 these very rare things that many of them

00:46:44 are from overseas, but I'd ask Doug

00:46:46 if you wanna add anything.

00:46:48 - Senator, on the nitrocellulose front specifically,

00:46:53 we have this year coming online

00:46:55 at Radford Army Ammunition Plant

00:46:57 a $700 million previous investment made years ago

00:47:01 by Congress to go to a fully modern,

00:47:04 very high capacity production capacity

00:47:06 that's on our ammo plant.

00:47:07 So sir, I think that one we are gonna end up

00:47:09 ahead of the problem, not behind,

00:47:11 which is great to see.

00:47:12 However, we do have other sources.

00:47:15 We have focused on making sure

00:47:16 those are friendly countries.

00:47:17 Of course, we want allies providing these things,

00:47:20 not our potential enemies.

00:47:22 We have other tasks, sir, directed by Congress

00:47:24 to by 2028 not have any, I would say,

00:47:28 unfriendly sources in our ammunition

00:47:30 chemical supply chain, I would call it,

00:47:32 and we're committed to achieving that, sir,

00:47:34 and it's gonna require some investments here,

00:47:37 but also working with members on

00:47:39 working through how we can do that

00:47:40 with allies as well.

00:47:41 - Good, so that's the one we're hearing

00:47:43 the most about, the nitrocellulose.

00:47:45 Anything we can do to support your efforts,

00:47:48 you know, just let us know.

00:47:51 The National Defense Industrial Strategy

00:47:53 prioritizes the need for skilled

00:47:55 and staffed workforce.

00:47:56 Camden, Arkansas has become a leader

00:47:58 in the defense industry at a time

00:48:00 when our country needs it the most.

00:48:02 We recognize there's more work to be done

00:48:04 to recruit, retain, and provide skilled workers

00:48:06 with the best opportunities as we ramp up

00:48:09 production and capacity.

00:48:11 Dr. Plant, to what extent is the department

00:48:16 working with industry partners to invest

00:48:18 and renew interest in industrial jobs

00:48:20 to optimize workforce readiness?

00:48:22 - Thank you, Senator.

00:48:24 Almost every meeting that we have

00:48:26 with industry that I have or my colleagues have,

00:48:28 most of the meeting is talking about workforce.

00:48:30 And each company is in sort of a different place,

00:48:33 which we'd expect, but writ large,

00:48:35 for example, welders across the country

00:48:37 in any industry are, they're very, very prized right now.

00:48:42 The other piece that we're seeing is

00:48:44 the price differential between what

00:48:46 the defense industrial base will pay

00:48:48 for let's say some type of workman,

00:48:50 HVAC or whatever, the delta between that

00:48:52 and the services industry has decreased.

00:48:55 So we have to work with the companies

00:48:57 without, with doing it cost effective

00:48:59 and how we can get some of the wages higher.

00:49:02 The other piece of this that we're finding

00:49:03 is really important is supervisors.

00:49:06 We had a whole generation of supervisors

00:49:08 basically retire during COVID.

00:49:10 What really matters to most workers

00:49:12 is your direct supervisor.

00:49:13 So a lot of emphasis there, but this is a huge,

00:49:16 it is the number one issue

00:49:18 of our industrial basis workforce.

00:49:19 - Right, very good.

00:49:20 Thank you all so much for all you do.

00:49:23 We really do appreciate you.

00:49:25 Senator Baldwin.

00:49:27 - Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:49:29 Secretary Gertin, during a recent

00:49:33 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing,

00:49:35 Senator Peters asked you about the frigate program.

00:49:39 I was, I take issue with your answer

00:49:45 and I want to, you seem to minimize

00:49:49 the Navy's shared responsibility

00:49:51 for challenges facing that program.

00:49:54 In my view, it's not merely that the Navy

00:49:57 failed to perform sufficient oversight

00:49:59 as you mentioned in your response,

00:50:01 but that the Navy has directly contributed

00:50:04 to the delay by requesting substantial design changes

00:50:08 as well as a slow, slowly approving design deliverables.

00:50:13 By some reports, the frigate was intended

00:50:16 to maintain 85% of a prior design,

00:50:20 but now in part due to the Navy's request

00:50:23 for changes, retains only 15% of that previous design.

00:50:28 And while some changes related to enhanced survivability

00:50:32 are to be expected, these drastic numbers

00:50:35 tell me that the Navy is contributing to program delays.

00:50:38 So Mr. Secretary, yes or no, do you agree

00:50:41 that the Navy shares responsibility

00:50:44 for the ship design issues that have caused delays

00:50:47 for the frigate?

00:50:48 - Senator, yes I do.

00:50:49 I'm sorry that I left that impression.

00:50:53 This was absolutely a government industry partnership

00:50:57 and the extent that, I mean we didn't change

00:51:01 the requirements for survivability

00:51:03 after the contract was left, but I don't think

00:51:05 we understood the full impact of what that was gonna be

00:51:09 when the ship designers and naval architects

00:51:12 got to work and figured out, well,

00:51:13 what did that requirement mean in terms

00:51:15 of the impact to the base design?

00:51:18 - Thank you for that response.

00:51:20 The Navy has identified growing and maintaining

00:51:22 a skilled workforce as a primary challenge

00:51:26 for the frigate program.

00:51:28 For the last two years, I secured increases

00:51:31 to the Navy's budget specifically to expand

00:51:34 the frigate workforce and industrial base.

00:51:36 And I'm working again this year to increase

00:51:38 workforce funding because the need certainly remains.

00:51:42 Mr. Secretary, how will this workforce investment

00:51:46 address factors contributing to the frigate delay?

00:51:49 - Thank you, Senator, for helping us

00:51:54 with getting a workforce, especially in places

00:51:57 where we're necessary for building this frigate.

00:52:00 It's been especially helpful to make sure

00:52:05 that we have the right people out in those buildings.

00:52:08 I had a chance to visit up there in Marinette

00:52:10 a couple of times and it is a fantastic facility.

00:52:13 We just don't have enough people out there

00:52:15 building those ships and that will be a big help

00:52:17 to attract people into that environment.

00:52:19 But we also need to work with Fincantieri specifically

00:52:23 to make it an attractive place to work

00:52:27 in terms of the equities for working in that environment.

00:52:31 Childcare and other kinds of aspects

00:52:33 of the community nearby.

00:52:35 And we can do that in partnership

00:52:37 with the industry and with your support.

00:52:40 - Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:52:41 - Senator Hoeven.

00:52:44 - Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

00:52:46 Secretary LaPlante, one of the most important things

00:52:50 we're doing is updating the nuclear triad.

00:52:54 Incredibly important and we're now doing

00:52:56 a non-mercury review on the Sentinel portion.

00:53:01 Are you committed to making sure that we work through that,

00:53:03 that we stay on track, and that we do

00:53:05 the full Sentinel modernization on schedule?

00:53:08 - Thank you for the question.

00:53:10 Just to state the important thing right at the very beginning

00:53:13 as you said, Senator, number one,

00:53:15 the modernization of our triad is the top priority

00:53:18 of the Defense Department.

00:53:20 The triad, of course, is the next generation bomber, B-21,

00:53:23 the next generation SSBN Columbia, we just spoke to,

00:53:26 and of course, Sentinel, which replaces Minuteman III.

00:53:29 In 2022, the Nuclear Possible Review by this administration

00:53:34 reaffirmed the need for a triad.

00:53:35 So non-mercury or not, we have a policy of our country

00:53:39 of having and sustaining a triad.

00:53:41 In the case of the non-mercury,

00:53:42 I'm committed to working with the Air Force

00:53:45 and with the cross-DOD team to go through

00:53:47 the letter of the law and make sure that we,

00:53:50 if we do recertify, and it's not a guarantee,

00:53:53 that we recertify a program that is executable

00:53:56 and will meet replacing that leg of the triad.

00:53:59 We're about a month and a half from the end of that process.

00:54:02 We have a lot of work going on,

00:54:04 and I will just continue to keep this committee informed.

00:54:07 But separate from the non-mercury, we need a triad.

00:54:11 - Okay, thank you, Secretary.

00:54:13 And then I know the chairman of this committee

00:54:16 shares my sentiments on this,

00:54:18 but is there anything that we can do

00:54:20 that is helpful to you in this process?

00:54:23 - I think already there's been a tremendous help,

00:54:25 particularly, of course, by the chairman here.

00:54:28 I think a lot of the focus, assuming if we go forward,

00:54:32 is gonna be really on the localities,

00:54:35 on getting for the states impacted,

00:54:37 of course, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska,

00:54:41 North Dakota, that we are reaching out as soon as possible

00:54:45 to make sure the communities are ready for what's coming,

00:54:48 to make sure we're listening to the communities,

00:54:50 and as I've spoken with the chairman here,

00:54:52 to make sure that things like the vocations needed,

00:54:56 that we're as early as possible,

00:54:58 get that in the communities.

00:54:59 And of course, you all know your communities

00:55:01 better than anybody, and so any of your help

00:55:04 will be appreciated, including letting us know

00:55:06 when we're not making the mark.

00:55:08 - Okay, thank you, Secretary.

00:55:10 Next question relates to countering drones.

00:55:13 We're seeing, obviously, in Ukraine, Israel,

00:55:16 across the world, the threat that is proposed by drones,

00:55:19 and in some case, we're using million-dollar missiles

00:55:22 to shoot down a very inexpensive drone,

00:55:25 and then you've got swarms.

00:55:26 What are we doing on countering drones

00:55:29 to get ahead of the curve here?

00:55:31 - That is the problem of our time, so we're doing a lot.

00:55:34 Number one is that I chair, it started just in March,

00:55:38 a senior integration group that moves equipment,

00:55:42 counter drone equipment, into theater ASAP.

00:55:44 At the same time, the Army is the lead service

00:55:47 on building out towards an integrated capabilities.

00:55:49 We now have between 40 and 50

00:55:51 different counter drone technologies.

00:55:54 We're finding out which ones work,

00:55:56 and which ones need to get fielded.

00:55:58 To your point, we also have to make the exchange ratio

00:56:01 be cost-effective.

00:56:02 If we're shooting down a $50,000 one-way drone

00:56:07 with a $3 million missile, that's not a good cost equation.

00:56:10 We're working through it.

00:56:11 Many of the solutions we're looking towards

00:56:13 with industry and with non-traditionals

00:56:15 are very cost-effective.

00:56:17 That is our high priority, but I will say,

00:56:19 the technology's changing every couple of weeks,

00:56:21 and the tactics are changing,

00:56:23 and it's gonna be just a constant fight,

00:56:26 but we're all over it.

00:56:28 - At Grand Forks, we do an incredible amount of work

00:56:30 with drones, not only in terms of the base's mission there,

00:56:34 but we have a test site for UAS there.

00:56:37 We're also, we've got Customs and Border Protection

00:56:41 co-located on the base.

00:56:42 We have responsibility for 900 miles of border,

00:56:44 actually, all the way out to Contiguous with the chairman.

00:56:48 That would be a very good location for you

00:56:51 to do some of this work.

00:56:53 Are you aware of what's going on there,

00:56:54 and what about looking at it for some of this work?

00:56:58 - The details that you just went through, I'm not aware of,

00:57:01 but I'd love to follow up on it.

00:57:02 And to the point, the talent and the expertise

00:57:06 in building drones, oftentimes,

00:57:09 is exactly the same expertise in countering them,

00:57:12 because you understand, actually, what the technology is,

00:57:14 what they're dependent upon.

00:57:15 So yes, I'd be happy to follow up.

00:57:16 - Yeah, I'd like to get you out there,

00:57:18 and also, Secretary Hunter, same for you,

00:57:21 and I would like to add the ISR component.

00:57:24 We need more ISR.

00:57:25 What are we doing to make sure we lead the world

00:57:28 in that ISR capability?

00:57:30 - Well, thank you, Senator.

00:57:32 We are working hard on that.

00:57:34 Obviously, there's elements of that we can't talk about

00:57:36 in this forum, but that is a huge priority for the Air Force,

00:57:41 and so we will continue to dialogue with you

00:57:43 on the investments that we're making there

00:57:45 to advance those capabilities.

00:57:46 I agree with you, they are essential,

00:57:48 particularly to our kill chains.

00:57:50 - And I'd like to get you out to North Dakota,

00:57:53 to the Grand Forks area, along with Secretary LaPlante.

00:57:56 I think it would be helpful for both of you.

00:57:58 Thank you.

00:57:59 Thanks to all of you for being here today.

00:58:00 Appreciate it.

00:58:01 - Thank you, Mr. Chair.

00:58:02 - Senator Coons.

00:58:03 - Thank you very much, Chairman Tester,

00:58:04 and thank you to all of you.

00:58:06 I agree with you that we have widespread,

00:58:09 I think bipartisan, grave concern

00:58:10 about whether our defense system overall

00:58:13 is appropriately aligned with the requirements

00:58:16 of the warfighter, that we are taking advantage

00:58:18 of innovation in the American system

00:58:21 as we are producing and delivering weapons

00:58:24 and weapon systems and platforms

00:58:26 that are more and more dependent on software,

00:58:28 on IT, on interoperability, and communications.

00:58:32 I'm concerned we're not learning the lessons

00:58:34 of the war in Ukraine, the MacGyvering of solutions

00:58:37 in the midst of an otherwise very difficult

00:58:39 and complex battle space.

00:58:40 So let me just briefly ask a few questions,

00:58:43 if I might, as the newest member of the committee.

00:58:45 You recognize, if I might,

00:58:48 that there's a huge acquisition workforce,

00:58:51 I think 187,000 acquisitions professionals,

00:58:55 and that just having the workforce

00:58:57 to do the acquisition is important.

00:58:59 What work is being done, if I might,

00:59:02 Undersecretary LaPlante, to make sure

00:59:04 that the acquisition workforce is familiar with,

00:59:07 comfortable with, and able to use authorities

00:59:10 like other transactions authority, CSO,

00:59:13 to take advantage of the MTA pathway?

00:59:16 What's being done to make sure that more broadly

00:59:18 the acquisitions community that may have never seen

00:59:21 or done one of these transactions is able to?

00:59:23 - Yeah, we have a whole education and training effort

00:59:26 led out of Defense Acquisition University.

00:59:27 I was just there, actually, two days ago,

00:59:29 speaking to one of their graduating classes

00:59:31 that is all about having experts come in with case studies

00:59:34 and say, "This is how you use

00:59:36 "a software acquisition pathway.

00:59:37 "This is what you need to know about modern software."

00:59:40 And teaching, teaching, teaching.

00:59:42 The best thing that can be done is experts

00:59:44 that have done it in one part of the DOD

00:59:45 teaching experts in another part,

00:59:48 and that's what we're doing.

00:59:49 We're spreading the word.

00:59:50 It's a lot more of it is online,

00:59:52 and a lot more of it is also,

00:59:54 we're bringing in industry.

00:59:56 In fact, a class that I spoke to the other day

00:59:58 had a quarter of it were from industry.

01:00:01 So I think all of the above is what we're doing,

01:00:03 knowing that you can be an expert

01:00:05 in software acquisition today.

01:00:07 Two years from now, you may not be an expert anymore.

01:00:09 You have to keep up with it.

01:00:11 - I was struck in your testimony,

01:00:13 and maybe I just misread these numbers quickly,

01:00:16 of 236 programs that use the MTA pathway,

01:00:23 three have transitioned to full operational capability,

01:00:26 and 107 to other pathways.

01:00:28 Help me understand that ratio.

01:00:30 Did I misunderstand what the other pathways meant?

01:00:33 - Yeah, let me tell you what I believe

01:00:35 without having the numbers right in front of me.

01:00:37 So the mid-tier acquisition was put in place,

01:00:39 I believe, in 2018, and there was a restriction on it

01:00:42 that basically said with waivers,

01:00:44 it's gotta be out of it by five years.

01:00:46 So by definition, five years later,

01:00:49 you're not gonna be an MTA anymore

01:00:50 for most of these that were started then.

01:00:52 So the question is, when you're nearing the end of that MTA,

01:00:55 which is rapid fielding or rapid prototyping,

01:00:57 what do you do?

01:00:58 Do you transition it into major capability,

01:01:01 which means, for example,

01:01:02 now go into higher rates of production,

01:01:04 or do you do some other version of it?

01:01:05 And I think that's what you're seeing.

01:01:07 We do have examples of where they've reached the warfighter.

01:01:09 - Last question, if I might.

01:01:11 A big piece of the NDIS, partnering and our allies.

01:01:16 AUKUS Pillar 2 is particularly intriguing to me.

01:01:18 What do you see as priorities for co-development

01:01:22 with close allies,

01:01:23 and this may also be particularly relevant to the Navy,

01:01:25 of capabilities that maybe both in terms of workforce

01:01:28 and in platforms, we can't do on our own?

01:01:31 - So Senator, you mentioned earlier the lessons of Ukraine.

01:01:33 One of the lessons of Ukraine

01:01:35 is co-production of munitions.

01:01:38 So right now, we're working a lot across Europe

01:01:41 around co-production of 155,

01:01:43 co-production of Patriot in Australia,

01:01:45 separate from AUKUS,

01:01:46 we're gonna be doing co-production,

01:01:48 the Army is, of gimblers and eventually prism.

01:01:50 And I mentioned earlier about Japan with the glide.

01:01:53 I think you're gonna see much more co-production

01:01:56 and co-sustainment with our allies and partners.

01:01:59 - Thank you for your testimony.

01:02:00 I look forward to staying in touch,

01:02:01 and I will echo what you heard from several other senators

01:02:04 about the urgency of deploying the counter UAS platforms

01:02:08 at speed that are effective and affordable.

01:02:10 - Thank you, Senator Coons.

01:02:13 We're gonna do another round,

01:02:15 and I've got a short question that I'm gonna ask.

01:02:19 It goes to the previous question that I started out with,

01:02:22 and it goes actually to your answer, Secretary Bush.

01:02:25 You said you didn't have the money at this time,

01:02:27 so I wanna kinda flesh that out a little bit.

01:02:29 Congress established a distinct appropriations account

01:02:32 to ensure sufficient funding to recruit

01:02:34 and retain acquisition personnel.

01:02:36 Have you used that account?

01:02:40 Do you have access to that account?

01:02:42 Is it effective?

01:02:43 - So Senator, the DOTF account, yes,

01:02:47 we of course use it to train folks,

01:02:49 and if it was bigger, that would actually be very helpful,

01:02:52 and it wouldn't have to be dramatically bigger.

01:02:54 A little bit could go a long way across the services.

01:02:57 - Okay, as far as the Navy and the Air Force goes,

01:03:00 do you guys use that account,

01:03:01 and do you feel the same way

01:03:02 as Secretary Bush feels?

01:03:05 - Yes, Senator, we do, and it's been very effective,

01:03:09 much like what the Army has experienced.

01:03:11 - Is it adequate?

01:03:12 - I'll have to get back to you on that.

01:03:15 I don't have a number in front of me right now,

01:03:17 but I'd say we probably use more.

01:03:19 - But, okay, keep going.

01:03:20 Secretary Hunter.

01:03:21 - Senator, we do use it.

01:03:23 As I mentioned, 42 million in the '24 budget.

01:03:26 Our request for 25 is 52 million within that account,

01:03:29 so it is an increase, and it reflects the fact

01:03:31 that we are ramping up both development and production

01:03:34 across a number of acquisition programs,

01:03:36 so we do need more resources and have requested them.

01:03:38 - Senator Murkowski.

01:03:43 - Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:03:47 Mr. Hunter, in the FY25 budget,

01:03:52 Air Force is acquiring less fighters

01:03:55 than originally projected, six less F-35s,

01:03:59 six less F-15EXs than originally planned.

01:04:03 We all get that it's right to get the right technology,

01:04:08 but at some point, it doesn't really matter

01:04:11 how capable the fighter is.

01:04:13 You've got to have sufficient numbers.

01:04:16 In Alaska right now, the 18th Fighter Intercept Squadron,

01:04:21 we think, is accepting some increased risk

01:04:25 because of the low inventory of the F-16s in the unit.

01:04:30 So, question to you is, as our threats and missions increase,

01:04:35 our aircraft inventory continues to decrease,

01:04:39 does Air Force have a plan to increase

01:04:41 the size of its fighter fleet in the out years?

01:04:44 - So, we are continuing with purchase

01:04:48 of our fifth gen fighter aircraft, F-35 and F-15EX

01:04:53 in the 25 request.

01:04:55 We also intend to, in effect, force multiply

01:05:01 that fighter force with the collaborative combat aircraft.

01:05:04 And that's trying to, again, change that cost equation.

01:05:07 The doctoral parent referenced that in terms of munitions.

01:05:10 It's also very true in the tactical aircraft space

01:05:13 that at some point, we need a mix of affordable aircraft

01:05:17 along with our higher end fighter aircraft.

01:05:19 And so, we see the collaborative combat aircraft

01:05:21 as being that affordable element

01:05:24 that allows us to force multiply our fighter fleet,

01:05:27 which the crewed fighter fleet, which remains essential,

01:05:30 but is always something where it's gonna be challenging

01:05:32 to get up to the hundreds of aircraft production numbers

01:05:35 that would be necessary to stay completely even

01:05:38 on the size of our fighter force.

01:05:40 - So, let me ask a question about the expansion

01:05:45 of research and the modernization funding in OSD

01:05:51 rather than in the military services.

01:05:54 In this fiscal year, that includes one billion in DIU

01:05:58 and more than 500 million for the replicator initiatives

01:06:01 to field thousands of autonomous attributable systems

01:06:04 in the next 18 months.

01:06:06 One of the things that has been underscored

01:06:10 in this committee is that OSD-led efforts

01:06:13 have a clear path to be fielded at scale,

01:06:17 which is really the responsibility of the military services.

01:06:20 Drones or other innovative capabilities

01:06:22 just can't be bought.

01:06:23 They need to be incorporated into the tactics

01:06:25 and the procedures for how the military services

01:06:27 prepare and fight war as well as being maintained

01:06:31 and modernized.

01:06:32 So, for each of you here, there is,

01:06:34 do we have sufficient rigor to ensure these sorts of efforts

01:06:39 at the OSD level, that there's robust, clear transition plans

01:06:44 that include how the services are going to employ,

01:06:48 field, and maintain these systems at scale?

01:06:51 - Just start by, I'll start by saying,

01:06:54 first, by asking the question, Senator,

01:06:56 you're actually making a really, really important point.

01:06:59 The services lead on fielding at scale

01:07:02 and organized training and equipment, not OSD.

01:07:06 Not OSD.

01:07:06 And so, what's really, really important

01:07:09 is much beyond the technology and the widget

01:07:12 is what we call dot mil PF,

01:07:14 the doctrine, the training, the operations.

01:07:16 So, if otherwise, it just doesn't really matter,

01:07:18 and we're seeing that with Ukraine.

01:07:20 So, what's really important, these prototypes and efforts,

01:07:23 whether they're done by OSD, DARPA, or done by IRAD,

01:07:28 is that there be, if it's successful,

01:07:30 a credible way to get this at scale

01:07:32 and that the services can use it,

01:07:34 can train to it, and can sustain it.

01:07:36 So, it's a key point for us to watch,

01:07:39 rather than just get excited about the prototype by itself.

01:07:42 I'll turn it over. - So, you think

01:07:43 it's a good idea, but we're not quite there yet

01:07:45 in terms of making sure that we are implementing to scale?

01:07:48 - I would say it's a good idea,

01:07:49 but it's like saying if you're three innings

01:07:53 into a baseball game and the pitching's going really well,

01:07:56 don't celebrate, because you have to finish the job,

01:07:58 and finish the job is,

01:07:59 the stuff has to get to the services.

01:08:01 - Secretary Bush.

01:08:03 - Senator, I would suggest members think of it in two ways.

01:08:05 One is, OSD does have a times useful independent role

01:08:10 in experimentation and prototyping with technologies

01:08:12 that we haven't been able to focus on.

01:08:14 And there needs to be a space for that,

01:08:15 and there needs to be funding for that,

01:08:16 because sometimes they do discover things

01:08:18 that we won't on our own.

01:08:20 However, when it comes to scale, ma'am,

01:08:23 the most productive efforts are ones

01:08:26 that are paired with the services,

01:08:27 meaning they are collaborative and cooperative

01:08:30 with a clear path to us from their work.

01:08:32 We have had some successes.

01:08:34 The Army's new mid-range capability,

01:08:36 which is our land-based anti-ship batteries,

01:08:39 started with the SCO project.

01:08:41 And we took it, created and made it an Army program,

01:08:44 we took their work, built on it,

01:08:45 and are now, we have fielded that.

01:08:48 So there can be successes, ma'am.

01:08:49 We're doing that with Replicator,

01:08:50 with the Army's effort that's been announced.

01:08:53 I think that tight coupling is where,

01:08:55 when the dollars get big,

01:08:56 there needs to be a service partner identified

01:08:58 in advance before the money gets too big,

01:09:01 would be my way to think about oversight.

01:09:03 - Appreciate that.

01:09:04 Secretary Gertin, anything final to add?

01:09:08 - So the Navy's been very supportive of Replicator.

01:09:11 We actually brought two Navy and one Marine Corps projects

01:09:15 to the first tranche of Replicator

01:09:16 in partnership with OSD,

01:09:18 and I echo Mr. Bush's comments

01:09:22 that that partnership is critical to fielding at scale.

01:09:26 One other aspect to that is,

01:09:28 when we're looking at these kinds of initiatives,

01:09:32 we wanna make sure we carry forward

01:09:34 the sustainability and support work

01:09:36 to make sure that our soldiers, sailors, airmen,

01:09:39 Marines, guardians, can actually use this stuff

01:09:42 in a reliable way when they need to in a fight.

01:09:45 - Anna.

01:09:48 - Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

01:09:51 Good to see you all.

01:09:52 Thank you all for your service.

01:09:54 I wanted to turn to a very expensive program

01:09:59 with a set of serious safety concerns attached to it.

01:10:05 That's the Tiltrotor V-22 Osprey program.

01:10:10 At the end of November 2023,

01:10:13 we saw yet another fatal Osprey crash

01:10:16 that came the lives of eight airmen

01:10:18 due to a parts failure.

01:10:20 From March 2022 to November 2023,

01:10:23 we had 20 service members die in four fatal crashes.

01:10:28 In February of 2023, DOD indicated

01:10:32 that it had solved the hard clutch engagement problem

01:10:37 thought to be behind these accidents with 99% certainty.

01:10:42 Department made that assurance

01:10:43 only for two more Ospreys to go down in Australia in August

01:10:47 and then in Japan in November of 2023,

01:10:50 the accident I referenced.

01:10:53 This is an important program.

01:10:56 It's an expensive program,

01:10:57 but it's a program that seems to be plagued

01:11:00 by significant and deadly safety concerns.

01:11:03 So Assistant Secretary Hunter

01:11:05 and Assistant Secretary Gerden, let me ask you this.

01:11:08 I know you take these losses tremendously seriously.

01:11:12 Can you update the committee

01:11:13 on how your services are working to address

01:11:15 these unanswered and ongoing safety problems

01:11:18 with the V-22 Osprey?

01:11:20 - Senator, you're right.

01:11:21 This is a particularly grave concern.

01:11:23 Navy and Air Force took it very seriously.

01:11:29 We did a grounding of those aircraft

01:11:32 after the November crash,

01:11:35 and we rigorously investigated.

01:11:38 We looked at what the,

01:11:39 we actually brought that craft back up out of the water.

01:11:42 We investigated what was going on, did detailed analysis,

01:11:45 and we better understand what happened

01:11:48 in that particular failure mode.

01:11:50 We have established a crawl, walk, run approach

01:11:53 to get back to the point where we can get back

01:11:55 to the flight envelope.

01:11:57 Well, not there yet.

01:11:58 We have--

01:11:59 (audience members shouting)

01:12:03 So the, getting back to the crawl, walk, run.

01:12:13 We've, we're now in a limited envelope,

01:12:17 but we're characterizing and collecting data

01:12:20 so that we can better understand where we are

01:12:22 and be able to safely get back

01:12:24 to the full flight envelope of that aircraft.

01:12:26 The Marines have been flying that thing for years.

01:12:28 They have a lot of 'em.

01:12:29 They love that aircraft,

01:12:31 but we have to make sure that it's safe for them to fly.

01:12:34 - And Senator, I appreciate the question.

01:12:37 We obviously very deeply regret the loss of life.

01:12:40 It was a terrible tragedy.

01:12:42 We have been working very closely with the Navy on this,

01:12:44 sharing our engineering expertise.

01:12:46 The Navy is the lead, has the lead engineering role

01:12:49 and function for this platform,

01:12:50 but it's an important platform for the Air Force as well.

01:12:53 And as Secretary Gertin indicated

01:12:55 with the crawl, walk, run approach,

01:12:57 we have definitely taken great care,

01:13:01 and I know AFSOC has taken great care

01:13:03 to ensure that as we return,

01:13:05 as we get on the path to return to flight operations,

01:13:09 every step of an echelon of the operating units

01:13:14 and the support functions that support them

01:13:16 are ready to go to the next stage

01:13:17 to resume flight operations.

01:13:19 - 20 service members lost in the last two years,

01:13:22 60 service members lost overall to the Osprey.

01:13:26 Look forward to continuing this dialogue.

01:13:30 To Secretary LaPlante and Secretary Bush,

01:13:33 I will note that the Army decided in 2022

01:13:35 to move forward with a tilt rotor aircraft

01:13:38 for the future long range assault aircraft,

01:13:42 despite these safety concerns,

01:13:44 and despite the tilt rotor bid

01:13:47 being close to twice the cost of the competing bid.

01:13:52 And so this committee is left with a contract award

01:13:57 for a major program for the Army

01:13:59 that has potential major cost implications

01:14:03 and has serious safety concerns.

01:14:05 So let me ask you,

01:14:07 can you talk about the steps that are being taken

01:14:09 by the department and the Army

01:14:12 with respect to the FLARA contract that is underway

01:14:16 to ensure that this new tilt rotor, the Valor,

01:14:20 does not expose soldiers to the same risks

01:14:22 that are apparent with the tilt rotor Osprey?

01:14:24 - I'll just say a few words

01:14:25 and then turn it over to my colleague, Doug.

01:14:27 Obviously, the safety considerations

01:14:29 and the hard facts of what you've been saying

01:14:32 about these terrible losses in the last year,

01:14:34 year and a half, weigh heavily on us.

01:14:36 And I know the Army is,

01:14:38 it's all part of how they're considering

01:14:40 going forward with these programs.

01:14:41 I'll let Doug continue.

01:14:42 - Senator, thank you for the question.

01:14:44 I believe the Army,

01:14:46 we believe we will benefit from the 20 years

01:14:48 of engineering experience and knowledge

01:14:51 that the Osprey will provide to our design,

01:14:56 which we believe will be fundamentally different

01:14:59 in certain respects to make it as a reliable

01:15:03 and safe an aircraft as possible.

01:15:05 Sir, I would, military aircraft do tragically crash

01:15:09 sometimes, it is, military service is inherently dangerous,

01:15:12 but we are committed to, of course,

01:15:14 the safest aircraft we could possibly get.

01:15:16 And we were having to, we will work with members

01:15:18 on that as we move forward.

01:15:20 - Well, I appreciate your answers,

01:15:22 but I think anybody who has followed the history

01:15:25 of military aviation would submit

01:15:28 there have been particularly difficult problems

01:15:31 with the tilt rotor, in part because of the complexity

01:15:34 of its design.

01:15:35 And I certainly worry that we have not,

01:15:40 to any degree of satisfaction of these families,

01:15:43 settled the safety concerns on the Osprey.

01:15:45 And to your point, Secretary Bush,

01:15:48 we are developing a new version of the tilt rotor.

01:15:50 And so some of the lessons learned will be applicable,

01:15:53 but there's also just as good a chance

01:15:55 that there are going to be a whole new set

01:15:57 of safety concerns with the Valor

01:16:00 that are going to add to the expense of this program

01:16:02 that are ultimately going to be significant

01:16:05 safety liabilities for our servicemen

01:16:07 and cost liabilities for this committee.

01:16:10 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:16:11 - Senator Moran.

01:16:13 - Mr. Chairman, thank you.

01:16:15 Just a couple of questions in what time I have.

01:16:20 Talk a bit about ammunition.

01:16:21 Secretary Bush, you and I had a conversation,

01:16:25 I think in a classified setting, about ammunition.

01:16:30 We have an old Army ammunition plant in Kansas

01:16:34 that the Army has invested significant dollars

01:16:37 to bring it back into production.

01:16:40 And I think as a result of the passage of the supplemental,

01:16:43 that plant is now prepared to manufacture

01:16:48 12,000 155 millimeter ammunition as requested.

01:16:53 So thank you for that investment.

01:16:59 My question is, are we going to avoid the ups and downs

01:17:04 based upon the demand of the moment for ammunition?

01:17:10 Is there any demand signal to this plant

01:17:14 or any other in the country?

01:17:15 What happens when Ukraine is behind us?

01:17:18 Is there a plan that precludes going through

01:17:23 what we just went through with this significant investment

01:17:27 that doesn't require that again in the future?

01:17:29 - Senator, yes, if I could first say thank you

01:17:34 for the support and for the great folks in Kansas

01:17:36 who are helping us build that load-assemble-pack facility.

01:17:39 It comes online this summer as part of our overall ramp-up

01:17:42 to our desired level.

01:17:44 To your main question,

01:17:46 we are thinking very carefully about that.

01:17:48 What we don't want to happen is a cliff

01:17:50 where we have a rapid loss of workforce

01:17:53 and an unwise ramp-down that puts at risk

01:17:58 these investments we're making in brand new facilities.

01:18:01 So Senator, my ideal situation would be,

01:18:03 over time when we are required to ramp down

01:18:07 to lower production levels, we do two things.

01:18:09 One, we maintain these facilities either ideally with work,

01:18:13 foreign military sales for example,

01:18:15 if we can keep that going,

01:18:16 that lets us keep the high production rates

01:18:18 going even longer.

01:18:20 But even if that winds down,

01:18:21 that we work share among the different facilities

01:18:25 to maintain them in at least a warm status

01:18:27 with enough people to be able to ramp up quickly.

01:18:30 One thing I will admit was not in place before

01:18:34 was a really kind of a war plan to ramp up production.

01:18:39 Just like we have war plans for going in fighting wars,

01:18:41 I believe we need one for mobilization

01:18:43 and one that we should rehearse and think about

01:18:45 and try out every now and then even if it's simulated.

01:18:48 So that sort of needs to be a key lesson learned

01:18:52 from this whole thing for the department,

01:18:54 not just the Army, so that our potential enemies

01:18:58 know that we can ramp up quickly

01:19:00 and that should deter them from taking us on.

01:19:02 But we have to do it, sir, and not just talk about it.

01:19:05 - Just to add to what Doug said,

01:19:07 what we're putting in place with the methodology

01:19:09 that Honorable Chris Lohman, who works for me,

01:19:12 is doing with the services,

01:19:14 is not just have the requirement

01:19:15 for the level of the munition,

01:19:17 but to say what is the requirement

01:19:19 after the conflict is over

01:19:21 to replenish or reconstitute the munition?

01:19:23 How fast and to what extent?

01:19:26 And put that in the requirements

01:19:28 and then we all have to budget to it.

01:19:30 So we have to stick with it, I think,

01:19:32 because both the multi-years that we mentioned

01:19:34 that you gave us and this concept that Doug's describing,

01:19:37 we have to do it because we always get surprised.

01:19:40 - Thank you both for your answers.

01:19:43 My final question, Mr. Chairman,

01:19:46 technology coordination between defense

01:19:48 and commercial sectors seems important to me,

01:19:52 and a bit for what I talked about earlier in my questioning,

01:19:56 to facilitate the speed and development of JADC2,

01:20:01 in this case, capabilities.

01:20:03 Dr. LaPlante, would you speak to the need for clarity

01:20:08 and assigned responsibilities for JADC2 within the DoD?

01:20:12 - Yeah, thank you.

01:20:14 The DoD is building out what's the JADC2,

01:20:17 which in layman's terms is a way of doing the kill chain,

01:20:21 if you will, command and control of the kill chain

01:20:23 across multiple weapons, multiple sensors,

01:20:26 and multiple platforms.

01:20:27 Doing that together with kinetic and non-kinetic

01:20:30 is what JADC2 is all about,

01:20:32 and it's what the department is building out.

01:20:33 The services are working diligently on their piece.

01:20:36 What OSD is doing is making sure that the standards

01:20:39 are correct between the difference

01:20:41 that we have interoperability,

01:20:42 that we don't have vendor lock,

01:20:44 and then to your point about commercial,

01:20:45 that we take advantage of the best of commercial technology

01:20:49 and make sure it's in there,

01:20:50 whether it's rapid networking reconstitution,

01:20:53 whether it's artificial intelligence.

01:20:55 That is what's being built with JADC2.

01:20:57 The services are doing their piece.

01:20:59 OSD is making sure that they can talk to each other

01:21:02 as we build it together.

01:21:03 - Would non-DoD experts in the development

01:21:06 of this capability, this capacity, be beneficial?

01:21:10 - Absolutely, because if you think about

01:21:11 what 5G has had to do, which is build a terrestrial network

01:21:16 that has high data rate, low latency,

01:21:17 that is essentially what we need in JADC2,

01:21:20 with the caveat that we're fighting these things

01:21:23 in very contested areas.

01:21:25 - Thank you.

01:21:26 - I wanna thank you for your testimony.

01:21:27 I wanna thank each and every one of you

01:21:29 for the work that you do.

01:21:30 We've got challenges out there in this acquisition sphere,

01:21:34 whether it's competition, whether it's workforce,

01:21:36 whether it's timeliness, whether it's meeting costs,

01:21:39 whether it's the continuing CR baloney,

01:21:42 and I'm being generous when I say baloney,

01:21:44 that comes out of Congress,

01:21:44 whether it's government shutdowns,

01:21:46 whether it's budget adequacy.

01:21:48 We gotta work together.

01:21:49 We gotta be honest with one another.

01:21:51 This is important stuff, especially at this moment in time.

01:21:55 Senators will have,

01:21:57 maybe they may submit additional written questions.

01:22:00 We would ask that you would respond to those questions

01:22:02 if they come in at a reasonable amount of time.

01:22:04 This defense subcommittee will reconvene

01:22:06 on Tuesday, May 21 at 10 a.m.

01:22:09 for a hearing with the Department of Army.

01:22:13 We stand at recess.

01:22:14 (gavel bangs)

01:22:16 (silence)

01:22:18 [BLANK_AUDIO]

Jon Tester Leads Senate Appropriations CommitteeHearing On DoD Acquisition Programs

Category

Transcript

Recommended