Well get started. Good morning, everyone. Today represents our second dialogue for 2017and we look forward to welcome you all back for additional events throughout the year. We would also like to thank in a special way, Lockheed Martin and huntington engles in make thanksgiving series possible. Before we get underway, for big events like this, just a brief announcement, safety announcement. We dont expect any difficulties, but should there be anything as convenor, make sure you know, we have exits here in the back on both sides and downstairs down the front and both myself and anthony bell in the back will be your responsible officers to direct you in the right way, just in case anything should ome up, look for one of us. So for our formal introduction to get us started, i will turn over to vice admiral peter daily, retired, chief executive officer of the u. S. Naval institute, were happy to have him here and partner with s i. Okay, welcome, those who dont know me, pete daily, ceo naval institute. We are proud to bring you this maritime dialogue series continuation in our third year and as mentioned, we give special recognition to our sponsors, huntington engles and Lockheed Martin for make thanksgiving event possible. Our speaker for today, 1981 graduate of the academy, also holds degrees from George Washington university, and a Naval Nuclear engineering degree from mit. After serving 13 years as a Nuclear Propulsion qualified surface war fare officer, he made lateral transfer to the duty officer community. There he served and focused on refueling, complex overhauls of Aircraft Carriers. Major command include Major Program manager for inservice Aircraft Carriers and Program Executive officer for submarines, peos, subs. Last year in june, assumed command as 44th supervision of all maintenance on those ships directly. We welcome the admiral who controls one quarter of the navy budget. People always say, by the way, you have one quarter of the budget. Thank you for the invite. Last night was a ignite for the navy. Number one, my band played on the waterfront. And we delivered the forward to the navy. It was a big night for us having worked on ford for most of the past 10 years. The navy accepted delivery last night. You heard it here first. The theme that i was given was the maintenance challenge and how to reset the fleet. In the context of talking about where the cnote is headed. More importantly, to talk about how the maintenance side of that equation fits in. It is not either. You have to do both. We tend to forget about that. Having been a ship loader for most of the last three years, but having spent most of the last year on sea readiness, i am well aware that you have to do both. If you have not read the sea notes white paper, it is a good read. A short, it has pictures in it. It is great for command master chiefs. Their lips do not get tired when they read it. They make three key points. They are applicable whether you are talking construction or maintenance. It s some of the things were getting after today. It applies across the board. Figuring out how to design these ships quicker and build them quicker. The pace today is exponential. If you look at the world and thet threats were facing, and the pace of their changing capability is growing exponentially. It is like we went into halftime up 283 and said the game is over. The referee said halftime is over, e said, we will get there when we get there, and strolled out we get there, and strolled out through the Third Quarter to find the score was now 2824. That capability gap has really closed and is something of a keen interest to us on the navy side of the house. There is a lot of discussion going on about, what is the navy that we need. What is the navy we need in the 20 20s. We are trying to figure out, what is the navy that we need in the mid20s. . There have been a number of recent studies, some to the navy, some by independent groups about what is the navy and what should it look like . They have various mixes of ships they all came to the same conclusion that we need a bigger navy. All around 340350 ships. The size matters and the apability matters. How do we get there . When we talk about the size of the fletet, i get questions about how the budget did not add new ships. What happened . We were never going to be able to turn that around overnight. The 18 budget holds the new construction side, but make a significant advancement n the readiness side. If you listen to the vice chiefs testimony, he says the first dollar we get should go to readiness. We spent a lot of time talking about the strategy, the future navy white paper, it all goes to the avys strategy Going Forward. S since 1985, i tell people, i am a my 18th palm. If i had a dollar for every time someone told me we need to build Strategy First and that will drive the budget. That sounds great, but you dont want a budget completely driving your strategy, but you cannot ignore the fact that we live in a financially constrained environment. What we need is a reformed strategy. We will increase the builds of the ships we have. We think the Industrial Base can probably build 29 more ships than we had in the original 310 ship plan. E have to figure out where the curve of the dollar is, and we have to figure out how to innovate, and what we are going to work on. We will continue building edgs, the amphibs that we have today. There is ngoing discussion on the frigate. We owe some answers to frigate. We owe some answers to congress over the summer on frigate. We owe some answers to congress over the summer on that. As we head further out, what the a new buzzword inside the pentagon is sswap. Space, weight, and power. As we go toward the future navy, i can tell you that one of the things that is really important as we build these platforms, is o make sure that they have enough space, weight, and power to identify future threats. The our class carriers are a prime example of building space, weight, and power Going Forward. The dd51 class, which is around today and serving well, we will provide more space and more power Going Forward. Those ships are unique in their ability to stay around. My first position was on the dd cunningham. We got rid of them at the 25year point. Anyone who served on a ddg knows that they were tough to maintain, but we didnt rid of them at the 25year pend any money after the 25year site. People think we need to get rid of them because they are rust buckets. The reality is, from a common sense tandpoint, they were obsolete. Fastforward to totday. Look at open architecture and spy adar, and vertical launch, now you have a platform that can stay around a lot longer. L back to the maintenance side of the house. If you want to get more service life out of the hull, you want more maintenance on. Admiral daly and i, we had reached this epiphany we had not spend any money doing maintenance for 10 years and we woke up and realized we are failing all these in serves, and we do not have ships to get to their expected service life. In hindsight, it does not take a Rocket Scientist to realize if you do not make investments on the maintenance side, you cannot get to where you want to. We had gone for 10 year saying. Doing maintenance is working, but we were consuming the service life, and eventually get caught up to us it caught up to us. We spent the last seven years digging ourselves out of that hole. One of the key components of getting out to the size of the fleet that we need is taking the ddgs and extending the service lives of these ships. Most of them are in the 35 year range. What would it take to get them out another 10 years . For a steel hull, if you do the maintenance, you can get the service life out much longer. With todays architecture and vertical launch, we have the opportunity to make a relatively small investment to keep them around longer. People say we have never gone with a service ship beyond 35 years, but i point out that we have taken aircraft routinely to 50 years. We know how to do this. Hat you will see is, we will take a very serious look at the service life of the existing fleet. If you do that, and you have seen some of the structure assessments, around 2045, which keeps ships at their current shelflife and build new, we can probably get them from 35 for another 15 years. Will take a close look at that. One of the things i have consistently pointed out as we look at the new design is, we should not design a ship with a planned service life of 2530 years. We should have planned service life of 40 plus years for all our ships and build into the context the space, weight, and power on forward. The last thing that i want to talk about is the maintenance side of the house. If you heard the vice chief, talked about how the first new dollar needs to go to readiness. The new budget has about 9 million for readiness. As i say, we got the resources, it is over to us to deliver. It is important that when you talk about maintenance it is not just resources. It is not just about money and adding more eople. Clearly, the 9. 7 billion that we get is better. E need to grow the size of the aval yard to 36,100. That is where we need to be to deliver things on time. We are not doing a good job of that. We have had a better year on the carrierside, but 12 of those ships which are in maintenance or activations are behind. Eople will help. Capacity is important, but it is not the only piece. The Number One Mission priority is the delivery of submarines. About one third of the ships i have today, at anytime, are under naveseas control. It causes great stress on the force. There was an article in january or february where a reporter said that the u. S. Navy for the naveseas control. It causes first time did not have an Aircraft Carrier at sea. That is a startling statement. Part of that is because we were done to 10 carriers, but another part was a study that was supposed to last 8 months, took 13 months. It wasnt lost on me that navseas ability to get them out on time is critically important. Back to my original omment, we need more people, but it cannot be only about the people. I have to have the capacity to do the work, and hen i have to figure out new ways to train the workforce. Kids learn differently than we learned. By the time you get ways to train the workforce. Them in the door to the time they can go down and do something useful on the ship is about five years. We need to cut that mback. When you them to be able to do something useful in two to three years rather than five. Young men and them in the door to the time women coming in today learn differently than we do. We need to make an investment in the ship yards to get the work done more productively than to day. Many of our shipyards are several hundred years old. A lot of them were designed to build ships in the early part of the 20th century. They are not set up to handle maintenance in the way that they should. In terms of Capital Improvements in the yard, we make investments in equipment. The Industry Standard is 10 to 15 years less. I have buildings that are over 100 years old. We have to make a concerted effort to look at how we set our yards up. We have to be able to make investments to get the work done more productively Going Forward. Youve heard kevin mccoy talk about this. We have to take the entire Industrial Base into account. This one Shipyard Concept that we talked bout 10 years ago is something that we will have to take a serious look at again. We are getting some serious help. We ave a lot of challenges ahead, but from the maintenance side, im very encouraged. We have the resources that we need. We will start delivering ships and submarines on time. We will take a very serious look. When you combine those things together and add that into the build strategy, we have a viable path Going Forward and we may be able to get there sooner than we would otherwise. Together and add that into the with that, i will conclude my remarks. I will be happy to take any questions that you ight have. Thank you for those remarks. For the audience and our guest speaker, will start with a few questions and get a discussion going and have plenty of interaction. Admiral, you mentioned that there is tension between readiness today and builds for the future. Going back all of those 18, or however many you worked on, that was probably there then, and is probably there today. He gap me be widened more than four. That made more of the fleet more available for asking. You alluded to the report and did not mention it by name. Have we caught up enough. In 2008 or 2009, corrections were put in place. It strikes me that from a maintenance standpoint, and modernization, things are pretty tough to catch up. How caught up are we . Are you satisfied . I think it is a hallenging scenario. Vice adm. Moore we have made major gains to catch up. We have some members from the board sitting over here. I think they would tell you that he recent trends. I think we ave closed the gap. We are almost there. It is one of the things that, as we saw before, if you get there and dont aintain the funding, you can rapidly lose the edge you had. That is particularly important when you talk about the ofrp. When you talk about the ofrp. It was built, and they put maintenance at the front for a reason. The other thing about frp is, it was designed to provide more force. You will hear admiral davidson talk about how it is designed to reset the force, provide the power forward, and also meant to provide surge capacity. We have not yet cap into that piece yet tapped into that ipecepiece of it until we see an Aircraft Carrier in a 36month cycle, she has a ignificant period of time. Center on a sevenmonth deployment send her on a 700 month deployment, we would like to continue send her on a sevenmonth deployment, and she comes back, we would like to ontinue to use her. It circles back to your point at the beginning. We are going to use ofrp the way it is meant to be used and make forces available. It becomes more important to do the maintenance. There is a direct correlation between how uch you use them, and how much maintenance you have to do. In the post9 11 era, even though he total number did not change maintenance you have to do. In were 40 more deploy days and before. It is like running your car to church or running your car across country, we were running across the country a lot more. Dramatically, we found there you mention it had shipyard need to recapitalize the infrastructure. You can go up to maine and see buildings over 100 years old. So if thats need to important, there money budgetted for the recap . You mentioned that youve i have limited money to do that. One of the things i have been working at, and have had very serious discussions about, and we have been open about discussions about providing more flexibility on the use of that money to make hthe investments we need. The milcon side of the house, the budget is relatively small. We are laying out a specific strategy for the Naval Shipyard. This gets back to my original comment. We are throwing more money and more people and its not going to make us more productive. We have to make necessary investments in capital, welding machines, etc. But also, in the shops where you get your work done, that will flow the material into the ship better. While we do not make the investments we need today, that is pretty clear. We meet the threshold, but we will have to take a serious look at what it takes to invest in these shipyards if we want to grow the size of the fleet. The shipyards can handle the 235 ships, but if you are talking dry docks and shops and throughput to handle 355 ships, that is a capacity issue. You have a lot of folks out here working in industry. In your remarks, you highlighted that the 18 budget came down on focusing on nearterm readiness. It makes sense to a degree, but there were a lot of people expecting a little bit more, the same number of ships in the should count for 18 as the previous administrations budget. Are there things that you are looking at, and that industry should be looking at, as you lay in for the ramp up to 355 . What should be looking at . Going forward, we have laid out where we want to go ahead. We tell industry that we want to keep production lines going. We need to look at ways to streamline the acquisition process. The new buzzword is setbased design. It is a way to take options and get to the early stages of what the design of the ship will look like. I think industry is partnering well on that area. It will be a combination of continuing to build ddg51s, and then innovating and figuring out how we can build quicker for the next set of ships. We continue on building fourclass carriers. We would like to get to 12. That would change build centers from five to four. On the service side, we have a number of ongoing efforts that will yield dividends Going Forward. We have to make the case on the budget side of the house for the resources necessary to get that done. That is obviously challenging in the environment we are in today. I think you will see with the 2019 budget and beyond that we are laying out a compelling case. You mentioned capacity in terms of people. You mentioned the dusting off of kevin mccoys one Shipyard Concept. Are we seeing strain in competing for the same people . A couple of observations is that what we found with the sequester, the fiscal cliff, and some of the wild swings is we we were turning on and off avails. When you went back and tried to find that person, they were not there or you had to pay more. The last i saw was that you were still a little bit short on the government side of hiring the shipyard workers. You had a goal to 2016 of having 2000 more than you currently have on board. Are we eating ourselves on this and is there a better way to do this . In the near term, we do compete for resources with other industries. So when we do have these down turns, we tend to lose the workforce shortterm, but to your question, can we get the workforce necessary to build the ships we need and do maintenance . The answer is yes. We have had that in the past. In in the 1990s, newport had 25,000 workers. We have to provide a package of things that would interest young people to come work at the Naval Shipyard today. We do compete for some of those people. In the short term, we grab people that they would like to but if vice a versa, there is a stable, predictable force, they are not worried that they can grow their workforce. Frankly, i not worried that we am are going to have a problem growing to naval size of the shipyards as well. We have a good plan out there and we will be able to rest on press on Going Forward. The last question before we go to the audience, you that a big bump in the o m budget. What is the next big thing you think past that you would like to see more investment, from a prioritization standpoint, where do you need the most help . If the admiral would spend the next dollar on ship maintenance , if he got his 19. 8 billion, dollar gothat next to . In my view, it goes to investing in the shipyards. Making the investments to make the workforce more productive. Expectationorrect that we are going to give you all this money and we want you to deliver things on time, but once you get the workforce and you have the workforce you need, we expect you to get better. One of the challenges we face today is we added a significant number of people on Naval Shipyards over the last six to seven years. I have a pretty young workforce. Half of the people in the Naval Shipyards today have been there less than five years. As we add another 2000 people over the next two years, that trend is not going to change significantly. We have to recognize we have a young workforce and we have to go train them so they can become more productive. And we have to provide them the facilities to be more productive, because the expectation is correct. I am going to give you the people, give you the dollars, but at the end of the day, i need those dollars to go build planes and ships. Once you get the workforce trained and there, i expect you a 250,000 mandate ability manday ability. That is a challenge we face Going Forward. My next dollar would go into investments in the Physical Plant to make a more productive so we can ultimately start tipping the budget and letting it go over a little bit. Thank you. Lets open it up. I will ask you to identify yourself and ask a question. Sidney freberg, breaking defense. Good to see you both, admirals. You said some interesting things out if we invest in maintenance and extending the service lives of our current ships, we could can get to 355 a lot faster. There is a bigger return on investment for that. I would love you to walk through the details and numbers on that. How much life can you get out of what ships . Can everyone get another five years or is it nuanced across classes . What will serve your best case, middle case, worstcase scenarios for how much time you can bring that goal closer to the present . The answer is i think it applies to all of the ships that have vertical launch. We are not going to go back to the earlier ones. I think this study has looked at cantlly from 53 or 54, i remember the number, but it will apply to all of the cg s. With some exceptions. How much service life can you get out of them . At least five more years. I have taken a look at it and i convinced that it is extremely am low risk. Frankly, we kind of looked at it , i think you can get it out to the next dry docking, which is more than five years with low risk and low cost. The key is, do the maintenance you need to do, and then have some baseline modernization capability you would like to have. On the combat system side of the house, today that is baseline nine. We have an idea what that looks like. I think it is a relatively low risk proposition. As i said, running the numbers, i think you could probably shave 1015 years off what it takes you to get to 355 if you are willing to take the entire fleet. I am not a decisionmaker on that. From a technical side of the house, there is nothing technically that would prohibit us from doing that. We know how to do that. I dont think this is something that we are leaning too far for it on technically cured i think it is pretty straightforward. I would say on the aluminum side of the house, we dont have much knowledge on aluminum hulls. And how they react over time. I am not willing to go leaning forward yet on how far we can get the aluminum hull ships. , which have a 25 year service life. Clearly on the steel side, there are no technical issues Going Forward. On the nuclear side of the house, there is a whole series of separate issues. The ssns are where they need to be. What i am looking at is on the surface ship side of the house. The submarine forces are pretty much understood how long we can take those out based on propulsion issues and issues hull anded with the safely operate in submerged. Can we hit on one minute on cyber . We think of other commands having the, on cyber, but with the force you are building, they have a huge challenge. Can you talk a little bit about the special efforts required in that arena to become cyber compliant insecure . That is a great question and i probably shouldve mentioned that at some of my remarks. As part of this effort to extend the life of those ships, want to talk about modernization, ciber cyber is a key piece of that. When people hear cyber, they think, im responsible for all the systems for, from a cyber perspective. So we have to stay out in front of that. I have three main mission priorities, ontime deliver ships and submarines, and number three is cyber for very good reason. In the recent wannacry, that gets our attention really pretty quickly. The reality is our ships and submarines today, there is not a system on that ship that doesnt have, that is not heavily invested in software and computers. I just came from the trials on the gerald ford, and she has a machinery control board that operates, that allows you to operate the ship remotely. That is great stuff. But all of that stuff has computers associated with it. And so the cyber piece is not just dont hack into my email or credit card, he goes a lot further than that on ships today. We have a very big focus on how we manage this Going Forward. Have you had to set up any new Staff Organization or bring on new folks to deal with that . We have a chief Information Officer now. We have grown the size of my workforce there. Believe it or not, the cyber folks are in the engineering directorate. We have a cyber counsel. We meet monthly. As we grow navc, we are looking pretty closely at the cyber piece as well. That is a key megan, you had point. Your hand up earlier. Go ahead. Know, right here. Did me the favor of asking the first question, i will ask about the public shipyards. You mentioned trying to get the same availabilities done in fewer manhours. I wonder if that comes as part of upgrading. Would that come with upgrading the infrastructure . It is a combination of all of those things. One, if you have i use ingalls as an example. I use Hurricane Katrina as an example. Katrina was a terrible blow to the gulf coast, but when they had the opportunity to rebuild the facilities and rethink how to lay things out, anybody who does Industrial Engineering will tell you how your shops are set up and how you flow material can go a long way towards making you more productive, but the second piece is the workers coming in today, training them and providing them with facilities to get them up to speed quicker and provided them with the tools to be more productive. I think when the things, we tend to be a pretty conservative organization on how we use use technology. There is great opportunity out there to use technology, including cell phones, etc. There are Security Issues with them that would allow us to be more productive at the deck plate. Todays kids learn a lot different. They are not used to throwing a drawing on the table. They are wellversed looking at picture ofr taking a something on the ship and pushing a button and having the material delivered to them. There is a lot of opportunity here for us to get more productive that goes well beyond just adding people to the shipyards. Thanks. Will the government work rules that we have today will allow you to take full advantage . Is not another thing to put on the pile . That is another thing to put on the pile. Were fairly conservative about our use of technology, but you know, we get there eventually. We do things that we, when i started back in 1981, that i would never have imagined we would have allowed ourselves to do, so i think it is a recognition that you have to embrace technology. It does come with some risk. But if you do not recognize that this is the way people learn and the way we move information, we are missing an opportunity to get better quicker. On the in there. Right there in the front on the end there. You mentioned the longterm plan for the public shipyards. Could you please be more specific about what you are assessing the terms of investments and people, and when do you anticipate the study to wrap up . Is that congressionally mandated or something the navy is doing . It is not congressionally mandated. We did a study back in 2013. We are sticking with that plan today. That is something i have asked for and the ceos have asked for. The shipyard did this on their own a couple of years ago where they hired an industrial engineer to go look at the layout and how workflows, and they mapped out how people walked between the shops youd they show that to me when i came last year. It was interesting. We have made an investment to do the same thing at the other three shipyards to get an engineer to look at the yards and go map out where the shops are, where do people have to go to get the work done, and where were we to optimize that, what would you do . A combination of that in the Capital Improvements on the facilities themselves in terms of welding machines. The last piece of that is the dry dock. The submarines wont fit in a lot of the existing dry docks. We have different cooling requirements, so we have to docks as well. We have a longterm plan that i have shown that includes both the dry docks and the facilities to get there. It is not cheap. We are talking, you are talking on the dry dock side of the house, probably over the next 30 years, an investment on the order of 3 billion to 4 billion necessary to make the dry docks compatible. Those are kind of must haves. You are going to have to upgrade your dry docks. The second piece of that is the one where i am competing with everybody else for the dollars, which is making investments necessary in the shipyards. We had the basic outlines of it. I think it will finish up with full details in probably february. February of next year, we will have a bow on this thing wrapped up and we will layout where we need to go from that perspective. Im having this conversation with the defense committees as well. They are very supportive and want to help. Im over here, sir. Hi, there. I mike jones from reuters. Thank you for coming in. You talked about delivery and keeping costs down. I want to understand how much time navc would need with a foreign design forget in terms of survivability systems and breaking that down . And if you could answer that, how that would compare to domestic design . I dont know, i dont think it matters where the design comes from in terms of whoever developed the design in terms of how long it would take us to evaluate it. I think the thought is here for it with future is that it will be a competitive environment that will include a look across a Broad Spectrum where we could consider a foreign design as part of that competition. We have not got to that point yet. If we got to that point were reconsidering, if we got to that point where we were considering those designs, it would not take long to do the analysis in terms of the survivability. I dont think there is a time difference where the design comes from. This gentleman right here. The end. Thank you. Rick burgess. Minutes class is past its, cycle. With there being a gap between the last nimitz and the forward . Is designed for refueling as well. Forward is designed for refueling as well. We look at what it would take to of 50 for a four class. Technologically feasible, it would not make sense for, you would not make sense from a cost perspective. The refueling portion is 10 . We will refeel. Let me do the math in my head. So forward delivers, she will be around for 50 years, so her her first would be in 2040. She willnimitz class, be around until 2057. Her midlife refueling, i never do math in public, will be in 2030. There will be a little bit of a gap in the refueling program between when we refuel the last of the nimitz class and when we do forward. 20082009,d bush in and we are delivering forward in 2017. There will be an eight year gap. We will address that when we get to it. There will be a lot of in activations with the nimitz class carrier going on during that time. That would counterbalance some of the losses of the work. Ok. Over here on the right. Good morning. A lot of what you guys spoke about this morning sounds like a huge data problem in a lot of ways, particular when it comes to, i see two data sets. I see one data set of stuff coming off of om equipment. For example, we have a huge amount of data that comes off turbines that fly around the sky. Now that is commercial application. Within the navy, there is a lot of other data that can come off the ship the ship where the custodian is the u. S. Navy and you may have information coming that isem equipment coming off of om equipment. How do you see handling that . We talk about cyber, but who owns the data . Who protects it . And who is able to interpret it in a way that enables you to gain efficiencies . I am a big believer that the navy should own the data Going Forward. And you are right, we have a lot of data come off our ships today. We dont make great use of it. You talked about rollsroyce engines. The Navy Leadership has been up to General Electric to see what they are doing in what they call digital twins and making decisions. I think that is a direction we absolutely need to head in. On surface ships today, i have a system called the integrated Condition Assessment system. You have the ability to collect data for years, but we dont do enough with the data to make decisions. But with the systems we have today, we have the ability to collect vibration data and temperature and stuff, and we absolutely have to take a step forward and become more mature in the use of that data. It is driving us to go figure out, how do you make use of the big data to make better decisions Going Forward . It is across a whole host of different applications. In my world, it is on the maintenance side of the house. How to use data to make better decisions about when you do maintenance and what kind of maintenance do you do . The commercial industry is Lightyears Ahead of us in that area, and we have to get better at it. To the data portion of it, you know, the navy needs to own the data so that we can make some integrated decisions about what we are going to do. Ok. Right up front. We will get you a mic. Thank you. John harper with National Defense magazine. As you grow the size of the ,leet and extend service lives how much do you anticipate that o m cost will be into new builds . Clearly, like a car, with ours. In enterprise, clearly, like a car, and with our experience, they do take more maintenance towards the end of their life. But if you are going to get to 355 ships, you have to recognize upfront that you are have a o m costs. And a if you are going to go into this thinking you can grow the size of the fleet by 80 ships, you have a problem. We recognize the costs will go up. They are higher towards the last, the letter part of the life of the ship, but not passionately higher. Part of the way that you can keep those costs under control is to make it consistent investment through maintenance to the life of the ship. What we have found on the nimitz class is that when you do the maintenance consistently according to plan, you dont get any major anomalies. When you dont, then you have problems. Is classic example for us theodore roosevelt. As we transitioned many years ago from a maintenance structure used to have into what we have an incremental Maintenance Plan, most of the carriers got a complex overhaul to reset them. And tr missed out on that. When she got into her midlife refueling, if you were to look at how many she should have had, she would ha have had significay days. Man the day and so, we had a very challenging refueling overhaul. Not surprising. Yes, it will cost you a little bit more towards the end of life and we have to factor that into our plans, but the key is consistent application of the Maintenance Plan and make the investments necessary on a regular basis and do the maintenance. If you do that, then you wont in the lastr 5 to 10 years. How concerned are you . You have to do the procurement and you have to do the maintenance, but if anybody thinks we can get to 355 without growth on both those accounts, they are living in la la land. We have to factor both of those into the equation and we have to have an honest discussion about the budget, but if you tot to get to 355, you have do both, build and maintain. If you skip on one of them, then you run yourself into trouble, so if we are committed to 355 ships, we have to be willing to go make the investment on the maintenance side as well, so im not concerned it will eat into the procurement side. I do think that one of the thing on the new construction site of the house that we dont pay enough attention to is being willing to spend more money up so the total Ownership Costs comes down. We dont tend to make those investments. The way the budget works, the budget year you are in matters and maybe the next budget year, but it is hard to make investments today that it in a 15 years money 101520 down the road. We have to be willing to make that investment. For all the talk about how much the first ship costs, we did make an investment in that ship that would save 4 billion per ship over 50 years compared to a nimitz class carrier, so that is a significant savings. While people may not be interested in that 4 billion savings today when they are struggling to balance the budget to build ships, if you are a fleet commander 1550 years from now and the maintenance costs, youre going to be happy who was building it in 2008 was smart enough to make investments up front to reduce the maintenance liability of the ship. Ok. On the end right there. You mentioned briefly that this had to happen on the private side as well as public good you went into great detail oft you are doing, but short hoping for another hurricane do to makeo, what do you improvement on the investment side . Root for not going to another hurricane. If you look at shipbuilders today, i am satisfied they are making the investment they need to make. You can look at new shipbuilding today, some of the things they are doing to build facilities that will allow more work to be done inside. They have the unit outfitting hall, which will allow them to get more work for columbia and get more work inside. On challenge has always been my side of the house that the private sector is incentivized to make those investments because it makes it more so weable Going Forward, are willing to and have been in contracts to partner with them and share some of those costs. I am satisfied that the yards today that are out there competing for work are making the investments necessary to keep those yards competitive. That is one of the great things about competition. If the competition incentivize is them to make the investment to make that more profitable, im not out to make a profit, so what is the incentive for me to make an investment in the yard . I need that same type of thinking. To me, the investment is i get more productive and therefore i , lessless dollars maintenance dollars in the future so it makes more money available for procurement. Ok. Question here in the center. Good to see you. Morning, sir. Naval Academy Class of 1981. You made a point her about a resource constrained budget. If you could explain more about that taking into consideration your service on the staff, the role you played then on getting the maintenance dollars ,ncreased for after you left and what you seeing today among the resource sponsors. Does it play the same role or does that ship go over, how does that impact you and your budget . , we clearly always have more requirements and we have dollars. I dont think that is new today. Bigger, but we have always faced that challenge. The Organization Today places more on the role of managing the dollars for the organization and still plays a prominent role in assessing what the requirements. Re i think the process is more transparent and more open than i im seen it in the past, so going to get quoted on this, but it doesnt operate sometimes in an enterprise fashion. It was designed that way. They are pretty much focused on they are the advocates for that, and so they tend to advocate for that. I think what we are trying to lookfter is an enterprise that says, hey, where should the next dollar go to make the most impact for the navy . I think the organization in concert, what i have seen today in my 18 years and washington, d. C. Is that it is as good as it has been. We are having that open discussion in a Corporate Board manner to decide where is the money going to go, what happens if you put the dollar here, what dont we do, and we are more looking at instead of winners to theers, getting back question, what is the navy we need . I think we are trying to work pretty hard to optimize the resources we have. I am satisfied the process we have today, and we are always tweaking it to make it better, is pretty good and pretty robust , and the Navy Leadership we have is doing a terrific job of managing that and everybody gets a voice in the process. As a result, i think we have a better outcome. We just have a few seconds left. I have to ask this question. That the some concern amphibious had not received the love and attention they need. We talk about the surface navy, but you have those assets that are large and complex and important. Could you talk about recovering their readiness and are you satisfied, and the crosstalk between the navy and the marines on that . Have a marine on my staff that manages amphibious ships, c21 staff which does maintenance, talking to the arine corps all the time, and strong advocate for the , andbious Warfare Branch where there may have been in the past a tendency to put more emphasis, today we have robust Maintenance Plans across the board. We understand the service life requirement of the amphibious ships. They are wellmaintained today. Up ae ready to finish maintenance build out of norfolk , so i am satisfied we are making the investments necessary there, and i have been on a lot of the ships as well. I dont see any indication they are the last person in line for maintenance dollars. Years had to sit out 57 because she had an obsolete combat system, so that is an example of recovery, goodwin. One. We immediately threw her into availability, the crew identity well and we are close to getting her out of there. She will get over to japan and do great things over there. Thank you. We have to cut it here, but we the remarks todayome o and a time for questions. He is a busy man with a lot on his plate good i would also like to mention one more time our thanks for the generosity of our Lockheed Martin and Huntington Ingalls industries, without whom we could not bring you this Maritime Security dialogue. We thank you, thank our audience, and thank our speaker again today. Thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] you mention industry helping out with the attacks of marine wonder why sb 19 instead of 18 . Its going to be competitively bid, so we will have to see where that goes. Capacities. F the i had to get money and 18 to start planning it, so it was thanabout capacity anything else. Have any other attack submarines doing full availability in a private yard right now or just industry coming into the public yard to help out . No. So, weve got montpelier right now, columbus is coming in, for new shipbuilding. Boise will go to one of those two yards. We always go on four. We want to keep this on the table as an option. I want to prevent another boise, so as we grow the size of the work force and look at all the submarine work we have on the plate, i trying to get out in am front of this far enough in advance i can tell felipe tell fleet commanders that dont have the capacity in the naval ship yard and we can go talk to industry earlier than weve typically done. And if you go look at the list of submarines out there, there are several cases where were looking and in the future may have to go to industry earlier than weve done today. I wanted to ask you come in whybudget documents so is the George Washington going to take longer . G. W. Is not going to take longer. It will start a year later because we looked at whether we wanted to inactivate her. You are well aware of the discussions with congress on that. Shell start here in august. One, the fleet needed her a little bit longer and, two, when g. W. Moved to the right year it did create a significant overlap between the end of the George Washingtons availability and and the start of the others ability, and so if you get too much of an overlap, you know, they would have been doing several submarines and building 79 and 80. That looked like a work load peak that was going to be a i dontor disaster know disaster, but it would have caused us some problems. So the fleet wanted to move it. It wasnt what the Industrial Base needed. So i would say kind of a model for where id like to go in future on all these decisions which is we take them years in advance. Lets look at the work we have, lets go look at the fleet needs. The fleet needs come first. If we can meet the fleet needs and there is a better way to level the work in the naval ship in the private sector, we ought to do that. You get the work done on time and youll get the work done cheaper if they can apply the resources. You mentioned moving away from the ship yard concept when it comes to new builds. Do you have any particular class of ships in mind for that . Im not sure what moving away from the one ship yard. I thought you were saying theres pretty much one ship yard building them and maybe i misinterpreted what you said. The one ship yard concept was on the maintenance side of the house where we use the resources from the entire Industrial Base like today with montpelier and columbus. We use newport news when we do carrier availability. In terms of new construction, it competition is always going to be what were striving to get. The only place we dont have competition is for our Aircraft Carriers because they are the only person that can actually haul them but were a he looking to maintain competition wherever we can. Thanks. Sure. You mentioned service combatants and extending the service life of amphibious across the board . Sure. Cgs, dgs, all your amphibious class ships, lcs, and actually some of the, you know, some of the combat Logistics Force ships as well. So if its a ship and floating today, were taking a look at what it would take. You talked about aluminum hulls. That is specifically the even numbered lcs. And i dont want to presuppose a decision. All i said was we dont have the Knowledge Base on how that hull performs over a long period of time like it would with steel. We know steel hulls. So what happens over 25 years, aluminum doesnt quite have the strength, so you have a little more flexibility in the hull. Weve seen this with some of the cracking on the Super Structures so there are issues with, as you operate the ship just from a stress standpoint and the whole sensitive issue with aluminum. So we have to look a little bit more carefully. We will proceed a little more cautiously on extending the service life of aluminum ships than the steel hull ones. On amphibious, you said five years probably out of ddgs . You can easily get five years out of everything thats got a steel hull and that you can probably get more. Okay. Last question . Going, going. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Good to see you. I like to give you my card. Announcer it resulted in a naval victory for the u. S. Over japan six months after the attack on pearl harbor. Today, American History tv will be live all day from the Memorial Visitor Center for the 75th anniversary of the battle of midway. Speakers include the author of the admirals, the fivestar admirals who won the war at sea,lliott carlson with his book anthony pelley, coauthor of shattered sword. And timothy or come author of never call me a hero. Watch the battle of midway 75th Anniversary Special live from the macarthur memorial visitor senator in norfolk, virginia today beginning at 9 30 a. M. Eastern on American History tv on cspan3. Announcer cspans washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up this morning, columnists and radio show host from around the country share their thoughts on President Trumps term to date in the 115th congress. We will also get your reaction. Join the conversation with your phone calls, emails, facebook conversations, and tweets. Be sure to watch cspans washington journal coming up at 7 00 a. M. This morning. Join the discussion. Announcer yesterday, President Trump announced the United States would which often the paris climate accords in the to renegotiate the agreement. It aimed to prevent the global temperature from rising and allowed countries to set their own National Strategies on that goal. President trump is introduced by Vice President pence