Transcripts For CSPAN2 Hearing Focuses On Marine Corps Readi

CSPAN2 Hearing Focuses On Marine Corps Readiness March 10, 2017

Good morning, this hearing will come to order. The Committee Meets to continue informing our members and the public about the ongoing readiness crisis that all of our military services find themselves in. Readiness includes many things such as and strength, chair training and modernization. Today we will focus on he house sequestration in the years of continuing resolutions in our budgetary process have impacted the marine corpss ability to modernize the current force to ready and capable against current and emerging threats. We will have a similar hearing planned for the army this week. Id like to welcome our witness, gary l thomas, the deputy commandant for resources at the marine corps. General thomas, we thank you for your service and look forward to receiving your important testimony today. Todays hearing will allow for a much deeper review of the modernization and Readiness Challenges identified by the assistant commandant to the marine corps during last months hearing on the state of the military. Based on his testimony, we know the marine corps is not only out of balance but often that lacks the necessary resources needed to rebalance itself. This is a dangerous trend that we must reverse in the nations Expeditionary Force and readiness. As such, general thomas has been asked to identify one, the near and longterm impact that continuing resolutions and sequestration are having on the marine corpss ability to modernize its readiness forces. Two, specific impacts the ground system and the modernization programs. Three, processes the marine corps is using to prioritize modernization requirements in order to address immediate and nearterm capability gaps in a budget constrained environment. Four, where the marine corps should be focusing on strategies across the future years defense programs in order to address anticipated security environments. Five, potential resources that would be required to support these strategies. To be clear about these resources, the top line is the issue. I support the president s effort to rebuild the military as well as has early directive to secretary matus that quote, to pursue peace through strength shall be the policy of the unitedstates to rebuild the United States armed forces. However, early reports indicate the Administration Plan is to offer a budget of 603 billion as the base for defense in fiscal year 2018. I agree with general store mary that a three percent increase about president obamas budget request from last year is not enough. While we cannot repair all the damage done as a result of sequestration in a single year, we can and should do more than this level of funding will provide. For National Security reasons, we cannot afford to wait until 2019 to begin the process to rebuild our military. Working with the administration to increase the fiscal year 2018 budget to get as close to possible to the 640 billion number referenced in chairman thornberrys views and estimates letter that was sent to the budget committee. Before we begin, i would like to turn to my colleague from massachusetts for any comments that you might want to make. Thank you mister chairman. And good morning and welcome general thomas. Thank you for making the time to be with us today, we appreciate it. Before we begin id be remiss if i didnt mention the ongoinginvestigation into the unauthorized sharing of photographs by marines and former marines. Let me be clear, these actions are reprehensible , harmful to our military and our National Security and detrimental not just to servicewomen but to all Service Members and to the culture of our armed forces. We must strongly support those who have their rights and privacy violated and make sure they have all the resources they need area we must also fully investigate these acts and bring to justice those who violated the law and the rights of other servicemembers. I appreciate the fact that the military personnel will be receiving briefings from the marine corps next week and i look forward to hearing what the service is doing to make sure that those responsible are held accountable. Todays hearing on the marine corps modernization provides the subcommittee with an opportunity to hear testimony on the effects of continuing resolutions and sequestrations on important topics and also gives us a chance to review several major programs and consider how best to equip the marine corps of the future. While i look forward to getting into the details on the major programs, id also like to discuss what seemed like an imbalance in the marine corps budget, and at the killers german account. Specifically for many years, the marine corps has requested and received vastly more funding for procuring aircraft as compared to ground equipment while the marine corps certainly has a need for aircraft of many types, the ratio of spending on aircraft compared to ground equipment is striking. The fiscal year 2017 request was no exception to this trend. And that the marine corps requested approximately 1. 5 billion for procurement of ground equipment and ammunition, however in the same president s budget question 5. 3 billion for just five Aircraft Programs. The f 30 5g joint strike fighter, ch 50 3k came selling helicopter, the d 22 osprey, the h1 attack helicopter and casey on 30 refuel her. While the individual Aircraft Programs in question are like very important when taken individually, the scale of the imbalance more than 31 in just this fiscal year suggests upgrading aircraft is currently valued higher than operating ground equipment. I have some concerns about this ratio of spending on aircraft versus ground equipment given the marine corpss mission to be the premier force and readiness and the historical reliance the nation has faced on the marine corpss rule in ground combat. I look forward to hearing more about how the marine corps is making tradeoffs in its modernization efforts and what risks are associated with this choice. And with that, id yield back and i look forward to hearing from you. Thank you miss tsongas. I share with miss tsongas concern of the allegations of improper behavior from marines, a part of the great working relationship that miss tsongas and i have is the history of being the cochairs of the Sexual Assault prevention caucus over the last five years, weve been the major authors of every piece of legislation that has been in the National Defense authorization act concerning this issue. It is one that is of great concern to us because no one, no one should feel as if they are in a compromising position in serving their nation and we want to ensure that not just those who have been subject to Sexual Assault of those who fear the consequences and of the potential are protected. We are beginning our work and our investigation today after this hearing in a series of meetings that we have requested with the marines on a briefing in this matter and im certain that our Sexual Assault prevention caucus will be active in looking not only as miss tsongas has set for issues of justice and accountability but also ways in which we can in fact future actions and prevention. With that, general i turn to you on our subject matter. Ranking member tsongas and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thanks for the opportunity to Say Something of substance day. Im honored to represent the marines and testify on the effect of sequestration and continuing resolutions on marine corps modernization. Our rule as americas naval Expeditionary Force informs how we man, train and equip our force. It also drives to prioritize and allocate sources that we are provided by congress. We have experienced the budget cuts and fiscal uncertainty over the past several years. We have prioritized the readiness of our for deployed forces. But in order to maintain this readiness, weve assumed the risk and our nondeployed forces , and structure, sustainment and most critically, modernization. Over time, this has resulted in maintaining older or obsolete equipment and higher costs and more operational risk. As we continue to spend limited resources to sustain legacy systems, develop for threats of the past, we risk steadily losing our competitive advantage against potential adversaries. The future operating environment is characterized by complex terrain, technology proliferation, Information Warfare , the need to shield and exploit signatures and an increasingly nonpermissive maritime domain. The threats of the 21st century demand a modernized force with capabilities that complement our traditional war fighting skills and equipment. The marine corps has learned to live with less and demands the instability brought about by sequestration. We will always strive to be good stewards of what we are given. We will generate the maximum readiness possible with the resources provided. But to be prepared for Crisis Response and contingency now and in the future, we must invest to restore readiness and achieve the right balance of capability and capacity. The marine corps is short of the resources required to modernize and we do not have the budget predictability that would allow us to operate the resources entrusted to us by congress. The uncertainty of the current fiscal year and the threat of the ca caps continue to disrupt our planning and directly challenge our current and future readiness. With your help, we can begin to overcome these challenges and ensure that the marine corps is profitable for the 21st century. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee and i look forward to your questions. General thomas, i understand the marine corps has conducted bottomup review of the Marine Corps Force 185. Identified several capability and capacity gas which need to be addressed. Would you elaborate on some of those findings and specifically, what levels of additional funding would be required to begin addressing these gaps and i want to emphasize the word required, we cant wish our way into filling these gaps and obviously as an issue of resources and not just the marine corps deciding to undertake them. Thank you congressman. I would just begin by saying we feel that we are not optimized in our organization, training and equipment with the new operational environment. Could you closer to the microphone because its not registering you very well. Im sorry. What i would personally say is that we feel we are not optimally organized, trained or equipped to meet the emerging operational environment. One of the things that occurred over the past 15 years is the change and threat capabilities and while we have over matching in most areas, we are seeing in some cases that are potential adversaries are developing capabilities that rival and in a few cases exceed or own. Where we would be capability gaps that we have seen are largely in terms of force protection first. If you look at some of our current vehicles, they no longer are adequate for the types of threats that we face in terms ofprotecting our marines. Vehicles like or programs like the joint light tactical vehicle begins to get that threat and new technologies like active Protection Systems will assist us in going up against counter armor capabilities. The other challenge that we face in terms of capability gaps is the emerging ua s threat. And we have to be able to counter that capability. One of the ways that we have to counter that is the able to find it, the idea that again we have a program in place with data radar that performs important piece of that key chain function. In terms of maneuver, we have our current amphibious vehicles are 40 years old. With the amphibious combat vehicle, that addresses that need. And then in terms of capacity, we have several shortages in terms of munitions. And then just numbers of ready aircraft on the flight line. Many of our aircraft have met or even exceeded their planned service life and so as a result, many of those aircraft are much more than we would like are in the attainment and that means less on the flight line. Again, we have programs in place in the ga said 60 3k in particular to address those challenges. In terms of Additional Resources, that we need, we need additional funds above the tv 17 request, the accomack in his testimonytalk about 4 billion , offline. But regardless, of the top level, we are seeking is to modernize and then whatever is required to modernize, we would address other areas appropriately. Josh, i stood in front of a bunch of f18s that are disassembled, would you please speak as to how your readiness in Aircraft Training and therefore affects written pilots and also talk about the need for growth in the marine corps and how that is accomplished and measured as we look to increasing the force. Congressman, we have, with the help of the congressman after years weve seen an uptick in readiness but overall, readiness of our aviation support forces as well as the number of hours of pilot hours per month is still much lower than we would want. The readiness that we desire for aviation is about 75 percent of our fleet area the anomaly across the entire fleet, we are down around 45 percent. And then the average flight hours per month is you know, about 10 hours or less. Could we go back for a second, you said you wanted to be a 75, youre a 40 what . X 45. You begin by saying weve been improving so thats pretty abysmal. The gap, if you would have that be closing the gap so we must have been in dire straits. So cumbersome, i just want to acknowledge that we have received some assistance over the past few years from the congressman, that has helped some, but youre right, the gap is still very wide. I think a lot of it has to do with old metal. I was, you were talking about f18, thats the community that i come from. A year ago it was back in buford walking the flightline similar to what you did and i noticed an airplane, a Bureau Number that i recognize that i owned as a first lieutenant. One question, im struggling with this. At 75, is at a reduced bowl because thats still one in four. 75 percent readiness is a reasonable readiness of aircraft across the flightline but if you have, you are always going to have routine maintenance that, you will take airplanes off the flightline. But if you have a 75 percent readiness rate, you can perform all of your mission. Obviously we are well below that. We are currently below half. Missed tsongas . Thank you. I like to circle back to the question i opposed in my Opening Statement and that is , just how you are thinking through the priorities that the core has on Aviation Assets in comparison to ground capabilities and just your take on what risks you see for the marine corps given that 3 to 1 ratio. Do you believe these risks are manageable . And do you see in the future of the marine corps shifting the other way to focus more modernization dollars on the ground capabilities in the future . You have a plan, looking out that you are covering all the necessary basis in order to meet the challenges you have to confront. Congresswoman, i would characterize how we have allocated our modernization portfolio as balanced. We are not balanced across the marine corps because we havent been able to put as much into modernization as wed like because weve been applying our resources writ large to nearterm readiness. But in terms of the resources that we have been able to apply toward modernization, we do feel like we are balanced. We have several needs, both on aviation side and on the ground side. It is true that we have a 3 to 1 ratio in terms of aviation versus ground but a lot of that is just the nature of aviation platforms and the relative expense of ground equipment but if i could paint a picture, i would say on the aviation side, our ch 53 e. Are over 30years old, are f18s are over 30 years old. On the ground side, our Amphibious Assault vehicle, four years old, leds over 30 years old so we have programs in place to address all of those. We havent been able to modernize as quickly as we could to get out of of the old metal. But in terms of balance, we feel that weve done it about right. When we spokethe other day , we are like generalpurpose force. One of the things that gives the marine corps an advantage on the battlefield is its mobility and its fire. Much of that comes from aviation area the ground side, in terms of fire, mobility, those are equally as important. If we were to look relatively how we are investing across aviation and the ground, not looking at the cost although theres some difference there in terms of capability and capacity, then we think we are balanced in that area. Could you foresee a time in which that balance would have to shift a bit mark in that context i like to ask a question about the ch 53 a Helicopter Program related to cost. So the original unit cost for this program in current year dollars was about 95 million. Last year elected acquisition reports for this program show that its average unit cost and increase 14 percent above the baseline estimate or 160 million. This week the marine corps provided information to the committee indicating that it is now projected to be 22 percent above the baseline estimate which would be about 122 Million Dollars a copy. The marine corps intends to buy 200 of these aircraft so that cost growth multiplied times 200 is a heck of a lot of money. And even if there is no additional cost growth, it seems worth pointing out that 122 million per aircraft is 206, 2006 exceeds the current cost of an f 35 eight aircraft for the air force significant margin. So while i know this helicopter will provide the marine corps is very unique and useful capability and i like to ask you to think. Is, can the marine corps afford 200 of such an expensive helicopter. And secondly, in comparison to how little the marine corps is spending on upgrading around combat equipment, does the scale of this investment in each aircraft capability make sense for the marine corps . It gets back to that 31 ratio and again, given this helicopter, this aircraft, just the extreme cost of one unit, at some point seems to me there might be an imbalance. Congresswoman, we are always paying close attention to the cost, you mentioned 122 million price point. We anticipate that the unit recurring fly

© 2025 Vimarsana