Page images
PDF
EPUB

Secretary JOHNSON. We have to get rid of those second computers you talk about, then. The legacy systems have to be replaced, then. There is strong commitment from the top and at all levels, but it is difficult, as you all know, to give up something you have used a long time.

Mr. MORAN. But you say we are on track.

Admiral CLARK. The reason there are two computers there is because we weren't a modern organization, so we had almost 100,000 different applications that we used across the Navy. We are going to seven. That is where we are going. And so until we can make that integration work, we are going to have a little bit of this in transition. But this is the right thing, and we are headed there. Mr. MORAN. That is consolidation from 100,000 to seven? I think that is

Admiral CLARK. That is where we are going.

Mr. MORAN. I am not going to take up any more of your time. Thank you for your service.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Moran.

Mr. Murtha.

Mr. MURTHA. Let me say two things. One, I was impressed that General Johnson moved from 423 combat missions to teaching aeronautics at the Academy. I mean, that is versatility. I will tell you that. And I want to say to General Hagee, if General Jones were here, we would have never finished in time.

General HAGEE. I am not going there, sir.

EA-6B AIRCRAFT

Mr. DICKS. Just one quick question. Tell us about what you are trying to do with EA-6B.

Admiral CLARK. This budget moves EA-6B forward three years. Now, this is another one of these smart business things. The EA6, last night couldn't have done the operation without it. We have flown the thing hard. The cost of it is has gone up like this because it is old. We had to do something smart to get rid of airplanes costing us a fortune to fly it but that we can't win in combat without it. The G, the Growler, that will use the common air frame, is going to be a smart buy. It is going to keep us at a level

Mr. DICKS. F-18?

Admiral CLARK. F-18, now, the EA-18G. And it is in this budget. The first one will roll off the line in fiscal year 2006, which is quickly, and we will be deploying them in fiscal year 2009.

Mr. DICKS. And you have got some fixes in here to keep the ones that we have got going?

Admiral CLARK. Yes, sir. ICAP-3 and the things to keep the air frames going, it is in the program.

Mr. DICKS. Thank you.

SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES

Mr. LEWIS. Gentlemen, as we close down this hearing, Mr. Frelinghuysen talked about Special Ops a bit with General Hagee. The Special Ops forces of America for me have always been the Marine Corps. They have been doing that job for a long, long time. I must add to that, though, some of us took a brief trip to Alaska not so long ago, watched these kids jump in the water; we called

them SEALS. And I scratched my head and I said, thank goodness they didn't have that when I was a kid, because I would have wanted to do that.

The men and women who make up our forces are the heart of what makes this successful, and you are out there proving it today, and God bless them all. Thank you very much for being here. The Committee is adjourned.

[CLERK'S NOTE.-Questions submitted by Mr. Hobson and the answers thereto follow:]

AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Question. Mr. Secretary, I would like to congratulate your predecessor and the Secretary of the Air Force for concluding the 4 December 2002 Memorandum of Agreement that forms an educational alliance between the Air Force and the Navy. This MOA is an excellent first step in implementing "jointness" for military education and I strongly support it. This educational alliance will maintain the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) and the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) as "world class" higher educational institutions; complementing each other; and ensuring high quality, relevant responsive graduate education aligned to defense needs. Thank you.

How critical are the educational programs of AFIT and NPS for meeting the needs of the Navy?

Answer. Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) programs are specifically designed to meet Navy and Department of Defense needs. NPS provides relevant and unique advanced education and research programs essential to increasing the combat effectiveness of U.S. and Allied armed forces and enhancing the security of the United States. While the programs at the Air Force Institute of Technology are designed to meet Air Force needs, in some areas the military focus also aligns with Navy needs.

Question. The MOA commits the two services to filling all seats at AFIT and NPS before sending students to civilian schools. How is Navy implementing that commitment?

Answer. The Navy uses the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) as its primary source of graduate education. The Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) will be used as a secondary source when it has space available within programs meeting Navy requirements. Civilian institutions will be used when NPS and AFIT do not offer programs meeting necessary education requirements. NPS will coordinate implementation of the MŎA with AFIT.

Question. The MOA requires the creation of a joint AFIT/NPS admissions and quota control process to provide for enrollment of students from all services and from the Coast Guard. What steps is the Navy instituting to carry out that requirement?

Answer. While the Navy and Air Force have separate admissions and quota control processes, the Memorandum of Agreement requirement is being addressed in ongoing discussions between the Naval Postgraduate School and the Air Force Institute of Technology.

Question. The MOA requires the Air Force and Navy to review current AFIT and NPS policies and to establish common policies that represent best practices at both schools. What mechanisms has the Navy put in place to accomplish this requirement, and how will you involve the faculty and leadership of the two schools in conducting the necessary review?

Answer. The Naval Postgraduate School and the Air Force Institute of Technology are collaborating on the establishment of common policies.

Question. The MOA requires the Assistant Secretaries of Financial Management for the two services to program the resources needed to launch the alliance and ensure its success. What specific initiatives will be funded in order to launch the alliance and make it successful, over and above those funds needed to sustain the excellence of the ongoing operations of the two schools?

Answer. The Navy continues to research funding requirements to launch the alliance and ensure its success.

Question. The MOA requires the Assistant Secretaries of Financial Management for the two services to program the resources needed to launch the alliance and ensure its success. Is there a dichotomy in that the Navy charges tuition which it keeps to lower operating expenses where the Air Force does not?

Answer. United States Code Title 10 7045(b) authorizes Navy to charge other services the costs of instructing their officers at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS). This enables NPS to expand course offerings and instructional staff to accommodate other service students. Air Force has no such authority for the Air Force Institute of Technology, which is limited to accepting other service students on a space-available basis.

Question. Oversight of the education alliance is to be carried out by the respective Air Force Board of Visitors and the Navy Board of Advisors. The MOA directs that each school's governing body will interact with each other. What steps has the Air Force taken to interact with the Navy Board of Visitors?

Answer. Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) and Air University representatives attended the meeting of the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) Board of Advisors (BOA) on January 29, 2003. NPS BOA representatives attended the meeting of the AFIT Board of Visitors on March 17, 2003.

Question. What do you think about a Joint Board of Visitors?

Answer. Collaboration between the Naval Postgraduate School and the Air Force Institute of Technology is essential to the success of the alliance. As the collaboration evolves, the merits of a Joint Board of Visitors can be evaluated.

IRAQ

Question. Two weekends ago, I had the privilege of traveling with Congressman Jack Murtha and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi to Qatar and Kuwait. The purpose of the trip was to review the preparations for possible military action in Iraq. Our kids are all ready, motivated, and a great credit to the United States.

Inevitably, the congressional delegation asked "what do you need from us?" The principal responses were Army and Marine oriented since we were seeing troops on the ground. (More bandwidth, special operations troops, and special operations helicopters). However, as the Navy is a full partner in this endeavor, we ask you now "what does the Navy need from us?"

Answer. The Navy needs the continued support of Congress to fund the programs that will keep the Navy ready to respond to worldwide contingencies. The resources contained in the fiscal year 2004 budget go far in helping both the Navy and the Marine Corps maintain heightened readiness in these uncertain times, provide further investment in transformational programs, and take care of our Sailors, Marines and their families. The road to attaining our shipbuilding and aircraft procurement program goals remains exceptionally challenging. We received all the funding we asked for our initial requirements in the supplemental. If additional funding became available for efforts other than Global War on Terrorism, the Department has provided a memo containing our unfunded Naval programs for which funding could be applied, signed by the CÑO and the Commandant on February 27, 2003.

ROTATIONAL FORCE IN EUROPE

Question. General James Jones, Commander of United States Forces in Europe (EUCOM), has discussed the possibility of moving to a United States presence in Europe made up of (1) troops on short term rotations, (2) families left at home in the U.S., and (3) "lily pad" compact bases scattered in the New (Eastern) Europe and Africa. Camp Bondsteel would be a model. What is the Navy opinion of this vision?

Answer. It is Navy's position, and that of the working group at EUCOM, that Naval forces are already built within this framework. We are organized to deploy future carrier strike groups and expeditionary strike groups on a short-term rotational basis, away from their families, just as we have always done. The no-families policy applies primarily to combat forces and not to support forces in theater. The "lily pad" term is no longer used in EUCOM's emerging basing models for joint main operating bases (Joint MOBs), joint forward operating bases (Joint FOBs), and joint forward operating locations (Joint FOLs). Naval bases in the U.S. European Command function as Joint MOBS and FOBs. The current structure also provides a strategic bridge for forces flowing through the Suez to points east.

Question. Are all military construction projects in Europe on hold and is it because of this? Or something else?

Answer. No. A single Navy project has been placed on hold pending completion of a review of overseas basing requirements in portions of Europe. That project is a fiscal year 2003, $14.8 million Combined Dining Facility at Naval Air Station Keflavik, Iceland.

Question. Is there the same situation for military construction projects in Korea? Answer: No. Navy does not have any military construction projects on hold in Korea.

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PROGRAM

Question. Recent press reports have suggested that the Joint Strike Fighter could be up to 20 percent overweight, threatening the Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the plane. How much of a problem is this and how is it being addressed?

Answer. The government parametric estimate for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) air system weight currently is above the targets the government/contractor team established for this period in the program. The JSF team is aggressively working weight reduction initiatives. Weight reduction, along with closure and maturation of design issues, is addressed daily through a combination of the normal teaming processes and insight from numerous external experts from all Services as Preliminary Design Review (PDR) activities progress. The government and prime contractors fully recognize the need to reduce the design airplane weight through a proper systems engineering process that best accommodates performance requirements, schedule, cost, and acceptable risk. A Blue Ribbon Action Team (BRAT) has been established to reconcile weight projection methodologies and identify detail design impacts by late June. PDR remains open pending the final BRAT results. No delay to the overall schedule is currently projected.

[CLERK'S NOTE.-End of questions submitted by Mr. Hobson. Questions submitted by Mr. Cunningham and the answers thereto follow:]

SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE

Question. The President's budget request for operations and maintenance depot level ship maintenance contains approximately $3.5 billion for this activity. That number is similar to the 2003 request. However, on closer analysis, $400 million for organic depot maintenance was funded in a separate account and $268 million is scheduled for unallocated overhead. The actual dollars going to repair similar ships is nearly $700 million less. Why?

Answer. Intermediate ship maintenance funding of approximately $400 million will be consolidated with ship depot maintenance funding beginning in fiscal year 2004 as a result of Navy's regional maintenance initiative. This total fiscal year 2004 ship maintenance budget supports 96.2% of our notional operations and maintenance ship maintenance requirements. This percentage is slightly higher than the 95.5% funded in the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget. We were able to reduce ship maintenance funding in fiscal year 2004 while budgeting to fund a higher percentage of the requirement for several reasons. The cyclic nature of ship maintenance contributed to a lower requirement in fiscal year 2004; the requirement was reduced as we accelerated the retirement of our oldest, most maintenance-intensive ships; and finally, the reduced requirement directly reflects the benefits provided in the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations.

The budgeted fiscal year 2004 unallocated overhead amount is $268 million, rather than $368 million. This funding is associated with the overhead that supports non-Pacific Fleet ship work at the two mission funded Naval shipyards. In the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget, the portion that funded overhead for Atlantic Fleet ship work to be performed at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard was also included in the ship depot maintenance budget line.

SURFACE SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE

Question. Surface ship funding appears to be significantly understated. The Phased Maintenance Availability (PMA) category which funds AOES and amphibious ships is budgeted at 13 hulls for approximately $185 million. This compares with an average of 25 hulls and approximately $370 million in previous years. Ūsing OPNAV planning tools, 21 hulls were scheduled for PMAs at a cost of approximately $365 million using a 91 percent funding level. Why is there such a significant reduction on a class of ships which are not scheduled for decommissioning in FY2004? Answer. The Chief of Naval Operations' availability-planning tool is continuously updated as operations, port work loading considerations, and ship material condition assessments dictate modifications to the ship maintenance plan. The number of Phased Maintenance Availabilities (PMAs) budgeted supports the maintenance required at the time of budget development due to the cyclic nature of ship mainte

nance.

[CLERK'S NOTE.-End of questions

submitted by Mr. Cunningham. Questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky and the answers thereto follow:]

MAN OVERBOARD IDENTIFICATION (MOBI) SYSTEM

Question. Congratulations on successfully completing the fleet evaluation of the ORCA Man Overboard Identification (MOBI) system. I understand that 100 percent of the reporting ships in the evaluation recommended that the Navy move forward with full fleet installation of this lifesaving system, and that the Navy has made that decision.

When does the Navy intend to begin the installations fleet-wide? How long will it take to outfit the entire fleet?

Answer. We intend to begin installations in December 2003. After completion of the successful fleet evaluation, we incorporated several design changes based on recommendations submitted by the evaluation ships. We are now developing the installation details as part of the Ship Alteration process and preparing the required Integrated Logistic Support documentation, which includes technical manuals, supply support, and planned maintenance requirements. We plan to complete outfitting the entire fleet within three years; however, this will depend on availability of all required funds and ability to schedule ship installations as planned.

Question. Since you have made the decision to install this system fleet-wide, when do you plan to include this program in the Navy Budget?

Answer. Funding for this program has been submitted for consideration as part of our fiscal year 2005 program and budget deliberations. Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command has agreed to budget for maintenance requirements after initial installation.

Question. I understand that your installation plan calls for those Sailors with deck operations, those you have determined to be “at risk”, are the Sailors who will be provided a MOBI transmitter. Does it ever happen that any Sailor or Marines who are not defined as “at risk” fall from the ship?

Answer. Our plan is to install a Man Overboard Identification (MOBI) transmitter in every MK-1 FloatCoat and inherently buoyant life preserver because anyone working topside is at risk of falling overboard and should be wearing a life preserver. There have been cases, however, where Sailors and Marines who are not defined as "at risk" have also fallen overboard. As MOBI product improvements are made, we hope to provide a unit in the future that could be used with the normal shipboard uniform.

[CLERK'S NOTE.-End of questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky. Questions submitted by Mr. Lewis and the answers thereto follow:]

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTES

Question. The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is $4.4 billion. This is the tactical aircraft of the future for the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. In addition, foreign partners intend to purchase a large number of the aircraft.

In general terms, what are the attributes of this aircraft that you believe make it worth this large investment—what does it bring to the fight that is significantly different than aircraft of today?

Answer. The sea based Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will complement the F/A-18E/ F and will provide the Navy and Marine Corps a first day of the war, long range, self-escort, survivable, stealthy strike fighter that is capable of operating and winning against surface-to-air and air-to-air threats in 2010 and beyond. The JSF will bring a robust, fully integrated onboard sensor and precision navigation suite and precision munitions that will enable true battle space dominance, as both a sensor and a strike platform. In addition, with F/A-18 like performance qualities and stealthy characteristics, the JSF too will be able to fight and win in both the beyond, and within-visual-range air-to-air arenas.

Question. What is the current estimate of the date for Initial Operational Capability?

Answer. The Joint Strike Fighter Marine Corps Short Take Off Vertical Landing version is currently projected to reach Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in calendar year 2010. The Navy carrier version is scheduled to reach IOC in calendar year 2012.

« PreviousContinue »