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, when the aircraft begins for rate production will shrink below 89 billion. But thats still very expensive, we are working hard with the Program Office and the vendor to keep the cost and down. And to drive value for the taxpayer. In terms of, can we afford it, we do have a plan within our top line that would account for the purchases of the new aircraft that we design. In terms of adding back to your question, about balance, we intend to address all of the concerns on the ground side that im sure were going to discuss here in just a moment. We have good programs in place, we believe that meeting capabilities requirements at reasonable cost to the taxpayer but we found both on the ground side and the aviation side as we simply dont have the resources to do, to do either one at the rate we desire. I think its worth bearing in mind that this is a very costly aircraft to have large numbers in mind. And while yes, the impact of sequestration have been great, continuing resolutions are great and they will debate how many more investments we need to make in our defending our country. As a country, we have many other needs and we have to bear that in mind as the Service Makes its commitments so i thank you for your suggestions. And i yelled back. Looking at the members who are in attendance and the fact that we have both at about 8 30 we have enough time for everyone to get a question in as long as everybody goes five minutes and i asked people to be diligent in that and we will start with mister will be. Thank you, general, thank you and i thank you for all the members of the court for their service. You started to tell us your walking employee line and spotted the plane that you flew or modeled that you flew. Congresswoman, we as aviators, when youre in the squadron you become familiar with the pronumbers of the airplanes but it was just a Bureau Number that i recognized and had flown over many years early in my career and i was still in active service and again, a good capability for the nation. Its just the fact is the bones are old. On some of these machines. It wasnt f18. How old was it . It was 30 years old, im not sure exactly the age. What, could you tell us what the current state of readiness is for the marine corps aircraft . Congressman, we have as i mentioned, we have seen improvement. But over the past few years with some help from congress but readiness is still below where we would like it to be. Our number one equally or if you will has been supply. Parts and the funding for that. We still take aggressive steps and help recover that readiness. We conducted what is called, what we are calling independent readiness reviews for all the rotorcraft that we have. And we are also taking steps and making sure that we are doing everything we can to lower life cycle costs, an example of that would be what we are doing with the be 22, we have several different configurations of the airplane just as overtime they roll off the line. They have different parts and we are seeking to drive that down to a common configuration which will drive down life cycle costs over the long term. But in terms of certain airplanes, congressmen weve already talked about the ch 50 degrees, again, those are airplanes are greater than 30 years old. And we flown them pretty hard over the past 15 years in afghanistan. General, what would you say would be the top three unfunded readiness priorities that you have . Our top three priorities, i would say on the ground side would be our amphibious combat vehicle. It would be the radar and the joint flight vehicle. Would we be likely to make any progress with that with what we are looking at here for the future . Congressman, we are making progress. We have programs in place, vehicles like the tactical vehicle where we requested a number in 17 that number will ramp up as we go out but the challenge that we face is not having programs in place that provide the capabilities that we need, the challenge we haveis we simply dont have enough. Enough resources to buy them at the rates that we desire. So the transition to new equipment is very slow. Thank you, i yelled back. Ms. Rosen. Thank you mister chairman, Ranking Member tsongas and i appreciate your being your today and explaining all this to us. But id really like to ask on another question is that the Trump Administration has suggested that we go from 24 to 36. Part of the challenge is to create over a dozen potentially a dozen new battalions and how do you see that fitting in with what you are going to have . I would characterize that question this way or the answer to that question is as the commandant says, we need to grow because we need additional capabilities, primarily in areas such as cyber , w and additional intel capacity. Thats, those are the capabilities that we would grow as a part of, for example 185,000 that was approved through the nda. We also have capacity challenges. Our deployment to ratio remains very high. But prior to 9 11, we are for every deployment, you have three times that. At home. Our average debt to dwell is around one or 2. 2 22. 3 so the growth would provide capacity as well. But to your question, you have to balance any growth with the equipment that you need for those new people, the training infrastructure thats required to get those marines ready for their particular mission. And then of course the modernization so the plan to grow this year from 180 5k would give us additional capability, primarily in those areas of cyber that i mentioned as well as some relief on capacity, however we will not grow any more and we will only grow relative to the Additional Resources that are provided. One of the things that we are trying to do getting back to congresswoman tsongas question is we are trying to protect modernization. Over the past several years, the sequestration, our investment in modernization has been as low as seven percent. And our request for 18, we are going to raise it to 10 percent and our goal is to get to 15 percent of our portfolio in modernization. All of those things impact our ability to grow so we will stay in power. And then, we will only grow as Additional Resources become available. I have one more quick question and lets talk about the unmanned aerial side, how does that reduce the number of manned flights and how do you work, i know its not a short answer. Is this the number of manned flights therefore reducing the number down the stretch on the aircraft . You can, whether youve got a you a yes, sir a manned aircraft, youre still putting hours on that particular so if its a new unmanned system, its going to do fine. If its an old unmanned system you will have some of the same challenges but your question, we are always looking for the right capabilities and if that right capability isnt an unmanned system then we are going to pursue that. Mister cook. Thank you mister chairman. General, its good to see you again, theres a lot of my questions i brought up about reactive armor. Part of the problem at least from my perspective is the temple of pops and this is been around as long as i can remember the marine corps, when i was in there and that, it keeps going on and on. You can only do so much. And i always thought that i was many years ago that we were overly committed because were going to do ops, were going to do distance and i think, congress is going to ask you and all the Armed Services because you do it well. But do we have to be more realistic in terms of impact of the sequester and the fact that a lot of thisequipment is aging. Congressman, i would just, you brought up an important point and in any equation, we talk about resources. The other side of the equation is the command signal and the higher that demand signal is, the greater youre going to use up your resources at a greater rate so that is clearly something that the nation has to consider. Where we, where the marine corps has environments on is based on what weve been asked to do and the missions that weve been given. By senior leadership. Many years ago, 1966, i was at Francis Marion and we had an exercise where we went over the side area i know im old but this was a ship that basically, it was 11 years since world war ii but now were talking about aircraft and items around 30, 40 years. Its just almost incomprehensible. The changes. Anyway, i readiness indicators. I think it leads to, in my short time on this committee, i think theres been more attention to readiness indicators. I think congressional members, youre going to be asked more and more about why is it the c4 or c3, how come the more you ask part c1 or c2 and i think that pressure is going to continue unless im wrong. Because im saying to myself, its just like the previous question, where the money should go, how are we going to bring these units up to speed . Is it just money or i think you answered the question already, the supply block, maintenance, Everything Else which has been overlooked. And i know we had talked about this a little bit and how are we going to correct that maintenance general dunford talked about earlier . How are we going to fix the amounts, we have to have our maintenance game in place, or were never going to get there. Congressman, you alluded to it but there are several factors that come into bear, a lot of that is resources. It is time. That is, you use your equipment and your people up there, theres time and a period of time thats required to get the equipment and people back up into fighting standard. And the third aspect of it is just, its recapitalization. That is, we can apply resources to many of our old pieces of equipment and in many cases, we can continue to use them for many years to come but in some cases, theres a diminishing return. That is, you are spending resources to keep old equipment going. But you are getting less and less return on investment there. Is the it sickly looking, even if there c4 or c3 on how to best sell that problem with a report to the common . There are a number of whats within the Naval Aviation enterprise, the dod ig, and many people are looking at the areas that you described in an attempt to provide more clarity. Thats the profession and what would be required to address those. We feel like we have a good understanding of whats required to address and youve alluded to some of those. Thank you very much, thank you for beinghere and i go back. Thank you mister chairman. Thank you Lieutenant General thomas for being here. Its always a good day when marines are in the room, being a marine myself. You know, i also share with Ranking Member tsongas, chair her concerns about the denigration or allegations that we heard. Of the circulation of photographs regarding women marines, its very concerning and i do hope that there is an expeditious adjudication of the perpetrators and that they are brought to justice as soon as possible. To that end, general thomas, the senate general thomas, it is my understanding that the marine corps has been working on developing arms that provide a better fit in coverage for female marines. There was concern that the marine corps was developing more sizes rather than developing female specific body armor. And can you update the subcommittee on what approach the marine corps is taking and where we are in terms of getting these body armors to our general marines. Thank you congressman, the marine corps is committed to providing high quality force sections for all its servicemembers in terms of form, fit and function and regardless of gender, one of the policy changes that has been made in termsof previously made , in terms of how we build our protection equipment, we used two half sizes that would only be from five percentile to the 95 percentile of marines written large. The new policy is down to the two percentile female on one end of the spectrum all the way up to the 98 percent, 98 percentile mail. The reason i highlight the mail in this case is weve actually had males who are very large and they didnt have adequate protection as well. We think that we have two pieces of gear primarily, we have the fit carrier and the imt, plate carrier. We think is in a good position for females and for males. Its two pounds lighter and we believe that weve got the right sizes for females as well as some of the larger males. The im tv is an area that we also added additional sizes. One of the things we found was they were too long and in some cases, in the small, medium and large sizes. So we added a small short, medium short and a large, much like we do for camouflage utilities. And if i could, one of the things that congressman, congresswoman tsongas and i discussed the other day, she had a question about fit specifically for females and one of the things that we did learn is that the army has in their particular sets included some features that will help the female. We continue to look at those. And we are closely aligned with the army but we dont have those specific features incorporated into our equipment. Lieutenant general thomas, i would say that we should be at the very least at the same standards the army has or adapting our armor for women. And i dont think it bodes well for us to not be at least on par in appreciating our female marines. As the army seems to be appreciating their women soldiers. I want to encourage us to get going because it just doesnt bode well. Especially considering the incidences that we are dealing with, the allegations we are dealing with. It doesnt bode well for the type of institutions we want to portray to our country and women marines and females in general, thank you. General kelly. Thank you Ranking Member and thank you thomas, for shortness ill discuss that general thomas, i understand youre looking at general but one of the things that rep tsongas talked about was the cost of the aircraft versus the ground stuff. Is some of that just not the cost and procurement and research for an f 35 versus a joint light tactical vehicle . The cost associated with those things on the ground are much cheaper whether you buy them in both, the cost of a next head on the ground is cheaper than that in the air, is that correct . Buying a car as opposed to a 737 , theres that difference that youre going to have regarding anything that flies, its probably going to be more expensive but the question is a good one. That is, are we balanced across the very important needs on the ground side as well as the aviation side . I think we need to be conscious and make sure you keep those costs low but its going to cost more and then once you have and procure that equipment, it costs more to maintain an f18 or an f 35 that it does those ground vehicles also, would that be correct . Thats correct. Goingback on the parts thing , and ive served in the army so i understand art stoppage and a lot of those things, is our shortage of parts to keep our current police, whether it be aircraft or ground vehicles, is it a shortage of supply and not being able to get the parts, is it a shortage of dollars and how much do things like having vocal funding as opposed to topline funding affect your getting the correct stoppage of parts, particularly when it breaks as opposed to having it on order for 98 . I think your last question, we are very appreciative for oak hill and it helps us in many ways. You may well be aware that there are sometimes limitations depending on the type of money that you get on how you can actually spend it. And then there is also the issue of leadtime for parts but i would say broadly speaking, we know what parts, are part requirement is. We know what the forces require to get those parts. We just havent been able to afford. The quantity that we need. So its a dollars, not a production, its a dollars in order to get the right stoppage and to maintain that. By and large, thats correct. And i guess then in this period of reduced funding, not reduce missions or uptempo. What type of investments as the marine corps sacrificed to keep the deployable Readiness Level of operation . Weve sacrificed several areas in terms of modernization, we are have kept costs down, one area where we have felt, and i expect other services have as well is in terms of home station readiness, thats important because your home station readiness is your ready bench its going to respond to crisis as well as major contentions and the effects of not having less or home station readiness is that when they do need to go forward, theres going to be a delay because theyre not going to have the equipment or theyre not going to have the readiness that they need. Weve also seen sacrifices in terms of infrastructure, sustainment, quality of life that as wehave discussed, already , the biggest sacrifice has been in terms of modernization. Whether its our longrange decision fires capability, some of the things were trying to do to counter you a s , then theres the aspect of maintaining older equipment at a higher cost with a lesser return on investment. So theres that aspect of it, and we didnt get that way overnight. We are not going to get out of it overnight. And again, i would emphasize to change area and also in addition to the resource environment. Is the threat environment has changed. Thats just something that were going to have to deal with Going Forward. Mister chairman, i you back. Next on the list is bacon, whitman, sally. Going to take the chair with her, i have to say for the record weve known each other since 2003. I happen to know him as a humble leader. A very character moral, he treats people great. And im happy to be here today. I wanted to ask you about the Readiness Levels on funding. The cuts that weve had one recent years and youve mentioned the top priorities, my next one is what would you like to do with Electronic Warfare if you are resource, what areas would you want to expand in . Weve got, the congressman first of all, its good to see you again and in terms of Electronic Warfare, we had a pretty good understanding, we plan for where we need to get on the aviation side. As part of the joint forceand how we fit into that. And im working with our partners. Where we are seeing areas of growth, is on the ground side. And we are also seeing the nexus of cyber and ew and its about providing the equipment that allows you to do that but also the modernization that gives you that capability as well. As part of the 180 5k growth, the promenade is growing from what he calls a Transformation Group and it would incorporate all the critical aspects of Information Warfare to include additional intel capacity. Cyber capacity and yes, the ew capability. We do have some very good ew capability on the ground side in terms of protection. Is ieds and so forth. But our perspective is now running in terms of additional capabilities that we would need when you are going force on force and being able to counter some of the ew capabilities that our adversaries are developing as well. If i understand right, a little more resourcing would focus on cyber, intelligence, ew. Thats another question you would answer more but i think you just did that. With our Readiness Levels, where they are at what i find with all the services and marines do, we are focused on responding to syria, iraq and the middle east right now and that for the folks back home, getting ready to deploy. We focused on that direction. How would we respond if we had a second controls not blow up in the world like north korea, if youre Readiness Levels today, how are we position than what would be the roadblocks you would have to cross to get a force there quickly . Congressman, ill keep my comments more general. But to paint a picture, you correctly described. We are, the units we are sending out today are trained to a high level. They are equipped, theyve got what we need but we are seeing as you point out a slow degradation of that ready bench and that has been going on for several years now. The way that benefits itself as we are talking a major operation, plans call for certain units at certain times but then in so many days of conflict beginning. What were seeing is delays at which those particular units can meet those in some cases those delays are significant. Thank you. Our readiness roots are down, it undermines the threats and it makes us a more risky place so with that yelled back and i thank you for your testimony today. Thank you congressman. Mister banks. Thank you mister chairman. General, thank you for being here today and thank you for your service. You made a compelling case over all today about the impact of the chaotic congressional appropriation process through funding the military, through cr, sequestration to bca and how specifically, that testimony is very compelling, i found as a new member of congress, as a freshman on this committee that the anecdotal evidence is often even more compelling. When i read about marines berating museums for parts for aircraft or when i read stories about units from the chairmans own state of ohio having to cancel Training Exercises in my home state of indiana because of government shutdowns and cr and the congressional process, those anecdotal stories are often most compelling when i make the case to constituents at home about what is wrong with the process this year on capitol hill and i wonder if you could personally confirm those anecdotal examples and give us more examples of a second or Third Order Effects of what does it mean when we have to cancel Training Exercise . What does it mean to morale when we have to raid museums for parts for aircraft for example . I would say in general, the stories that you hear across the joint force, as anecdotes and to the extent there are limits on attitudes but theyare generally , they are accurate. What i found is marines, they want to be marines and they want to be good at what they do. And they want to be trained to a high level. Part of that is making sure that with the resources for equipment but training and other things that you articulated. If i were to characterize from a higher level some of the additional challenges that we face with kind of the budget uncertainty, it really makes it difficult for us to plan. Wedont have predictability and we feel like we are not optimizing our dollars that the congress has generally allocated. It also slows our acquisition programs. And in many cases weve got the right program but we are purchasing things at the minimum sustained rate. And what that means is that certainly has an impact on our industry part of it but we pay a premium for that. We are not achieving economic order quantities. And then there are all sorts of authority aspects that, authorities that we cant use depending on the vagaries of a budget challenge, for example with continuing resolutions, we cant do any new starts, that affects our research and development, that affects buying more quantities of certain capability, even if we have the money to do that. And then, as you said, all of these things together, the uncertainty forces us to focus on the five meter target and focusing on that nearterm readiness but meanwhile, our ready bench is being broken. Thank you. On a final note, can you comment briefly about the impact of these processes on the reserve component of the marines went and mark the undue stress applied to your reservists . I think that at our level, its all about managing risk. And we have to manage risk across the entire force. That has an impact on the reserves as well. In terms of equipment and training and so forth. One of the things that we have struggled with, is we would actually like to engage our reserve more and send in on deployments. We just havent been able to afford the additional on m required. You do pay a bit of a premium to call up the reserves or to activate them and send them on deployment. But we havent been able to use that to provide some depth tempo relief to our active duty forces. Thank you, i you back. You stated the aav, a 40yearold platform needs be replaced immediately. We know the process weve gone through to get to development of the amphibious compact vehicle. Can you come in a context where you are with modernizing those connectors . Tell me where are we with the acv, how important is it for the marine corps and total marine corps doctrine today to have a modernized connector that is used in conjunction with our ship to shore connectors in what they marine corps needs to do and its Mission Statement on having a forced entry capability. Thank you congressman. To your first question about connectors, the department of the navy continues to invest in connectors, the Landing Craft air cushion to keep that relevant for many years to calm. But we also looking towards new concepts, particularly for connectors for things like amphibious combat vehicle, for example. As you know the marine corps is, Amphibious Operations are all about rapid buildup of combat power ashore. So speed is important. The challenge that we learn from the expeditionary fighting vehicle is when you optimize a vehicle for high water speed, for example you are some optimizing it for operations on land. So we are no longer pursuing that with the amphibious combat vehicle. But what were looking at our concepts of, for example, many concepts, one example would be essentially a slip of the vehicle goes on. Did you get high water speed and once the vehicles are ashore, you now have the armored protection and so forth that you need. To your question about the amphibious combat vehicle and where it is, it is fully funded. It is on track for an ioc of 2020. And as you know that will be the first increment of the entities combat vehicle. We are doing a survivability upgrade on our legacy Amphibious Assault vehicles as a bridge to the second increment of acv, 1. 2. Let me ask you about amphibious lift. Obviously our marine corps has a requirement of 38 ships today. We are at 31. As a talk about growing the fleet, its not just about the number of ships but i believe its also about fleet architecture, as the type of ships. Give me a perspective on where we are today. Theres been some discussion about a ship like the large deck and figures ship the test flight operations. The marine corps has gone from having a ship that doesnt have a well bed, now back to having a well deck as part of the rink or expedition unit, that Amphibious Readiness group we know that is so critical as you pointed out to put marines forward. Give me a perspective about our interview ships and importance of large deck amphibious ship, and despite the weather not it should have it well deck should be a platform for aircraft, should have the multi capability. I noticed that a lot of question about either replacing it with a smaller aircraft carrier. Give me the marine corps perspective about where that is. Congressman, as you rightly point out, its important for us we talk about amphibious, what are we trying to do, the requirement is for a brigade of lift. Within that whats the proper balance between how much you going to fly, how much are going to ride on your biggest vehicles and your connectors. Thats an ongoing discussion. As you know, the new big deck amphibious will have a well deck and we think that that is a proper balance between both aviation and the Additional Space that you need for your Ground Forces and those maneuver vehicles. In terms of fleet architecture, as you know the department of the navy is doing several studies in which were participating in. Writ large, and get when you look at threat environment, dispersal signature are all the things that have to be considered Going Forward. Those may inform other options that we havent previously considered. From marine corps perspective though, the big deck, amphibious, provides tremendous value to the Combatant Commander and the nation. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, general for your testimony. I want to talk about how you had to go to the boneyard which is in my district, which they dont like using that word by the way. A regeneration group, in order to bring aircraft out, going to be upgraded to c to address some of the issues youve talked about today. Given the fact that you many squadrons who are unable to have the parts and supplies to the Readiness Level for the units, and i was a pilot just. I get those challenges. Are these aircraft intended to be additive to the ones in the squadrons . If you dont have parts for them, are you swapping them out because of less flight hours . Whats the cost . Using the reports, the recourse dumpster diving to try do meet the radiation needs. I wouldnt call it a dumpster but you can see how this is sort of shocking two people are looking at whats going on where our marine corps is having to go back into those that were put into various stages of preservation in order to meet the needs. Congresswoman, i would just say that when you look across any model series, as you know, its an enterprise effort. And if you have shortages in certain areas, the enterprise will make decisions where it makes sense to harvest, in this case could be parts, or a lesser cases with regard to the f18, the body of an airplane that still has service life on it. And it just speaks to the broader point. Its old iron. Youve got originally planned service life. You that multiple extensions approved by Naval Air Systems Command and you just managing that risk. In some cases if youve got, you know, full aircraft or more specific parts that are difficult to produce, the subs have gone away for whatever reason, its one of those one offs. You may choose to take advantage of that spirit what are you swapping out a lower flight hour aircraft with a higher one that is in a unit right now . There is a report there are 10 f18s being refurbished this year up to a couple dozen total. Can you give me an update and the cost of how that is all happening . Again, youre looking across an enterprise of several hundred. I would sit in most cases you are not replacing airplanes anymore. That wasnt done several years ago. You may be taking components primarily from those airplanes to repair so were not taking airplanes out . Well, with are taking airplanes out, but what were doing, that is, were not taking airplane out and necessary for we may take components off of it, but if you do have service life remaining, but my understanding is that all the airplanes are high, they are high service time. If a guy like on it which is trying this is confusing because of reports of think theres a contract with the boeing specifically to take these aircraft, 10 this year, up to a couple dozen total, upgrade them and get them into operations. Are you saying that is not happening . No. That is happening speed do you know the number and the cost . I dont know the coaster i can get that information for you. The number 10 sounds correct. I would check with general dav davis. If you dont like getting back to me. These are media reports saying 10 this year and a couple dozen total. I had a squadron come here to get 24 airport to display. I 27 to may 24. Like they didnt give me 32 ma may 24 winwin backlog in parts. Just trying to understand are you adding so squadrons have more airplanes some more of them are sitting unable to fly or how is that . You have many squadrons that are sitting, maybe half to two thirds of the actual shadows this post have on the flight line. In the parts of the readiness were talking about here, these pilots flying 10 hours a month, hours are meaningless to me. Its what kind of actual missions you are training on that matter. Is it related to flight our money or is it all about the parts and the backlog . Its the parts and the backlog. Its the aircraft. Are you seeing pilot retention issue . Theres push and pull factors. Are you seeing any we have today, we have all the pilots that we have to were concerned that we may have some challenges Going Forward based on the plans of the airlines Going Forward. Again, quality of life for our marines, piece of quality of life is equipment, exactly. I look for to working more with you on this because i think it will be some push factors and im over my time. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, general. Thank you for appearing divorced today. We will be adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] if you missed any of this event and will be available shortly to view online anytime at our website, cspan. Org. Just type House Armed Service committee into the search bar. A live picture from march in support of native american righnd