Transcripts For CSPAN3 Forum Focuses On U.S. Navy Maintenance Challenges 20170711

Special way Lockheed Martin and Huntington Ingalls industries for their support in making this series possible. Before we get underway, wed also like to make just a brief announcement. We dont expect any difficulties, but should there be anything, we just want to make sure you know weve got some exits right here in the back on both sides and stairs down the front. The chief executive officer of the naval lockheed hard tmartin. He holds degrees from George Washington university and a Naval Nuclear engineering degree from mit. There a Major Program manager for Aircraft Carriers and Program Executive officer for submarines, peo subs. Finally, last year in june, tom moore assumed command as the 44th commander at fc. I point out theres over 75,000 uniformed and civilian employees of nafc. They are responsible for all the super vising of navy ship and submarine shipbuilding and responsible for the maintenance and the systems that go on those ships directly. So we welcome admiral tom moore who controls one quarter of the navys budget. Thank you. I am always reminded of that, we have a quarter of the budget. Thats not necessarily a good thing. So good morning. And thank you for the invite this morning. Before i get started, so last night was a big night for the navy. A couple things, one, my van and the carriers played live down at the waterfront. And then, lets see, what was the other thing that went on last night. Oh, yeah, the other thing is we delivered the ford to the navy. So kind of a big night for us, actually, for my perspective having worked on gerald r. Ford for the past ten years. I just came back from a successful trial. And the navy delivered the ford last night. So youre here to hear it first. So thanks for the opportunity to come talk to you this morning. The theme that was given was the maintenance challenge and how to reset the fleet. And so what i would like to do is talk about this in the context of talking about where the cnos headed with the size of the fleet and what were doing to grow the size of the fleet on the new Construction Side. But importantly talk about how the maintenance side of that equation fits in. Its not as we were talking beforehand, its not either. You got to do both. So sometimes we tend to forget about that, having been a ship loaded for most of the last 15 years, but also having spent three years on the fleet readiness, im well aware that you got to do both. You got to maintain what you got and continue to build Going Forward. So if you havent read the white paper on the future navy, get a copy, its a good read. I like to say its short with pictures in it. So its great for command master chiefs. The lips do not get tired when they read it. And the cnos white paper talks about more importantly up front what the security environment is. And he makes three key points and his key points are important whether you talk the maintenance side of the house. It has to be a sense of urgency in some of the things we are after today. And that applies to across the board. To getting ships and submarines out of available and time. And to figure out how to design the ships quicker and get them built quicker. The second thing is that the pace today is exponentially. If you go look at the world today and the threats that were facing, the near competitors say russia and china, and the pace theyre changing their capability is growing exponentially. And we have to keep up with that pace. Its kind of like we went into the halftime of a Football Game in 2000 up 283 and kind of popped the champagne and said, games over and the referee came in and said, halftime is over, were ready to start the second half. And we said, well get there when we get there. And we strolled out midway through the Third Quarter to find out the score is now 2824. So the capability gap between us and our competitors is really close and a keen interest to us here on the navy side of the house in terms of what is the capability that we need Going Forward. So theres a lot of discussion going on today about what is it, what is the navy that we need. And not necessarily what is navy we need in the 2040s, but what is the navy we need in the 2020s. We tend to talk about, what is the navy we need today . And we are trying to take a lead angle and say, what is the navy needs in the mid20s and go make decisions based on kind of that in navy we need in the 2020s. Theres been a number of studies, some done by the navy and independent groups about what is it that the navy needs and what should it look like. They all have kind of varirying nixes of ships and stuff. But in the end, they came to the conclusion that we need the bigger navy and they are all around the 340 to 350 ships. So, clearly, the size of the fleet does matter Going Forward. And the capability of that fleet is also going to matter importantly as well. So how do we get there from here . So one of the things when we talk about the size of the fleet, i know i get questions often about, hey, the 18 budget didnt add a bunch of new ships. What happened . We were never going to be able to turn that around overnight. I think what youre going to see and well get to it a little bit more in the later remarks is the 18 budget kind of holds what we have on the new Construction Side but makes a significant investment on the readiness side of the house, which if you listen to the vice chiefs testimony back in february, his point was, hey, the first dollar we get aught to go to readiness. And i think that is what youre seeing in the 18 budget. Now, a lot of we spent a lot of time talking about what is the strategy, the future navy white paper, the design for maintaining design is all about the navys strategy Going Forward. Having been in washington since 1999, i tell people im on my 18th palm, which is kind of hard to imagine. And if i had a dollar every time someone said, we need to build a Strategy First and then the strategy will drive the budget. And in the world we live in, that sounds great, but the reality of it is, you dont want a budget completely driving your strategy, but you cant ignore the fact we live in a fiscally constrained environment. So what we would like to say about the navy budget is its a resourceinformed strategy. And i think thats the reality of where we are today. So were going to increase the build of the ships that we have today. We think the Industrial Base can probably build over the next seven years facing the capacity of 29 more ships than in the original plan. We have to get more capability for the dollar and figure out where the curve is within the industry to get them to go work on this stuff. And then we have to figure out how to innovate and what are we working on the new Construction Side of the house. So were going to continue building dgs, were going to continue to build the amphibs we have today. And we owe answers to Congress Later this summer on that. And youll see things going on in that particular area. As we head out further, you probably heard me talk about this future combatant, what the replacement of the cgs is, that is going to be critically important. Kind of the last word inside the pentagon is swap, space, weight and power. As we go build the future navy, while i cant tell you exactly what it is going to look like, one of the things that is really important for us is we build these platforms and to make sure the platforms have enough space, weight and power to modernize and adapt to future threats. We are kind of here with electric ships. And some of the d4 carriers are prime examples of building in space, weight and power into the platform so that you can adapt and go forward. And interestingly, the ddg51 class around today and serving well, as we have gone and are going to build like 3a, we are going to provide a little more space and power Going Forward. And those ships are kind of unique in their ability to stay around. It was interesting, you know, my First Department was on the ddg17 uss cunningham. We used to get rid of ships at the 25year point. And we probably got rid of them in the 25year point. We didnt do maintenance on them, but anyone who served on the ddg knows they were tough to repair. At the 25year point, a lot of people think, we aught to get rid of these things because they are rust buckets. The reality of it is that we really got rid of a lot of the ships because from a comed system standpoint they were obsolete. So fastforward to today, take the berg class today, and take a look at open architecture and spy radar and vertical launch, and now you have a platform that can stand around, stand around a lot longer. You don if you want to get more service life out of a hull, you have to do more maintenance on it. Back in 2008, we had kind of reached this epiphany where we had not spent any money doing maintenance on the service ship for ten years. We woke up one morning and dont have ships that can get to their expected service life. In hindsight, it doesnt take a Rocket Science to figure out if you dont make vessels on the maintenance side of the house, you cant expect the ships to get to where they needed to. We went along happily for ten years, not doing maintenance and saving our money is working. The reality is we were consuming the service life of the ships built into them in redundancy and eventually it caught up to us. We spent the better part of the last eight to nine years digging ourselves out of the hole, particularly as it relates to the Service Ships and crude oil ships. So one of the key components, i think, of getting out to the size of the fleet that we need is going to be looking at taking the ddgs and amphibs and extending the service life of the ship. Most of them are in the 30 to 35year range. Were taking a pretty close look at what would it take to get another five, ten years. And the reality then is for a steel hull, if you do the maintenance, you can get the service life out much longer. And with todays open architecture and vertical launch, i think theres great opportunity for us to make the investment. Its a relatively small investment to keep the ships around longer than we have today. And people will say to me, we have never really gone on a service ship 35 to 40 years. But we routinely take Aircraft Carriers to 50 years. The reason we do that is we consistently do the maintenance you have to do on the Aircraft Carrier to get it to 50 years. So we know how to do this. And i think what youre going to see is, were going to take a very serious look at taking the service life of the existing fleet and extending it out 5 to 10 years. If you do that and have seen the Structure Assessments to get us to 55 ships around 2045, maybe just keep ships in their Current Service life and build new, we could probably accelerate that to get to 355 probably by 10 to 15 years with a relatively small investment over a 30year period. So well take a very close look at that. One of the things i have consistently pointed out as we go look at the new frigot design is we should not design a ship with the service life of a planned service life of 25 to 30 years. It doesnt make sense. So we aught to go plan service life of 40plus years for all the ships. And then build in the swap context space, weight and power to adapt them Going Forward. I think that is going to be part of our strategy Going Forward. So the last part, the last thing i want to talk about is the maintenance side of the house and kind of resetting the fleet. If you have heard the vice chief back in february, he talked about the fact that the first new dollar i get needs to go to readiness. The good news is that the 18 budget has an unprecedented amount of money for readiness. Its to do maintenance on the ships, and thats good. We need that. As i tell folks all the time, we have the resources we asked for, now its over to us to deliver. But its important to understand when you talk about maintenance that its not just resources. Im careful and quick to point out it is not just about money and not just about adding more people. That cant be the only part of the solution here. Clearly, the 9. 7 billion we get is going to help us. We need to grow the size of the Naval Shipyards, 33,850 people today. Well grow that to 36,300. Thats where we need to be to consistently deliver the Nuclear Ships on time. Today were not doing a good job with that. Only a third of them deliver on time. We have had a better year this year on the carrier side of the the house. But 12 of the 17 submarines in overhauls or activations are behind. We have to turn that around. So people will help. Certainly, capacity is important but its not the only piece Going Forward. And the Number One Mission priority is the ontime delivery of shipments and summaries. The reason its the number one priority is of the 235 ships i had today, about a third of them at any time are under control, even on top maintenance or some pure side of availability. So to the extent we dont get them out on time, it causes a great stress on the force. You may have remembered the article back in january or february, i cant remember the exact month, where a reporter said that the u. S. Navy for the first time did not have an air kaft carrier at sea since the first time of world war i. Thats a pretty startling statement when you think about it. Part of that was because we were down to ten carriers, but the other part was the george w. Bush in a Maintenance Facility to take eight months took 13 months. It was not lost on me when i came to the job a year ago that the ability to get ships and submarines out on time is critically important for resetting the fleet and getting the fleet to the size that we need. One, we need more people. Clearly. But cant be only about the people. Theres a couple other things we have to do here. So one, we have to have the capacity to do the work. They have to train the workforce. The kids today that are coming in, they learn differently than we learned and the typical timeline to get a trained worker at a Naval Shipyard, by the time you get them in the door to the time they can do something useful on the ship is five years. And we have to cut that back. New training methods today, were going to get we can have somebody go turn a wrench and do something useful on the ships in two to three years versus five years. But we have to think differently about how we train the young men and women coming in today. Because they learn differently than we do. And the other thing is we have to make an invest in the the shipyards, both on the private side and public shipyard side in order to get the work done more productively than today. The Navy Shipyards, some of them are several hundred years old, a lot of them were designed to build ships. In the early part of the 20th century. And they are really not set up to handle maintenance the way it should be. We typically in terms of Capital Improvements in the yard, we make investments in equipment and replace equipment in the order of every 20 to 25 years. The Industry Standard is 10 to 15 years. I have buildings over 100 years old and cant get work done. So we have to make a concerted effort to go look at from the Industrial Engineering process, how to make investments in the Naval Shipyards in order to get the work done more productively Going Forward. Kevin mccoy talked about this many years ago. We have to take the entire Industrial Base into account here. We do have capacity other places when we dont have capacity to do the work in our yards. And this one Shipyard Concept that we got that we talked about probably ten years ago is something that were going to have to take a serious look at. We are get significant help from nuper news on submarine work. Well need that Going Forward. So weve got a lot of challenges ahead of us. But the good news is, from the maintenance side of the house, im very encouraged where we are headed. Weve got the resources that we need. Weve got a Firm Strategy Going Forward. Well start to deliver ships and submarines on time and take a very serious look at how to extend the expected life of the ships we have. That will help in the maintenance strategy. When you combine the two things together and add that into the built strategy well have, weve got a viability path Going Forward to get to 355 and may be able to get there sooner than we would otherwise get there by building new. So with that i will conclude my remarks and take a seat here. And ill be happy to answer the questions you might have. Well, thank you for those remarks. And for the audience and for our guest speaker, well start with a few questions up here and then open it up and get a discussion going. And have plenty of interaction. You mentioned, admiral, that theres this tension between readiness today and built for the future. And its ever been thus. You go back all the 18 palms or whatever you worked on, that was probably there on the first one and probably there today. But one thing that sticks out is that the gap may be widened more than for the fleet running at a very high tempo. You mentioned the fleet response plan. That made it more available for tasking. Have we caught up enough . I mean, back in 2008 2009, corrections were muput many pla. But it strikes me from the maintenance standpoint and from a need for modernization, things are pretty tightly wrapped and it is a pretty tough, its pretty tough to catch up. How caught up are we . Are you satisfied . And maybe you dont agree with the premise, but i think its particularly challenging scenario. Well, i think we have made major gains to catch up, i dont think we have completely dug ourselves out of the hole, but we got members from the board sitting over here. I think they would tell you that the recent trends on this is a graded event. Graded event, okay. This is just an okay pass for land. There are a couple aviators out there that got that. I think we have closed the gap. But i think were almost there, but its one of those things that as we saw before, if you dont once you get there, if you dont consistently maintain the funding, that you can rapidly lose the edge that you had. And i think that is a particularly important thing when you talk about the ofrp, because ofrp was built and they put maintenance at the front for a reason. It was in recognition that you got to get the maintenance done. So were all doing that, but the other thing about ofrp is, were having these discussions, ofrp was designed, really, to provide more force. So youll hear admiral davis and talk about it. They provide Power Forward in a rotational manner, but it is also meant to provide surge capacity. And i dont think we have yet tapped into the surge piece of it. And we are likely to see more use, for instance, of an Aircraft Carrier when shes in the 36month cycle. If shes got a 36month availability and works up for eight to ten up months, shes got a significant period of time. So you sent her on a sevenmonth deployment and come back, we would like to continue to use her again. I think, were going to go look at making the investment in the maintenance or get the use out of the platform. But as you go use the platforms, you consume the surface life. That circles back to the importance to your point in the beginning of, okay, were going to go use ofrp the way its meant to be used and make the forces available. Then it makes it more important to go do the maintenance. If theres a direct correlation between how much you use them and how much maintenance you have to do. One of the interesting things we found is in the post9 11 era. Even though the total numbers in fleet didnt change dramatically, about 40 more deployed days than we had before. And it is kind of like running a car to charge or running a car across the country. We run the car across the country a lot more and had to do more maintenance on it. Yes, so you mentioned thank you for that, the shipyards and the need to recapitalize the infrastructure. You could see buildings 100 years old. If thats important, is the money budgeted for the you mentioned maintenance money, are you allowed to apply that to efficiencies and upgrades to the facilities and the capacity you have . Yes, i have limited authority to take the omen money to do that. One of the things i have been working on and having serious discussions on, frankly, the defense committees are very open about having a discussion about providing more flexibility with some controls on the use of the money to make some of the investments we need. On the same side, you know, the milcon budget is relatively small. We need to compete for those dollars as well. And we are laying out a longterm Investment Strategy for the Naval Shipyards. The cno spechkifically asked me what is the plan. This gets me back to my original comment, throwing more money and more people wont make us more productive. It will help, but there are a lot of elements to the productivity piece. And one is making necessary adjustments to the welding machines, et cetera, but providing shops. If you go to get your work done, that flows the material and flows the work into the ship better than we do today. So while we dont make the investments we need to make today, thats pretty clear. We make the we meet the 6 threshold that is mandated by congress. But thats kind of a hold what you got. And well have to take a serious look at what it takes to go invest in these shipyards, particularly, if were going to grow the size of the fleet. The Naval Shipyard today can handle 75 ships. But if youre talking drive options, shops and a 355 navy, then they have a completely different issue. I agree. Just to get back to the capacity issue, youve got a lot of folks out here working in industry you have already highlighted the next 18 proposed budget that came down on focusing on nearterm readiness. It makes sense to a degree, but there was a lot of people, frankly, who were expecting a little bit more on the ship count for 18 as there were in the previous administrations budget. Are there things that you are looking at, and are there things industry should be looking at as you lay in for the rampup to 355, which 18 is kind of a readiness year, but what should they be looking at . Going forward, i think that we have laid out where we want to head. I would tell industry the key is, we want to keep our production lines going. We want to, with the new future service combatant, we need to look at ways to streamline the acquisition process. The new buzz word is setbased design to kind of take options and get through the early stages of what the design of the ship is going to look like. I think industry is partnering very well with us in that particular area. But its got to be a continuation of trying to build and innovating how to figure out the next set of ships coming down the pike. And some of those are continuing on building carriers as the ceos stated, we would like to get to 12. That would thing the build centers from 5 to 4. Thats one of the things were looking to do. And on the surface side of the house, weve got a number of ongoing efforts that will yield Going Forward. We have to continue to make the case on the budget side of the house for the resources necessary to get that done. And that is obviously challenging in the environment that were in today. And i think youll see in the 19 budget and beyond were laying out a compelling case for the size of the fleet we need and what it will cost Going Forward. You mentioned capacity also in terms of people. And you also mention ed maybe dusting off kevin mccoys one Shipyard Concept. Are we seeing strain in competing for the same people . A couple observations is that what we found with the sequester, the fiscal cliff and some of the wild swings in avails is that we were turning off and on avails. And when you went back to find the person with the skillset, they werent there or you had to pay more. Last i saw, and you have the latest, that you were still a little short on the government side of hiring shipyard workers. You had a goal through 16 having about 2,000 more than you currently have on board. Are we eating ourself on this . In the nearterm, we do compete for resources. To your question, can we get the workforce necessary to go build ships we need. The answer is yes. We have had that in the past. When i was at enterprise, nuper news had 25,000 workers and the naval ship had up in the 30,000 i think i heard. So we got to provide a package of things to interest the young people to work at the Naval Shipyard today and industry would do the same. We compete for some of those people. In the shortterm, we grab people they would like to have and vice versa. If theres a stable plan and we know we are going to grow the size of the force, they are not working to grow their workforce. And frankly, im not worried that we are going to have a problem growing the size of the Naval Shipyards as well. I think weve got a good plan out there. And well be able to press on with that Going Forward. Last question before we open it up to the audience, you mentioned that the good news is that we got a big bumpup in o m operations and maintenance money to do maintenance nearterm. What is the next big thing that you think, past that, that you would like to see more investment, from a prioritizationstand point, if admiral moran got his 19. 8 billion, what is the next dollar going to . Yeah, so in my main, the tax dollar goes into investing in the shipyards. Making the investments necessary to go make the workforce more productive. Up theres an expectation from the cno and the fleet that were going to give you all this money, we want you to deliver things on time. But once you get the workforce and youve got the workforce that you need, we expect you to get better. One of the challenges we face today as we have added a significant number of people in Navy Shipyards over the last six to seven years is that i have a pretty young workforce. Half the people in the Naval Shipyards today have been there less than five years. We are adding 2,000 people over the next two years, that trend is going to that is not going to change significantly. So we have to recognize we have a young workforce and go train them so they can become more productive and provide them with facilities to be more productive. Because the expectation is correct, which is, hey, im going to give you the people and the dollars, but i got to, at the end of the day, i need the dollars to go build ships, build planes and weapons as well. So once you get that workforce trained thats there, i expect you to be able to figure out how to do a 250,000 mandate availability for example. So that is the challenge that we face Going Forward. So my next dollar would go into investments of the Physical Plant to make them more productive to ultimately start tipping that helmet budget and let the resources go elsewhere when needed. Thank you. Okay, lets open it up. I dont know if you folks here, we can just call on ask and identify yourself and ask your question. Breaking the defense, good to see you both again, admirals. You said very interesting things about how if we invest in maintenance and extending the service lives of our current ships, we can get to this a lot faster. Theres a big return investment for that. How much life are we getting out of what ships . Can every one get five years or is it much less and so forth . And what is your best case, middle case, worst Case Scenario to bring the 355 goal back to the present . Well, the answer to the question is i think it applies to all the vertical ships that have vertical launch. We are not going to go back and look at it, but the study looked at it as it applied the cgs with the exception of tyco and gates. How much service life can you get out of them . You can certainly get at least five more years. I think we have taken a look and im convinced on the side of the house, extremely low risk. We have frankly looked it a it from up the next dry docking, which in many cases, is more than five cases and beyond. With relatively low risk and relatively low cost. The key is, do the maintenance that you need to do and have baseline modernization capability you would like to have. The comments on the side of the house, we kind of have an idea on what this looks like on my side of the house. So i think its a relatively low risk proposition. As i said, running the numbers, i think you could probably shave 10 to 15 years off of what it would take to get to 355 if you are willing to consider the entire fleet in that set. Obviously, thats not im not the Decision Maker on that, but from the technical side of the house, they dont see anything technicallyto prohibit us from extending the maintenance life of the ships. Do the modernization and maintenance so they are combatready Going Forward. And with eknow how to do that. So this is not something we are leaning that far forward on, technically, it is pretty straightforward. I will say on the other side of the house, we dont have as much information on luminol. So im not willing lean forward on the aluminum side, but on the steel side, theres no technical issue going along longer. The nuclear side of the house we have probably sharpened our pencils and the ssns are where they need to be today. So im looking at the surface ship side of the house. Submarine force is pretty well understood how long we can take those out based on propulsion plan issues and then issues associated with the hull from diving and safely operating submerged. Can i just jump in here and ask you to hit one thing for a minute on cyber we think of other commands having to lead on cyber, but for the fact and the force youre building, fc has a huge challenge here. Could you talk a little bit about the special efforts required in that arena to get cyber compliant and secure . Thats a great question. I should have mentioned that in my remarks. I would say as part of this effort to extend the service life of existing ships, when i talk about modernization cyber, its a key piece of that. Im responsible for all the hmne from the cyber perspective. So we have to stay in front of that. I have three Mission Priorities to deliver on time submarines, variability and cyber is important. In the recent wannacry thing that everybody read about in the paper, the ransomware thing, that gets our attention pretty quickly. The reality of it is that our ships and submarines today, theres not a comed system on that ship that doesnt have, thats not heavily involved in software and computers. And even i just came from riding the trials on the gerald r. Ford and she has a machinery system that can take 1,000 people off the ship to operate the ship remotely. And skrt watecurity watched whad in the early days, but all that stuff has computers associated with it. So the cyber piece is not just, dont hack into my email or get into my credit card, it goes a lot further than that on the ships today. So we have a very big focus on how do we go manage this Going Forward. Have you had to set up any new Staff Organization or bring on anyone else . Believe it or not, a lot of the cyber force and the engineering director as we grow navc, we are looking at the cyber piece and thats a key point. More questions, megan, you had your hand up earlier. Right heerl. Here. Since my first question was asked, ill ask you about the public shipyards. You mentioned getting this done with fewer man hours. Is that a result of upgrading the infrastructure as you mentioned or if that would maybe rethink how you would approach the processes and how you innovate the procedures. It is a combination of all those things. So one, i use angles as kind of an example after hurricane katrina. He had the opportunity to rebuild and obviously katrina was a terrible blow to the gulf coast down there. But when they had the opportunity to go rebuild the facilities and kind of rethink how they made things out, you go look at how this is performing today on the Construction Side of the house, they are knocking it out of the park. So anybody that does Industrial Engineering would tell you how your shop is set up and how to flow material can go a long way towards cutting the making you more productive. But the second piece of sit the workers coming in today and training them to get them up to speed quicker. And providing them with the tools to be more productive. I think one of the things in using Technology Including cell phones, et cetera, there are Security Issues with them that would allow us to be more productive at the deck plate. Todays kids learn a lot different. Theyre not used to throwing or drawing on the table. Theyre well versed on taking an app on a phone and looking at a drawing or taking a picture of something on the ship and then pushing a button and having the material delivered to them. So there is a lot of opportunity here for us to get more productive that goes well beyond just adding people to the shipyards. Yeah. Thanks. Will the government work rules that we have today allow you to take full advantage of that . Is that another thing to put on the pile . Its another thing to put on the pichlt again, were fairly conservative about our use of new technology, but as we look at the ford today, when i started back in 1981, i never would have imagined we would allow ourselves to do some of this. So you have to embrace the technology that comes with risk, particularly on the cyber side of the house, but if you dont recognize, this is the way people learn and the way we move information. I think we are missing a great opportunity to get better quicker than we would otherwise. Right here in the front. On the end there. Hi. You mentioned the longterm plan for the public shipyards. Could you please be more specific about what youre assessing in terms of investments and people . And when do you anticipate the study to wrap up . And is that study congressionally mandated or something that the navy is doing on its own accord . A it is not congressionally manda mandated. Congress asked us to come up with a plan and we are sticking with that today. So the Navy Shipyard kind of did this on their own where they hired an industrial engineer to go look at the layout and how work flows and they mapped out where people had to walk to between the shops. So they were able to go put that on the plate. And they showed that to me last year, which was interesting. We made the investment to go out and do the same thing at the shipyard. Someone who is a formal engineer could go look at the yards. Where are the existing shops today . Where do people have to walk to to get the work done . And if you were to optimize that, what would you do . So a combination of that and then Capital Improvements on the facilities in terms of welding machines, et cetera. The last piece as we grow to block five, the submarines wont fit in a lot of the existing. And the carriers, they use 13. 8 power on the pier and have different cooling requirements. So weve got to upgrade the docks for those as well. So we have a longterm plan. Investment plan that we have shown to the cno. And that includes both the dry docks and then the facilities investments necessary to get there. Its not cheap. We are talking youre talking on the dry dock side of the house over the next 30 years, an investment on the order of 3 to 4 billion necessary to make the dry docks compatible. Those are musthaves if you want firstclass carrier, you have to upgrade the dry docks. The second piece of that is the one where im competing with everyone else for the dollars, which is to make the investment necessary in the shipyards. So, yes, that plan, we had the basic outlines of it. I would answer back in the fall, and i think it will finish. Probably february is what i is today 2017 . Yes. I think february of next year ill have a bow wrapped up. Im having this conversation with the committees as well who are very supportive and want to help. Im moving over here. Sir . Hi, there, im mike stone from reuters. Thank you for coming in. You talked a little bit about frigot and delivery and keeping costs down. And i want to understand how much time navc would need with the foreign design frigget in terms of surviving the availability systems and to break that down. If you can answer that, how that compares to domestic design . I dont think it matter where is the design comes from in terms of how long it takes to evaluate it. You know, i think that the thought is here that they are Going Forward with in the future. The environment will include a walk across a broad spectrum. And we could consider a foreign design as part of that competition. We havent got to that point yet. We got to the point where we were considering those designs, it wont take navc unless i have to translate it from german or dutch to do the analysis. So i dont think theres any time difference. This gentlemen right here on the end. Pass him the mike. Thank you. Rick burgis. Admiral malone, is the ford designed to have more life in it . If so, is there a gap between the new one and the ford . Yes. If we go on the submarine side, the lifeship core, we look at what it would take to get to a core 4 class. And techtechnologically, if you going to keep the ship for 50 years, you have to bring it to a midlife overhaul anyway. And the refuels portion is only 10 . Thats not the critical path. So we concluded that from the cause standpoint to make sense to keep the refueling there. We will refuel. The ford class, let me do the math in my head here. So ford delivers, yesterday shell be around for 50 years. So her first time would be in 2040. Add 20 years to that, so the last bush was the last in its class, shell be around until 2057. So her midlife refueling, i can never do math in public. That will be in 2030. So yeah, there will be a little bit of a gap in the refueling program. Between when we refuel the last of the nemits class and do ford. Essentially, the gap is going to be delivered we delivered bush in 2008 2009. And were delivering ford in 2017. Theres an eightyear gap between the refuelings. Well have to address that when we get to it. There will be a lot of activations going on in the Aircraft Carriers at the same time. That will counter balance the Nuclear Shipbuilding in the 2040 2050 timeframe that would counter balance the work of not having the consistent rch program. Over here on the right. Good morning. A lot of what you spoke about this morning, sounds like a huge data problem. In a lot of ways, particularly when it comes to i see two data sets. I see one data set being stuff coming off the equipment, whether it be state rolls royce turbine. We have a huge amount of data that comes off turbines that fly through the sky on the commercial level all around the world that provides us really insightful ways to do Predictive Maintenance on the aviation side. Thats commercial application. Within the navy, theres a lot of other data that comes off the ship. The custodian is the u. S. Navy. And you have information coming off the equipment owned by, say, the oem. Now, if youre trying to bring this information together to gain insights from it, how do you how do you see handling that . We talk about cyber, but how do we handle who owns the data . And who is able to interpret it in a way that now enables you to gain efficiencies . Well, so one, im a big believer that the navy should own the data Going Forward. And youre right, we absolutely have a lot of data coming off our ships today. We dont, frankly, make great use of it. You talked about rolls royce engines, weve been the Navy Leadership has been up to General Electric to see what they are doing in what they call digital twins in the digital age to make decisions. I think thats a direction we absolutely need to head in. So i have, you know, on short ships today, i have a data system called icast. Frankly, we dont do a lot with the day to help make decisions. But as we go to the systems we have today, like the fords classic machinery system, we have the availability to collect vibration data and temperature stuff. And we have to absolutely take a step forward and become more mature in the use of the data. This absolutely drives us to go figure out, how do you make use of the big data to make better decisions Going Forward . Its across a whole host of different applications in my world, its on the maintenance side of the house. How do you use data to make better decisions about when you do maintenance and what type of may not indianapolis maintenance do you do . Weve got to get better at it. To the data portion of it, we need to get the navy to own the data so that we can make some integrated decisions about what were going to do. Okay. Right up here up front. Talking about the service life, how much do you anticipate the o m cost to increase as you get to the 355 ship number . And are you concerned that the additional o m costs will eat into the amount of money available for the procurement and new builds . Well, clearly like a car, and our experience with say enterprise or nemitz is now 42 years old, they do take more maintenance to the end of their life. If you are going to get to 355 ships, youre going to have you got to recognize up front youre going to have a higher o m cost. If you are going into this thinking you are going to grow the size of the fleet by these ships and that youre not going to see costs go up, youve got a problem. So i think we recognize that the costs are going to go up. They are a little bit higher towards the last later part of the stages of the life of the ship, but they are not astronomically higher in the nemits class. What we found in the nemits class, you dont get an anomaly. When you dont, you have problems. But the classic example for us is, Theodore Roosevelt in 71, as we transitioned many years ago from the maintenance structure that we used to have to what we call today the incremental Maintenance Plan, most of the areaicarriers got a complex set. When she got into the midlife refueling, she would have had significantly fewer mandates of work defense attorney on her in the first 20 years of life. So we had a very challenging refueling overhaul, not surprising. And so i think youve got to, yes, it will cost you a little bit more toward the end of life and we have to factor that into the plans, but the key is consistent application in the Maintenance Plan and make the investments on a regular basis. If you do that, then you wont have these major renovations in the last five to ten years of the ships life. Thats kind of our experience. [ inaudible ] if anything thinks we can get to 355 without having growth in both those accounts, they are living in la la land because that is not going to happen. So we have to factor both of those in to the equation. And we have to have the upfront and honest discussion on the budget. If you want to get to 355, you got to do both. You got to build and you got to maintain. If you skip on one of them, which is kind of our history, which is to stop on the maintenance, then you run yourself into trouble. So if were committed to 355 ship, weve got to be willing to go to make the investments on the may not indianapolis side as well. Maintenance side as well. We have to do that eyes wide open. I do think one of the things back on the new Construction Side of the house that we dont Pay Attention to is be willing to spend more money upfront so the total Ownership Cost over the ships life comes down. And i think we dont tend to make the investments because of the way the budget works is that budget year youre in matters and maybe the next budget year. But its pretty hard for people to make investments today that are going to save you money 10, 15, 20 years down the road. We have to take a more total Ownership Cost perspective getting into the next round of ships and be willing to make that investment. I mean, the ford class, for all the talk about how much the ford ship cost, we did make an investment in that ship that would save 4 billion per ship over 50 years compared to a nemits carrier. Thats a significant savings. While people may not be interest in the 4 billion savings today when struggling to balance the budget and build ships, i guarantee if you are a fleet commander 15, 20 years from now and you have several ford class carriers out there and the maintenance costs for the ships are significantly less than nemits, youll be happy that whoever was building the ford back in 2008 was smart enough to make investments up front to reduce manpower and improve the maintenance reliability of the ship. Okay. On tehe end right there with the toby harshaw from bloomberg view. You mentioned that the modernization of the shipyards had to happen on the private side and the public. You went into great detail on what you are doing in your yards, but short of another hurricane, what do you do to make sure that the private side invests as much money as you are . Well, obviously, we are not going to root for another hurricane. So i think well, if you go look at the shipbuilders today, i think im satisfied the ship bidders are making the investments that they need to make. You can go and look at electric boat and look at some of the things they are doing to build facilities to allow more work to be done inside. The investments are made more profitable Going Forward. So we have been willing to partner with them and share some of the costs if they are willing to make the investments, kind of in a capx environment. But im satisfied in the yards today that are out there competing for work are making the investments necessary to keep those yards competitive. And that is one of the great things about competition. If the competition incentivizes them to make the necessary changes to make them more profitable, im not out to make a profit. So what is the incentive for me to make investments in the yard . I need something along the same i need that same type of thinking. To me, the investment is i get more productive and therefore spend less dollars. Back to the gentlemans question up front, less maintenance dollars in the future so theres more money available for procurement. Okay. Question here in the center. Good to see you. Jim shannon, you have made a point earlier about a resourceconstrained budget. If you could explain a little bit more about that, the staff of n4, the role you played then on getting the maintenance dollars increased for after you left n4, and what are you seeing today among the resource sponsors . Does n4 play that same role . Or does that shift over to n9 . How does n6 play in all of that . How does that impact you and your budget . Well, were clearly, you know, we clearly always have more requirements than we have dollars, i dont think thats new today. It may be tighter, the gap may be bigger, but weve always kind of faced that challenge. You know, the Organization Today places more of the role of managing the dollars with the n9 organization. N4 still plays a prominent role. In assessing what the requirements are. I think the process is more transparent and more open than ive seen it in the past. And so, you know, you need to the im going to get quoted on this, but, you know, the staff doesnt operate sometimes in an enterprise fashion, in other words and it was designed that way. To provide you know, you head to n6, theyre pretty much focused on surface ships and builtin advocacy. Theyre the advocates for that. So they tend to advocate for that, and so, you know, i think what were trying to get after is, you know, an enterprise look that says, hey, where should the next dollar go to make the most impact for the navy . And i think the n9 organization in concert with n8, from what ive seen today in my 18 years in d. C. , its as good as its ever been. We are having that open discussion in kind of a Corporate Board manner, if you would, to decide, wheres the money going to go . What are the specific trades, you know, what happens if you put the dollar here, what happens what dont we do . And were more looking, instead of winners and losers, its really more of a, you know, getting back to the constant question of, whats the navy we need . And so i think we are trying to work pretty hard to optimize the resources we have to get to the navy we need. So im satisfied that the processes that we have today, and were always kind of tweaking it and finetuning it to make it better, is pretty good and pretty robust. And, you know, the Navy Leadership we have over on that side is doing a terrific job of, i think, managing that, and i think everybody gets a voice in the process. As a result, i think we have a better outcome. We just have a few seconds left, and i see general gregson in the front row, so i have to ask this question. You know, there was some concern that especially the amphibs had not received the love and attention they need. We talked about the surface navy, but within the surface navy, youve got the those assets which are very large, very complex and important. Could you talk a little bit about recovering their readiness and are you satisfied and the cross talk between the navy and the marines on that . Well, ive got a marine on my staff who manages amphibious ships for me. The c21 staff, which does maintenance, talking to the marine corps all the time, n95 is a very strong advocate for the amphibious warfare branch. And where there may have been in the past a tendency to place resources on the nuclear side of the house, today i think we have robust class Maintenance Plans across the board. And, you know, we understand the service life requirements of the amphibious ships. Starting with lpd17, theyre being well maintained today. Were sending, about ready to finish up a maintenance available down in norfolk, shes going to be an fdnf ship. So im satisfied that were making the investments necessary there. Ive been on a lot of the amphibious ships, as well. I dont see any indication that theyre, you know, theyre the last person in line for the maintenance dollars. Right. You just mentioned wasp. She had to sit out for five to seven years because she had an obsolete combat direction system. So thats an example of recovery. Good one. Yeah. Wasp, so she just came back from a deployment at the end of 2016. And we immediately threw her into an availability to get her ready to be an fdnf ship. The crew and the contractor have done extremely well and we are close to getting her out of there and shell get over to japan and do great things over there. Well, thank you. Were going to have to cut it here, but we want to thank admiral moore for giving his remarks today and giving us the time he gave us for questions. Hes a very busy man with a lot on his plate. Like to also mention one more time our thanks for the generosity of our sponsors, Lockheed Martin and Huntington Ingles industry, without whom we couldnt bring you this Maritime Security dialogue. From csis and the navy institute, we thank you, we thank our audience and our speaker again today. Thank you. Lets give him a hand. [ applause ] to kind of help us get quicker to the point where we say, okay, this is what we want. So the fact if anybody wants, we can send out some more detailed information, know exactly what the design is. Great, thank you. Yes, sure. You have a question . Not right now. Okay. Could i speak to something a little specific. So you mentioned industry helping out with some of the attack submarine availabilities. Set to go to a private yard. I was just wondering if you could say which yard thats going to and then why it had to do 19 instead of 18. Well, i cant tell you what yard because its going to be competitively bid. So, you know, well see where that goes. 19, was just one of the capacity, was really the reality. I didnt have the capacity shipyard. I had to get money in 18 to start planning. So it was really more about where the capacity existed within the industry. Do you have any other attack submarines, forward availabilities . Or is it just industry coming into the public yards to help out . No, so weve got montpelier is up, columbus is coming. Boise will go to one of those two yards. We always, Going Forward, we want to keep this on the table as an option, you know, what i dont want i want to prevent another boise. So as we grow the size of the workforce and look at all the submarine work we have on the plate, im trying to get out in front of this far enough in advance so i can i dont have the capacity in the Naval Shipyard. And then we can go talk to industry earlier than weve typically done. And if you look at the list of submarines out there, theres probably there are several cases where were looking in the future that we may have to go to industry earlier than we would have done. I wanted to ask you about the budget documents, it said there was a push to ten months, were e. So why is that is like the George Washington going to take longer . No, gw is not going to take any longer. Gw is going to start a year later because, you know, we looked at whether we wanted to just enaienacinactivate her aga. One, the fleet needed her a little bit longer. Two, when gw moved to the right a year, it did create a significant overlap between the end of the George Washingtons availability, the start of the stennis availability. And so if you get too much of an overlap, the newport, the gw, the stennis, and would have been building 79. Looked like a workload peak that was going to be a recipe for i dont want to say disaster, but it would have caused some problems. So fleet wanted to move it. It fit the Industrial Base needed. So i would say its kind of the model to the future in all these decisions. And the decision was made on stennis years in advance. I think we need to get to, lets go look at the work we have, lets go look at the fleets needs. If we can meet the fleets needs and theres a better way to go level the work in both the navel shipyards and the private sector, were going to do that. Youll get the work done on time and get the work done cheaper if they can apply the resources in the optimum. You mentioned moving away from the one Shipyard Concept when it comes to new builds. Do you have any particular classes of ships in mind for that . Im not sure were moving away from the one ship i thought you were saying for some i thought i maybe i misinterpreted what i said. The one Shipyard Concept was the maintenance side of the house. We used the resources, the entire Industrial Base. In fact, we can use newport news and carrier availabilities. In terms of new construction, you know, competition is always going to be what were striving to get. The only place is Aircraft Carriers but so were looking to have competition where we can. Are you looking to extend lives of amphibs across the board . Sure. All your amphibious class ships. Lcs. If you missed any of this hearing, you can find the entire program on our website cspan. Org. Were live on capitol hill now. Senate republicans leading a press Briefing Calling for senators to work through their scheduled august recess on outstanding problems. Well be very brief in our opening comments to allow plenty of time for q a. Im david perdue from georgia. We have eight people here who will make comments and answer your questions. Were here to talk about a letter we sent to leadership last week. Basically this is the message is very clear. Youve seen the letter. Is that were willing to forgo some or all of the august work period because weve got some very important issues weve got to get done and get results for the people back home. The president basically said the first of the year there were four major priorities this year. One was health care. One was regulation. One was tax. One was the supreme court. Were moving on most of those. But right now, even if we get through health care in the next week or two, between now and the end of the tis kel year, we only have 31 working days left. We have the debt ceiling to get through. The budget for 2018. The reconciliation that goes with that. And the appropriation process to fund the government before september 30th. And then even if all that were to get done, weve got tax. Which is the last thing in the president s agenda we want to get to this year. We just want to make sure we have plenty of time to get all that done. With that, im going to open up. I think steve is the first one on the list. Ill go alpha order and ask him to make an opening comment. Thank you. Senator, thank you for holding this press conference today. Many of us here on the stage came from the private sector. Theres a lot of private sector experience here. One of the great gaps between the private sector and what goes on in washington, d. C. Is a word that senator perdue used is results or the lack there of. Look at the scorecard issues. The budgeting process has worked four times in 42 years. Thats a 10 score. The Senate Confirmed 48. Thats a 24 score. Two out of trumps 23 to just nominations have been confirmed in the senate. Thats a 9 score. The senates con irm iffed 23 of trumps 216 nominations. Thats an 11 score. As senator perdue mentioned, weve got health care, weve got budgets. We only have 31 scheduled days in the senate between now and the end of our fiscal year. September 30th to get a budget passed. This past year, we were seven months into the fiscal year before we finally passed a budget. So i dont see any reason why we need to be leaving this town in august. We should be here doing the peoples business. If you were going to school and you were getting failing grades in your spring semester, you better stay in school for the summer and go to summer school, not take a recess. Whos up next . I think most americans dont really care politically up here whos winning or losing or whos liberal or conservative or whos left or right or whos up or down or poll numbers. They care about results. And when you look at the issues confronting us, health care, which were not likely to vote on until next week at the earliest. Jobs and growth, which i think can only be achieved through tax reform. Weve done everything we can do on the monetary side. Weve got to address the anemic growth on america on the fiscal side. The infrastructure bill that the president has talked about. The budget. The appropriations process. The debt limit. And a bill thats extremely important to my state and a number of other states. The National Flood insurance program. Now, anybody who thinks we can get all of that done from the by the end of the year, thats just a testament to the power of human denial. We have got to work longer and harder. I dont mean to step on anybodys toes. I know im new here. There are a lot of traditions. And people have things to do back home. But we cant pass bills back home. Weve got to be here. And thats the reason im here today is to suggest respectfully to my colleagues that we need to work all or a portion of the august recess and show some results for the American People. I dont know many working class americans who get to take a whole month off. Well, good afternoon. Mike rounds out of south dakota. I had the opportunity to serve as governor of south dakota for eight years. During that time, our legislative body would meet for basically 40 days and sometimes 40 nights. At the end of that time period, like most of the other states, wed get our job done, get things completed in an appropriate fashion before the fiscal year started. People could make their plans. They could lay out based upon what our budgets were, they knew what to expect in state agencies. The individuals who had come in and asked for dollars knew what had been awarded and not been awarded in a time lynn fashion. Its not the way things have worked in washington for probably 43 years now. I think as senator perdue has indicated, this process has actually worked four times in 43 years. Until such time as we can actually fix this process and allow really good people that work here to get their job done in a timely fashion, and were probably going to have to spend some extra time here in washington rather than back in the state it is during those state work periods. I know the folks back home, they really dont mind it if we get back in and they get a chance to express their opinions once in a while. At the same time, they expect us to get our work done in a timely fashion. We cant do that right now without spending some extra time here. The reason for the letter in my opinion and the reason why i signed on to it was i wanted to let leadership know that if they could see a way to put together some additional time during august in which we could be productive, that they would have our support. And that this was our way of expressing the leadership, our support for their interest in extending the time period. And that they would have support within our conference to do that. I think thats very important that we send that message to leadership. That if they feel they can keep us in a productive mode during that time period, that we would support them in that effort. In doing so, we can actually get more of this done. Wouldnt it be nice for the first time in years to actually go to the American People and say while were trying to fix a system which isnt working, well at least let you know in advance at the beginning of the next fiscal year what we intend to spend . Wouldnt that be something that the American People havent seen in over 40 i mean, wouldnt it be nice to go back and say weve accomplished something along that line . Health care in the meantime, this is something i think were moving in the right direction on. I think we can move it forward. But were going to need some more time. And allow more members to actually ask the right kinds of questions thaey