During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing prior to the congressional recess, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) asked Pentagon officials on how the construction of different vessel classes is prioritized.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00I'll begin with a five-minute round of questions. I know then the chairman should return promptly
00:05and I'll go vote. Let me ask a question general before I get into the particular platforms,
00:10which is the adjudication of resources and workforce to these three very important platforms.
00:18Columbia class, very important. Virginia class, very important. Carrier, very important. You cite
00:23some of the reasons for delays or not being able to do the work we need to do in a timely fashion
00:29and the reasons you cite are similar, supply chain issues, workforce issues. As you work together with
00:34the two primary shipyards, how, from a Navy standpoint, how are you sort of prioritizing
00:41and adjudicating the progress on Virginia class vis-a-vis Columbia, vis-a-vis carrier? If you
00:49could talk about that, please. Sir, I'll just briefly open up by obviously all of the platforms are
00:56important. It has to be in all of the above strategy. Columbia is clearly our highest program
01:01priority, but the carriers bring in a central mission and Virginia is critically important
01:05to the fight. We work together. We have to do what makes our programs most efficient, but we work
01:12together every day ensuring that our plans for both shipyards support construction to meet our
01:19objectives for both. We work with Navy leadership to ensure that we do that. Trade-offs have to be made
01:24at some point, and there is a balance process, but our going-in position is that we have to accomplish
01:29it all, and that's what our plan is designed to do. And I completely agree, but your point about the
01:33Columbia being the primary acquisition priority, that is because it's the one place where we cannot
01:39have a gap. We cannot have a gap in the triad, and you have been able, I think, Admiral Weeks,
01:45you've been able to manage the gap a little bit through the extension of the useful life of the Ohio class,
01:51so that's helpful. But Columbia has to kind of take lead as we're trying to adjudicate because
01:57this is an area where no gap is really allowable. Is that correct?
02:03Yes, sir. So I 100% agree with that one. We work very hard to make sure that the programs
02:08don't come into competition with each other, because the only people that lose,
02:12the only thing that loses when we do that is the American people. But absolutely, Columbia is the Navy's
02:17number one acquisition priority. And as you state, we are doing select service life extensions for our
02:24Ohio class submarines to make sure that we have sufficient margin to make sure that we continuously
02:30meet the SRATCOM requirement for 10 operational SSBNs. Great. Thank you, Admiral Rucker. Please give us an
02:36update on the status of the contract for the two FY24 Virginia class option votes and the 5.7 million in
02:44emergency funding Congress provided in the CR for FY25. Thank you for the question, sir. I would also
02:51echo the importance of all the programs. Where we stand right now is we, on the FY24 ships, which is
02:57two boats, as well as the 5.7 billion. We have finished up primary negotiations. We're finishing up
03:04documentation, as well as getting final approvals, answering questions for the various stakeholders
03:09to be able to support awarding the contract in the near term. And when you say near term, give me a
03:15give me some estimate of what near term means. Yes, sir. Right now, as we finish up answering questions,
03:21making sure that the documentation is correct, depending as we finish those, we're kind of in
03:26the final throws. So I don't want to give you a time because it's a little bit contract sensitive, but
03:30I would commit to you that it's not too new to not too far in the distance. Great. Well, we, you know,
03:35this committee and the full committee is going to be deeply involved between now and the end of June
03:39on the NDAA. So I hope that we can have a solid answer on that one as we get into the finalization of
03:46the committee's work product. Last year, we had some significant discussion about the SAWS proposal that
03:54was made by industry with respect to this particular platform. Now, that's not in your control. That is
04:02probably SECDEF and White House and Office of Management and Budget. But ever since the proposal
04:07came to light last year, I've had two basic questions. If we don't do SAWS, what do we do
04:13instead? And what can we do to make sure that we don't end up in a position where we need a proposal
04:18like SAWS in the future? Could you share your thoughts on those two questions? Yeah, thanks for
04:23the question, sir. What I would say is the most important thing, whichever path we choose, whether
04:28it to your term SAWS or a different path, the main thing we're focused on is outcomes. And what we were
04:34able to do through the analysis that we did over the last year or two, is clearly identify across
04:39both shipbuilders and the Navy, what investments would be required, what's required with wages.
04:45And so in the end, we're looking and really do appreciate all the congressional support
04:49for the money we need for the 24 ships, and the anomaly funding because that has investments and wages in
04:54there to get after what we need. So right now, we're focused on working with senior leadership to
04:59achieve those outcomes, which is increased submarine production to deliver the submarines the nation
05:03needs. And I'm assuming the second half of my question, what do we do to avoid getting in a
05:07position like this in the future, if the outcome strategy has to be one that's sustainable and not
05:12just episodic? Yes, sir, I would agree. The goal is the ramp to that one plus two, and the most efficient
05:18and a quick process that we can. Great. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield to you.