WASHINGTON - Today, Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA), Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower & Projection Forces, made the following remarks, as prepared for delivery, on the Subcommittee's hearing titled "An Independent Fleet Assessment of the U.S. Navy." For testimony and to watch the hearing click here.
"Thank you all for being here today for our Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee hearing. As this is our first subcommittee hearing, I just want to say that I look forward to engaging all of our members on what I believe is the bipartisan committee in Congress. I especially look forward to working with my Ranking Member Joe Courtney and plotting a path to meet the requirements of our Armed Services.
Two weeks ago, we held a classified briefing with Rear Admiral Wilson in regard to the Navy’s 2016 Force Structure Assessment. The Force Structure Assessment assumed that the future plans for the Navy, in ship types and numbers of ships, would continue with ships of similar capacity that serve in the fleet today.
This afternoon, we transition from looking at the Navy’s Force Structure Assessment to considering 3 separate Future Fleet Architecture studies. These 3 studies were directed by Congress and completed in recent months. These 3 Future Fleet Architecture studies take a different tack and consider what the composition of the Fleet could be in the future. Some of their proposals include new ship classes, increased usage of unmanned vehicles, and redesigned ship configurations, just to name a few. We turn to three independent experts to provide more details on alternatives to the Navy’s proposed force structure. I hope during the course of this hearing we can discuss options that Congress could pursue to meet those Navy requirements.
I think there is broad agreement with the Navy and the three independent studies on several themes. First of all, the Navy of today is insufficient to address the challenges of tomorrow. I think everyone would agree that the 274 ships of the Navy fleet today are insufficient for a variety of reasons and lead to a variety of bad alternatives including most prominently aircraft carrier gaps.
I also believe there is general agreement that future conflict will reside in a contested environment requiring additional large surface combatants and more robust weapons. Advancements in naval gunfire with the electromagnetic rail gun and hypervelocity projectile are essential to getting on the right side of the cost curve.
I also believe that all the studies agreed that the United States has an asymmetrical advantage in the undersea domain. Maintaining this advantage will require increasing the build rate of the Virginia attack submarine and introducing the Virginia Payload Module with the next block of attack submarines. While I believe the Research and Development community has done a good job with developing Unmanned Underwater Vehicles, I also think it is time to downselect to specific systems and rapidly deploy these capabilities throughout the fleet.
As to small surface combatants, I believe that there is general agreement on expanding the capabilities associated with the Littoral Combat Ship. The Navy concluded a Small Surface Combatant Task Force that determined the requirements for the Frigate. However, I believe that we need to take a closer look at these requirements. I look forward to better understanding capabilities that our witnesses believe should be incorporated into the Frigate.
I see our amphibious force, with its complement of Marines, as vital to our ability to deter aggression. As we look to rebuild our Navy, we must ensure that our Marine Corps also remains a large part of our plans. I look forward to hearing how the L-class ships that make up our Amphibious Readiness Groups (ARGs) can be used in the future.
As to our preeminent strike capability, the aircraft carrier, I believe that there is general agreement that we need to expand this capability but continue to reduce costs associated with the Ford-class aircraft carrier. I do not believe any members of this subcommittee are willing to accept an almost $13 billion unit cost for the USS Gerald R. Ford and efforts need to be taken to reduce overall costs.
I look forward to options that our witnesses could offer to make the Ford class more affordable.
Finally, I look forward to our witnesses better describing the communication challenges that are expected in a contested environment and options to address these concerns.
I would like to welcome all of our members and the distinguished panel of expert witnesses today.
This afternoon we have with us:
Rear Admiral Jesse Wilson, Jr.
Director, Assessment Division (OPNAV N81)
Mr. Charles P. Werchado
Deputy Director, Assessment Division (OPNAV N81B)
Mr. Bryan Clark
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
Dr. Sunoy Banerjee
MITRE Corporation
Thank you all for testifying today and we look forward to your thoughts and insights on the fleet architecture alternatives."