tv Hearing Focuses on the Navys Use of Littoral Combat Ships CSPAN December 1, 2016 8:00pm-10:25pm EST
we are talking about wages, where some of you in this audience, hard-working and credible americans who are in making more money 20 years ago than yours today today you were older and you are working harder and in many cases you have two jobs. some of that is because of obamacare and by the way we are repealing in replacing obamacare. [applause]
we can reverse the stagnation and usher in a period of true opportunity and growth, endless gridlock is not a way of life any longer. we don't have to accept that. government can be responsive then we can become proud again of how washingn works. i have spoken to democrats and i said to them, look, we can't go on with this gridlock. it's gone on for so many years. it's gone on for so many years. they can get together. we are going to get together and i believe they want to get together. you know why, because it's time in the people are angry. they are angry and they are going to get together. we are going to make joint decisions. and the nice part our victory was so great we have the house, we have a senate and we have the presidency. [cheering] but we want to get them on board also.
people are constantly telling me and telling you to reduce our expectations. those people are fools. they are fools but this campaign proves that the old rules no longer apply, that anything we want for our country is now possible, anything. [applause] now is not the time to downsize our dreams but to set our sights higher than ever before for our country. [applause] now is the time to push for real profound change that restores the full promise of americans for all of its people and those people are great people.
i got to know them, believe me, over the last 18 months and what we have created is a movement and it's a beautiful thing. if you take a look here the roads are all gridlocked, all gridlocked, all locked down, all secured up and people pour in. it's an amazing thing. now is the time to unlock the potential of millions of americans left on the sidelines. their talents aren't used in their dreams aren't realized and their aspirations totally forgotten. these are people of great talent. this is the moment. this is our chance. this is our window for action. this is the hour when the great deed can be done and our highest hopes can come true. we are going to do it, folks. we are going to do it. [applause] we are going to do it. [chanting] usa, usa, usa.
thank you. i love you too. look at this guy. and i do love him. he is a rough looking cookie though i'll tell you. we love him. we have a lot of love, believe me. there's going to be a lot of love in our country. i am working to assemble the details and action plan for america. my plan begins with structural reform to create millions of new jobs and rapidly expand our economic growth. you have seen what's happening with taxes. you've seen what's happening with regulations which are totally out of control. right now we punish companies for doing business in america. they are actually profiting. that's why they are leaving and by the way i have to say we are
going to reduce taxes for the middle class. it's ridiculous but for our companies and we are going to reduce the regulations. if a company wants to still leave the state of ohio or pennsylvania or how about north carolina? how well did we do in north carolina? [applause] remember when they said, he cannot win north carolina. if we had just one ohio and iowa and we had just won florida. breaking news, donald trump's won florida. they said whoa and we wanted ag. [applause] but then the people back there, the extremely dishonest press -- [booing]
very dishonest people. how about, how about, i mean how dishonest. how about when a major anchor who hosted a debate started crying when she realized that we won? [applause] how about it? don't tell me, this is untrue. and do you know what she doesn't understand? things are going to be much better now. [applause] i mean think of it. we won in a landslide. that was a landslide and we
didn't have the crowds. the press was brutal. you know what? [booing] hey, in the great state of ohio we didn't have the upper escalon salon of politicians either, did we? but i will say this, i will say this. and it was very nice. your governor john kasich called me after the election and was very nice. he said congratulations, that was amazing. he couldn't believe how much we won ohio in the election by. remember, you cannot get to 270 with the dishonest press. there is no road. folks, how many times did we
hear this? there is no path to 270. [applause] there is no path. [applause] >> there are is no path for donald trump. taxes, ramba that one? now as a republican i'm supposed to -- as a republican i'm supposed to win georgia. as a republican i'm supposed to win the great state of utah. i love those states. remember when they said donald trump is going to lose, some guy had never heard of, who is that guy? he is going to lose to this guy
but the people of utah were amazing and we drowned them. and by the way hillary came in second and that guy came in third. i'm still trying to figure out, i'm still trying to figure out, i wondered what the hell was he trying to prove? i guess he wanted us to lose the supreme court. that's the only thing he was going to get to think of it. they said this was two or three weeks before the election. they said georgia is in play. texas is in play. that means we are even and then we won in a landslide. what happened? [applause] for weeks texas texas is in play and you turn on the television
two minutes later, donald trump has won texas. [applause] these are very, very dishonest people. [booing] should i go on with this just a little bit longer? [applause] how about, it's like 12:00 in the evening and pennsylvania, i'm leaving by a lot and we couldn't get off 98%. they didn't want to call it. we are leaving by so much that it's impossible. they refuse to call and then at 3:00 i will never forget. we won wisconsin and we won michigan and we won pennsylvania
, right? and that person is doing the math and that person would say for months that there is no way that donald trump can break the blue wall, right? [applause] we didn't break it, we shattered it. [applause] that poor wall is busted up. so i will never forget it though because it felt so good. more so because they kept saying there is no path. and i go out and see the people like this and i'd say how were we going to lose? but what happened, so they say we win wisconsin. donald trump, 38 years or so, donald trump has won michigan
and they are looking at the map and saying oh wow there is no way that hillary clinton can become president. [applause] it's amazing. it's really amazing. and one of the announcers, one of the announcers i will have to tell you from espn, now they cover football and boxing and everything, right? he won out and he said that have to tell you, that event last night meaning the election results, was better than any fight, any baseball game, any football game. [applause] he said that was the most exciting event i have ever seen
and then you look at the nfl. now it's just not recovering but their ratings were so far down and you know what the reason was? this business is tougher than the nfl. the people liked it. their ratings were down 20 to 21% and it was because of us. we have a lot of fun. the bottom line is we won. [applause] we won big. [applause] whether it's producing steel, building cars or curing disease, we want the next generation of innovation and production to happen right here in america and right here in ohio. [applause] first on taxes. we are going to massively lower
taxes and make america the blood blood -- best place in the world to higher, to invest and create and expand. we are going to eliminate every single regulation that undermines the ability of our workers and our companies to compete with companies from foreign lands. we are going to do it. [applause] we have the greatest competitors on earth and by the way some of the greatest business people in the world. one of the networks said, he put on a billionaire. that's because this guy knows how to make money, folks. [applause] he knows how to make money. i'd like to put on a guy that has failed all his life but we don't want that, do we?
i have been on us. i said i'm going to be putting on the greatest killers you have ever seen. we need that. it's time. it's time. it's time. we have the great great. wait until you see what we have next week. are we doing a good job with their cabinet and our people? [applause] and i don't want to tell you, i don't want to tell you this because i want to save the suspense for next week. so i will not tell you. i refuse to tell you and don't let it outside of this room. do you promise? raise your hand, promise. [applause] so i will not tell you that one
of our great, great generals, don't let it outside, right? and of course the press is on it so never let this go. we have about seven stations live. we are going to appoint mad dog mattis as our secretary of defense. [applause] but we are not announcing it until monday so don't tell anybody. mad dog. he is great. he is great. i asked one of the generals, i love the generals. i won't use his name but he probably would come forward. i said to him, you are a good general. yes sir i am.
i said, so how do you compare to general mattis? how do you compare to mad dog? sir, he is better than i am. i love it, they love him. we will be announcing him on monday of next week. keep it inside the room but that's what we have and he has arab tests. they say he is the closest thing to general george patton that we have and it's about time, about time. [applause] i gave up a little secret. my people over there are probably saying you weren't supposed to do that. on energy, we will pursue energy and cancel the job-killing restrictions from oil, natural
gas and clean colin we are going to put the minor. >> of ohio back to work. [applause] on infrastructure, we will dold new roads, tunnels, bridges, railways, bridges schools and hospitals including major projects in the inner cities. they're such potential in the inner city. we are not using our potential. remember when i would make the speeches and say what the hell have you got to lose? the african-american community was so great to me in this election. they were so great to me. [applause] i couldn't believe it. i started off at a low number and every week boom, boom, boom
and i got it up to a number that's higher than all of the republican candidates for years and it was great. the hispanic community, i did great with the hispanic community, higher than people that were supposed to have done well. and is this really a big surprise? we did great with women. can you believe that? [applause] a couple of polls -- [cheers and applause] a couple of polls in the early states said we don't believe it. he is doing well with women. every time i went out i saw this
beautiful pink signs, women for trump. we did great with women. we did great with everybody. we will deepen our harvest. we have harbors that ships can even go into. people have two simple rules. [applause] they don't know that hillary lost a couple of weeks ago. they forgot. [applause] where do these people come from? oh well. they are taking her back home to mom. it's true, it's true.
they don't realize it. a lot of the people that protested we said did you vote? they don't vote. they never vote. do you agree with my stance that if people burn the american flag, they should be -- there should be consequences, right? [applause] [chanting] usa, usa, usa. we will have simple rules when it comes to this massive rebuilding effort. by american and higher american. we can do it ourselves. and that will be our new mantra.
on trade, the history of the nation teaches us that the strength of the country and its manufacturing sector is vital to both its economic prosperity and national security. because we don't do that. our borders are weak, our trade is terrible. you are going to see a turn that is so big and it's going to happen so fast and we started today in indiana. believe me, that's just the beginning. that is only the beginning. [applause] our trade deficit now is nearly $800 billion a year. it's a chronic drag on growth, it destroys the wealth of our country and jobs, and jobs. ohio has lost one third of its manufacturing jobs since nafta
and you know the nice part? now i don't have to say signed by bill clinton and approved by hillary. who cares? all i can tell you is that nafta is a disaster. what difference does it make? we will fix nafta or we will terminate it and start all over. [applause] america has lost 70,000 that juries, hard to believe. i always say that's a typo. 70,000 factories since china joined the world trade organization. think of it. in the year 2000, america had nearly 20 million manufacturing jobs in the rust belt. today we have only 12.3 million manufacturing jobs left in the rust belt. we are going to bring them back.
we are going to bring them back. [applause] we are going to bring them back. the rust belt has been hammered and one of the reasons i won, it's one of the reasons i won. ohio is an example. it's down from 1.2 million manufacturing jobs in the year 2000 to only 690,000 jobs today. it's not going to happen anymore , folks. or take michigan, they are down from 900,000 manufacturing jobs in the year 2000 to only 600,000 manufacturing jobs. i see these numbers and it's sad that what isn't sad because this is all about hope and it's real hope because we are going to turn it around so fast. and we don't want ford leaving and going to mexico to build
small cars. we don't want it. we are going to turn it all around. we are living through the greatest job theft in history of the world. i've been saying it for months. it used to be the cars were made in flint and you couldn't drink the water in mexico. today the cars are made in mexico and you can't drink the water in flint, michigan. you know that, right? what a difference. but we are turning that around. what a terrible thing that was. gross incompetence on so many levels. the era of economic surrender is over. we are going to fight for every last american jobs. it's time to remove the rust from the rust belt -- or in a new industrial revolution. we are going to do it. [applause]
on health care reform, we will repeal and replace obamacare. we have no choice. we have no choice. [applause] and we will finally fix health care for america's incredible veterans, we love our veterans. [applause] where are the veteran's? raise your hand. who is a veteran? we have a lot of veterans. our veterans have not been treated properly and i want to thank our veterans and i want to thank the military and think our police forces because the number of votes i got were staggering, staggering. for whatever reason people in uniform like trump. i don't know, i've never figured that out. these are great people. we are going to take care of our veterans and we are working right now on somebody to run the
veterans administration who will be terrific, believe me, terrific and i will be watching. i will be watching. and on childcare and asking congress to pass legislation to support the american family and make affordable childcare accessible to all. our agenda will fight to increase pay and opportunities for women in the workforce. support women entrepreneurs. who is a woman entrepreneur here are? who are the women? a lot of them. i hate to tell you man, generally speaking they are better than you are. [applause] if i said it around -- the other way around that be in big trouble. we are going to make sure that no one is penalized for the decisions to have a family. right now they are penalized.
on crime, we have experienced the largest increase. we are going to support the incredible men and women of law enforcement. they are incredible people. [applause] my administration will bring this crime wave to an end. we believe all americans have the right to live in safe the and peace and we will never back down and fighting to deliver that security to every community in our land and to our inner cities that have been forsaken. [applause] we take care of our inner cities and the people in our inner cities. on defense, we will begin a
major national effort to rebuild our badly depleted military. [applause] we have no choice. if you look at this world it's a tinderbox and we want a strong military and we don't want to have to use it. ideally we won't have to use it although we will destroy isis. [applause] at the same time we will pursue a new foreign-policy and finally learn from the mistakes of the past. we will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments, folks. remember, $6 trillion in the middle east. $6 trillion. our goal is stability, not chaos because we want to rebuild our
country great it's time. it's time. [applause] we will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the efforts to defeat isis and radical islamic terrorism. [applause] in our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding and goodwill. on immigration, we will restore the sovereignty of the united states. we will restore the sovereignty. [applause] we will finally end illegal immigration. [applause] we will construct a great wall at the border. [applause]
dismantle the criminal cartel and liberate our communities from the epidemic of gang violence and drugs pouring into our nation. [applause] we will ask congress to reform our visa and immigration program to protect jobs and wages from american workers. i love american workers. i love these people. do you know what i call a american workers? the forgotten men and women of our nation and those men and women came out to vote. nobody ever thought that was going to happen. they came out by the millions. these are great, great people. they keep our nature are secure from terrorism. we will suspend immigration from
regions where it cannot be safely process. we have regions in the world, people are pouring in. i don't have to say who is letting them anymore. we don't need san bernardino. we don't need another orlando. we don't need another world trade center. we don't need paris. you look at paris, you look all over the world and look what's happening in germany. we don't need that folks. we have enough albums, believe me. your state has just experienced a violent atrocity at the great ohio state university. that is a great place. that further demonstrates the security threats and these are just threats that are stupidly created by our very politicians, refugee programs.
we offer our bots and prayers to the victims and our hearts go out to the entire community of ohio state. what a great place. [applause] a great place. we are with you and we will stand with you every single step of the way. the job of the president is to keep america safe and that will always be my highest priority. [applause] we will do everything in our power to keep the scourge of terrorism out of our country. we are going to keep it out of our country. people are pouring in from regions of the middle east. we have no idea who they are, where they come from, what they are thinking and we are going to
stop that dead cold. [applause] just take a look at what just happened in your state. take a good look and really think about it. ethics reform will be a crucial part of our 100 day plan as well. we are going to drain the swamp of corruption in washington. [applause] [chanting] >> thank you. i will oppose a five-year ban on executive officials becoming lobbyists and a lifetime ban on officials becoming lobbyists for foreign government. [applause]
change is not going to be easy. i am going to be unified with these proposals as you fought for this great campaign of hours. we are going to need our government and this group to be more engaged and more vigilant than ever before, to help us accomplish that reform to overcome decades of stalemate and gridlock. we are going to get it done. now that you have put me in this position even if you don't help me i'm going to get it done, believe me. don't worry about it. it's easier to help the but that's her right. i will get it done. importantly we are all going to have open arms and we are going to invite everyone from all political persuasions to join our movement to help us achieve
our goals for this country, great schools, safe neighborhoods, driving economy and the government that answers only to the people, our people. [applause] we are going to have to dig deep and i know you and i and all of the people working with us are up to the task. a lot of people working with us. every single day you will be the agents of change, change for our country but good change, great change. americans must ignore the pessimism and embrace the optimism optimism that his eyes than the central ingredient of the american are. we are the nation that won two world wars, the dug out the panama canal, that put a man on the moon and satellites all over
space and somewhere along the way we started taking small. i am asking you to dream big again and bold and daring things for your country will happen once again. i am asking you to join me in this next chapter of this unbelievable and unprecedented movement. as we work toward prosperity at home, peace abroad, and new frontiers in science, technology and space, i am asking you -- is that right? i am asking -- i love this. he is a believer. you are a believer, right? i am asking you to believe in america once again. we have many challenges but this is truly an exciting time to be
alive. there is no time like it. the script is not yet written. we do not know what the next page will read. i will tell you it's going to be great. but for the first time in a long time what we do know is that the pages will be authored by each one of you. [applause] each one of you. [applause] americans will be the captain of their own destiny once again. i talk about our great movement and you are the movement. and the messenger. i'm just really the messenger. i have been a pretty good messenger. so once again, i want to thank
ohio, i want to thank the great people of ohio. it's an incredible place, an incredible state. there has been nothing like it. remember this, it was when they called the landslide that we had in ohio that these extremely dishonest people started saying, something is happening very big tonight. something has happening very big and i have been saying it to you for many months but i will say it one last time tonight. we are going to come together and make america great again. [applause] thank you very much. thank you, ohio. ♪
[inaudible conversations] c since a quorum is as the committee to consider listed 2385 pending military nominations. these nominations, five nominations or six days short of the committee's requirement for seven days. no objection has been raised. i recommend the committee way the seven-day rule in order to permit the nomination of these officers before the senate adjourned. the 114th congress. is there a motion to favorably report the military nominations?
all in favor say aye. the committee meets this morning to receive testimony on the oversight acquisition testing and employment of the letourneau combat ship and module programs. we welcome our witnesses who are key officials responsible for acquiring testing testing emplod overseeing these programs. honorable programs. our bucshon stackley assistant secretary of the navy for research development and acquisition has been the navy's executive since 2008. vice admiral thomas roden commander of naval service forces is responsible for manning, training and equipping navy's server should see the honorable j. michael gilmore the operational testing and the valuation has been senior advisor to the air defense for operational testing and evaluation of weapons systems since 2009 and mr. paul francis energy director of acquisition and source management at the government accountability office
his 40 year career with gao is focused most on this than major weapons acquisitions especially shipbuilding. lcs is an important yet all too common example of defense acquisition gone awry. since the early stages of this program have been critical of fundamental lcs shortcomings in here we are 15 years later with an alleged warship that according to dr. gilmore's assessment can't survive a hostile combat environment and has yet to demonstrate its most important warfighting auctions in a program chosen for affordability that the gao has reported has doubled in cost with a potential for future overruns. like so many major programs that preceded it though cs failure predictably from an inability to stabilize requirements and roofs date cost estimates and unreliable assessments of technical and integration risks
race made worse by repeatedly buying ships ignition packages before proving they are affected and can be operate together. what is so disturbing is that these problems were not unforeseen. in 2002, the navy first requested congress authorize funding for the lcs program. after reading the plan that two armed services committees said quote lcs has not been vetted through the pentagon's top requirements. the second article of the joint requirements oversight counsel the navy strategy for the lcs does not clearly identify the plan and funding for development in the valuation of mission packages upon which the operational capabilities of lcs will depend. despite such serious concerns it will not come as a surprise to many members of this committee, to the congress that approved funding for lcs and in with the
navy awarded the first lcs construction contract in 2004, it did so without well-defined requirements, stable design realistic cost estimates are a clear understanding of the capability gaps the ship was needed to fill. taxpayers have paid a heavy price for these mistakes. the lcs was initially expected to cost $220 million per ship. the cost of each ship has more than doubled to 478 million and we are not through yet. the lcs needed combat capability and countermeasures were supposed to be delivered in 2008. that capability is still not operational nor is it expected to be until 2020. 12 years late, 12 years late. today 26 ships in the lcs fleet have either been delivered or are under construction or are in contract. in other words taxpayers have
already paid for 65% of the planned lcs inventory. lcs combat capability supposed to come from three mission packages countermeasures, service war for an anti-warfare. taxpayers invested more than $12 billion to procure an lcs fund and another $2 billion in these three mission packages yet for all this investment all three of these mission packages are years delayed. practically none of the systems having reached initial operational capability. so far the lcs has fielded only the most basic capabilities a 30-millimeter gun with a range of two miles and ability the ability to launch and recover helicopters and small boats. the service package was five years late. the mind packages 12 years late to the anti-submarine packages nine years late. the navy failed to meet its own commitment to deploy lcs frames
with these mission packages in part because for some reason navy leaders prioritize deployed ships with no capability over completing necessary mission package testing. in other words the text areas have paid for and are still paying for 26 ships that have demonstrated next to no combat capability. this is unacceptable. and this committee wants to know secretary stackley who is responsible and who has been held accountable? i'd like to be the first to say congress belongs on the list of those responsible. we could intervene more forcefully and demanded more from the department of defense and the navy. we did not. as long as i'm chairman of this committee will. mission packages are not the only problem. keeping the lcs underway has also been challenging. despite eight years ago in 2008
the navy continues to discover quote first of class problems. 16 since 2008. we continue to discover quote first class problems. since 2013, five of the eight lcs deliveries have experienced significant engineering casualties resulting in lengthy periods. amazingly despite nearly no proven lcs combat capability and persistent debilitating engineering issues in design and operation the navy is charging ahead with an ambitious plan to keep most ships deployed half the time station around the world far from support facilities in the united states. in contrast most navy destroyers are planned to be deployed for the united states far less than 25% of their service lives. the rush to put warships forward
in singapore by 2018 without proven combat capability and to maintain a deployment tempo more than twice that of destroyers is a recipe for more wasted taxpayer dollars. although the lcs will deliver some capability the nation still need to capable small surface combatant that addresses the lcs 's critical shortfalls including the ability to attack surface ships with multiple missile salvos defend noncombatant ships from nearby noncombatant ships from air missile threats conduct long duration missions including submarines without frequent fueling an exhibit robust survivability characteristics. the recently concluded lcs review was long overdue and it yielded from missing initiatives. i am concerned of several critical assumptions of the program are not challenged
including excessive operational availability goals and sufficient in-house technical support were lcs unexamined manpower requirements and transitioning to a new small surface combatant. forcelli the department defenses curtailing the lcs program and down selecting to a single shared design. given the cost overruns mission package testing testing and thef engineering failures reducing the size of this program is a necessary first step and i'm prepared to go even further by taking a hard look at any further procurement of ships until all of mission packages free to ioc. lcs the navy to explain to this committee the american taxpayers why it makes sense to continue pouring money into a ship program that is repeatedly failed to live up to its promises. the lcs continues to experience new problems but it is not a new
program. that's why the department's leaders must not delay in reconciling their aspirations with the lcs. demanding accountability in reducing the size of this program. >> thank you mr. chairman today want to join the chairman and welcoming director gilmour and secretary stackley and mr. mr. francis to the committee this point to testify on the littoral combat ship lcs program and we are thankful for your service. a fundamental architecture separates changes in the mission package from changes that would disrupt the ship design and construction. in the past where there were problems in the combat capability on a ship it was almost inevitably causing problems in the construction program that changes inside the mission package should not translate into a ships
potential. however since the mission package and that -- her divorce from each other we have now discovered a new set of problems. while the shipbuilders had problems earlier that is not being a big issue. the shipbuilders and ship workers performed well under this contract since then so we have built 26 of the vessels was not a one of a single mission modules has passed all operational testing. they'll see combat capabilities largely resides in the mission package in the navy will have to operate the lcs vessels for several more years and a relatively benign circumstances waiting on combat capability to complete testing. chairman mckay and i wrote to the chief of naval operations about the lcs program in september which raised a number of concerns.
we asked that the navy consider reducing the planned operational availability of the lcs to a sustainable level received the navy can support deployment availability before expanding availability to 50% under a blue gold concept to the cno responded to the navy is going to continue to planned for availability with the blue gold concept because that's what the navy needs to support the optimized fleet response plan. i believe some of the problems they're experiencing with lcs vessel is because we got too far in front of ourselves by trying to deploy ships before they were ready which in turn reduce test. saying that we will attain a will attain the 50% deployment availability goal for lcs because that is what we need makes the optimized response plan achievable rings hollow with me. sounds a lot like previous assurances that they would be no problem in shifting from the original alfie is lou gold content to a a3 cruise for every
to ship concept which has now been found wanting and now we are back trying to make the blue gold concept work it in her letter to chairman i asked the navy to establish a land based propulsion machinery control test site because the navy is not providing sufficient in-house engineering capable support for the lcs program to the cno responded that the navy will consider land-based control test site at some later date but not now. i'm willing for the moment to work with the navy to play out this to try to enhance support but i'm concerned that lcs fleet material support will suffer without such a facility when such support is available for other navy combatants. the chairman and i will ask the committee for review of the manpower requirements of the lcs to validate or revalidate the quantity and quality of manpower apartments to determine if additional personnel are assigned to perform damage control force protection
maintenance and other duties. the cno responded the navy celsius reteam have assessed the requirements that i would just say i'm skeptical that the lcs would have had sufficient time to do much more than decide how to allocate which space would be available. such an allocation process would not constitute the manpower requirements that i had in mind. finally the chairman i suggested maybe should start planning now to pick your begin delivery to a new small combatant as soon as possible in 2020. the cno responded the navy will address the future small surface combatant at some later date after the navy has completed analysis of the future fleet requirement. and stand cno riches and a time to review overall requirements however i believe in the navy begins a program for follow on small surface combatant that should have weight repeating what we did with the lcs program where we are in such a hurry we did not take the time to go
through important parts of acquisition process such as deciding what the requirements are deciding how much they're willing to pay to achieve those requirements and programming at a time for the manpower in the programs we needed to support the program. if the navy which allow we may face similar urgency. thank you mr. chairman eyelet forward this hearing. c we begin with you director gilmour. welcome dr. gilmore. >> i apologize, thank you mr. chairman senator reed members of the committee. as you pointed out mr. chairman although the first lcs was commissioned in 2008 the lcs program is not demonstrated effective warfighting capability in its originally provisioned missions by the navy requirements. surface warfare lancaster measures or mcm and anti-submarine warfare. increment service worker mission
packages on lcs see france as in my stability in the ship defending itself against small forms of fast -- although not against threat represented numbers of attacks attacks. abilities support maritime security operations such as launching and recovering boats and interdiction operations. however when was yielded as part of the next increment of the surface warfare package its capability should improve and it will be important to solve the problem testing with that have enabled us to discover so many of the problems. in a june report based on the ti concluded the lcs deploying the countermeasures package would not be operationally suitable if called upon to -- that testing demonstrates the lcs package did not achieve a sustained area
clearance rate of a legacy systems nor can they package the use to reduce requirements for clearance rate even under ideal conditions achieving 1/2 of those requirements which are fraction of the navy's forward plans. the ship as well as line countermeasure systems are not reliable and all the systems not just a remote system and the multimission vehicle have been recently canceled that significant shortfalls in performance. ..
compete that 30 day mission that is a requirement without critical failure of a sub system necessary for wartime operation. they also revealed significant deficiencies now the navy is developing plans to take actions to correct these problems with the severity until they're fully corrected. in closing i want to emphasize the importance of realistic testing only through testing of the emission packages on and aboard the ship that the significant problems and shortfalls i discussed revealed. in fact, accounting review team emphasize the reliance on the shore based testing provided a false sense of system maturity. similarly only with realistic testing was the
inaccuracies of those tactics. therefore my strongest in most important recommendation to you and to the navy to find and execute of the mission packages and lcs as we go forward. >> mr. chairman ranking members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to appear today to address our program. with this somewhat like to make a brief opening statement and have my full testimony enter into the record. eight index service anti-submarine areas with the overall balance structure is a replacement for three legacy service ships about one-third the
size of the thrifty was class destroyer designed for missions that the destroyer is not equipped police or could not be performed by the small combat ship for its ability is. it has greatly reduced procurement cost in manpower in fact, the procurement cost is one third and also the man by our requirements lcs was built with high-speed ability damage control and combat systems including a 57 million member -- surface-to-air missiles in the new horizon missile that the navy is adding for long-range service targets. in addition it carries the missions planned for each ship's deployment this service warfare mission
package a.m. adds an armed helicopter and a vehicle for surveillance and surface-to-surface missiles the other package has sonar that operates in sonar with the helicopter with sonar and torpedoes the counter mission has unmanned service and unmanned water vehicles with sensors and systems to detect and neutralize underwater mines. the four cornerstones i'd like to summarize the is the shipbuilding program as the committee is aware the program was initiated with unrealistic cost and schedule estimates within incomplete decide an extraordinary budget overruns were result subsequently was restructured damp production placed on hold to verify design quality in weakness
and authorization to approve the design changes was up that the four-star level would. the oversight at the shipyard was decrease the acquisition strategy to compete while long-term contracts under fixed prices mendez the industry made significant investment to improve productivity and quality. as a result the cost has greatly improves that the current ships are the of living at how often m performance has stayed within the budget and the quality of each ship has improved as if measured by the inspection survey. and performance continues to improve. we have implemented some plum -- similar rules across all shipbuilding although we could not get out front of all programs to design
production and testing has strolled into place. and second, the emission packages the strategy is to incrementally introduce systems as the package when it is mature and ready for deployment. lcs has the unmanned aerial vehicles the 30 mm gun system and now the harpoon device assault and we are currently integrating the hellfire missile and support of testing and as a result year entr'acte to complete in 2018. and next mission package is the anti-submarine package it has been demonstrated to
greatly exceed that of any other sensor system afloat. we are in the process to build us a developmental model before replying to see in 2018. their relative success stories benefit from the lcs package approach as the navy develop systems it is important to leverage the modular design and be able to do so in rapid fashion once they are richer. we are headlong into challenges to develop these capabilities that our central to what is arguably one of the most were funding gaps of the counter measures the requirements of lcs are to identify those that are specifically exceeding without putting the ship for the sailor into a the
minefield the cm warfare package helps with the helicopter carrying the laser mine detection system and the airborne neutralization system to destroy them below the surface it we are ready to deploy a. the unmanned aerial sensor to detect those objects that are close to shore is on track to be tested in 2017. with the work forceful fear is the highest in durance unmanned vehicle which we have relied upon five to achieve the high a area clearance rate required for our plans with the needy is satisfied as demonstrated with developmental testing we expect further improvements with the ongoing upgrades. but the unmanned vehicle is
the remote emission vehicle has built to meet liability requirements despite redesign elements we stop testing and assigned the independent review team and the results of this was threefold. local finance -- confidence of the vehicle or higher confidence through processing to reduce the of risk of the mine detection sonar as an alternative and recognition the long term solution that they would operate with the unmanned underwater vehicle if technology can support that and as a result we have restructured that packaged utilize the unmanned service vehicle currently being built to the mine detection sonar this vehicle is
scheduled to commence 2019. the third cornerstone addressing the performance of the ships and operations as well as the detailed preview i'd like to phaedrus the readiness in the total lcs has operation up report metrics consistent. however for the past year five ships have been operational impacting by a engineering reviews and command investigations to assess the root causes for each of these casualties. one was design related. in the manufacture was required and operation deficiencies traced to the gear as a clutch failure design modifications happened as a result and is
tested and will be incorporated into future ships prior to delivery. the manufacturer is being held accountable. >> you'll have to summarize here we have a limited amount of time. >> kisser the manufacturers are being held accountable but that was due to the cruise leaving the procedure but with corrective actions going forward with the operational procedures remaining to casualty's we are reviewing all procedures not just the ship builders but manufacturers and the navy standards to ensure we have the right procedures in place them properly being carried out by the shipbuilders and in the repair yards. those specific cases this
shipbuilder is paying for those repairs. more importantly we do need to raise the level of the engineering design to that of the standards to have a comprehensive engineering review we will provide findings to the committee. the fourth cornerstone is transition we have revised the plan going forward commencing in 2019 the intention is to transition from lcs to incorporate the surface or mission capability from lcs going forward reworking bad design today and as we complete this design before we proceed into production we
will conduct that readiness review to ensure the design is complete and ready to go in and open the books to participate threat to review process. the yankee for the opportunity to discuss this program and i will answer your questions. >> and chairman mccain ranking member mckean and i am honored to testify as the commander i have the privilege of leading sellers to take the ships to sea they are the center of our professional universe and my frequent visits to the waterfront give me a real-time feedback of what we're getting right and what we need to address. the committee's support has been strong and consistent and we're moving forward with the more lethal force.
small surface combatants of the key role to play and with the lcs program is the cornerstone of the effort. it is sad and number of setbacks and the leadership team are aware of we are pursuing solutions to our improved operational availability of the ships and you have my assurance that for the first time in 25 years bearing is competition this statement underpins my entire approach . it is my job to examine every aspect in those changes that reflect the environment of the of future . they must be prepared to not only impose control but also
be prepared to have control of the others those capabilities will bring the fight those capabilities are in high demand by the fleet commanders specifically with respect to mine countermeasures and anti-surface warfare they form the basis of the conventional deterrence posture that puts our cruisers and destroyers we have learned quite a bit and those options provided so those challenges is encountered over the 60 day review which was then number of straightforward changes
into the program as we increased. i am confident we're on the right track well delivering critical war fighting capability there is work to be done and i join the secretary to commit to continuously improve these necessary components of the forge your questions firms to make it morning mr. chairman i don't have a slick statement i thought i would just talk to you for a few minutes if that is okay. the bottom line on the lcs as we have talked already we are 26 ships and to the contract and increased dildo know if the lcs can do is to robert over last 10 years we have made a number of trade and downs higher promises
and construction delays module delays reliability problems with lower capability. to adjust your accommodate a lesser performance of the ship except a number of worker rounds more shore support we have dial down the concept of operations and produce a emission expectation for the ship. it will be 20/20 before all of the modules will work. for doing my own math i think the first contract for the first ship in 2004 or five but is 16 years from the first contract to when the ship is finally tested with all modules to me that is aircraft carrier
territory. so the of miracle of lcs did not happen. what did happen? i think when the navy started off and had a good plan to build two ships that were experimental using commercial yards and designs because they had a rough construct and they wanted to use those ships to see what they could do with them and it was a good idea. in 2005 things changed when the navy decided they could not just tops with to experimental chips but they had to go forward with construction. in my mind that is when it went from experimental program to a ship construction program and as with any construction program, once you get into it and the money we'll start to turn the business of
budget san contracts and ship construction take precedent over acquisition and oversight like design, development, testing and cost. personnel switching to oversight come on any major weapons system the most important milestone is when the legal oversight framework will kick in with the approved baseline for, your requirements, of operational evaluation the selected acquisition reports all kick in at that time. usually we have the milestone when it is approved for the first ship but with lcs the decision was made in 2011 after we've
already approved the block by 20 ships and constructed most of the first four. the cost growth that occurred on the early ships was grandfathered in to the baseline of the program much like today if you look at the selective acquisition report you will mancini much of us gosh -- schedule for cost areas because of the grandfather clause. so those were produced before the decision to keep pace with the ship. so what we had in my view is a highly concurrent strategy on and all the class of ships. i think of pitcher for the oversight for the frigate program is concerned is it will not have milestone decisions are have a separate program.
you will let have those projections the selected acquisition report. some of the key performances have been downgraded to the attributes that to maybe they will make said decisions on what is acceptable. i will wrap up by saying the ball is in your court if you approve the fyi 18 budget if current plans hold, with the approval of 12 frigates, in my mind, you will be russia again to have up front approval were the design is not done, we don't have the independent cost estimate and it is not understood by the way those modules still have not been demonstrated "seal team six" day will be
told me irrigating great prices that the industrial base needs this. id my view for that by a is a pretty loose construct for accountability. you don't have to say how much your savings or held accountable there is an instrument that is called multi-year procurement the abel moonves and davey was able to do that for the four submarines then you know, your savings in test through the stability of the design and is a commitment before the forget we will use the same contracts as we know how will they work. but with the industrial base we have seen a lot of decisions made but we did
not think we would create this because of commercial firms. but now my question is have a lead done enough and is in a time for them to come through for us? can we get one shipped on time or one ship delivered without the serious reliability or quality problems? that is my question. once approved your oversight is marginalized. what you'll be hit with thin the future is a great prices but we have to protect the industrial base then you can change the program and i assaying that you can. it in the first-ever site question will be the program that has doubled in cost but has yet to demonstrate its
capabilities worth another $14 billion of investment? that is assuming a ripping goes well. if you do think it is worth it, my counsel to you and the team is have the navy to competition and to make that the major acquisition but petition be based on the demonstrated performance and if you did and then decide at that point. you have one shot left to
preserve your oversight power and my advice is take the shots. i can assure you it will not send the earth off the access if you do but it will send a signal what you are willing to our progress and what you are not. >> secretary, ronald reagan use said you paint a rather rosy picture but the fact is that lcs was initially expected to cost 220 million per ship before this committee it has now doubled 470 million. the first lcs combat capability countermeasures' was supposed to be delivered 2008 that capability is still not operational and is
not expected to be until 2020t. serving as the executive behoove is rorer the doubling of the cost of the ship and not mislead the difficulties. >> hoodoo a is responsible. >> so who was responsible? >> reference to the ship that number dating back at the 2004 timeframe we would agree that is unrealistic. >> know why would not because it testified before the committee that would be the cost per ship in retrospect we see it was unrealistic but at the time this committee and congress which approved it it was on
the basis of $220 million per ship potatoes 478 million and 12 years later peddled think the committee or congress would have approved it mr. secretary. >> i am selling that number was unrealistic. >> white? why was unrealistic? >> i agree. it was led to believe it would cost 220 million not dollars was an unrealistic number put before the congress with to appropriate but the results going $700 million each. >> who gave that information to the congress? >> i would have to get back to the records to see who testified that was directed from the top down i can tell you the naval sea systems
that was the number put in place says they cost in to break down what they could not and we have the experience of what went wrong. >> en then sunk into the remote vehicle that program is canceled due to unsatisfactory performance the navy for related the countermeasures for nearly a decade the gao has reported they were buying the system before approved by dr. gilmore reported that they were not affected so why did they recommit in 2010 after the breach showed the case for the system to
continue development? >> going through that process we looked at a couple key things. one was the performance issues we were having none of whether or not we believe we could connect - - correct liability issues. >> obviously you could not. >> we failed in that assessment. we did the redesign effort we did not go back to build a new vehicles in accordance with the design we took the existing vehicles to backfit what fixes we could end to that to task. >> obviously that did not work because it has been abandoned. >> qsr. >> for more question. of those major casualties accounting artie's issues of the inferior shipbuilding is a lack of training or something else.
>> but combining with the water contamination and the contamination of a main engine would. combined a gear in is teeth read therefore what did he tell you 24 days? we don't know the cost for: 355 days and counting. waterjet failure. so what is going on? >> alou is held accountable for? studying specifically back
nearly part of this year when associated with personnel errors and started to look very hard that the training and qualifications of the men and women serving on our ships to seek if we had shortchanged them with respect to the training that was provided spec they were not well trained somebody is supposed to train them. >> absolutely. >> are you in charge of that price. >> diane in charge of training siam capable of fulfilling the responsibilities. what i did find is that the training we provided was insufficient in reviewing the two casualties' tough every gatt the school to
conduct the engineering school the acknowledgement of men and women and to be deficient but one of the things i directed is import much more of that training to the seller is to serve on the ships. so given the fact we have engineering training and we move to get the curriculum necessary to get the right knowledge into their heads i think we're in a much better place going forward. specifically. >> i am agree we may be but admiral, obie will start holding people accountable. we're talking about millions of dollars that were failures that use say was a problem with training? who was responsible for the training?
but wasn't that anticipated they would have to be well trained to avoid tens of millions of dollars of problems? >> absolutely. and. >> i am glad that we have learned that they made tens of millions of dollars. >> and a letter in the they talk about the replacement is testimony suggests lcs is something that would morphin to the forget but we will not have the opportunity with given the compressed time frame to do us a
testing and approving, if you will. ken you give us an indication of where this program is headed? is said new design for service, that tends corrects if this doesn't have to be up and running? american 2014 we were directed by then secretary hegel to take a review of the small service combatants to come back with a proposal of what was referred to as capabilities. we did that review in the 2015 timeframe and fact the defense committees we invite them to participate and the plan going forward that we presented in the budget is to plus the service for fear
at the staff level and includes very frigid and then with the validation and it the shipyard and then to put those into their platforms. more is going on today with the competitive down select for the future free did design but to invite your staff to look at the process and criteria and provide your oversight in be one to show that you have the insight before we go further for word. >> and today that is the
plan. we don't have a finalized acquisition strategy with the 18 budget we will bring that to present to the congress and. >> i do appreciate all of the comments but i do need to point out talking about the multi-year effectively what we are describing with the competitive downside is it is based on this bill liu , associate with the detailed design and we are telling them somebody will win this and they will get
12 ships of this free get design. the details whether that is 12 options are free convert that into the multi-year in the future, that is not decided today. but what we do want to ensure that we procured though ships as early as possible going to that competitive process. >> but again for my perspective become it appears the lcs program. >> guess you went from 52. >> dr. gilmore points out one of the things we have to consider is the ship were literally gets heavier with these systems at but with
added 30 pledge but then to keep up with those striker. >> my time is limited so if you have a quick response quick. >> we will add capability which will add weight however the impact on speed is marginal. the requirement is over 40 knots the ships will still be faster than any other combat and to worship one that we have with the added weight. second, part of the of requirements and design cycle we will not trade off and in fact, as we look put the competitive strategy to put out there, we are not
where not going forward so we are leveraging richard designs and mature systems giving us the ability to put this future ship under fixed-price contact lcs. >> you do need to elaborate on that because in 2013, the oceanus hat and engineering casualty's and they get some worse and worse but mr. francis, we will take
fundamentals to lock down the requirements of the design to ensure that we have a competitive approach to the forget all of those fundamentals you would want us to do is in place. >> what about the specific recommendation? >> i agree with civics they don't agree with the recommendation quick. >> i'm sorry what. >> cognition consider not finding anything from the fiscal year and they should revise the acquisition strategy. >> dyewood disagree with the recommendation. >> for the record when i would like to have both few elaborate what is a better solution we have heard a lot
but i read these and he has been doing this for such a long period of time also mr. francis not just on this but on some of the heather committees that i have mentioned. >> i would like to follow upon mr. francis suggestion to this committee it is probably that can be responded by the secretary iran had ruled that one suggestion is that we not okayed the block of price-cutting for the frigate to bet with that type of strategy due to the industrial base and what type of message would that decision by this committee give to the strategy of
other programs? >> i will describe what the block by itself is we will go down to select that forget to a single ship order m. procure 12 we want the shipbuilder to go out to the vendor base and secure long-term agreements so pricing and stability will support the program. >> so the concern is that it doesn't have that type of competition where it would be warranted is that your point mr. francis x.. >> ashley the competition could be done under the detailed design base. that my concern is oversight
once you approve the navy will execute in a do believe they have a good job to lay out a program your opportunity to influence what is done is largely economized once you approve it so your ability in the future to make changes. >> but your explanation apparently it has more to do with our ability to provide oversight? and when you we okayed the block and we let go of that oversight? >> i disagree you relinquish any response abilities is still a annual procurement. there is no determination of liability that the congress
takes that responsibility and you will have absolute oversight of the program. >> that is all well and good but the history has spent we have always had that decision making ability but if you go down the path the next thing you know, what costliest that path. bill listing to this testimony you wanted assurances going forward that we will not continue to throw money into a program that will continue to haunt us in all the other factors. i realize that you reassure us that with regard to this program but i am looking for
something very concrete to enable us to get that product that the taxpayers are paying for aside from your reassurances that there is something you will do that would have that product that we pay for. >> i will go down the list of mike at the start of the program we will not suffer for the requirements. we will not introduce a new design into production to have the cost goes through the roof we will not put them under contract because government owes the responsibility for the cost about that milestone i would be happy to sit down with committee staff to walk through what you need to ensure that you do have
confidence that all of the statutory requirements in terms of cost estimate doc acquisition program and documentations is just like a milestone in be will prepare them for you and walk through it with hugh if we need to establish a milestone. i don't hesitate to do that. >> is important to have that very specific items even with the initial testimony that they would cost $200 million and it when you have been asked to justify those changes against it will be good to have the specific items to check off if we go forward. >> we will work with the staff going forward.
>> if i may, i would say all of these are modifications at least $100 million per ship that cost has not been independent validated but if we're that close to have everything ready for the milestone the muscat's have the milestone. although there are not legal requirements for you to approve the ship but if you tried you will be told he will jeopardize what prices. >> i understand. >> this weekend only go by
the numbers that we were given. who gave us a $220 million per ship and then with the and no bureaucrat to we know who that was quite. >> it was uniformed leadership at that time. >> i didn't know the uniformed navy was responsible for this kind of acquisition? it thought it was the civilian side for? >> i want to thank the chair for his very important focus
on the issues with the lcs and also to thank mr. francis for his good insight on how to try to bring back the oversight with the cost overruns. dr. gilmore on the different topic want to ask, right now currently pulling block blood negative in comparison to what to think fed chairman with the work we have done together to make sure there is an dave premature retirement because of its capacity to have close air support for our troops on the ground. so mixing signals with what has ben happening with the airforce before this committee that the fact e.f.
35 will not so air support is very important but it was an honor to make scheerer there are positions and we will consider shortly next week to make sure this comparison the test is done before there is any we tire of it. i want to ask where the comparisons -- comparisons of that process and how that will be conducted in a thorough way? / in conjunction for the evaluation force, the three of us detailed plan for all testing and a 35 including in particular a comparison.
>> i may not change that but i is this a good plan but with the testing to conduct close air support and also to control those airborne missions. it is a rigorous test end of conductive will provide. >> with the message and syndication was with the comparison test canvasback to these requirements prevent specifically.
>> un. >> and read a and have to convince them but it is there in plain emission. now we will find out if the measure it is up. >> for but my projection is the operational test that would included this comparison will not begin in all likelihood until 2018 or 2019 because the testing will not end until july 2018 at that point you can get a release of the capability software that enables the aircraft deal with the environment and the all projections are the meat and
-- the model be available through 2018 we cannot do testing until that time. >> but it is not ready to engage in combat crack's. >> until it has one that is verified and credited it would not have the capability of those threats of what we're spending to have the deal. >> but with isis in syria as iraq spec correct. >> are they ready to assume that role? unit people argue that it could but i wonder about that argument because the capability it has a is air-to-air missiles and bombs with limitations that
the states clearly some of that is the evaluations that our consistent with that and then there are other problems with availability that is at best 50 percent bottoming out at 20 europe 30 so why with the commander said in an aircraft with no bombs are limited availability to fight isis'? >> and the cost is roughly? >> i hesitate to give the number it is well over the initial cost between 80 and $100 million. . .
>> if i am correct we wouldn't start training for the operational test until 2018 that takes about six months. then it would be conducted by the time it's over and the reporting is done another year has gone by so tha that reports mandated in the bill wouldn't be available. as i listen t listened to this n that the strike me first i start with the premise nobody involved in this process was malicious or meant to do harm and i want to say that you are one of the most
capable officials i've met in this business. however, you put in the new class of carrier and put the future combat systems it seems to me there is a deeper issue going on and it strikes me that it's the desire to have the greatest technology as soon as possible and at the same time, control costs and to do it on time. we are trying to invent things while we are building them. we spend a lot of time reviewing programs that either failed or have just gone out of bounds in
the cost and schedule and almost invariably there are common themes. a lot of it is the developing multiple technologies to integrate them at the same time on a major weapons platform of major system. they've written a number of reports. there is an inclination to underestimate the cost. >> particularly something that's never been built before. then when you get into that environment and get started, it is difficult to stop. on the other hand if you say we are going to fully test, build a prototype and test then that's going to lengthen your employment and that conflicts that need to have the weapons to meet the current threats.
>> yes, sir. so what we are doing is we are cochairing the requirements we've used, production readiness reviews, program reviews and we are challenging every specification in terms of do we really have to have that or is there another way to do t this e ultimate capability we have to ask. the decision to revert back was a recognition in the 2001 timeframe that we had overreached in terms of technology versus what we really needed in the war fighting fighg capability so we go back to the tried and true but that decision made it likely that only building the three ships was going to make them more
expensive. >> what it avoided is it recognized the cost and then going back and introducing the capabilities we need to keep pace with the threat the key word is incremental. we have a hearing on the carriers and as i recall we were trying to do more. it was over three ships and collapsed and we are paying the price in terms of that. how do we avoid this in the future? >> i gave you that 51 example. we threw away the notion of design and took the proven holder form and what we are doing is tailoring the ship to
meet the requirements with replacing the year-long effort with myself and cochairing those to get down to a design that we are confident it is mature enough we are not introducing unnecessary risk. >> it seems to me though one of the things we need to think about is how to design the weapons systems in a way i hate to use the word modular but so they can be upgraded as technology improves instead of having to rebuild the whole thing. >> if you take a look at the vertical launching system, it starts off with th the the ex- d it now handles the sm three, the s. &, the tomahawk so now we can
develop the missiles in the environment and bring them to the ship and then we deal with the upgrade to the land-based system. >> so the whole system isn't filled from scratch. thank you for holding this hearing and i look forward to future hearings and i hope we can continue this discussion of why does this keep happening. >> can i follow up for a moment? you are right on on the problem and we've done quite a bit of work. i think what we have is an age old acquisition culture where there are strong incentives when the program is getting started to overpromise on its ability to perform and underestimate the cost and load requirements on especially if you're only going to have platforms once a generation off to get everything on the platform you can so, we
have to look at why those incentives occur. some is funding in the pentagon. and the pentagon. and if you show any weakness, your program isn't going to go forward, so you have to be a supporter of the programs going through. we have to learn where to take risks and how to take risks and i would say it's before that milestone decision that's where we need to make investments and try things out and be willing to put money. you are right if we take the time to do that, that's going to delay the capability of the war fighter and we find it to be unacceptable but when we have improved the program and it runs in we find that acceptable. i think we can get it right, and i empathize with the secretary, he ihe's in a very difficult position and i think that he's one of the fastest that i've had
the pleasure to work with. but he's charged with executing the programs and defending the programs and that is a tough decision to put somebody in. but the process demands it. >> i would like to say one thing on the topic based on my experience over 26 years. we have to quit denying the facts. there's plenty of facts available about what is happening all along. yet as recently as 2013 the navy testified they can have off-the-shelf products and its very low in a very well-managed and that turned out not to be the case. again in 2013 the navy testified the linchpin now has over 850 reliable growth and the
guidelines which in the meantime is between operational mission failure substantial feeding the requirement. that statement was incorrect. i've been reporting for several years but those claims were incorrect and the program office couldn't bring them to deal with what the facts were. ultimately they did with the independent review team, but whathat'swhat i have seen repean his and an ability, a refusal to deal with the facts are of how well the systems are or are not performing. it's because of these incentives and other things discussed. >> that's why some of us express such extreme frustration, because we are only as good as the information we receive in that it would cost 220 million per ship which now the secretary says that is absolutely wrong. nobody said it was wrong at the time. everybody said it was right.
and yet, i don't want to take the senators tim but there are two stories i could relate to. one we needed very badly in iraq and the secretary of defense had to preside over the weekly meeting to get to the battlefield to save lives. then we had the other extreme for the pistol that's 200 pages long. it's gone through layer after layer and the reason why i am frustrated and other members are we can only make decisions on the information we get. if it is incorrect or false as the secretary just said, then how can we function effectively for the people we represent? that's why you sense this frustration among the members of the committee including the
chairman because we haven't even talked about the aircraft carrier and the catapults. i don't want to take more time out of the committee but i hope that the witnesses understand if we have to bring this to a halt. fooling around on the fringes has proven to be unsuccessful. >> thank you mr. chair. i agree we have to have honest brokers and the people that will be held accountable. i don't know that we have seen that so far. but i do want to thank all of you for coming in today. and as you may be aware, improving the acquisition program management is a priority for me. i have passed legislation to pass governmentwide, not just the dod that governmentwide with
an emphasis on areas that are designated by the gao and high risk and this especially includes the acquisition program management. i know we can all agree it's become an example of one of those challenges we mentioned the aircraft carrier. we won't go there today but that's another one we need to take a look at. during times of defense spending caps, we difficult it is and we have the entitlement spending that will further squeeze the military budgets. we cannot have repeats of acquisition failures like we've seen with lcs. acquisition success is bottom line a matter of national security. and this is a question for all of you if you could briefly respond please. the program changed its acquisition approach several
times something cited by the gao as a reason for the increasing cause and also created a performance issues. in your opinion, what the program and others throughout benefit from a standardized approach to managing the portfolio based on the best practices not only of the industry but also the government before fully moving forward if you could briefly respond please, starting with you. >> let me just describe the experience broke the navy and we have retooled the entire way we do business when it comes to acquisition programs. i think we are trying to pull the best practices in. we are reviewing requirements and specifications that need to complete the production. we have program managers pretty much under a microscope right
now and we've taken things like cost and the cost into the requirements so that you don't get to ignore cost while you are chasing the requirement. so just like speed, range, power if you start to infringe on the cost requirement that we put into the documents and you have to report just like you do if you infringe on one of the other requirements and identify what you are going to do to reverse that if yorevertthat if you arer otherwise we look at canceling or if necessary adding costs to the program. >> would that have been good before the process started? >> the witnesses that informed the congress, i don't think they knew. i don't think they knew or understand what it would cost so the system.
why didn't they tell the congress. that's why sitting side-by-side holding program managers accountable understanding the details of the cost element by element and if we need to make trades we will make trades. >> thank you very much. vice admiral? >> trading back to the system from my perspective as the commander of the force is one of the things that we conducted showed that we needed to take a step back and apply and look at the lessons that we have learned to value the combatant commanders for the operational
availability and i think it is a constant process and i know we will be continuing to look as we apply more of those as we learned them and then feeding them back into the system as it relates to the acquisition system if we can apply them ba back. >> if you could respond as well, i'm amazed that we are only just now discovering that we should be discussing these and have a finished product in mind before we start the project. >> we should use best practices. if you read the documents that describe the acquisition process, they incorporate most of these except they are often waived. what i've watched over 26 years is what i call a constant search for process solutions to what i think are fundamentally
leadership problems. when the leadership is presented with a cost estimate that a number of people coming and we were warning that they were probably quite low when leadership doesn't make it so aware, doesn't question the information is being given and lets it go forward, that is a big problem. the process can help get them that information but if they don't do their jobs and question the information they are being given and it is recommended they send to the congress and elsewhere than they are failing and i watch those occur for 26 years and i'm certainly for process improvement and if you have a bad process to stop information from getting forward that doesn't enable file reviews, then that's all bad but if you have leadership that doesn't do its job, those
process solutions will not fix things. >> that is well put. thank you. >> thank you to each of you for being here today, realizing that this topic is a challenging one for you. facts are stubborn things and leadership is important. i find your testimony the most damaging document concerning any government program i have ever read not just to what happened in the past, and my colleagues have focused on the procurement process but the decision of what should we do going forward.
it's the ability to accomplish the mission and the testing that has been reduced in effect because the cybersecurity defenses are not amply developed so in this approach mr. francis has outlined the procurement process rather than a block purchase, what is the case now for going forward with this program at all?
>> it is not my purview to say what ships the navy should buy or what capabilities they should have, that's the navy's decisi decision. what we have seen is that the ships are not meeting the performance requirements and we are well into the program. i can't predict what the future will hold. and i know it sounds parochial but i will say it again and i said in my opening comments whatever the navy decides to do with regards to going forward, the history here in this program as well as many others is clear and that is the only way you are going to discover the problems with performance that are significant that you have to deal with before you send
sailors into harms way and combat you don't want to discover these ar for the first time when you're in combat the only way you're going to discover those problems is by giving realistic testing along the way. and i agree completely you want to fly before you buy, which apparently hasn't been done here and obviously what can any of the witnesses gave us that the ship is actually going to be capable of accomplishing its mission and protecting those are going to be onboard? >> we can give you information along the way with regards to what they expect them to do and what they are going to do is changing along the way as they learn more, which is appropria
appropriate. its lead in the process, that it's appropriate. you will never get from me or anyone else, and honest ironclad guarantee that the ships are going to perform people now say they hope they would. those hopes are sincere but again, i know it sounds parochial. what you have to continue to do is do the testing that will tell you along the way whether your hopes are going to be realized, not deny the results of the testing and adjust accordingly along the way. now finally the navy is doing some of that and i commend them for it, but it took a while for all of that to occur. >> if i could just add there is a number of things to ensure the value of the ships as they go forward. in my discussions with the
forward commanders both in the mediterranean and western pacific one of the things they tell me is we can't get enough of these ships to provide a presencthepresence and operatiol availability forward. i'm excited about the direction that we are taking them and the capabilities that we are bringing to the fleet. i'i am excited by the conversations i have as they look forward to integrating the capabilities that we are delivering forward. there's no doubt we have a lot of work to do but as recently as 18 months ago we step up the surface of the center in the organization that we are building that mirrors a similar organization they've had for a long time where we can take those good ideas and take the equipment and a capability that the system is deliveng