tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN August 12, 2015 9:00am-11:01am EDT
captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008 next, nave and i have marine corps leaders will discuss the state of the naval i have a gauges fleet and national maritime policy at a forum co-hosted by the center for strategic and international studies and the u.s. naval institute. live coverage starting shortly here on c-span3.
next, navy and marine corps leaders will discuss the state of the naval aviation fleet and national maritime policy at a forum co-hosted by the center for strategic and international studies and the u.s. naval institute. live coverage starting shortly here on c-span3. while we wait for this discussion at the center for strategic and international studies to start, a look at other happening on the c-span
networks today. the national business group on health discusses how the largest companies are handling health care. that will be live, 10 a.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span2. then at 10:30 eastern on c-span, the bipartisan policy center hosts a discussion on immigration ant 2016 campaign.
building but as a convener of such meetings, we have a duty to prepare for any emergency situation. i willself as your responsible safety officer and i will be lurking in that back corner, should the need arise, i will ask to you please follow my instructions. before we begin the event, please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the emergency exit pathways for this room. for example, if something happens, the front of the building, i will ask that you follow me thought door and down the back staircase. in no convenient should you use the elevator. so we have staircases around and i will point you to the nearest safe exit. so, now, without further ado i would like to introduce vice admiral peter daily, ceo of the u.s. naval institute. [ applause ]o vice admiral peter daily, ceo of the u.s. naval institute. [ applauseu vice admiral peter daily, ceo of the u.s. naval institute. [ applause vice admiral peter daily, ceo of the u.s. naval institute. [ applause vice admiral peter daily, ceo of the u.s. naval institute.
[ applause vice admiral peter daily, ceo of the u.s. naval institute. [ applausey vice admiral peter daily, ceo of the u.s. naval institute. [ applauseo vice admiral peter daily, ceo of the u.s. naval institute. [ applauseu vice admiral peter daily, ceo of the the u.s. naval institute. [ applauseo vice admiral peter daily, ceo of the u.s. naval institute. [ applause ] >> good morning. on behalf of everyone, we welcome doubt next install n our maritime security dialogue series. the entire series is funded with the generous sponsorship of lockheed martin. like to recognize them here today, our key sponsor at lockheed martin. thank you. [ applause ] our moderator today is as miral joseph prayer. admiral sprayer a 1964 graduate of the u.s. naval academy. his last command was a as commander and chief pacific. i love the sound of that. he sr. of offed two presidents as the people's ambassador to the republic of china from 1999 to 2001. for most, a carrier-based attack pilot for his first 24 years of service, he also spent three years as a test pilot at packs river. he has extensive flight and combat experience 5600 flight hours and 10e6r,000 carrier landings.
he was qualed any 52 different types of aircraft, held numerous senior operational commands, including two aircraft carrier wings and led the formation of the naval strike warfare center at fallon. later, a group commander and commander six fleet. we welcome admiral prayer as our moderator and i will go into the other -- directly into the other introductions. admiral prayer. thank you for joining us. >> thanks. >> lieutenant general john davis a marine and a naval aviator. during his career, he has flown over 4500 hours in the aviate b harrier, the f-5 and fa-18 and co-pilot in every type model series of aircraft in the marine corps inventory. he commanded vmfa -- not vmfa, "vma" 223 and the second marine air wing. he also served as assistant air ops in the third mao in 2003 in iraq for their drive up to
baghdad. lieutenant davis served as deputy commander of the joint functional component command network warfare at fort meade and later came back as deputy commander of u.s. cyber command. he served as deputy come man dant for aviation headquarters marine corps, the leader of marine air, since june, 2014. welcome. >> thank you. >> vice admiral mike shumaker is a 1982 graduate of the u.s. naval academy. during his career, he has accumulateded 4,400 flight hours, serve agent 20 commands world wide. he has commanded two fighter squadrons a carrier air wing, two carrier strike groups and served as the commander of naval air forces atlantic. he currently leads the entire naval aviation force of the navy, ten deployable aircraft carriers and air wings and more than 300 aviation commands. he served -- or has served in
his current position as commander of naval air force pacific and as commander naval air forces u.s. navy, the air boss, since january of this year. let's give them all a big welcome. >> okay. the heavy lifting is done. good morning. and it's great to be here with all of you today. it's a particular thank you to csis and to the naval institute for hosting this event. you might think from the introductions that the people up here knew what they were talking about, but we will see how that goes. my role is just to keep the
things moving. but pete offered me the chance to say a few sentences to use his words, of introduction to sort of set the stage here. so, let try a few of them on you. lieutenant general davis and vice admiral schumacher, and my how old -- mike's shoulders are ones on which i rode in the past. they are foremost, they are leaders, they are aviators, they are tactician and they are people of great experience and skill. they are charged now and the jobs that they have now have the machinery and people of aviation ready to go at any time. and these -- these missions are to support our -- our nation's objectives as well as to support the troops on the ground. and it's a big job. they're -- they do this by
having people trained and by having up aircraft. and these two things go together to give the capability to man our air wings and to man our carrier decks to respond in the world. so, this is a big job that they have. in addition, they grapple with an acquisition system in the process of delivering an airplane that has been in the works for two decades in order to get here. the challenges with this airplane are not primarily technical ones. they are bureaucratic ones and systemic ones in the acquisition process and they grapple with that as well. current readiness is what they are about. so, what naval aviation does and what these guys are responsible for doing and for answering the bell each time, is to respond to crises in the world, the nation's objectives, with arctical air power and alsoóbn) support troops and to have
carrier air wings and aircraft carriers in place where rapid response is required or there are no land bases available. they are very able to do this and they are -- what you have here are two committed officers who are committed to the nation's well being and they are responsible and accountable for responding and anticipating the bell for naval aviation in the world and they are going to tell you how they do it today. so, i turn it over no to you mike shoemaker. >> great. well, thanks, admiral. first off, i would just like to thank csis for hosting today. it's great to be here. certainly with my counterpart, marine corps side, dog davis. admiral daily, the naval institute, thanks for supporting this convenient and boss, great to see you again. yes. our time together was -- traveled all over out there and great experience working with him and his wife, suzanne and i stood-on his shoulder, not the
other way around. so great to be here to talk about the future of naval aviation and navy and marine corps aviation and as you look around the world today, i will start with, you know, the fact that our naval forces, our strike groups in particular, remain in high demand. and that's across all of our combat tant commanders. they all would like to see a little more carrier striker presence. they clearly understand the value that those carriers and air wings ant surface forces that accompany that strike group provide in terms of, you know, an undeniable return value, persistent forward presence, the access they provide and then the option these give them to respond to, you know, from --q& from across the spectrum of threats and provide, if needed, responds to natural disasters. even in contested waters and airspace, our current air wing today can operate given the man knew ran built of the strike group and comp soifgs that air wing, operate in that
environment, i will talk about not so much today's air wing but featured air wing, i will focus on today i will give a lot of my credit to my counterparts, right hand man in the pentagon, mike, who does all of our aviation programming requirements and as admiral prayer talked about, work through that acquisition process deliver those capabilities that i need, i think the nation needs, so he has been chartered to drive toward our naval aviation vision 2025, which admiral bus ahead of me as air boss spent a lot of time working on last year and that is a great document. so as nasty works that, he has been very -- in a very tight environment, fiscal environment and the challenges we have back there, keep our tight model series on track and deliver those integrated warfare capabilities that i need, our nation needs and the striker commanders need n terms of the platforms, pay loads, sensors and the networks and just done a superb job in that capacity in a very, very tough environment.
so, if you look ahead in our future air wing, we transition out of legacy platforms and into what we will have probably the next decade plus in a few communities. first one in our ea 6 bs, gone out of prowlers, the sun down for the prowlers last month, totally transition,000 to the efe 18 g growler, which we will provide really the electromagnetic spectrum dominance in our strike groups and air wings of the future it will provide the advanced airborne electronic attack, the ability to screen and protect our strike group and joint forces as well as support our joint -- joint forces on the ground. the rotary world, our mh 60 romeo sierra transitions are just about complete as well. we have got the last fox trot hotel squadron combination on teddy roosevelt now when they come home it that will transition, a complete transition in that community from legacy platforms to the romeo henry 60 romeo and sierra
helicopters. the romeo comes with a very capable anti-surface warfare -- anti-submarine warfare package, airborne low-frequency sensor, an advanced periscope detection system on board, you combine that with its data link, its radar, its forward-looking infrared radar, and the stability of very capable electronic warfare suite it is the inner defense zone for the submarine commander. pair that with the hm 60 see you're last, again, designed to be anti-surface warfare platform but very complementary to the romeo. works closely with our special operating forces, provides combat search and rescue for that -- for the air wing. together, very potent combination and i got to watch them in action numerous times as striker command as we transition and then operated in the north arabian gulf n that electronic -- the airborne electronic aew, airborne early warning, transition right now
from our e 2 cs to e 2 ds, two squadrons transitioned, one about to complete back in oceania or in nor for example one is deployed, the first deployed right now in teddy roosevelt, vfw 125, advanced radar, newly electronically scanned radar brings capabilities, ability to search and track targets and then also to command and control coordinate the missions across the carrier strike group, whether it be integrated air missile defense, long-range anti-surface warfare, long-range anti-air warfare, it is essentially the quarterback for the strike group and comes with some very, very good capabilities in that delta. in the strike fighter world, as we phase out of our legacy platforms, replace the legacy f 18 c with our f 35 cs, that has been a bit of a slow pros but one that we need to happen an the admiral worked very hard to make sure we deliver the initial operating cape of that platform in 2018 when its first squadron
stands up and gradually stand up to have hopefully about half of our -- well, you know, one of those squadrons each of our air wings into the middle or so of the next deck killed a. and so that's the capability that we need to get to the air wings right now. it comes with -- obviously with its stealth capabilities, ability to penetrate both air and surface threat envelopes but the ability to fuse information, collect the signals and things that are out in the environment, fuse it all together and deliver that fuse picture to the rest of the strike group but threw the networking that we've got, we have design there had. so, very critical to the integrated warfare capabilities that will come in that future air wing. um, the -- and pass all that information back to the e-2, back to our other ships and decisionmakers in the strike group. our super hornets right now will remain the bulk of our air wings right now, well over three-quarters of the air wing composition are super hornets and they will continue into the,
obviously well into the next decade and beyond and they are the workhorses of the fleet. ability to carry and deliver advanced -- advanced both air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons a perfect compliment to the f-35 with the mix of cape bullet in that air wing i think will be very valuable. the try on the in one of our unmanned systems, we have got -- i'm sorry, we got -- back up here. so, the last of the transitions will be the unmanned systems. the first of those is the fire scout which we have been flying now for almost 15,000 hours, operating that platform off of our frig grates in support support of special operating forces off the coast of africa and interfar this koikt missions off the coast of south america. very proven platform, integrate it with our romeo sierras into our lcs, our combat ships,
wherever the small combat looks like in the future with the integrated packages go with that. and so that -- that capability is being demonstrated right now forward in singapore with the romeo and a fire scout operating on fort worth and they have been there on the third rotation, very successful detachment. additionally, up manned world, we have got triton, which will be essentially follow-on from the broad area maritime surveillance, demonstrated operating in the fifth fleet the last few years. three of those air vehicles now it will provide our joint force commanders and our fleet come bhaernsd a persistent maritime isr, intelligence surveillance reconnaissance capability designed to set up an orbit in each of our combat and command a ors, give it a multisensor package be able to feed that information, fuse it and pro-stride to those decisionmakers it will complement the p 8s that will eventually come online. again, a very capable and a summary warfare platform that can do the entire submarine
warfare kill chain from initial detection all the way up to engagement, so a complement asset, triton will complement p 8. lastly, in the unmanned world will be the unmanned carrier launched airborne surveillance and strike asset, u class. obviously, going through some reviews right now on the building. and i think as a former strike group commander, where i see this platform's value is clearly in where it can operate inside those contested environments,]j provide the combat talent commander, more importantly, the strike group commander information ahead of the strike group moving in there essentially, the eyes and ears of the carrier strike group, move into that contested environment, ability to conduct integrated targeting, integrate target and i.d. capability, feed that information again back to the networks to the strike group. and put it all together in our advanced -- in our advanced four class carriersly which we will deliver in the spring of 2016 and that, i think that will be a nucleus of our nuclear carrier
strike group. very capable air wing paired up with that -- that platform, very critical of u.s. power projection well into the 21st century. again, the admiral talked at length about the value of that platform. i will hold off, talk a little bit more abouted for forward late but suffice it to say when you put that air wing in the future together with forward, we have got a very, very capable, lethal combination that can sail and operate in contested waters and airspace around the world. lastly, i think the -- admiral prayer mentioned the current readiness challenges that we have and general davis will talk to this as well. as type commander that's my response bill silt to ensure that that force going forward is man, train and equipped toer success. we are challenged right now in that current environment it comes from about a decade-plus, 14 years of so of sustained combat operations. and taken its toll on the force and looking at reset and recapitalize a bit. and that our optimized fleet response plan, which fleet
forces has developed, just in the throws of getting the final implementation of that plan and i thank you will give us an opportunity to provide those windows where we can get our care and maintenance and maintenance done on the aircraft as well as predictable deployment lengths inside a 36-month cycle. i think as we move into that ofrp plan, we will get the regular deploy. s that our sailors are looking for and the predictability for them and also the ability to surge outside of those deployment windows and i think that will -- i think that will allow us to focus on that reset and recapitalization. so looking forward to deliver hearing it capability. so, wrap up i couldn't be more proud of what our sailers are doing around the world right now at sea and shore as they represent the united states navy and represent the nation. so, thank you. >> thanks, shoe. dog, over to you. >> thank you, sir. shoe, thanks for being such a good teammate. good morning, everybody. it is a real honor to be here. i knee a lot of faces in the
crowd. and thanks for all you do to keep our nation safe, to keep defense at the top of everybody's interests out there. thanks to our foreign partners out here, we couldn't do it without you. i'm a very proud naval officer. a very proud naval officer. one of the first in my family and now my family's got a ma lot of marines and sailors associated with it. but i'm also a very proud marine. the united states marine corps exist fosser one purpose, that's to be the nation's first and readiness, ready to deploy and move out at a moment's notice and fight our nation's battles wherever and wherever they may fall against any foe and any clime, any place. the whole ribbon exist is to provide jeep dunford and my marine corps with ready aircraft, ready crews, ready to go take that fight to the enemy. from sea bases and shore bases, extradition bases and shore. the marine corps has unique gear that allows us to flow from a
sea base and flow ashore and back again, imperative that our gear can do that equally well. so unique, allows extreme agility. also looking for its combat power thought to strike that blow when need be and also, too, general mattis used to say, no worse enemy were folks at the war fighting table but also no better friend, okay? when the problems happen out there in the world, the natural disasters, you want marine and navy forces offshore ready to come ashore and we are actually take great pride in being able to do that if you can move men and material ashore to provide combat fire, you can also provide the food and the logistics that people need to establish themselves in their darkest hour. i have got a couple of main focuses. admiral prayer said it the best, about machines. it is actually more about the people. number one thing is we are going to equip the man, not man the equipment. and we are going to give our
marines the very best tools to go take the fight to them and do what they got to do for me, if my number one job is readiness, i have got some challenges out there, i will talk about that, just as shoe has talked about and the current range, but three main jobs for the deputy come man dant of aviation, one, future -- building the future us for, future combat capability. for the marine corps, recapitalizing the entire fleet of marine aircraft. we are in the process of doing that about halfway through a process we started before 9/11, 2001. all right, so, about halfway through. executing the plan we started back in the late '90s and executing that plan now and we have been doing that, oh, by the way, engaged in 14 years of conflict, all right, combat, hard combat, to a large degrees, united states marine corps is still forward deployed and still thought and still fighting our deployment to dwell ratios very, very low, which is a bad thing.
we are still at good if you want to be busy, bad if you are trying to recapitalize and reset the force. we are forward deployed. many of our tactical units are 1 to 212, the raise's edge of not being able to train the next wave of getting ready to go very, very busy. building the future for us, recapitalizing, i will talk about the platforms we are doing that. the other one is current readiness, future readiness, new stuff, current readiness the new stuff. being marines, being good stewards of taxpayers dollar, extract maximum utility and maximum value out of everything we own. i tell you, we are not doing a good job of that. taking a lot of my brain cells now, how weeks tract maximum value of all the gear we have and provide maximum readiness for the gear. very, very combat proven equipment, it is old but it is good. properly main taped we can still get more life out of that we will extend every ounce of life out of those platforms, every ounce of combat capability until we can transition anew. be very proud to turn those
airplanes into the bone yard when we are done with and be good airplanes, the height of their combat capability as we transition to the new stuff, 'cause the threats require the new gear. last but not least is what we call basically connecting the marine air ground tax force, we are buying very high-end gear. we want to connect that to the most potent war fighting asset in the battlefield, field, which is the marine lance corporal spear. taking the systems and sensors and capabilities and have my aviation component and pushing that down to the man on the ground, the man on the ground, the end of the day the marine corps fights as a task force. we fight well joint, take pride in that joint combined but designed for felt function to be a marine air ground task force, the way we have been trained from the day we come in the marine corps, it's how we process data, it's how we plan and i think it provides this extra combat agility and combat cape bullet in battlefield that gives us our own little minijoint force in a microcosm.
we say so, we have got our future gear that we are buying, current gear that we are going to maintain and sustain and going to connect that in many ways, we are moving out of the single mission platform. how do you extract maximum utility out everything you have, you make everything multimission. everything multimission. every platform a sensor, every platform a sharer, every platform a here is the. what am i talking about? we took a c-130 j and we need into an airplane called harvest talk, okay, very difficult to get it through the hill but they approved that, but half the air plane is a retruer, the other half a weapons platform, i can pass gas and shoot not at the same time but the same mission, i'm out there we news to great effect in iraq and afghanistan. we had a relatively low threat environment in the battlefield in iraq and afghanistan. with harvest talk, have a tanker up there passing gas and also an airplane up there with a sensor that can do convey escort, overwatch the road bus small yield precision weapons that our
crews trained to use and deployed with great effect. going to put an air refueling package on a v-22 called vars. why would you do that? 'cause we needed to have it. airplane can do that. putting an air refueling capability on v-22 allows to pass 10,000 pounds of gas to strikers or to helicopters or tilt reporters or whoever, a tremendous combat capability. we have put assets on board these continue -- on board these marine extradition units, the v-22 is probably the airplane that is the most you in-demand airplane in the department of defense today. we are producing them off the production line pretty quickly. we can't train the crews fast enough to go man them and sustain them at the rate wes need to but putting a v-22 on an amphibious ship or on an expeditionary base ashore, replacing a helicopter, just retired about a week ago now, but that had a combat rate of 15 nautical miles from a sea base,
75, replace it had with an airplane that goes 450 without air refueling, combat radius, routinely flies 2,000 miles across the ocean, okay? like it's no big deal, right? what happens, airplane for 50-mile transit doing about 100 miles an hour, 110 miles an hour, that's charge. -number of minutes 30 minutes not a lot changes in the battlefield in 30-minute transit a lot can happen in 450 miles, even doing 280 knots indicated a lot can happen in 2,000 miles, eight-hour transit. the guys in the back of the airplane, again, we talked about that lance corporal the most important guy thought on the battlefield, getting that lance corporal his platoon leader, kwam commander the information he needs to keep up with the changing environment, actually driven change in the marine corps, so we have got this disruptive technology, very-22, now giving the information to the guys the back, how do you do that? requires more com gear, more thought goes into how we push information to the guy in the back that are playing and more
importantly, because the customer is not a guy you push stuff to, the guy he pulls stuff around, the google generation that marine, he or she pulls stuff from information, they want to be able to pull information they want, tailor the information they want and bring that airplane, we are doing that right now in 15th marine expeditionary unit, doing this it about the last five or six wti class, infantry officer class, long-range raid, ch-53s, v-22s a package we called ditch tainter operatebility the back of the plane, pushing streaming video from f had f-18s, uafs, into that -- into the back -- the back of the airplane out there and we are achieving great success with that, employing that operationally. the v-22 changed the vat battle space for us, many, many ways, positive ways, but to rethink how we are doing business. the gear -- so, bottom line, replace the ch-46 with a v-22 that disruptive technology out
there really changed the way that we look at our marine expeditionary unit. the marine expeditionary unit of days gone by is no longer the one of today. ops disabled by an airplane like that command and control is challenged when you push a marine expedition unit, amphibious ready group, spread over 2,000 miles, one off the coast of africa and the other in the persian gulf, connect that with c-130s and v-22s, under one commander do that routinely. we had forces in afghanistan, forces off the shore of africa and forces in the mediterranean and one marine ex-pedestrian degreesnary unit years back, phenomenal capability. we are gonna replace our ch-53 he can quo a ch-53 kilo. we are about 60% through our transition from the uh -- the
h-1 whiskey and h 1 november to the glue is u and yankees step change, increases in capability, great changes coming into the fleet. the i have a yate, f-18 and prowler in the process of transitioning to the f-35, stood up our f-35 b squadron, mfa 121 in yuma, arizona, the next will be the 211 and have our trained squadron basically a mixed bag of brits and u.s. marines down there in buford, north carolina -- or south carolina, training to fly the f-35 b right now. um, the f-35 for us is that fifth generation platform that is going to change -- i think change the battlefield much like the v-22 changeds. bottom line, giving us access to the contested battle space that we have not had access to before. it will absolutely, positively change the marine expeditionary unit on the way they view the amphibious forces based at sea and expeditionary forces in a way that i think is jet had yet
to be defined, for our adversaries, quite worrisome, for us a great source of comfort that air kravgt the f-35, is an airplane, go from fifth generation to fourth generation. what do i mean by this? no airplane can go from five tot fourth and back to fifth again. i'm buying pylons for the airplane, i get pie lips and software that comes in 2017. i can load an f-35 b with 35,000 more pounds than i can put on an f-18 now. an airplane does fifth generation stuff, for the opening sal voerk the fight, when i have to go to a level of effort, load the pie lips on, load ordnance on, sail to part of the world, take the pie lynn off and go do the mission again. we talk about multigenerational airplanes and multi levels of capability as well. stale new platform, growing it, tremendous offer, tremendous uity for the a marine corps have one type metal series aircraft,
go fourth and fifth gen, fighter capability, attack capability that we need in the out years, vfma 121 did an operational race inspection to get them ready to convince us they were, indeed, ready to go do the declared initial capability and did a fantastic job, interdiction mission we had them do and the defensive counter air, offensive counter air, close air support and army reconnaissance. really interesting, i won't give out exchange rate on the defensive counter air but it was really good, zero losses and there's a bunch of bad guys that are -- won't be sorting again. the army kwechbs the most interesting one. we gave them a really high-end threat environment to go against. normally, you go do close-air support army reconnaissankocon u want to be in a low-threat environment to go up there and look for targets, guys nodding their heads who video have done
that before. we gave them a high-threat environment to go out there and do army reconnaissance, troll look for structure targets, using the sensors they had on the airplane, gave them difficult targets to find and a difficult threat which in my world is the co of the weapons school a prohibitive threat, went out there, found the tate,s, dealt with that, hey, we did it, a foreship, no one asked us to do this again, we did it, survived the threat, we found the target, we killed the targets. i said don't ever rule out, you have a capability, don't ever rule out what someone is going to ask you to go do. don't rule out, never take away the capability from an adversary, never want to take away capability of something we have available us to. f-35, no the without its challenges, but bottom line is we are absolutely convinced we are in the right spot, going the right direction and now for us, it's about equipping the men and the women that are going to fly that airplane with the right power tools. on the people's side of it, we always talk about the guys
wiggling the stick, doing the flying, doing the fighting or working a sensors for one of our uafs. let's not forget the folks that maintain that i'm going to talk to you about some of my challenges in current readiness, okay, it is not just aiming platforms and lack spares and depots that aren't producing airplanes the rate they are, also retaining and training and keeping the right enlisted force thought to keep those guys working on the airplanes and with the skillsets they need to generate the readiness they need. one thing we haven't done as a marine corps, general dunford talks about all the time it is focus on the leader-to-led and the barn for aviation plat forms and making sure our guys have the right training continuum, recur represent training out there and valuing the guys the qualifications. you know, we always -- we like -- we wear patches, wti, top gun, we could havet that, that's really cool. what's really cool to me right now is readiness and how get readiness is not only having a full-up parts bin but also to have a very confident, experienced main teener
that-to-come out, knows exactly what they need to do trained, well led from the lance corporal up gunnery sergeant in my barn and aviation maintenance hang hangars, we keep them, we train them, we retain them, strategic imperative from the marine corps and general dunford, our commandant, all over that. retain the aviators as well, the pilots and air command and controllers and our weapons systems officers that do this job is really imperative as well. so, not the powerle toos, it's about the aircraft. um, a lot of people we talk about the t based, i will tell forth united states marine corps, everything we do is can flow from a c base, our future >> everything will be c basable, two-thirds of our combat power is land based expeditionary. and that's for our plans, for the big plans that we have to go support our nation, go from a c base to shore back to c base again. and a lot of that is shore. right now, i say i have got
actually more plans ashore expeditionary environments than i do with float. so a float, ashore, float, ashore, that's the utility of the marine corps. that's what we are working on, force and readiness. i will tell you our current readiness challenges, cap with the not-so-good story, we have way tomb airplanes that we can't employ the way we need to weren't generate the readiness we need to and bottom line, we have to turn that around. admiral shoemaker and i spent all day yesterday at navy supply. two weeks ago, all day down at defense lodge jikices agency, i have been on the hill, been to talk to everybody, been in the process no real surprise that we are not where we need to be at the force and readiness of the united states marine corps, aviation readiness. that is my problem, my responsibility and mine to fix. i am accountable to fix that. we have a strategy to do that. okay? we have had two outside looks in at marine aviation, two of our type model series, getting ready to start the third. they tell me i can achieve my ratios, just not the way i'm doing it now. we are taking those lessons
learned, driving that home, drive change in the way we do business, okay and for part of that's funding. part of that's the human capital side of t but also, too, it's how we operate and how we sustain. and bottom line that's, to me, at the end of the day the history books will not remember it was later than they need, that there's some -- maybe some dysfunction out there in the different zip codes thought in around around town. the only thing the history books will care about, were we, shoe and i, and our naval air forces ready to go on game day, yes or no? all they are going to care about. all they are going to care about >> thank you. >> we choose ready. >> yeah. >> thanks very much. that's couple of information-rich presentations and thank you both very much. what we are gonna do is do some questions and answers here. we will do them as long as you want until 10:00, whichever comes first.
[ laughter ] is and i had a couple of warmup questions, but i think i'm going to forego mine and if we get a lull, i may squeezes them in, but in the meantime, yes, back there, sir. >> yes, sir, brit mitchell, rep nance institute, baltimore. a pastor, actually. my question, this i wouldn't have come today except that on npr last saturday morning, they had a story on from a naval air development facility somewhere talking about how they had developed drones that are not just normal drones but send them up in batches of 24 or 3 2579d drones themselves pick their own leader. and i assume pick the mission. and it scared me so death, so bade got out of the shower and wrote on a paper towel dom here
today. great report but could you touch on that? is that really viable? >> that is an information-rich question. [ laughter ] would either of you like to field that? [ laughter ] >> i would say that -- >> i didn't see it. >> unmanned air systems, air and ground and sea are a big part of the naval forces' future. i'm not working on a drone project right now but i do think we are going to integrate man and unmanned with everything we do, all right? and bottom line is at the end of the day, your going to hold senior leaders accountable for how both the man and unmanned plat fors are used. bottom line, i think we will do everything -- do everything the right way, not at a -- i haven't seen, artificial intelligence, i think there is probably future out there for platforms to be
self-organized, self-thinking. i don't have anything in the works right now on that. >> over there. nch>> two questions, one on v-2 how do you see the export potential for v-22 with our allies? and the second question, are we building enough amphibious assault ships and so forth to carry the marine corps, you know, aviation expeditionary forces? thanks. >> i think the -- i think the till rotor technology has tremendous potential. we have -- we already have foreign partners ordering them and flying them and more to follow. i think like all our stuff we need to drive the cost out, reliability in, i think that's probably the v-22, a great airplane. i think more to follow on that i think people see the utility of that yes, we need more amphibious ships. >> we are actually taking a page from the marine playbook as we transition from our, you know,
venable c-2 greyhounds doing our care on board delivery right now and we will use the -- bring the vc 22 into the care environment as our logistics connector for the strike groups of the future and given all the things that jon davis talked become flex bit of a that platform gives us the option to do other things as well with t talk about the support of the marines in terms of amphibious ships, that's one we continue to work inside the building, you know, from the -- my counter part, who is the surface warfare -- surface warfare boss or sea lord, we call him, is obviously working that inside the budget, the challenges environment but working to do what we can to support the mar reaps, the ships they need. >> we will move to this side. yes, sir. here he comes. >> good morning, gentlemen. both of you have awe touched on the need for sensor's reconnaissance. can you elaborate on that how
you are integrating your systems? the big problem we are going to have in the a 2 ad environment is getting the information so the strike groups go in safely. talk about how your platforms you're building are going to integrate the sensor information so you can have the isr picture you need. >> right. well, i touched on that a little bit when i described u class and how navy envisions employment. as you said that would be, i think, our initial platform go into that contested environment that environment you just described. certainly ahead of tried accident or poseidon, our p-8s, couldn't operate in there without the initial kind of understanding of that environment which the -- which that u class will provide and also the ability to operate there, to be able to conduct the integrated -- provide an integrated picture and targeting of assets and if needed dork the
time-critical strike or quick-reaction strike capability will come with that, with that as part of the platform. so i think that's critical piece, at least from the strike group perspective, other assets we will potentially use to -- from a theater -- be theater controlled or joint air comp pope nent may control but that is one we need at the strike group level, controlled by the strike group commander to operate with the strike group and ahead of the strike group in that environment. >> if i could just -- we need to make sure all the forces at sea are integrated into that picture, i think it is actually leveraging everything out there go back to every platform sensor share shooter, i say platform it is manned, it is unmanned, it is fiber capabilities, it is space capability, itselfing that we have. i think the assets allow to you get closer, see a little bit more. our big challenge with the fifth gen platforms we have, how do it i -- that airplane is a pretty smart player, how i do leverage everything on the player and get them back to the guy on the
ground or whoever else needs information in a band wilt and a flow rate they can use and share that? and so to include how we share that with coalition partners out there. i think a challenge but also an opportunity. >> yes, ma'am. >> hi, lee hudson, inside the navy. admiral schumacher, could you give us some insight into what you think the aviation meck should be for the future frigate in the same as lcs or do you see being different? >> can you say that again? >> the aviation mix for the future frig grat or the modified lcs, whatever you want to call it? >> oh, for the -- new service? >> yeah. right. >> i'm not sure the design, that falls into my counterpart's lane, sea lord. we will have the acquisition program and future of our mh-60 romeo sear you're rah includes whatever the platform maybe. >> you mentioned fire scout as
well. >> fire scout as well. >> right. okay. thank you. >> yes, sir. >> bill sweetman with aviation week. talking about the -- the need to flap and extend the life of super hornets, the problems of readiness, the problems we have had with the classic hornet, a couple of questions, one is it correct that the department of navy plans to bring in f-35 c slightly less than one squadron a year in the 2020s, i heard a production of 12 or 35 cs a year. the next part of that question is that leaves us, it appears, very dependent on being able to ship the super hornets at a very high rate and how do we make
sure we avoid the problems we have had with the classic hornet slep, not gone as planned a lot more things found in those air frames as expected? how do avoid that trap, keep those problems, guarantee those squadrons will be full in the 2020s? thanks. a great question. i knew it was coming, i see our chicklet chart next to you, we both use described next to you. >> did everybody hear the question? >> yeah. okay. so, wither in this situation for a number of reasons. we have deployed the initial introducti diction of the f-35 m the navy side. in fact, almost about seven years when within planned at ioc. that forced us to keep our classic hornets, our partners use that term, around a lot longer. 6,000-hour airframe we had to extend 6 or 8,000 hours to keep
it in the fight. that's pretty significant engineering feat to do that. so we didn't plan the -- you described the rhino slep or service life extension program, didn't plan it well for the wor through that right now in our aviation depos. the utilization, as both of us have talked about, the utilization of the force over the last decade-plus. so the hours we put on those classic hornets quickly drove them to those 8,000, 9,000-hour limits and forced us to induct them, you know, earlier than we expected. so we got a bit of a backlog at our depos. the capacity there is improving. we learned a lot about how we do the throughput there and as we've repaired those classic hornets that will apply to the program for our rhinos. so i think we've -- this is not a problem we've solved. general davis has a significant portion of his strikers or strike fighters are f-18s. them an the har yers.
we have to keep his classic hornets in service for about another 10 or 12 years. we've got a few less in the navy who are doing the same thing. the problem is getting through the super hornets, which would be in the middle -- 2025 or so. with applying those things we've learned from the classic hornet maintenance work. i think we've got a pretty good plan right now to move forward and avoid a significant reduction gap in our strike fighter inventory as those planes get out of service, get repard, and get back into service. it's not an inconsequence shl challenge we have ahead of us and one that general davis and i stay focused on a lot. >> part of how we transition, you have to take care of the harrier to make the transition. it's strategic. i will brag a little bit on the admiral who run the fleet
readiness centers who's done a great job coming up with a plan to rework our f-18s and gives us reason to believe -- actually, i don't do hope, i look for the numbers and we're making the numbers in our depos now we're supposed to. we have being working a third line to help us make the numbers we need to, to get the airplanes back on the line. congress is very good, gave us six f-35bs to replace our bas chon losses. part of the way we reduce the pressure on the don with classic f-18 is by the marine corps moving out of the f-18. the reserves shutting down in 2030. if we were to get more airplanes, we'd be able to move out of the classics a little earlier. have to take care of the old in order to get to the new, sir. >> i was going to touch on that. you mentioned, i think, the
chart there probably has -- there's a couple assumptions. 12 per year and 20 per year. 20 per year is where we hoped to be. i think the current realities of the budget environment and other priorities inside navy may drive something between those two numbers. we're still on path to ioc, this capability with our first squadron in 2018. i'll keep working has hard as i can with our leadership in the building to ensure we can stay on the path and get out of classic hornets, replace them with our f-35cs as quick as we can. >> over here. >> morning, gentlemen. air boss, this question is for you. it's a personnel leadership question. recently wrote an article in proceedings about c.a.g. and who we select. we haven't had a non-vfa c.a.g. selectee in five years. this leaves out roughly half the air wing in the experience and leadership capability that brings with it.
it also limits the career progression of more than half of your junior and midlevel officers and directly impacts retention of some quality personnel. i'm wondering what are we doing to make sure that, a, we don't go another five years without selecting a non-vfa c.a.g., and how can we ensure that this leadership position better reflects the composition of the carrier airline? thank you. >> is that your article? >> yes, sir. >> well written. >> thank you. >> i read it this morning. i was over at cnp. bill said you might want to read this before you go over. as you know, he's on a big talent management push right now, and he's doing some wonderful things. i agree completely with your article. i look across our aecarrier for, the force of the future, and i look at the aviators flying in growler, flying in our e2ds that
can control that fight and the situation awareness they have and the understanding of the missions across the strike warfare commander's responsibilities. to even include our helicopter squadron cos. i got this question twice now at both of our national helicopter association events, east and west coast. we had -- and i don't think it'll be too long before we find, the right helicopter c.o. who's come up through the ranks and is fully capable of leading an air wing. they're integrated right now in many of the events we do. i talked about strait of hormuz transits. they lead all of those events. they're integrated with their fighter counterparts. they understand kind of the full portfolio of what an air wing commander would be -- would need to do. all it takes is a little bit of -- as we put languages and reseptembers for statutory
boards, language and recrepts. i control those and tend to take your recommendations as move forward with them. nice article. >> on the aisle. >> good morning, gentlemen. dan from the center for defense information. general, this question is for you. you mentioned multimission platfor platforms, which results in multimission people. you also mentioned how difficult it is to then train people. how do you find that balance where you can train people in multiple missions with such limited time in which to train? >> first off, we need to get more time training. one of the things we laid out, i'm a firm believer in employing and leveraging simulation, but i'm also a firm believer that a pilot or an air crew has to have 15 hours a month in an airplane, no less than that. so we drive our systems and make sure we can do that. our training manuals support that.
i will say i might not be as multimission as my two sons are, right. they're a lot more multimission than me. my eldest son's two daughters will probably be a heck of a lot more multimission than him when they come around to go do this. i would say you look at the way people multitask and they operate. i remember i wrote a master's thesis on urban air support in 1994. i remember people saying, hey, that's a helicopter mission, just too hard to do for a jet. i said, things are moving too fast for a jet guy to do an urban environment. it might be for us because i was a major. i was really old then. but don't tell that to the captains. that was what our brains thought in 1994. too much going on for a jet guy to do urban environment. now they're doing it like it's cool. now we're doing it with uas. bottom line is things change. i think the more we -- again, equip the man, don't man the equipment. give these kids the tools.
we turn over the young guys. they're using it completely differently. the demand signal for the coms is not coming from me. it's coming from the customer in the back of the airplane. so i think we'll man the equipment. we'll equip the man, not man the equipment. we'll push the information to these guys. i got to make sure that we deliver the training systems that give them the minimum amount of actual flight training out there. then a lot of time the construct is one guy in a box with the instructor. i've seen things where entire units go to a simulator to train. i think there's a lot more we can do to leverage to make sure when that kid does get into that airplane, he's ready for the a-ticket ride, not to do discovery learning once he or she gets in the that airplane. >> back here.
>> general air boss, good morning. full disclosure, i'm one of your growler guys, sir. the naval service leads the joint force in the spectrum. i'm curious, though, do you see a need for any structural changes, either from a man, train, equip standpoint, or operationally, either in the department of the navy or across the joint force or even in the inner agency and our partners to ensure we truly can develop emw where we have unity of effort in the spectrum. that's probably more key to military operations and all aspects of civil life than we even recognize today. i can tell you as a growler guy, we -- in the last couple years of operating that aircraft and the new platform forward, we often show up as the smartest guy in the room and have to
point out how the military plan and the greater context we operate in or plan to operate in isn't set for success in a kill chain versus kill chain fight where we don't have overmatch anymore. >> i better. no, but we're actually doing all of that. in fact, your community is leading our integration, certainly for aviation. not that they're the only platform that would participate. we deliver f-35, that comes with some very good electronic warfare capabilities. we're just scratching the surface on what growler can do, i think. they've been up doing some exercises with our air force counterparts in alaska, northern edge, then down as part of red flags. the guys participating there, i think, are opening some eyes and the capabilities of that platform. we have to keep that at the forefront as we move forward on this emw world. certainly use that expertise across all naval aviation.
in fact, across the joint force. >> if i could, i got the rare honor of serving 4 1/2 years at ft. meade as a guy who failed college math. bottom line is i think it's going to be complete team ball. i think you need to have everybody in the fight. we used to call the nonkinetic fires are just as important as the kinetic. it requires a lot of thought and planning. just like you say, structural changes, make sure we do that right, training changes. i'd also say that it's kind of like not having electronic warfare. you have to have electronic warfare. it's almost ubiquitous. every platform, i'm trying to strap something on that airplane, both high threat and low threat. my guys on the ground, my trucks, my airplanes, my ships. everything we have out there, we're trying to get that capability to include -- if you go to weapons school, they're helping us out in those scenarios. bottom line, this requires a lot
of thought. our manned and unmanned systems are going to be key players in this. the unmanned systems have to have the range and the payload to be able to -- and the com links to be contributors there. also, by the way, survivable as well so it can't get knocked down in a contested environment. >> for those of you that are on a tight schedule, it's a couple minutes after 10:00, but we're going to shift to central daylight time for about five or ten minutes here. right behind you. >> sir, analyst for special operations. two weeks ago, they had the directed energy summit that secretary kendall attended. a commander of the special air force operations command got up and said one of his highest requirements right now is directed energy, putting that on the new ac-130 ghost rider gun
ship. they give it a full comprehensive, offensive and defensive capability. he made the statement of, in our block 60, supposed to be ten years out, i'm telling you right now it's only a couple years out that we're going to have that. from your perspective, general davis, your kc-130js, with that kind of capability, but also the capability on navy aircraft. the secretary said our focus isn't on that. all we're worried about directing energy right now is ground capability. your comments? >> if i could really quickly, one, i'm embarrassed i missed that conference. i actually kind of had a religious moment. my guy is like, how the heck didn't i know about that? it's a big part of our follow-on, directed energy. we think it has tremendous capability, tremendous potential. a lot of it is about weight. right now some of the systems are pretty heavy.
i'd like to be able to get up in everything i own, right. so hauling around a 3,000-pound tray might be a bit much for some of my platforms. more and more i think we're going to push the edge of the envelope to get that capability on land, in air, and probably at sea. it's part of quiver in our future. >> my surface counterpart is working hard to deliver that service to his ships. i talked a little bit about the ability to generate electrical generating capacity three times. so we can incorporate that technology as part of self-defense or even offensive manner on that. as general davis said, we've got to figure out the smart guys in the room and engineers to figure out how we can miniaturize this stuff to make it applicable to aviation platform. as opposed to firing very expensive air-to-air to surface weapons, if we could do those kinds of directed energy, i think that's a clear area we have to keep focused and keep
working in. >> yes, sir? >> good morning. for admiral shoemaker, your tenth carrier air wing is under strength of squadrons. what is your schedule to bring that back to life? thank you. >> yeah, right now i think it's in 2016 or '17. as we look into the, you know, the budget negotiations and the fiscal realities and constraints that i mentioned, we're considering whether we can afford to do that. we've looked at the carrier plan as we flow it out. i think one of the reasons we even talked about that as an offset is i think an ability with a little bit of risk to be able to support our leveleven. we have some work to do, but if you have one typically in a deep overhaul, a reactor core ov
overhaul, complex overhaul. i think we have the ability to do that. the plan right now is to stand it up in 2017. again, it was one of the things we looked at potentially as a cost-savings measure into the very tight budget environment we're in right now. >> yes? back here. >> ricky matsumoto. there was a report the pentagon rejected the navy's plan to carry out shock and survival capability tests on the new class carriers, which was expected to enter service in 2016, which might delay the first ship's deployment by half a year. from your perspective, are there any strategic implications or consequences of that decision? >> i think the memorandum signed by secretary kendall was that we would do the initial shock tests before her first deployment. that's what we're working
toward. obviously we counted her getting back into the mix to bring us back from ten to eleven carriers. we're looking at that plan and where it would play out in the deployment cycles. we've got that guidance and are moving out. >> yes, sir? >> i have a larger question. i think this is about capabilities. when one state has the immense military might and greater military budget than any other state, this will create insurmountment obstacle to a nuclear-free world. how much should we be concerned about, you know, the talk about military capabilities? we're talking about an arms race. u.s., russia, maybe china, other countries. actually, i really want the ambassador to talk about it. thank you.
>> did you just get a question? >> yeah. if i can paraphrase as to how concerned we should be about the arms race and talk about the arms race. i think it's something that we all need to be very concerned about but not stampede on this subject. i just read a quotation by thomas jefferson recently about the peace being the delightful interlude while the factions are reloading. so this is the a -- it's a -- the peace we have right now is sort of an awkward one. but with russia, with china, with general dunford's testimony and others on where the big threats are, i think these are things of which we need to be very cognizant and work in our country on those, but i don't think we need to stampede into an arms race.
i don't see other countries zoi doing that right now, but prevention is our business. preventing war is our business. we need to be very ready to do that. so the discussions need to be taken seriously but not stamp e stampeding on it. yes, ma'am? in the front row. >> hi. general davis, you spoke a little bit about multimissionizing v-22. i wonder if the navy has similar plans now that you're buying into it and what the conversation between the two services is about coming up with a common variant for naval v-22 presence. >> i think they're a little bit different right now. the navy is going to use the airplane as a carry-on-board delivery system. obviously we have a number of years operating the airplane, and we practice having weapons on it.
we put a sensor on there and some precision weapons. the sensor integration package, the digital inoperability for long-range communications, and now the fueling capability. again, marine corps and navy have slightly difficult missions. i'm not going to speak for the navy. they'll chart their own course with the v-22. >> yeah, i totally agree. we'll learn from the marines. obviously we partner close with them as we bring this capability into the fleet. i think we'll end up, you know -- what i've promised our cadre of pilots and air crew is they'll be the ones that move into this new platform. you'll have some extended range. we're beefing up the range of the platform. as i mentioned, the primary logistics connection for the striker, but we'll look at other options. it brings a lot of flexibility. we've done very short demo, i
guess, two summers ago out on the east coast. the air boss, a lot still to learn about how we would integrate that. they were pleased with out it turned out. i think it'll be a great capability we deliver. we'll continue working and partnering with the marines as we move forward. >> we'll take one last question. to the patient gentleman over here with the red tie. >> i thank you. could you talk to me a little -- talk to us about the future vertical lift that the army is working on? they've set this very far out in the future, and the companies that are currently working on that are very keen to bring that forward. would the navy ever, or marine corps, ever consider going it alone on future vertical lift? also, maybe taking the --
>> one question. >> could you just say whether you're concerned about lockheed martin's purchase and whether that could affect any of your programs. >> i'm not worried about it. as long as they produce the helicopters that they're supposed to. i've got a couple in the line. sustain the h-3s and h-60s. totally happy. so expect them to do í9ñbusines do well. on the vertical lift, we're very interested in future vertical lift, very interested in what the folks are bringing. what's real interesting about future vertical lift is it's both variants they're looking at. it can be -- do a lot of things for us, for a marine corps. replacement of the h-1. we look to do more and more
stuff with an airplane like that. more speed, more range, more agility. looking to get much more range out of the airplane. with this fly by wire, it could also be unmanned. i have a uas challenge out there for the united states marine corps. if it's got high enough reliability, high enough payload capability, it could be both group four, five, manned or unmanned, and to me, if they build the right kind of airplane, a tremendous utility and tremendous agility from a platform like this. we're pretty excited about what's in store. >> we'd obviously partner with that. i just mentioned we delivered to the fleet. they'll be around until easily the middle of next decade or so. but that future vertical lift, i think you'll see, i won't say similar to how we did joint strike fighter, but a joint program across the services to deliver that capability. >> okay.
coming up at 1:00 p.m. today, live on c-span2, outgoing army chief of staff general ray odierno will talk about the future of the u.s. army. on friday, he'll pass his duties to general mark milley. and later today on c-span3, a focus on reaching young people with conservative blogger and author bill whittle and a panel featuring barbara bush, the daughter of former president george w. bush. also, former twitter communications director gabrielle stricker on that company's mission and efforts to balance free speech and privacy concerns. ♪ it'll be a month or so before debate begins in earnest on capitol hill on the iran nuclear deal. but the case for the deal and against the deal is being made on the campaign trail, by the
president in the press, and also on social media across the country, across the world, and as we mentioned, the campaign trail. you heard from jeb bush, some of his comments on the iran nuclear deal. on this "washington journal," we want to ask you, who's making the best case for the iran nuclear deal? you can join the conversation on the phone. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. all overs, 202-748-8002. you can tweet us @cspanwj. there's reaction to the iran deal. it'll be a month or so before congress returns. they return on september the 8th. debate begins in earnest in the house and senate. front page this morning of the washington times looks at an
opinion poll in new york city. the poll shows new york city supports schumer. they write that president obama has railed against congressional republicans for opposing his administration's nuclear deal with iran to score partisan points, but the president has a bigger problem. the american public generally opposes it too. polling since the agreement was announced july 14th has consistently shown more people opposing the accord than supporting it. the latest poll, a survey of new york city voters released tuesday by quinnipiac university, showed respondents in the liberal city were opposed to the agreement by 43% to 60%. and looking at other polling on the iran deal so far. "the washington times" writes about the media polls. they have a string of polls that finds americans deeply skeptical of the president's nuclear deal with iran.
cbs, nbc, monmouth university. we mentioned the quinnipiac poll. a large portion of that poll still saying not sure or don't know. we're asking you this morning, who is making the best case for the iran deal? before he left for his presidential vacation on martha's vineyard, the president did one last interview, which largely focused on that iran deal. here's some of what he had to say. >> this is the challenge that i've had over the last several weeks, steve. i've listened to the krcritics, some of them who announced their opposition before they read the bill or read the agreement. and that is that they will put forward arguments that, you know, after a few minutes can be shown as illogical or based on
the wrong facts, and then you ask them, all right, what's your alternative? and there's a deafening silence. what that tells me is that there may be ideological opposition to doing any business with iran. there may be skepticism with any diplomatic initiative with a regime that is admittedly antagonistic towards us, antisemitick sponsor of terrorism. and that's an honest argument. if you want to say, we don't think you should deal with iran, then that at least has a logic to it. if you're saying, though, that this is an issue that can't be resolved diplomatically and you share my view that iran can't get a nuclear weapon, then you really are narrowing your choices at that point. >> president obama speaking with npr before he left on his vacation to martha's vineyard. who's making the best deal, the
best case for the iran nuclear deal? first up, doug. good morning. hello, virginia. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. >> morning. doug, you're on the air. >> caller: how are you doing? >> i'm doing good. go ahead, you're on the air. >> caller: there's no need giving weapons and money to our enemy when it never worked in the past. doesn't make sense. good deal. >> okay. don is in kansas on our democrats line. what do you think? who's making the best case for the iran deal? >> caller: of course the president and his administration are. there's no such thing as a perfect deal, and, you know, even though you work on a deal doesn't mean that it's going to
go the way it's supposed to in the future. the republicans and the warhawks out there want to get us into another conflict, it appears, when peace is the way. the president is trying to work with our friends and trying to work things out with our enemies. if we're going to be the world leader, we can't be the world leaders for, you know, conflict. we should be the world leaders for spreading peace. >> here's katherine, who's in new hampshire. your thoughts. is the president making the best cases? you think senator schumer or those opposing the deal make the best case? >> caller: good morning. i think president obama's iran nuclear weapons deal makes sense. and i have just a short suggestion. do we want another war? do we want a world of green
pastures and blue skies, or do we want a world of radioactive rubble? we lost and have injured soldiers and spent $3 trillion on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. we are still spending. so before a war in iran, we should put away, save up $3 trillion in a prewar bank account. congress would vote and pass raising the $3 trillion by increasing our taxes. then, say, after ten years if iran has dismantled its nuclear bomb making facilities, complied with the treaty, the $3 trillion we saved and didn't spend on a war could be distributed worldwide, putting it into action projects for clean water, clean air, clean oceans, and clean soil. and i thank you. >> thank you. welcome your tweets as well. tweet us @cspanwj.
a quick one here that says, has obama released the full agreement, even the secret ones? colton is in california on our independence line. go ahead. >> caller: hi, so i know that congress and the senate, you know, they like to talk to iran. they also don't like that iran is holding three american prisoners. so why don't they put their foot down and tell iran, we're not going to do this deal unless you release those prisoners? why haven't they taken the initiative on that? >> and of course congress, both the house and senate, will get their chance debating the resolution of disaproprovadisap. lead editorial today in "the washington post" talks about reaction to the president's comments on some of his critics. president obama made his final comments before the vacation at american university last week. "the washington post" editorial writers say the president has countered them, meaning the critics, with certitude anded a homonym attacks, the combined import of which there are no alternatives to his policy that
support for the deal is an obvious call and that nearly anyone who suggests otherwise is motivated by politics or ideology. they write, mr. obama's rhetoric reached its low point when he observed the deal's opponents value war over diplomacy and that iranian extremists were, quote, making common cause with the republican caucus. this was self-contradictory, writes the post. one of the announced gop opponents, bob corker of tennessee, who's a man mr. obama himself praised just four months ago as, quote, sincerely concerned about the issue and a good and decent man. if there's anyone who's not a republican partisan, it's the arch democrat from new york who's planning a bid to lead the democratic senate caucus after harry reid retires. the views of "the washington post" this morning. love to hear your views on who's
making the best case on the iran nuclear deal. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. for all others, 202-748-8002. irwin is in florida. morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you? >> doing fine. thank you. >> caller: let me just say that we have dealt with the iranians before led by the ayatollah. remember the 1980 october surprise when we -- when the u.s. went down to -- met the iranians in vienna, and they held the hostages until the end of the election. lo and behold a week later, all the hostages were released. we also dealt with the iranians in the year 2001 when we invaded afghanistan. we asked the iranians to allow us to enter the borders -- enter
afghanistan through the -- through the -- through iran. american troops entered afghanistan, invaded afghanistan. we have dealt with the iranians before. we're going to deal with them now. if we don't deal with them, our allies will turn on us, period. they will deal with the iranians alone. they will -- money will be released to them, and our european allies will be dealing with the iranians. it's too bad the republicans have made such a political issue of this. every minute now on tv, you have ads against the deal. it's a shame. we're heading toward war and it will be on the backs of the republicans just like iraq. the american right wings are fools. the american republicans and schumer as well. >> leonard, your thoughts on who's making the case for the
iran nuclear deal. >> caller: i really think the whole thing doesn't have anything to do with the deal. it's got to do with the oil. and, you know, shortly after this deal started -- am i on the line? >> you sure are. go ahead. leonard, cannon city, colorado. >> caller: yeah, i think the whole thing's got to do with oil. if the iranian oil comes on the market, gas will drop below $2 a gallon. the people that own the republican party are the oil companies, and they don't want that oil on the market. but the republicans, shortly after the deal came through, the republicans in the oil states, they want to sell our oil on the open market. so i'm pretty sure it's got to do with nothing but oil. thank you. >> all right. andrew is next up. he's in rockland, delaware.
also on our independence line. andrew, there you go. no, let's try that. andrew, rockland, delaware. >> caller: hi there. i'm a physician, and i think of myself as a strategist. i originally was opposed to the president's deal for all the reasons that have been presented. people cheat, supporting terrorist states, things like that. over time i began to think that the president's deal made sense. you can't really blame the iranians for wanting a deterrent to a nuclear weapon because everyone is talking about bombing them because they're not doing what the u.s. is telling them to do. i really think that the u.s. should develop a security pact with israel so that an attack on israel would then precipitate an
attack by the u.s. in consultation with israel. the reason is that the u.s. is now giving weapons all the sudden to partners in the middle east to counter the iranians. israelis are reluctant to have a pact with the u.s. because, one, they don't think the u.s. is going to back them, and the recent actions by the u.s. towards the iranians has furt r furthered that concern. i think that if the u.s. -- if the united states supports a deal, it will prevent the iranians, at least on a short term, developing a nuclear weapon. and the attacks by hamas, hezbollah would precipitate based on the pact a response by the u.s. as well as israel to suppress that, and the iranians would no longer be able to threaten further any nuclear
potential or further action. so the net result is that the u.s. would -- the pact with israel would lead to more security, and if anyone was foolish enough -- if the iranian revolution was to continue according to the ayatollah and they actually used the weapon, iran wouldn't exist. so i think that the clever idea is to go along, block the development of the nuclear weapon, and have a pact with israel so that hezbollah and hamas would be very reluctant to attack israel, which is the main concern of those people who think that the weapons deep should go through. >> and you're calling, andrew, for a pact above and beyond
whatever the current aid and military agreements we have with israel? >> caller: right. because there is no pact. it's not like nato where an attack on a nato member, all the other nato members are bound. this would be a one-way pact. i don't think israel wants to defend the united states for any other reason. we are now essentially giving all the weapons and money for israel, saudi arabia, and our other friends to defend israel. >> appreciate your call. there are a number of lawmakers in the middle east, particularly in israel, a bipartisan delegation. headline here in "the washington post." lawmakers take a well-timed israel trip, paid for by aipac charitable arm. they write 58 house members, 22 democrats, 36 republicans, are making the trip this month right before congress is set to consider the controversial iran nuclear deal. the trip being paid for by the american israel education foundation, the charitable arm of the american-israel public
affairs committee. the foundation funds the travel every two years for junior members. israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu vocally condemned the iran deal negotiated by the obama administration, which is the focus of a fierce fight in congress. we're asking you about that case being made on both sides. here's defiance, missouri. daryl is on our democrats' line. >> caller: good morning. >> morning. >> caller: i'm totally for what the president is doing, goesh negotiating with the iranians for this thing. israel has been screaming for 25 years iran would have a nuclear weapon, and they don't have a nuclear weapon yet. meanwhile, israel has stockpiled hundreds of nuclear weapons. nobody can inspect their nuclear facilities. you know, it's just insane what charles schumer is doing, and i think he ought to resign and go live in israel. i mean, this is america. you know, when are we going to
stop taking marching orders from israel? and you just said it. 48 members of congress are being flown to israel so they can get their marching orders from netanyahu. this is insane. you know, they've done nothing but undermine this president since he's been in there. i'm not for israel because israel hasn't signed any nuclear nonproliferation treaties. they haven't allowed anybody to inspect their nuclear weapons, and iran -- you know, it's just insane. this whole policy is insane. >> caller mentioned chuck schumer, the new york senator. politico writing about his efforts on the nuclear deal with iran. chuck schumer working the phones is the headline on iran. he calls colleagues to explain his decision and assure them he will not be whipping opposition, in other words whipping votes against the president. also on that aipac trip, another israel lobbying group in
washington is j-street. they have released an ad campaign on their view. here's a look. >> the nuclear agreement with iran contains the toughest inspection program in history with inspectors on the ground and around-the-clock monitoring at all nuclear sites. israeli security experts say this agreement is the best existing option, the best possible alternative, it must not be rejected. this deal prevents iran from producing a nuclear weapon. that's good for israel, good for america, and makes both countries safer and more secure. >> part of a j-street ad campaign targeting michigan and four other states. a couple tweets on this issue. @cspanwj is how you reach us. here's one from richard, who tweets, do not confuse no bomb with no nuclear plants. geez. also, from t.j., who says, first mistake that obama made on iran deal, he should have demanded the four americans be set free before talks ever began.
back to calls. we go to florida on the republican line is ned. welcome. >> caller: good morning. >> hi there. >> caller: i'm against the iran deal for several reasons. number one, this has really got a lot to do with the sunni and the shias. all of your jordan, your egypt, your saudi arabia, they're not going to have -- they're not going to be content to let iran have a bomb when they don't. so this is going to be a rush to get -- to start the nuclear thing. we've got our four prisoners that were never discussed. we weren't dealing from a position of power. we all know that iran is one of the biggest state sponsors of terror and that they've killed thousands of our troops while in iraq. the other thing is no inspectors from america are allowed on their soil. they also want to take their own soil samples, and they got 24 days to get ready for that. it's a bad deal.
it's going to cause a nuclear explosion as far as everyone trying to get their own bombs in the middle east. and how do you trust the iranians? i think a lot of people that call in today don't remember about the 444 days of captivity that they kept our people in back in the '70s. it's just not a good deal. and the president, he's gotten right up on the tv and lied to us over and over. you know, your doctors, your insurance, all this stuff. looked right in the camera and lied about the illegals. he's lied. so how do we trust him on this? how did we trust him he's telling us the truth? >> ned, appreciate your comments. we talked about that congressional delegation trip, the freshmen members in israel, democratic and republican. also, majority leader kevin mccarthy there and the minority whip steny hoyer. some tweets from that. just some photos and such. brad ashford tweeting, productive meetings in israel and palestine with each of their
renowned leaders. great to hear both perspectives. he also tweeted the delegation met with israel prime minister benjamin netanyahu and former palestinian authority. a couple more here from seth moulton who says idf former head of intelligence major nadeen speaking on the iranian threat. he said president ruvi of israel can do more to advance the alliance. a previous caller was talking about that. and elizabeth esty, freshman democrat, tweets, meeting with israel president reuven and learning about issues critical to the relationship. let's hear from albert next who's on the line in robbins, illinois. good morning. good. >> caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i believe that the president's making the best case for the deal because his argument has been well thought out, whereas
the opposition's argument hasn't been thought out, as usual. for instance, they're talking about the four americans should have been a part of negotiations. why would you want to tie the fate of four americans to a deal that could fall through? then you have no more bargaining power for their release. why would you want to tie their release to the interests of the other p5 nations that were part of this negotiation? the media for some reason is making the mistake, and they're being allowed to do so, that this is the president's deal. no, this deal was negotiated with the united states and six other nations. so they don't have a well-thought-out argument. there are those who are in opposition to this deal just because it is the president's -- he's involved in it. then there are those who are opposed because they want to see once again war in the middle
east. that's my comment. thank you. >> news this morning about illinois's republican senator mark kirk. it's the lead item in "the chick tribune." front page. this front page courtesy of the nuseum. actions by senator raise questions on use of donations. they write that senator mark kirk, who's needed help with every day tasks such as preparing meals and physically getting around since suffering a debilitating stroke in 2012, put his live-in caregiver on his campaign payroll, according to records and interviews. the caregiver twice came under criminal investigation, convicted in one case, while the other is still pending in court. the tribune writes kirk's replacement of his caregiver, who had no prior campaign experience, raises questions about whether kirk used political donations to pay for personal expenses. campaign finance records show that kirk for senate had paid his caregiver a salary totaling more than $43,000 from august
2013 through the ends of 2014. back to calls on the iran nuclear deal and who's making the best case so far. this is paul, who's in miridian, connecticut. independent caller. >> caller: yes, i am an american. i'm not a jew. and my main concern is with the united states and the people of the united states. i can't imagine a worse recipe for our country than to get involved in trying to establish a jewish state in the middle of 2 billion islams and approximately 25 islamic states in the middle east and trying to establish a jewish state when the people that we're representing have an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth attitude.
they're arrogant. they've shown and demonstrated as they did prior to world war i and world war ii that they can't get along with their neighbors. for the united states to squander our treasure and to risk a nuclear conflict over establishment of a jewish state when we're reminded by jews here at home we are not a christian country. they love to rub our nose in it, remind us that this country has no right to establish anything resembling -- so you know, christmas time. they're against christmas carols. they go into public schools -- >> who are you saying -- paul, who are you saying are against that? >> caller: i'm sorry? >> who do you say are against that? >> caller: well, jewish organizations across the country
have been organizing in this country for half a century to try to get references to christianity out of our school systems and to continuously remind us that we are a secular country. it's foolhardy for us to get in on this. it's just stupid. and it's dangerous and extreme. if you study the history before world war i and world war ii, you'll find, for example, that jewish communists were agitators throughout europe and were constantly fomenting. now they're trying to get us into a third world war that will be a catastrophe. so i'm just fed up with the whole thing. i'm sick of hearing it.
and let the jews worship and be who they are privately, quietly, just as most christians are expected to do. >> we're asking you this morning who's making the best case for the iran nuclear deal. also looking more broadly at u.s. foreign policy. front page this morning of "the wall street journal" reporting on the comments of jeb bush. bush and clinton look past party rivals and trade barbs. they're talking in particular about comments made by jeb bush last night. he spoke at the ronald reagan presidential library in simi valley, california, with sharp criticism on the obama administration and then-secretary of state hillary clinton on the rise of isis. here's what he had to say. >> iran, its ally assad, its terrorist proxy hezbollah, and the sectarian militias it sponsors have fueled the rise to isis. yet, the president's deal with iran confronts none of these problems and least of all does
it prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. in fact, the deal prepares the way for that capability. with the lifting of sanctions, the deal frees up more than $100 billion for iran's security services to use as they wish. in effect, the primary investors in a violent, radical middle east have just received a new round of funding courtesy of the united states of america and the united nations. and this is president obama's idea of a diplomatic triumph. wow. it is a deal unwise in the extreme with a regime that is untrustworthy in the extreme. it should be rejected by the congress of the united states of america. [ applause ]
if the congress does not reject this deal, then the damage must be done -- undone by the next president, and it will be my intention to begin that process immediately. [ applause ] knowing what has gone wrong, however, is not the same as knowing how to set it right. >> jeb bush last night in simi valley, california, at the reagan library. all of that speech later on our program. it's also at c-span.org. we're harkening back to the mention we made earlier of the congressional delegation in israel meeting with benjamin netanyahu. among the leaders there is kevin mccarthy, who tweets about his experience there, saying each day congress continues to review the iran deal, we discover more information and reasons why we can't accept it. more from members who are there. mimi walters tweeting a morning
run and selfie in the hills of jerusalem. also from tom macarthur, day three, photo of the congressional delegation. back to your calls on who's making the best case for the iran nuclear deal. in the nation's capital, edward on our democrats' line. >> caller: good morning. i'm calling concerning the iranian deal. >> yes. >> caller: i'm suggesting that the democrats support president obama on this deal. president obama doesn't have to run for re-election in 2016, but african-american voters will remember those who support president obama on an important foreign policy deal. so i suggest that the democrats remember that netanyahu cannot deliver african-american voters but president obama can. in the case of an earlier caller
who was talking about president obama having a short-term memory about the iranians holding american hostages, i guess president reagan had a short-term memory because of the iran contra deal, about the iranians holding hostages or the iran-backed hezbollah responsible for the marines being killed. so i guess reagan had a short-term memory too. so that's all i have to say on that matter. >> let's go to south plainfield, new jersey. independent caller. go ahead. >> caller: yes, i have -- what i cannot understand is the short-sightedness of those people who are against this deal. if iran is such an enemy of the united states and the problem is not their facilities, that they have a facility on the ground. and if you have a so-called enemy and you have an opportunity to be in the house of that enemy, to have a seat in
the house of that enemy and that's what this deal is about, you need to take that seat, and you need to observe what iran is doing. and you are going to understand after a period of time, you are going to understand them, see their mannerisms. keeping the sanctions in place, the sanctions does not hurt the head of government. they have a very good life. it hurts people. and when you hurt people, they get angry. and when they get angry, they are dangerous. and that's why so many iranians are joining isis. and so are all the people. the more we make people suffer, the more isis is going to become stronger. we need to isolate them. and what i feel is as long as we are in the house of iran, we are going to be able to slow down the process of making a bomb.
and that is the bottom line, not all the craziness about israel trying to tell america what to do. >> our caller in new jersey mentioned iranians joining isis. here's a story you may have heard about, about a couple of americans allegedly trying to join isis. headline about two arrested for trying to join isis. they write that a man and a woman detained at the golden triangle regional airport in columbus saturday appeared in federal court on monday, charged with trying to provide assistance and materials to a foreign terrorist group. officials tell the ledger that the two were attempting to join isis. they allegedly had a plan to get married in turkey and cross over into syria. jerry is up next. he's in new orleans. he's on our democrats' line. what do you think, jerry? who's making the case for or against the iran nuclear deal? >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: i'm on obama's side
to a certain extent. i think he did the best he could with what he had to work with. the republicans, they alwaysrep always criticize him, but they don't have a plan of their own. if you want to criticize, come up with your own plan. i think he is open for a better plan if you got one, and if you don't have one, shut up and get out of the way. and towards the whole nuclear thing, stopping people from getting a weapon, and what about the way the united states deal wz those that does have nuclear weapons, that's a problem. what about north korea, a big threat, got weapons already, bigger threat, and what about
the v-8, and republicans trying to make another war, and look how they are treating our veterans, and they are dying waiting on service and they are trying to make more wounded veterans. that's ridiculous. if you are so quick to go to war, who is going to take care of them when they come back all broken-down. >> and who is making the case for the iran nuclear deal. from north carolina, gary on the democrat's line. welcome. >> caller: good morning. >> morning. >> caller: i remember a long time ago, you know, the kids were playing around, and somebody talking about they are going to go upside their head and stuff like this, and we would say what am i supposed to be doing all this time? they have 15 years, and what are we supposed to be doing all this
time that they are going to bomb us, just going to sit back? they bombed pearl harbor one time and we nuked them in 3 1/2 years -- >> gary, do you trust the verification processes reported? >> caller: yes, 100%. the man told the truth when they said you can't hide this. these scientists know more than people that are not a scientists when it comes to everything else, and then all of a sudden they are nuclear physicist, and we are the united states of america, and if we can't get a deed by iran, and they are isolated and we are the united states of america, and we are completely surrounded, and, you
know, if they do get a bomb we'll probably make it inoperable, you know. we are listening to them right now. >> comments on twitter. here is a tweet from dedi, saying did he say, i think in mentioning me, did he say j street -- it's michigan and four other states. why being targeted? can't tell you that. it was a $5 million ad by j street. how can we agree or disagree with a deal we are not allowed to see? i believe on c-span.org we have a link to the outline of the deal that was released by the white house a couple weeks ago. back to calls. here is georgia in florida -- that's not george, and that should be george in florida. >> caller: i would like to say
that this reminds me of chamberlin talking to hitler. this has to be the dumbest man on earth or a traitor, because you can't talk to these people they are hacking off heads and killing children by wholesale and cutting off their heads. these people are unbelievable. and this man is negotiating with them? i just can't believe it. the second thing is this, they talk about their islamic leaders and how nice they are, and if there's a billion people and only a few terrorists i wish they would police them and lock them up, because they don't have any kind of concern about their so-called few terrorists, so the billion of them must be compliant or both. >> we played an ad for the deal,
and here is a video for an ad against the deal. >> i am retired sergeant bartlett and i was blown up by an iranian bomb, and it took my gunners legs off, total devastation. that is imprinted in my brain forever. they kidnap little kids from neighboring villages and put bullets in their heads and they said we are going to run our bombs out of here, that's who we are making a deal with. every politician involved in this, they will be held accountable and have blood on their hands. a vote for this deal means more money for terrorism. what do you think they will do with that money? call your senator and say no
vote for a deal with iran. if you don't call them, who will? >> and the paper rights when the group decided mobilize opposition against the nuclear deal with tehran, gary seymour knew he could never operate as his president, and he concluded the accord was in the united states interests, and i think president obama's strategy succeeded, and "the times" rights as soon as he left the group announced a new barrier with a decidedly different message, and lieberman -- i will show you the reporting on his advance to lead that group, this
is from former senator lieberman to lead group against iran nuclear deal. a couple more minutes of calls and your thoughts on the iran deal and who is making the case. good morning to eugene from new jersey. >> caller: i am for the deal. i think the president is making the best case. i think the republicans have no case other than military action. and i would like to know what great debt does the united states owes israel? that's my question to the public? what great debt does the united states owes israel? thank you. >> caller: good morning. if the u.n. approves the deal then it must be bad for america. thank you. >> paul in maryland, also on the republican line. your thoughts, paul, on who is making the best case here?
>> i am wondering why you allow for anti-semites. there was a caller that said senator schumer should move to israel, and then you had another caller talking about jews being communist -- why don't you cut them off? >> paul, we do try to give everybody a chance to say their mind. there are people that make difficult comments and i challenged the caller on the one who talked about christmas carols and such, but it's difficult when people venture into the arena of criticizing a person or group based on their religion, you are right, sometimes it's a fine line. we try to give people as much say as possible and sometimes it will offend viewers. >> caller: well, if i were to
say something like that black guy should move back to africa, like he said about chuck schumer should move to israel, you would cut me off, and rightfully so thank you. >> appreciate it. dan, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: yeah, the best comment i have heard so far is from john who said we should hold out for a better deal and when we get the better deal we should hold out for the best deal. this is typical gold post moving that netanyahu has been engaged in with the palestinians and with the iran nuclear deal. this is the best and most comprehensive arms control deal, not just between the united states but between the p5 plus
one. the only danger is israel believing they are going to have it and they preemptively strike iran. that's the big danger. and as far as chuck schumer, i am highly disappointed. i am not an anti-semite, and the same with joel lieberman, these jewish americans in congress are jewish first and americans second, and sorry if that offends somebody. >> we showed the headline bush alerts a clinton role in iraq decline, and new political risks, the former florida governor issued a blistering attack tuesday on the obama's administration handling of iran, an