pleased that secretary panetta has removed it from joint probationary status. it's scheduled to replace three aircraft currently in use by the marine corps which i understand is going to save $1 billion in operation and maintenance costs. additionally the timely fielding of the f-35-b will preserve the number of ships from which the u.s. can launch and strike aircraft. does the current production rate for the f-35 sufficiently address the projected strike fighter short fall and have the issues been addressed related to the tactical air integration? >> senator, the very last point on tactical air integrargrace, fan of it. not that we needed to sign an agreement, but to hshow the levl of commitment between the department and the two services. i'm a fan of the marine squadrons on navy carriers and

will continue to be that way. the amount of the production rate of six per year of my variant for the next three years is satisfactory to maintain and we can maintain the strike fighter shortfall. we can maintain that at that production rate. if the production rate stays shallow beyond the next three years, then we'll probably have to go back and revisit and take a hard look at the strike fighter. we're managing it right now. it is manageable through this careful flying of the airplanes. management of the airplanes and the numbers are down well below 100 at this point. anything below that is manageable. so i'm convinced that we are probably in a good position right now. >> thank you. i wanted to move to sexual assault. both veterans and active duty service members have cited that

the pentagon and military commanders are not doing enough to promote -- i'm sorry, to prosecute the sexual assault cases. if it's true, the failure to provide just this basic guarantee of safety to women who represent over 15% of the armed forces is not just a moral issue, but a defining statement about the military. how do you plan to overcome those challenges to create a culture where we can put sexual assault in the past? make that a problem of the past. and what further steps need to be taken to hold more of the perpetrators of these heinous crimes accountable for their actions? >> senator, you described what happens very accurately. it's a crime. it's an assault. it's an attack on a service member. we have -- the people who join

the navy/marine corps swear not only to protect the united states but also their fellow sailors and marines. this is an attack on one of their shipmates and any amount of sexual assault is unacceptable. we have done a lot and we're continuing to do a lot. i established the sexual assault prevention, and in my office, reports directly to me. i see the person in the office on a routine basis. as a result of that, we have undertaken programs in the most at-risk elements. the young sailors and marines who -- ages 18 to about 25. we have one program now that we require every service member as they -- when they come out of boot camp and they go into the

"a" school in the navy and every single one does, they have three 90-minute sessions on this. and we have found at great lakes where boot camp and the "a" schools are that sexuals is asss have declined pretty dra ma dramatically when we started this program. we're undertaking an initiative called 21st century navy and marine to make sure that the sailors and the marine comprise it have the tools to be resilient. we have found not just in sexual assault, but also in domestic violence, in obviously duis, in fitness, in child abuse, is the -- and in suicides is the presence of alcohol. and so we are undertaking programs to try to make sure

that we catch a problem before it creates a life altering or life ending or career altering or career ending event for somebody. we have run two pilot programs on this. one with the pacific submarine fleet in washington state. one at the naval academy. where we have tested for alcohol and all forms, domestic violence, sexual assault, suicide. duis, all the issues have gone down between 40% and 50% as a result of this program. so we're seeing some programs at work. they require very active command involvement. they require active leadership, you know by the commanding officers, the sergeant majors. but we are going to change the

culture. and make sure that these attacks cannot be perpetrated and it's better to prevent one than it is to prosecute one. but if one occurs we will hold people accountable, to the maximum extent we possibly can. >> i certainly do appreciate your efforts in this and the on going programs. i'm pleased to hear that. also i want to tell you that i'm pleased with the efforts that you're undertaking from the renewable energy source for the navy. thank you. >> thank you, senator hagen. senator sessions? >> thank you very much and thank you all, gentlemen, for being here. as a member of the budget committee, i know that the cuts you're already undertaking are very significant and i know that the sequester would be

catastrophic to the defense department. but it remains the law. the sequester is in law and will take effect unless congress takes action. i don't know that it would be that easy to fix it. i just want to tell you i think the president and the white house team and defense department team needs to be thinking about what we can do because i for one do not intend to eliminate the sequester totally, as the president's budget basically does. i think we'll have to find cuts in other programs in the remaining 60% plus of the budget that's been protected from any cuts. that needs -- that's where we need to find some savings too. it can't all come from the defense department. i would warn you we're headed to that time and it could be a problem that we don't have a real solid plan to get out of it. with regard to navy ship

building on the plan, you've got a four structure assessment coming up i believe, mr. secretary, and you have stated you intend to reach an inventory of 300 ships by 2019. would this assessment -- how confident are you that it will maintain that as a goal based on the budget and other things? do you expect that the committee -- the assessment on group could come back and recommend even less than 300 ships? >> i don't know what the four structure assessment is going to come back at, senator, but i feel confident that having a fleet of 300 ships around 300 ships will meet whatever structure or assessment or whatever strategy that drives that force structure assessment. and we do have that plan as you pointed out to get to 300 ships

by 2019. >> well, one thing about it, i may not be here and you may not be here in 2019. so plans when they get out too far don't have much reality to them. that's what worries me. i mean, we had a plan to have 316 ships and did have that many in 2001 when you took office. it had dropped to 283. and it was also taken from your remarks had gone down to 149,000 sailors. some of it is because we have better ships and need fewer ships to man them. i have to give the navy credit for that. with regard to the literal combat ship, i'm concerned about the overall reductions in that

budget in the future years of the defense plan. i understand it still remains a top navy priority to have 55 ships produced through that program. where are we in terms of cost and schedule for the lcs, mr. secretary or admiral? how does the current contract, the excuse of the program compare with the initial purchase of the first ship in that program? and how do you see that program developing? >> senator, i'm very proud of ships of both variance came in as lead ships do very expensive. very high priced. >> first in class is always more expensive no matter how you build it. >> it is. >> what does it look like now? >> the price has come down from the bids on the -- on ships 5, 6

and 7. the bids, the initial bids have come down from that by 40% and the price is coming down for every ship in this contract. we have a block buy of ten ships from each vendor. so a total of 20 ships. the tenth ship of each one will be significantly less expensive than the first ship. these are all fixed price contracts. so we're certain that we will reap these savings. we were able to get 20 ships instead of 19 as originally planned. and both shipyards are performing very well. the ships themselves as the c & o has mentioned is going to be one of the very important parts of the navy going forward. we're planning to forward deploy

lcss to singapore. the first one next year in a proof of concept and then on a more regular and permanent basis in the 2015 time frame. so we remain absoly platform but to buying out the entire 55. for purely budgetary reasons. we had to slide two at the end of this five-year plan to make the budget. but we remain committed to buying the entire class of 55 ships as quickly as we can. >> briefly, general amos, does an lcs provide benefits for the marine corps? >> senator, it could. there's been discussion between them about what we call a marine module. we have not done anything with it yet. but i think the possibilities

are there, absolutely. >> admiral, do you have any comments on that ship line? >> well, the combined with the mission module it will be a quantum leap in something like my countermeasure. we kind of mow the grass, and what we'll do is at the same time find them, localize them and neutralize them with unmanned vehicles and the volume will be three times the volume that we have today. so as we look at the challenges that we consider in the world today, the strait of hormuz and otherwise, imagine the capability enhancement. >> i know we're facing a lot of challenges with regard to the navy plans and the defense department plans. last -- less air force planes, and also less joint high speed

vessels. i'll submit you questions about the joint high speed vessel but it's a popular ship by the commanders who benefited from it? >> it has, yes. the best pack express which is what it's kind of based on has been successful. so there's great anticipation by the commanders for the joint executed vessel. >> well, it is being reduced. and maybe we can examine that. what are your thoughts about that? >> well, the -- what we looked at that and said, hey, i think we need 21. what if we recruit with the command people and with that it's 16 requirement to provide the same presence. we said if we operate these forward, if we forward station them, they're there. we can do that, we can get by with ten. we did a study on that. that's where the ten comes from. that's how it worked its way in that direction. subject to change in the world and the strategy, we think we're

good with ten, so do the commanders, sir. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. senator reid? hayou, and thank you for your service to the nation and for your naval services. admiral greenert, your budget includes and secretary mabus is a proposed delay of the ssb and x by two years. last year the navy testified that they needed the original schedule to maintain strategic deterrence patrol requirements which begs the question if this postponement is in effect, can you maintain the level of strategic systems patrolling duri t "y" class to the new class? >> today, senator, we have 14 ohio class submarines. two are in overhaul so that leaves with us 12 operational.

with that there are ten or nine available at any given time for strategic command. we feel due to this delay we will ride a period where we'll have ten operational. sometimes nine. so we'll have a similar risk there. we have to watch it very closely because at that time frame, in that future. i'm talking about the late '20s and '30s we'll have older ohio. so we have to watch it carefully. but right now we think that we can mitigate that risk. >> and in -- in thinking forward, what assumptions are you making because, you know, frankly you pointed out with the age of the fleet, if you're assuming sort of standard operational availability that assumption might not be very good ones. so are you making any heroic assumptions that fill the gap on paper? >> well, being navy nukes, with edon't try to be -- we don't try to be heroics.

>> i disagree. you're heroes. >> but the long term maintenance will be complete on the class at that time. we'll have shaken all that down. so far the returns on the extension of the ohio class, because that's what we're talking about in the time frame are good. we have to pay attention to the sea water systems, the hull measurements and the reactor plant components which are subjected to neutron eradiation. we have done this before. the returns are good so far. we must be vigilant. >> let me ask another related question. this is -- we touched upon in some private meetings. and the ohio replacement is part of the broader issue of the nuclear triad which for both strategic reasons and for economic reasons is going to have to go under significant re-evaluation. and it seems to me as i said before that given the historic

relative invulnerability of missile submarines, given the fact that this is really the only new strategic system that is being planned actively and funding being afforded to it, delaying it might have implications for the overall triad in terms of how do we maintain it? particularly if we find ourselves on the air and land side with the -- not enough assets or -- so this raises a huge question. i don't know if you have any comments today on that topic. >> that's a good question. we looked at the force structure, the nuclear strategic force structure, icbm bombers and the two-year delay is not -- we're comfortable with that in the department. with what we have to deliver as it stands today. now, as you know, there's a

study underway, post nuclear posture study subject to pending the results of that. we're comfortable. but we need to bring the ohio replacement in. it's important. it is the survival piece of the triad and the department has been pretty clear on that to us in general. >> changing subjects from ballistic missiles marines to attack submarines with the constant theme, virginia class within your budget is doing two a year. i thank you gentlemen for yo your -- and your predecessors for working on that. it took many years. but we're slipping one of the boats and that of course is a -- it causes problems in the overall course of the program and let me ask you either the secretary or the cno where you would concur that would add additional costs to the program over time and what steps you might take to mitigate if we

could include an additional ship allowing deal with that. either the cno -- >> there's an operational cost that i'll quickly allude to. there's ssn years, the requirements of the global commanders, and we have a deficit in the 20s and 30s. this will exacerbate that by moving the boat from 40 to 18. that's regrettable. 14 was a hard year for us. we retired ships earlier in that year. if we could work a procurement proc fiscal arrangement where we could -- and we will ask for multi-year, we'll ask for a block buy, and we have good data on our block buy where we have saved substantial amounts of money. as you alluded to, the work force learning curve is high, the vendors are good, everything comes about and we're getting these submarines in early.

if we could find a way to incrementally fund this, we believe -- we are confident there is substantial savings and we would get a tenth boat for less than nominal cost. >> it would be a cost savings in terms of doing this contractual rearrangement. and there's also the operational cost you'll have to bear because you just don't have enough ships capable to go to sea, so there are two portions that can be mitigated by this process. is that accurate? >> yes, sir, there is a capability, a capacity and a cost factor in these. >> and i presume that industry is seriously engaged with you to try to find a reasonable way to get this done. mr. secretary, if you want to comment. >> we're working with the industry, we're working to try to find innovative ways to fund

this so we can meet the mitigation that you and the ceo talked about. thank yo >> thank you. you look great. i wish i looked that good without an operation. so keep it up and tell those marines to keep going. thank you, sir. >> thank you, senator reed. senator wicker. >> thank you very much. mr. secretary, i was very pleased to receive word the other day that a memorandum of agreement had been signed for the lha-7 american class amph amphibian ship. this is very important for our future leader of the seas as we draw down forces in some areas of the world and focus on the asia pacific region. this will be a lynch pin in the american force. i assume we will see that final

contract concluded within a matter of weeks? >> senator, we anticipate that final contract before the end of april. >> excellent. thank you very much. well, let me ask you, then, both of you, secretary mavis, about the shipbuilding industrial bags. of course, your main concern is getting the job done. but we also have to be concerned about the employment peaks and valleys that we may see, and i noticed in your testimony, secretary mavis, we're not really back to 300 ships until 2019. the current one says we'll have

new construction of 41 ships. this is a decrease of some 17 ships from the previous bid. considering that and the fact that we're not going to even get within 13 ships of our requirement until 2019, what is that going to do to the so-called employment valleys where employment at the shipyards is here and dips down, then we'reec come ba have the capacity to go up to a previous level. how is that going to play >> you're absolutely correct that the industrial base is one of the things, particularly in shipbuilding, that we have to protect. once you lose those unique skills, it's very hard to get them back when you need them. one of the things that -- in

terms of that, we want to make sure we have an indusl that provides enough competition as possible so that we not only protect the base butars how muc we pay for ships. today av under contract, which, for -- a of our shipyards will keep them at a steady manning pace or for pestagula, for example, they have a lha-7 that you pointed out, they have lpd-26, and they are -- we're in negotiations over

lpd-27. and if you take all those and you project them forward, there's still going to be, at like that, some peaks and valleys, but we think we've smoothed it out the maximum that we can. in terms of our other shipbuilders, we only have one yard that builds auxiliarieauxi. we have -- they now have, in the current shipbuilding plan and in the request for about one ship per year which will keep them stable, but we keep a close eye on t industrial base, and on the competition inside the industrial base because sometimes one of the things that causes these peaks and valleys is not the welder out there, it's the overhead.

it's the amount of money that the shipbuilder decides is necessary in terms of the support services. and we keep a close eye on this, and we expect shipbuilders to do the same. but you're absolutely correct in your concern for the industrial base, and we certainly share that concern. >> admiral, if sequestration kicks in, what's it going to do with what secretary mavis was just talking about? and then, secretary, i'll let you answer that question also. >> in this strategy, one of the things we talk about is reverseability, and that's the ability to ramp up, if need be. but you have to have an industrial base to do that. in my view, if skrequestration kicks in, we will lose the capabilities that mr. mavis

referred to in some shipyards. when i do rough math, i'm looking at not 285 ships, i'm looking at 230 ships. we don't have enough structure to accrue that kind of savings without reducing procurement. so i'm very concerned about an industrial base that would be able to adjust from that, from sequestration. and it would be very difficult to keep a shipbuilder that could be efficient in the types of ships we need. >> say that again about 230 ships? >> we have 285 ships today. you do rough math, you look at the kind of numbers we talk about, and where i am today, you could end up -- it's just simple straight application of math -- we could be around 235 ships. >> mr. secretary? >> well, sequestration has two big problems, that there's been

a lot of conversation about, a lot of testimony about before you. one is the amount, but second is how the -- how it is implemented without regard for strategy, without regard for priorities, and you simply have to take a certain percentage out of every account. it would be a big issue for shipyards like the cno said. it would also be a big issue because we have to take a certain amount out of every single program line. there are some contracts we already have out there that we would have to take money from. so for both reasons, the amount that is being reduced and the way that they're being reduced, i believe that secretary panet