WILLIAM M. TEXAS. CHAIRMAN ADAM SMITH. WASHINGTON, RANKING MEMBER WALTER B. JONES. NORTH CAROLINA ROBERT A. BRADY. JOE WILSON. SOUTH CAROLINA SUSAN A. DAVIS. CALIFORNIA FRANK A. LCIBIONDD, NEW JERSEY JAMES R, LANGEVIN. RHODE ISLAND ROB BISHOP. UTAH RICK LARSEN. WASHINGTON MICHAEL H. TURNER, OHIO JIM COOPER. TENNESSEE MIKE ROGERS. ALABAMA MADELEINE BORDALLO. GUAM BILL SHUSTER. COMMI I I EE ON ARMED SERVICES JOE COURTNEY. CONNECTICUT K. MICHAELCONAWAY. TEXAS NIKI TSONGAS. DOUG LAMBORN. COLORADO JOHN GARAMENDI. CALIFORNIA ROBERT J. WIT-TMAN. VIRGINIA I - JACKIE SPEIER. CALIFORNIA DUNCAN HUNTER. CALIFORNIA ?01158 [It ?eprt?entatlh BS MARC A. VEASEY. TEXAS MIKE COFFMAN, COLORADO VICKY MISSOURI TULSI GAEBARD. HAWAII BETO TEXAS AUSTIN SCOTT. GEORGIA EEG: 20515?6035 DONALD NORCROSS. NEW JERSEY MO RUBEN ARIZONA PAUL COOK. CALIFORNIA SETH MOULTON. MASSACHUSETTS JIM BRIDENSTINE. OKLAHOMA ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS COLLEEN HANABUSA. HAWAII BRAD R. WENSTRUP. OHIO CAROL SHEA-PORTER. NEW HAMPSHIRE BRADLEY BYRNE. ALABAMA JACKY ROSEN. NEVADA SAM GRAVES. MISSOURI A. DONALD VIRGINIA ELISE M. STEFANIK. NEW YORK SALUD o. CARBAJAL. CALIFORNIA MARTHA ARIZONA ANTHONY (3. BROWN. MARYLAND STEPHEN KNIGHT. CALIFORNIA . STEPHANIE N. MURPHY. FLORIDA STEVE RUSSELL. OKLAHOMA RO KHANNA. CALIFORNIA DESJARLAIS. TENNESSEE June 27 2018 TOM ARIZONA RALPH LEE ABRAHAM. LOUISIANA THOMAS R. SUOZZI. NEW YORK TRENT KELLY. MISSISSIPPI JIMMY CALIFORNIA MIKE GALLAGHER, WISCONSIN MATT FLORIDA DON BACON. NEBRASKA JIM BANKS. INDIANA LIZ CHENEY. WYOMING JUDY B. HICE. GEORGIA The Honorable Kay Granger Chairwoman House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense 1026 Longworth House Office Building Washington DC, 20515 Dear Chairwoman Granger: We were disappointed to see Deputy Secretary Shanahan?s letter today opposing our amendment to the 2019 defense appropriations bill. We wanted to take a moment to share with you our response. First, his letter states that our amendment would require $6 billion in cuts to other programs in future years. This is not accurate. Our amendment provides funding for a submarine reactor, economic order of quantity ?mding and other elements that the Navy identified as being needed to ensure that they could explore options in the Block negotiations to expand submarine production. While it is our hope that this funding can be used to achieve a three- submarine build rate in 2022 and 2023 as identified in the Navy?s 30-year shipbuilding plan, it is our understanding that if the Navy does not pursue the option of additional submarines above the ten?boat baseline, those materials will be absorbed into the submarines already programmed into the budget. Our amendment does not lock the Congress, or the Department, into any course of action. It does, however, provide options not currently available under the President?s budget request. As you know, Congress has a long record of successfully expanding submarine construction plans. In 2007, Congress authorized and funded long lead?time materials for a second submarine in 2011, which was not planned for in the Navy?s budget at the time. After Congress acted, the Navy signed the ?Block 111? contract that included that additional submarine, which achieved the two-a-year build rate. In 2012, Congress authorized and funded long lead materials for one additional submarine in the next block contract, which was not planned for in the Navy?s budget at the time. With Congress?s action, the Navy signed the ?Block contract JENNIFER M. STEWART, STAFF DIRECTOR The Honorable Kay Granger June 27, 2018 Page 2 that added that additional submarine and led to the approval of the ?largest shipbuilding contract in US. Navy history?. Our amendment continues that record. Second, the letter notes the well?known shortfalls in attack submarine inventory. For the record, that shortfall will lead to an attack submarine ?eet of just 42 boats a decade from now one-third less than required under the current FSA. Currently, the department?s plans would not achieve a 66 submarine force until 2048 thirty years from now. This year, and for several years prior, combatant commanders, defense of?cials and outside experts have repeatedly weighed in on the excessive risk posed by this shortfall. In many cases, adding submarines to our ?eet has been cited as a top priority given the evolving threats we face around the globe. We have included a summary of some of the more pertinent testimony Congress has heard recently to this letter, which our amendment responds to. Third, the letter outlines the concerns regarding the reallocated funding in our amendment. As you may know, these offsets have been extensively reviewed in the preparation of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, which passed the House last month in a vote of 351?66. Prior to now, we had not heard any concerns regarding these offsets, or objections to the House?passed increase for Virginia class submarines as re?ected in this amendment, as part of that bill. Nor were we aware of similar objections to the FY2018 NDAA or the FY2018 Omnibus, which authorized the Navy to seek a block contract of up to thirteen Virginia class submarines. Finally, we would share that our amendment has garnered support from a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Most relevant to our discussion in this letter is the support we?ve received from former ?ag officers who express their concern with the submarine shortfall and urge prioritization of additional submarine funding among the department?s many priorities and needs. We have attached these letters for your review. We hope you will reconsider your position on this amendment given this additional information. We remain available to you at any time to discuss our effort and how we might be able to work together to achieve the larger submarine ?eet our nation needs. Sincerely, ert J. Wittman Joe Courtney Chairman Ranking Member Subcommittee on Seapower Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces and Projection Forces Attachments Congressional Testimony on the Importance of Virginia?Class Submarines James N. Mattis, Secretary of Defense ?We -- sir, we aiways need more submarines.? HASC, 12 April 2018 General Joseph F. Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ?The numbers of the submarines that are being requested even today, Senator, by the combatant commanders falls iess than the inventory that we have.? SA GD, 27 April 2016 Admiral Harry Harris Commander of US. Pacific Command, 2014-2018 ?And you know, my requirements for submarines are only met by about haif now . . . I?ve said before that I don?t have enough just in submarine numbers alone, I don?t have what I need.? 14 February 2018 ?The Navy can only meet about 50 percent of my stated requirement for attack'submarines . . . from a joint combatant commander perspective, I need more submarines . . . Our competitors are working and investing hard to close those gaps, and we have to continue to resource our submarine force in order to keep that gap a gap.? 26 April 201 7 ?So as a combatant commander, for example, I only get 50 percent of the submarines that I think I need . . . I?m completely supportive of the effort to move to the left construction of these Virgintarclass submarines. They would clearly increase our nation?s capability and, if assigned to PACOM, capability . . . China and Russia are closing that gap and they?re working to reduce our asymmetric advantage.? SASC, 2 7 April 201 7 don?t have the submarines thatI feel I need, but that?s a function of the total number of submarines that the United States Navy has and the global demand for that platform . . . My priority, given the way you frame the question is clearly submarines.? HASC, 24 February 2016 ?My submarine requirement as a combatant commander in the Pacific is not being met and that?s solely because of numbers . . . I?m just one of many COCOMS that would tell you that. But that? 5 our principle asymmetric advantage over China and any other adversary. And I think we have to keep after it . . . The Paci?c is the principal space where submarines are the most important war?ghting capability we have. As far as the Virginia-class submarines, it?s the best thing we have. It?s the best thing we have and I can?t get enough of them and I can?t get enough of them fast enough.? SASC, 23 February 2016 General Curtis M. Scaparrotti, Commander of US. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander ?We?ve seen activity in the Russian Navy, and particularly undersea in their submarine activity, that we haven?t seen since the ?805 . . . we need to pace and be able to deal wit 15 March 2018 ?[Russia] is producing several different classes of new submarines. They?re very capable and will challenge us. And so we do have plans to increase ours, but we need to continue to invest in that.? HASC, 28 March 2017 don?t have . . . the submarine capacity that would best enable me to do my job in SASC, 23 March 201 7 General Philip M. Breedlove Commander of U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander, 2013-2016 ?These undersea assets are very highly sought-after assets. I'lljust factuaily say I do not get what I've asked for.? HASC, 25 February 2016 Admiral James G. Stavridis Commander of U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander, 2009-2013 ?Now I wouid say we?re back up to a level of activity that I would say is probably 70 to 80 percent of what we saw during Cold War times, and that implies more patrols coming closer to the United States, more probing kinds of activities . . . [Russia?s] submarine force in particular is extremely high-tech and extremely capable and is a real instrument that is being used most aggressively at this point.? HASC, 10 February 2016 General Lori J. Robinson, Commander of U.S. Northern Command and NORAD ?The strategic advancements in Russian submarine ?eets demonstrate their capability to threaten our homelands for the years to come.? SASC, 15 February 2018 John F. Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, 1981-1987 ?[Russians] have spent their money wisely from their point of view, and that is in submarine warfare . . . they are building submarines that are formidable threats. And so it?s a focused threat. To deter that, we need more capability.? SASC, 18 July 2017 Admiral John M. Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations ?This Navy requires a bigger fleet, more ships, submarines, aircraft and special operations forces. Congress agreed with the conclusions of several thoughtful studies and a 355~ship Navy is now the law of the land. . .And while there will always be a debate about the ?nal number of ships to build, and that will ?uctuate with the security environment in any given year, we can all agree on one thing: the Navy must get bigger and the demand signal is to start building now.? HA GD, 7 March 2018 ?We?ll take every submarine that we can get right now, sir . . . We?re looking to increase production of submarines.? SASC, 15 June 201 7 ?That [Virginia] shipbuilding team is remarkable. It is a partnership between the government and them in terms of driving that cost down. You just have to visit the facility . . . to hear them talk about how they?re driving cost out of the submarine at every step of the way.? SAC-D, 2 March 2016 Richard V. Spencer, Secretary of the Navy ?When it comes to the Virginia-class which, by the way, for any of those of you who are interested, it is probably one of our best-performing undersea contracts if not all contracts that we have over its period of time, as far as performance per dollar . . 20 March 2018 James F. Geurts, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition ?I?m still committed to having options in that contract for additional submarines in ?22 and ?23, should that be something we jointly decide to do . . HASC Seapower, 12 Aprii 2018 do believe there is capacity to get to three submarines a year in the off-year of Columbia -- three Virginia submarines a year. I think that?s the case. As you know, we?ve gotten through going up to two submarines per year, and we?re in a sustainable serial production rate there. And so I?m comfortable saying there?s actually capacity there in the yard.? HASC Seapower, 20 March 2018 ?Where I think the Navy is doing extraordinary job is on submarines. We can roll in new technology constantly into the submarines even though the design is pretty stable.? SASC Seapower, 1 7 April 2018 Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, 2009?2017 ?The Virginia class, with its technologies and its capabilities, and particularly as we improve on those, the Virginias that we?re building now are vastly improved from the Virginia, the ?rst sub in its class.? ?m HA GD, 1 March 2016 ?And we?re trying every way we can, working with you, working with Congress, to ?gure out a way to have that three submarine a year build, because if we don?t, if we miss a year on a Virginia, it?s going to make the attack submarine situation, particularly in the late 2020s, early 20305, even more significant.? SASC, 15 March 2016 11 June 2018 The Honorable Mac Thornberry The Honorable Adam Smith Chairman, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee House Armed Services Committee The Honorable Robert Wittman The Honorable Joe Courtney Chairman, Ranking Member, Seapower and Projection Forces Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee Subcommitee Dear Chairmen Thornberry and Wittrnan, and Ranking Members Smith and Courtney, Thank you for your leadership in passing another timely and insightful NDAA for 2019. In my opinion your respective committees have led the way in Congress in proposing strategic and coherent defense related legislation. i want to pass along my belief in the importance of this bill?s provision regarding the expansion of our undersea capabilities - particularly the submarine fleet. During my 40?year career, including my tenure as CNO, our Navy ?owned? the undersea domain. Navy's superiority in the undersea domain has been unchallenged, predominantly due to the excellence of the submarine force. This is no longer assured. Real threats are emerging fast. Our industrial base builds the finest submarines in the world. Combatant Commanders consistently request a robust submarine presence. And, the demand for submarine presence has grown even more since i retired in 2015. Navy?s recent Force Structure Assessment. embraced by the Executive and Legislative Branches, validates a need for 66; submarines. The need is real and urgent. However, without near term additional legislative action our fleet is on track to reach 41 attack submarines by 2029. This will leave our future civilian and military ieaders woefully short of a key platform to meet emerging challenges in the undersea (and surface) domain. The House 2019 NDAA recognized that sustaining an SSN build rate of twosper? year would not arrest, and reverse, the decline in the undersea fleet. Authorizing additional resources for increased SSN production, specificaliy preserving the option to use available industrial capacity in 2022 and 2023 to reach a three?per-year build rate, is exactly the kind of thoughtful and tangible legislative action, and messaging, we need. Again, your respective committees are leading the way. As Congress continues its work on defense authorization and appropriation in the near term, i would urge your colleagues to see the opportunity and flexibility inherent in this option - and support the plan laid out in the 2019 NDAA passed by the House. Our undersea superiority is being challenged. The recent acknowledged lose 0f intellectual property (See Dragon) is a recent example. I urge the Congress to embrace this unique opportunity presented by the House 2019 NDAA. Our security depends on this sort of bold and innovative action. Sincerely. WW ?aw] JONATHAN W, GREENERT ADMIRAL, USN (Retired) June 17, 2018 The Honorable Mac Thornbeny Chairman, House Armed Services Committee The Honorable Adam Smith Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee The HonorableRobert Wittman Chairman, Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee The Honorable Joe Courtney Ranking Member, Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee Dear Chairmen Thornberry and Wittman and Ranking Members Smith and Courtney: I appreciate your Committee?s and Subcommittee?s support of the U.S. Navy re?ected in your markup of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy and your NDAA address and articulate the realities of once again confronting peer adversaries. In that regard, our undersea dominance will be challenged aggressively and simultaneously in several geographic regions. Whoever controls the undersea domain and sea lanes vital to us and our allies will have the upper hand in crisis and con?ict history bears that out and our time is no different. Investments in capabilities (sensors, communications, weapons and quiet propulsion, etc.) will matter greatly but submarine capacity, the number of submarines we have to dominate in dispersed geographic areas, is vital. In confronting peer adversaries at sea we must acknowledge and anticipate high~end, complex maritime warfare will result in some loss of capital assets which cannot be replaced quickly. Our submarines, because of their lethality, will be aggressively hunted and we must anticipate losses in that force. The Navy?s recent Force Structure Assessment (FSA) validates the need for 66 attack submarines (I believe that number should path to 41 in 2029. The House 2019 NDAA recognizes this shortfall and thought?illy and prudently seeks to enable increasing the Virginia Class submarine build rate to three ships per year in 2022 and 2023 by authorizing expenditures to that end. Our peer adversaries are investing in research, technology and capacity. This is not what we think they will do. it is what they are doing. Our submarines and the industrial base that produces them are superior but we will need more of them and it in the coming years. We must continue to maintain our dominance and I urge your committee and your colleagues in the Senate and those on the House and Senate Appropriation Committees to de?nitively provide for at least three submarines in ?scal years 2022 and 202.3. The gap in submarine capacity between the U.S. and our peer competitors is growing to our disadvantage. Proactive investments must be made now to arrest that growing disparity in submarine force structure and avoid the consequences nl? being. for the ?rst time in decades. at a disadvantage under the sea. Sincerely, Gary Rougl eadV Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired) \dmil'ztl Vail?. INN Rt'tit'ui Rutiit' Ill'iu- l?uutr ulru, 32082?23!? June 12. 2018 The Honorable Mac Thornberry The Honorable Adam Smith Chairman. Ranking Member. House Armed Services Committee House Armed Services Committee The Honorable Robert The Honorable Joe Courtney Chairman, Ranking Member, Seapower and Projection Forces Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee Subcommittee Dear Chairmen Thornberry. and Wittman. and Ranking Members Smith and Courtney: I am Robert J. Natter. Admiral. US Navy Retired. I am submitting to you my personal views and strong endorsement in support of one particular 2019 NDAA provision regarding our nation's submarine fleet. I want you to know that am not a submariner (I was a surface warfare of?cer); I am not a constituent; I do not live in a State that builds our nation?s submarines; and I do not consult for or represent in any way our two major submarine building shipyards. I do address this important issue from my perspective as a former Seventh Fleet Commander dealing with. among other challenges. North Korea. China. Freedom of Navigation operations around Taiwan and in Southeast and East Asia waters. and the readiness and combat planning associated with US Navy forces throughout Asia and Indian Ocean waters. was also Commander of US Fleet Forces Command for three years and in that capacity was responsible for training. equipping and deploying all US-based Navy forces in response to national tasking. Since I left the service. threats to our nation and our potential adversaries' capabilities have increased signi?cantly. in the meantime our forces. while improving technologically. have diminished in numbers while being tasked at a level not seen since Cold War days. The Navy?s recent Force Structure Assessment clearly validates the need for increased ship and aircraft numbers to meet our defense needs. It also clearly validated the need for a MINIMUM of 66 attack submarines (SSNs). Having said that. we are now on a dangerous build slope of having only 41 SSNs by 2029. The House 2019 NDAA agreed that the current build rate of two submarines per year would not reverse the decline of our undersea fleet. Authorizing additional dollars for increased SSN production to reach a three-per~year build rate addresses our national security disadvantage while reducing the unit cost of these valuable assets. As you and your Committees work with the Appropriators I encourage all your fellow members to embrace and support the build plan called for in the 2019 House NDAA with its increased build rate for our SSN ?eet. In my view. ifthere is sufficient funding for only one more weapon or ship system. that ship should be an SSN. This is due to its inherent survivability. flexibility (anywhere on the globe) and effectiveness against the highest and threats. 1 urge you and your fellow Congressional leaders to convince your colieagues that this provision is necessary, cost effective, and the right thing to do for our country. Thank you for your continuing service to our nation and strong leadership in Congress on behalf of our defense needs. Most sincereiy, Robert Natter Admirai. US Navy Retired June 12, 2018 The Honorable Mac Thornberry The Honorable Adam Smith Chairman Ranking Member House Armed Services Committee House Armed Services Committee The Honorable Robert Wittman The Honorable Joe Courtney Chairman Ranking Member Seapowe?r and Projection Forces Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee Subcommittee Dear Chairmen Thomberry and Wittman, and Ranking Members Smith and Courtney: Thank you for passing the National Defense Authorization bill for FY2019 out of the House, especially the bill?s provisions relating to the needed expansion of our undersea fleet. Submarines are critically important to national security. During my time as Commander of the Submarine Force from 2012 to 2015, I struggled to pace the growing undersea needs of combatant commanders around the world. Many high priority missions can only be accomplished by submarines because peer competitors improved their anti?access technology and long?range strike capability. Submarine demand continues to grow. The most recent force structure assessment that increased the attack submarine requirement from 48 to 66. Without additional action, our undersea ?eet will drop to 41 attack submarines in 2029. This reduced ?eet size will leave our civilian leaders and military commanders without the tools they need to keep ahead of changing threats and challenges around the globe. Mitigating this decline in the undersea ?eet should be a top priority for the Navy, the Congress, and our nation. The 2019 NDAA as passed by the House last month recognizes that simply sustaining the two-a- year production rate of Virginia-class submarines will not arrest the decline in our undersea ?eet. By authorizing additional resources for increase submarine production, the bill preserves the option for utilizing available capacity in 2022 and 2023 to achieve a three?submarine build rate in those years. This Will reduce the looming shortfall we face in the coming decade and help alleviate the unis?match in submarine demand and resources. As Congress continues its work on the defense authorization and funding measures in the weeks ahead, I would urge your colleagues to support the plan you have laid out in the 2019 NDAA passed by the House. At a time when our nation?s leading edge in the undersea domain is being challenged by competitors around the world, this is an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss. Sincerely, 9 Camp Michael J. Connor Vice Admiral (ret), U. S. Navy