Official websites use .mil
Secure .mil websites use HTTPS
Below is a transcript of the remarks as delivered:
JACK REED:
Good morning. The committee meets today to consider the nomination of Admiral Lisa Franchetti to be the next Chief of Naval Operations. Admiral, congratulations on your nomination. I would like to thank your husband Jim and your daughter Isabel for their many years of support for your service to the nation.
Admiral, you bring a wealth of experience and expertise to this position. You have served in leadership roles at every level throughout the Navy, both ashore and at sea and with postings around the globe. As a current vice chief, you have an important perspective on the key challenges for the Navy. Your understanding of the Joint Force and the Navy's ever expanding role within it will be critical.
If confirmed, you would also be the first woman to serve as CNO and on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I am glad we've reached this moment. The Navy faces a dangerous and evolving global security environment. Certainly, threats from Russia, Iran, North Korea, and violent extremist groups remain persistent and the Navy has an important role to play in addressing them.
But the clear pacing challenge for our naval forces is China. In the Indo-Pacific and in the seas and ports around the world, the United States Navy will continue to be the first line of deterrence and defense against China's expanding global ambitions. Key to the Navy's success will be a fully developed fleet.
In its most recent budget request, the Navy requested nine new ships including several submarines, destroyers, frigates, and logistics vessels. At the same time, the Navy proposed retiring a number of ships before the end of their service lives, including several littoral combat ships and dock landing ships.
I understand the Navy made the difficult choice to retire some of these ships now to free up more resources in the future. But it seems that this plan would take us in the opposite direction of the Navy's goal for a larger fleet, particularly with regard to the amphibious force structure. Admiral, I'd like to know how you plan to balance these competing demands as well as your views on the Navy's 30 year shipbuilding plan.
Readiness is also a challenge for the service. Naval forces continue to maintain a high operations tempo across all areas and demand is overwhelming for attack submarines, cruisers, destroyers, and strike fighters. As a result, deferred ship maintenance, reduced steaming, and flying hours and canceled training and deployments have created serious readiness problems within the Navy.
I am concerned that the Navy will not be able to maintain a larger fleet of ships when it is struggling to maintain its current force. Admiral, I would ask again for your views on these challenges. I would note the United States greatest comparative disadvantage -- excuse me, greatest comparative advantage over China is our global network of allies and partners.
The recent agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States to collaborate on nuclear submarine production through the AUKUS partnership is a meaningful step forward. Successful implementation of this plan will require responsible oversight and a stable industrial base. Admiral, I hope you will share also your views on what we have in terms of the capacity to produce now and in the future and how we can provide the budget and resources to match the demands.
Finally, your highest priority must be ensuring the readiness of your sailors to perform their missions. If confirmed, you will be expected to support a culture of leadership, trust, and teamwork throughout the force with no tolerance for behavior that erodes that culture. Admiral, I would ask that you share again your thoughts on this responsibility.
I'm confident that you have the skills and experience to provide the nation's sailors, their families, and Navy civilian employees with the leadership they deserve. Thank you again for your continued willingness to serve and I look forward to your testimony. And let me now recognize the Ranking Member, Senator Wicker.
ROGER WICKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Admiral, for being here and certainly a welcome to your family. It's good that they were able to -- to be with us today. Your nomination comes at a pivotal point for our Navy. The National Defense Strategy rightly identifies China as our pacing threat as the Chair just said.
But as China grows its fleet to historic levels, our naval forces continue to shrink and our readiness levels decline. As the Chairman just said, when you add the numbers up, it amounts to our fleet going in the wrong direction. A recent memo from the Office of Naval Intelligence suggests that China's shipbuilding capacity is more than 230 times larger than our own.
I can hardly believe I'm speaking these words. 230 times larger in shipbuilding capacity. These are not comforting thoughts when we consider the growing number of general and flag officers who warn that China could be capable of invading -- invading Taiwan in the next two to four years. While China builds its maritime strength, American command of the seas is increasingly at risk.
And you and I have discussed this in our private meeting. So far we've not made progress toward the statutory goal of 355 ships that I proposed and that was signed into law six years ago. Of course, we now know that we're being told by the experts in our Department of Defense, both civilian and flag officers, that that number is frankly more than 355 ships.
Additionally, surface ship maintenance delays and cost overruns are so routine that they're factored into our planning timetables. There are even some ships like the USS Vicksburg that have been in repair and modernization for seven years. It's as if the Navy never really means to get the Vicksburg back in action.
Chairman Reed is -- is exactly right about the competing demands that we face. I particularly am pleased that he mentioned attack submarines and the need for littoral combat ships. The story of our attack submarines is this. A recent press report revealed that over a third -- one third of the Navy's attack submarines are unavailable as they enter repair cycles.
That's a third of our attack submarines. We should be producing somewhere between 2.3 and 2.5 attack submarines a year to fulfill our own requirements as we implement AUKUS. Instead, we're down to building 1.2 attack submarines per year as compared to the required 2.3 to 2.5. And the -- the path back toward two per year is based on hopes and wishes.
The crisis is nothing short of historic as we are unprepared for strategic surprise from China. As our Pacific Fleet, we are as -- as unprepared as our fleet was for the Japanese attack on the eve of Pearl Harbor in 1941. We need to act and let me say this, Admiral. I cherish our Constitution and our long standing principle that goes back to George Washington.
The uniformed military, which the Chairman and I were both members of, are answerable to the civilian elected leadership of this country. And that says it should be. It's one of the shining examples. But also the Constitution gives the power of the purse to the Congress. And we sit here under the Constitution able to make the decisions about purchasing power.
The power of the purse does not rest in the Office of Management and Budget in the White House. And so there's a competing interest there. And I -- I take this opportunity of your hearing today to remind my colleagues also that it is we who have the responsibility to find you the money you need to get you the Navy that will protect us and keep us at peace.
Admiral Franchetti, you served as Vice Chief of Naval Operations and as commander of the Sixth Fleet. I think you -- your experiences make you deeply qualified and -- and deeply familiar with the problems our Navy faces. You also know how damaging delays are. So in addition to the questions that the Chair mentioned, I'd appreciate your thoughts today on a way forward, especially for our submarines as we move into the AUKUS agreement as well as your commitment to work with this committee on the vital issue of ship maintenance.
Our second challenge the Navy faces is fielding new technical solutions at what former Secretary of Defense Mattis called the speed of relevance, in other words, within and -- within a time window. Speedily enough that it keeps us ahead of our adversaries. The speed of -- of relevance. Industry and naval research have made major breakthroughs in unmanned warfare, additive manufacturing, and maritime minds [ph] in only the past few years.
If we have any hope of shoring up our eroding deterrence in the Western Pacific, it will take the rapid integration of these capabilities at scale in the next two years or so. So again, Admiral Franchetti, I'd like to hear from you about how the Navy plans to achieve this integration at -- at the speed of relevance.
The Navy has always been our first line of defense, keeping the peace by deterring war and protecting the national interest. This goes as far back as our founding. Admiral Franchetti, I know that you agree with these sentiments and I'm hopeful they'll keep them in mind as you stand for this important position.
I look forward to your testimony and hearing more about your vision for our Navy's future. Your tenure can be a turning point in our national defense and I hope it is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Senator Wicker. Admiral, your remarks please.
LISA FRANCHETTI:
Thank you. Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Wicker, distinguished members of this committee, it is my privilege to appear before you today. I am humbled to have been nominated to serve as the 33rd Chief of Naval Operations and I want to thank each of you for your steadfast support to our sailors, our Navy, civilians, and all of our Navy families.
That support ensures that we have what we need to be ready every day to stand the watch around the world in support of our great nation. I have long understood that no one can reach this level of leadership on their own. And this morning, I just want to take a minute to recognize my family who makes my service possible.
My husband Jim, a former sailor himself and the chief operating officer of our family, and our daughter Isabel, a senior at Jackson Reed High School, who tells me that despite seven moves, two tours overseas, and two deployments, she wouldn't change a thing. I am grateful for their support and proud of their service to our Navy and to our Navy families.
They, along with my sister Meg, brother Lawrence, Uncle Lynn, Aunt Sue, Aunt Carmen, and my mother in law Mary, who are watching today and my parents who are here in spirit make everything possible. In 1981 as a journalism major at Northwestern, the Navy was the farthest thing from my mind, but a chance meeting with some Naval ROTC students during my freshman orientation week changed the course of my life forever.
They told me I could get free textbooks, $100 a month, and possibly a scholarship. I signed up on the spot. And while I joined for free college and a chance to see the world, I stayed for the mission and for the people. Like Isobel, I wouldn't change a thing either. It has been the honor of my lifetime to command at every level of our Navy.
From a destroyer, a destroyer squadron, two carrier strike groups to a numbered fleet and a NATO striking and support force. And if confirmed, I will continue to bring my fleet warfighting lens to bear in everything I do. For the past 247 years, our Navy has stood the watch. We operate forward with the Marine Corps to do whatever it takes to preserve the peace, prepare for war, and win decisively if called.
We do this consistent with the priorities set forth in the National Defense Strategy and with an ironclad commitment to integrated deterrence. Right now, the USS Gerald R Ford, the most advanced warship ever built, is deployed with its strike group in the Mediterranean Sea to support NATO and deter Russia.
The USS Bataan Amphibious Readiness Group with the 26 Marine Expeditionary Unit embarked is in the Arabian Gulf as part of the US effort to deter Iran from disrupting the flow of commerce in the region. Just last week, the USS Ralph Johnson sailed through the Taiwan Strait on a routine mission to exercise freedom of navigation and demonstrate our commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific.
And in the last month, the Navy has supported search and rescue operations following the devastating fires in Maui and has provided assets to help deliver aid to those affected by a volcanic eruption in Papua New Guinea. If confirmed, I will act with urgency and purpose to ensure that we continue to deliver the Navy the nation needs.
In doing so, I will focus on the following areas. First, sharpen our warfighting edge. The threat is real, the pace is accelerating, and it is our duty to excel in all domain combat as part of the joint force and alongside our allies and partners. Second, strengthen our Navy team. Our sailors and civilians are our competitive advantage and we need to continue to provide them the tools, the training, the education, and the support they need to be the best team for our country.
And third, fortify the foundation. A Navy that is aligned and resourced to ensure warfighting wholeness is essential to maintaining the peace and winning decisively if called. I am proud to be a United States sailor and I am inspired every day by the words of our sailors creed which states, I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world.
I proudly serve my country's Navy combat team with honor, courage and commitment. Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you very much, Admiral. I have a series of standard questions for nominees. You please respond appropriately. Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest?
Yes, Chairman.
Have you assumed any duties or taking any actions that would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process?
No, Chairman.
Exercising our legislative and oversight responsibility makes it important that this committee, its subcommittees, and other appropriate committees of Congress receive testimony, briefings, reports, records, and other information from the executive branch on a timely basis. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify before this committee when requested?
Do you agree when asked before this committee to give your personal views, even if your views differ from the administration?
Do you agree to provide records, documents, and electronic communications in a timely manner when requested by this committee, its subcommittees, or other appropriate committees of Congress and to consult with the requester regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing such records?
Will you ensure that your staff complies with deadlines established by this committee for the production of reports, records, and other information including timely responding to hearing questions for the record?
While you co -- you -- will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefings in response to Congressional request?
Will those witnesses and briefers be protected from reprisal for the testimony or briefings?
Well, thank you very much, Admiral. And your outstanding service, I think, predicts an outstanding tenure as the Chairman of Joint Chiefs -- excuse me, it was the CNO. [laughter] I'm a little confused. Your biography reveals that you've served on three destroyers including having commanded the USS Ross. You also served under Destroyer Tender and an oiler earlier in your career.
Subsequently, you were a destroyer squadron commander, a carrier strike group commander, the Commander of the United States Sixth Fleet. You have had a great deal of time at sea and how do you believe this sea duty has prepared you for your responsibilities as CNO?
Chairman, as I said, it really has been the honor of my lifetime to have this opportunity to command and lead. Through all of those commands, I've had the opportunity to build great war fighting combat teams. I've seen firsthand our sailors in action and I've had the opportunity to see the resources that they need to be able to do their job.
I've had the chance to serve in every fleet in our Navy operating in the Pacific, operating all around South America, operating in the Atlantic, up in the high north, in the -- in the Mediterranean, and in the Middle East. And between my operational experience and my time working in force development, design, and strategy and policy, I think this really fills out my capability and my experience to be able to serve as the CNO if confirmed.
So you understand that noncommissioned officers really have great advice and you always listen?
I do. In fact in my first division, which was 70 people down in engineering, I had two amazing Chief petty Officers, Chief Satriano [ph] and Chief Salvatore [ph] who taught me everything I needed to know about my equipment and my sailors and I thank them to this day.
Thank you, Admiral. We've both alluded to, Senator Wicker and I, the problems with ship maintenance, trying to keep ships at sea and when too many are really waiting for overhauls or repairs. I know the Navy is pursuing a modernization of the public shipyard, which has resulted in some productivity improvements.
But how will the Navy be able to maintain a larger fleet in the future when you can't keep up with maintaining fewer than 300 ships today?
Chairman, maintenance has been a big focus of mine as the Vice Chief of Naval Operations. And my goal, if confirmed, is to make sure that we get as many players on the field all the time. And we cannot do that if we have ships that are delayed getting into maintenance or getting out of maintenance. If confirmed, I will continue to focus on really three areas.
The first is workforce development. This really is a similar challenge that our private industry faces in making sure that we bring in the talent that we need and we retain it to do the work they need to do on our ships and our submarines. The second really is to work on using data analytics to understand the flow of work through the shipyard and how we can expedite that and be most effective in getting the maintenance done.
And the third is really to make sure they have the parts and supplies they need ahead of time to be able to do that.
Thank you. I think also there's an issue in, again, Senator Wicker's sort of made the case very eloquently that is a responsibility primarily of Congress, but that is to ensure that you have the capacity to do this. Do you think there has to be increased capacity?
Chairman, we have continued to make progress in decreasing our days of maintenance delay and getting the ships in and out. I'm not satisfied with that progress and I think with the workforce development being able to put additional shifts online, I'd like to work through that as we continue to see what else we would need for additional capacity.
Thank you. One of the issues that is significant and growing more significant each day is congested [ph] logistics, especially in a fight in the Pacific. Quickly, in the remaining time, can you give me a sense of your approach to this issue of congested [ph] logistics?
Well, Senator, I think there's a lot of historical examples that amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics. And logistics has been a key focus area of mine, especially during my time as a fleet commander where we conducted a big war game and we realized that we really needed to conduct an independent war game to get after those contested logistics challenges.
So if confirmed, I will continue to focus on better understanding the needs of our fleet to be resupplied, making sure that they can be as resilient as possible to decrease the need for contested logistics to flow. But also making sure that we have the ships and all the different capacities we need to be able to get our warfighters what they need when they need it.
And the Navy plays a critical role, particularly in the Pacific, because it's not just self-sustainment of the Navy, you're the critical link to our Air Force facilities, Army and Marine Corps facilities. So again, I urge you to focus and I know you will. With that, let me recognize the Ranking Member for his questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Admiral, let me just jump right into a question about block buys for amphibious ships. The Navy has used block buys or year procurement authorities on programs like destroyers, carriers, and nuclear submarines. And yet, it has not used these authorities for amphibious ships despite Congressional support.
Strategically procuring multiple ships has the demonstrated effects of lowering cost and providing stability to the industrial base, which is very, very essential to our shipbuilding and our infrastructure. If confirmed, would you advocate for a block buy of amphibious ships?
Senator, our amphibious ships are a critical part of our Navy and I'm a big supporter of our Navy Marine Corps team and continuing to work with General Smith to make sure that we are meeting all the requirements of the Marine Corps. As we look to build our amphibious ships, again, we're looking for the requirements that we need to make sure that we get the best ship at the best cost.
Ma'am, are you -- are you going to answer the question though? Are you still going to take that under consideration? Are you not prepared to -- to commit to this committee that you would advocate for block buys and that type of ship?
For all of our ships, I like to look at getting the best price for our ships. So I will take for consideration the best way we can use the taxpayer dollars to get the ships we need at the best price.
That's -- that's all you're willing to say. Let me just urge you. There's a reason why we have Congressional -- we have specific Congressional support for this. And -- and so I would hope that we can continue to have this conversation. And also with regard to the question that the Chairman asked concerning capacity, I realize you have not taken office yet and you'll be looking at things.
But do you have an opinion though as to whether the capacity can be met by what you seem to indicate would be a manpower shift rather than increased industrial spaces and repair spaces, maintenance spaces?
You know, as I've had a chance to look at it, I really think that we've not fully maximized the throughput capacity of the shipyards that we have right now. And I'd really like to see them being able to put a second or third shift on before we continue to develop additional capacity that would potentially have the same manpower challenges.
OK. Well, we'll continue to work with you on that and -- and try to flesh that out. Now Admiral Franchetti, it is I hope well known that I am supportive of the AUKUS agreement, but I do believe that we should bolster our submarine industrial base to meet the AUKUS requirements, otherwise we're going the wrong direction in terms of ships.
Now the Navy, do you agree with what I said in my opening statement that a new construction cadence for attack submarines must reach between 2.3 and 2.5 ships per year in order to offset the transfers to Australia? You do agree with that, do you not?
My understanding is we need to reach 2.2 to be able to meet those requirements as well as our commitment to continue to produce our Columbia class submarine.
OK. And -- and the Navy's goal is for 66 attack submarines with a floor of no less than 48. Is that correct?
That's correct.
And the Navy already plans to go below the floor of 48, which is again troubling, I think, to members of this committee. AUKUS will make that shortfall even more so because we -- we would be delivering some three submarines to our allies, the Australians. Can you explain -- or do you believe that we should plan to meet the minimum requirement and how can we do so under the facts that I've just given you?
AUKUS is a strategic opportunity for us to knit together the strong partnership we already have with Australia and the UK. And I think this will again change the adversary's decision calculus and I'm very excited about the opportunity for our Australians to have this capability. I think, if confirmed, I will continue to work with industry, with the Congress, with the administration to make sure that we continue to have oversight of the AUKUS as it goes down the optimal pathway.
And I believe that we will be able to meet and achieve all of those requirements.
OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Wicker. Senator Hirono, please.
MAZIE K. HIRONO:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations, Admiral, on your nomination. You bring extensive and impressive experience to the post. I also want to thank your family for their obvious support of your 38 years of commitment to our country and the mission. As part of my responsibility as a member of this committee, I ask the following two initial questions.
Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
No.
Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
Admiral, one of the major issues that has confronted Hawaii is the spills at Red Hill resulting in a major decision to close this massive World War II facility. I have consistently called for accountability for the spills that affected an entire community, close to 100,000 people and caused over 2 billion in damages, a total that does not even include the cost for closing the facility and long term environmental cleanup.
So when I focus on the accountability for these spills, I -- there are still many questions that remain. What is the Navy going to do to hold people accountable for the mishaps and years of neglect that led to these catastrophic situation at Red Hill?
Senator Hirono, the Navy is committed to the safe and effective defueling of Red Hill in support of the Joint Task force led by INDOPACOM and ensuring an effective stand up of the Navy Red Hill Task Force that will complete the work to completely shut down the facility. Regarding accountability, I think accountability is an incredibly important part of oversight.
The secretary of the Navy is nearing completion of his review and will brief the Congress when he is completed.
I'm glad that you said that maintenance is a top priority for you because as the chair of the Subcommittee on Readiness that I really focused on infrastructure maintenance because that is what led to as far as I can see the kind of disasters at Red Hill. And there are other situations that have occurred relating to the Navy and the military -- military's presence in Hawaii.
You mentioned that regarding maintenance that in support of surface ship maintenance, which is really an area of concern for a number of us including the chair and the ranking member. Currently only four of 18 berths for surface ships at Pearl Harbor, for example, support maintenance. And even those four require waivers for fire protection.
You mentioned that, if I heard you correctly, that you were -- you would focus on three aspects of what we need to do to shore up our maintenance capacity, workforce development, which is a huge challenge in itself. But you also mentioned using data analytics. Can you tell me a little bit more about what you mean by using data analytics to create a better or more efficient environment for ship maintenance?
Yes, I think what we see in some of our shipyards, you know, they need to do some process mapping to get a better understanding of if a -- if a worker shows up in the morning, how do they get their work assignment? Where do they go to get their tools, where do they go to get their parts? So having an efficient mapping will help us better understand how to design the shipyard.
As you know, through our psyop program, you know we're focused on recapitalizing our dry docks, but also we capitalizing and better laying out those facilities to make our work more efficient and this data analytics effort will enable us to do that.
So that sounds like a very logical thing to do and I'm surprised that we're not doing it yet. Is that -- is that the situation that they are not using those kinds of tools in order to really determine how to be a lot more efficient and ship maintenance? That is currently not being utilized?
We are using that now.
So what? Can we do it better? Is that what you're saying?
We need to adopt that across the entire enterprise of our public shipyards and again, this will inform our development plans as we lay out the future designs for each one of our public shipyards.
I think SIOP was a really important thing to focus on, the infrastructure and what we're doing at our public shipyards, of which we have four. Do you think that program like SIOP for all infrastructure at shipyards would be a good thing?
Senator, one of the things I learned as the Sixth Fleet commander is to view our bases and places as aircraft carriers that don't get underway because they project power, they generate our force and we need to invest in them. And if confirmed, I'm committed to continuing our work on our 15-year infrastructure investment plan to be able to look at our facilities in that same way because we need them to project power and continue to build relationships with the communities in which they reside.
Just one more thing, I'm glad that you mentioned how important our partners are to our INDOPACOM area. And so AUKUS is really important and the campaigns that we're doing, particularly with Japan and South Korea, I think are really critical for theINDOPACOM AOR Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Senator Hirono. Senator Fischer please.
DEB FISCHER:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Admiral, for providing your insight in our meeting last week. I kind of wanted to follow up on that discussion on. As we discussed the Columbia program is on a tight timeline to deliver the first submarine to the Navy in 2027. What actions is the Navy taking to ensure that we can meet this schedule given the residual workforce and the supply chain challenges that we discussed?
Senator Fischer, again, it was nice to meet you the other day and you know the Columbia program has been the Navy's number one priority and if confirmed, that will remain my number one priority. It's essential that we recapitalize that incredible deterrent capability that we have. As Columbia started out on an accelerated schedule.
We are no longer on the accelerated schedule, but we are meeting the contracted delivery schedule for Columbia. We are continuing to work closely with industry again, against all of those challenges that I described earlier and continuing to provide the right level of oversight. So we understand where we are.
It is an all hands on deck effort to ensure that we stay on time. Separately, we have developed a mitigation strategy to extend some of our Ohio class submarines in the event that Columbia does not deliver on time. But I am fully committed, if confirmed, to ensuring Columbia delivers on time.
How important do you think it is that Congress include the requested anomaly in the upcoming stopgap spending bill to allow the Navy to begin construction on the second Columbia-class submarine?
Well -- well, it's absolutely critical. We have nine ships in the budget request and we won't be able to start on four of them under a CR. So Columbia is one of them and we would essentially need an anomaly to be able to not get behind on our commitment to deliver on the strategic deterrent for our nation.
OK, a number of the technologies are available now and there's a lot under development, I think that are going to enhance and operation gap that we see in, I think, a number of platforms, a number of programs in trying to address the threats that we face from our adversaries. Can you explain to this committee what role you assess unmanned platforms to play in a future Navy?
Well, thank you, Senator. I think it will really take a mix of all our platforms. It's a big ecosystem of war, fighting between our conventional platforms, definitely see a future for unmanned platforms under on and above the sea in working in concert with the joint force. You know, we've had an unmanned task force in the Navy for the last two years.
If confirmed, I want to continue that work or evolve it into a disruptive capabilities office that looks beyond just unmanned, but at other capabilities that we can leverage from the defense innovation base to get after some of these challenges that we have.
Do you think -- do you think establishing that office is going to help the Navy be able to reach a balance in the unmanned and the manned program?
I think through our analysis in wargaming, we're going to understand what that balance looks like. And I think this office will speed to the fleet, the things that it sees it needs to fill gaps right now, leveraging work in the replicator program and using funds that have already been allocated for this.
I think we're going to be able to get after that. We're demonstrating it now in Task Force 59 in the Middle East with many of our allies and partners there. And we've also scaled that to Fourth Fleet using maritime -- using them to do maritime domain awareness. And other missions that will be really important going forward.
For the first time in history, the United States will face two adversaries who appear nuclear powers and this fundamentally changes nuclear deterrence dynamics, particularly with respect to the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons. So if Russia or China believe that they can gain advantage over the United States and our allies from the threat of limited nuclear strikes, because they perceive the president is lacking a viable response option, then deterrence could fail.
And that plays right into the escalate to de-escalate strategy that they have. We've heard from a number of leaders within the military, General Milley, Admiral Grady, the STRATCOM commanders and also former Democrat and Republican officials about that capability gap. And that's why this committee and the House committee in the NDAAs that we -- we have passed here in Congress both have the sea launch cruise missile as a program of record in the NDAAs waiting for the President's signature signature now to make that law.
Do you agree with that assessment that this president or any president deserves to have multiple options to deal with national security situations?
Yeah, I agree with the view of other senior leaders that this is a tailored options that the president should have a submarine-launched, cruise missile. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Fischer. Senator King, please.
ANGUS KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, as you know, the cornerstone of our defense policy for at least 70 years has been deterrence and deterrence only works if the deterrent is credible. I am concerned, and this is to put a fine point on some of the comments that have already been made, that our -- the credibility of our deterrent is waning, particularly in light of the massive capacity increase in China and the clearly the aggressive nature of Russia at this point.
Deterrence doesn't work. Weakness is an invitation to war and I believe in spite of the efforts to improve productivity and output of our -- of our maintenance bases as well as our construction facilities, we need more capacity. Thirty percent of the naval ships, which I think you mentioned, that are not available at any given moment is absolutely unacceptable.
No business in the private sector would have 30 percent of their capital assets idle. And clearly workforce is a challenge and one of the barriers. But I would hope that you would consider a serious rethinking of capacity in terms of maintaining the size of the Navy that we need and the availability of the Navy that we need.
I think it's time for a -- a -- a hair on fire task force on this issue. We can improve productivity at those facilities. But looking at the numbers, it just doesn't seem like that will be enough. Your thoughts?
Well, Senator King, thank you again for your time the other day. I enjoyed talking with you. You know, I agree that deterrence is our number one priority and we need to be able to deter our adversaries by having a combat credible force. Our Navy is the most formidable force in the world, and if confirmed, I will continue to make sure it stays that way.
As I look at our shipbuilding industry and my objective of having more players on the field, I have to step back and think that it's not only about the number of ships we have, but it's also about the capability of those ships. It's really a mix of that along with ensuring that they have the right skills, the people with the right skills, the right manning, the right munitions and all of the support they need to be able to do their job.
And if confirmed, I will continue to look at that and ensure that we do deliver the Navy that the nation needs going forward to deter our adversaries and fight and win our nation's wars.
And I believe that one of the challenges in increasing capacity, whether it's at existing yards, a new yard or something in between is -- is workforce and the Navy has to be thinking about as I work with people at the -- at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard or at Bath Ironworks, the quality of life at those yards, mundane things like parking, we need to attract workers and they need to be able to have a quality of life.
Whether it's something that you think of as peripheral parking, child care, those kinds of things are important in order to maintain and encourage the workforce that we need. These people are working hard. I've toured both of those yards so many times. I think if I tour BIW once more, I'm going to learn how to weld.
But these people work hard, they work efficiently, but we've got to keep them coming. All of our industrial base needs workforce today, so I hope the Navy will think about that as you're thinking more broadly than simply what's the contract going to look like.
Yes, as vice chief I was responsible for leading a task force to get after the quality of service starting first in our shipyards and then scaling that out to the rest of the fleet because we need to be a world class employer of choice. We're in a war for talent every day and we need to be able to attract and retain sailors.
I would expand that that we really do need a national call to service for people to support our defense industry, whether it's in small business, whether it's in big shipyards or whether it's serving the Navy, it's all service to your nation. And we need that capacity as a nation to be able to deter our adversaries.
I agree with that and final question. The changed nature of warfare. I would urge and encourage war games, red teaming, to think about the -- the challenge of electronic warfare. We have these very sophisticated aircraft, ships, submarines all based on very sophisticated electronics. We need to think about what happens when the GPS goes off, what happens when the -- our -- our ships are blind or are vulnerable.
The other question that we need to focus upon is defense against hypersonics. We've assumed the invulnerability of our fleet, of our aircraft carriers. They're not. So, I -- I'll take -- for the record, I'd like your thoughts on, A, defense against hypersonics and, B, our preparations for electronic warfare.
Thank you, Admiral. Congratulations on your nomination.
Thank you, Senator King. Senator Rounds, please.
MIKE ROUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral Franchetti, first of all, I want to offer my congratulations on your nomination as well, and I also want to say thank you to your family. When -- when you are deployed, they're away as well. I mean, they're -- they're separated, and that sacrifice is something that we sometimes don't recognize for the families.
So, to your husband and to your daughter, thank you for your sacrifice as she moves forward in service to our country. Admiral Franchetti, you and I talked a little bit about this, so this is not going to be a surprise for you. But I understand that the DOD NTIA study on the 3.1 to 3.45 gigahertz portion of the spectrum has been completed.
It is being reviewed at senior levels in the department and will be published later this month. I bring this up to encourage you. It is imperative that you be forthright and clear on the impact auctioning off the lower three gigahertz band of the spectrum would have on Navy capabilities that you operate in that particular one, to 3.1 to 3.45 gigahertz, and the cost, the substantial cost to develop new systems if those capabilities have to migrate someplace else, if they could even do so. Every single senior DOD official I have questioned this year has expressed concerns about sharing this portion of the spectrum with commercial interests.
In April of this year, Admiral Gilday pointed out that it would impact 188 ships, and Secretary Del Toro testified that relocating these systems would cost the Navy upwards of $250 billion and perhaps decades in the making. Can you confirm that cost estimate and how long would it take to relocate these systems?
And if the study confirms the concerns expressed by DOD thus far, what would be your advice to the president and to Congress?
Senator Rounds, thank you very much for your leadership on this critical issue. I am very concerned about this discussion of selling off this particular section of the spectrum. All of our AEGIS destroyers and many of our weapons systems operate in this spectrum. It -- giving away the spectrum would affect us dramatically.
We wouldn't be able to test, train, and we would hike serious risk to homeland defense if we were not able to operate these systems in the areas in which we need to operate them. I -- I would get back to you on the -- take for the record the cost to validate that. But my real concern is whether or not we could even make the changes that we would need to make ever.
And I will also look at how long it would take to make those changes. But, again, I'm not confident that we would be able to actually make the changes we would need to make to be able to use these systems to defend our nation and train our people.
What China -- do you believe that China would be happy if we were directed or -- or -- politically directed to remove our capabilities in this particular part of the spectrum? How would they view that?
I think China will take advantage of any advantage that they see or any opportunity that they see to be able to defeat us and defeat our capabilities. And I know they're watching.
Thank you. Let me talk a little bit about what -- I -- I think Senator King hit on something that is so important, and that -- and as well as, you know, you've heard it almost right down the line here with regard to our capability to build. I want to take it one step farther and talk about our ability to actually maintain the equipment we've got.
Most naval admirals that have been before us cringe because they understand that as soon as I say USS Boise, there's really no excuse for the fact that we have an attack submarine, a nuclear attack submarine, that has now been basically in drydock or been unable to dive for more years than it actually took to build it in the first place.
I think -- are you familiar with the -- with the plight of the USS Boise?
Yes, I am, and it is unacceptable.
It's been eight years now. And it -- the reason why I bring it up is because I think it points to the fact that we do have to have a very serious discussion about our capabilities to maintain the fleet we've got, let alone expand the fleet. And there isn't anybody up here, I think, that doesn't question the need and doesn't agree with the need to actually expand the Navy based upon the near pure competition that we've got in the -- in the Pacific region.
My question for you. Isn't it about time that probably we have a really long term plan for not just building new but for maintaining? And isn't it perhaps time that -- that we have metrics established with that that we hold ourselves accountable for, and we bring in not just Congress into this discussion but the administration in terms of how we lay this out going forward?
And would you commit to coming back and laying out for us a plan with metrics so that we are accountable to one another for getting it done?
Yes, Senator Rounds. We have a 15 year maintenance plan for all of our submarines. This is designed to get after that, and it does use data analytics. More recently, we have put in charge of our operational submarine effectiveness and delivery through the site type commander, who is the operational commander for submarines, to really put an operational lens and drive performance in our maintenance availabilities to get the ships out on time.
And I'm -- I've committed to continuing, if confirmed, to work on that.
You'll share the metrics -- you'll share the metrics with us?
Yes, if confirmed, I will. As vice chief, I will as well.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Rounds. Senator Kaine, please.
TIM KAINE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Admiral Franchetti, my congratulations to you. I believe it's the case, although correct me if I'm wrong about this, that once you and the other service chief nominees are confirmed, all of the service chiefs will have served together as vice chief and chief. And that's not happened for a very long time.
Am I right about that?
Yes, that's correct.
And so, that's -- that's an interesting one for my colleagues, the fact that they -- the four have already forged these working relationships. It doesn't have to start anew. And I think that will help us as we grapple with jointness and integrated defense and deterrence. I want to talk about another aspect of integrated defense and deterrence, and that's our allies, using AUKUS as the example.
I am very pro the AUKUS announcement, which is now about two years old. I'm -- I'm pro the announcement because the -- the Aussies and the UK are great partners and have demonstrated that for decades with us. But also, you -- you had an interesting phrase. You said it complicates the decision making of adversaries when we do alliances like this.
And -- and I would put AUKUS together with the advances in the quad. I would put AUKUS together with the Camp David summit that the president just had with the presidents of Korea and Japan -- South Korea and Japan. That will -- civilian leadership being closer enables the mil to mil relationship to be stronger.
And so, I think doing these kinds of alliances are really strong. I want to dig into AUKUS because Senator Wicker asked important questions, and they're questions that others are asking. We have a -- a Virginia class production right now that's about 1.2 a year. We need to get to, I think you testified, 2.2 a year to meet our own Virginia class requirements and have the ability in the 2030s to transfer three to five Virginia class subs to the Aussies.
And then as that happens and they operate them and train them, then they will be able to develop, with our assistance, their own submarine -- nuclear submarine production capacity. OK. So, how do we get from 1.2 to 2.2? It seems to me that there's three elements. The first is this body has invested $2.3 billion in the submarine industrial base from 2018 to 2023. And these are investments that are long term, that -- that are -- that, as they mature, they will help us move our production capacity forward to some degree.
That's one element. The second element is the Aussies have said that they will invest $3 billion in the US submarine industrial base. That will help us move forward in terms of closing the gap between 1.2 and 2.2. But you'd agree with me, wouldn't you, that there's no way they will make that investment absent a guarantee that there's a deliverable of Virginia class subs in the 2030s, correct?
Yes. And as we continue to work with our Australian partners and the British partners, you know, coming to agreements and with each nation committing that this is the way forward will be critically important, because each nation needs to have the support of the people as well as their military.
Right. And it would be kind of a -- hard to imagine a discussion in the Aussie parliament of, you know, somebody coming and saying let's invest $3 billion in the US submarine industrial base. OK, are we getting a guarantee out of it? Well, unless they're going to get a guarantee, they're not going to make that investment.
So, we -- we need to give them a guaranteed deliverable if they're going to make that $3 billion investment. But in addition to our $2.3 billion investment, that $3 billion investment is another critical component in terms of getting us from 1.2 to 2.2 a year. Now, my -- my thought is there's probably a third element.
And that is, is there an additional delta on our shoulders that we need to invest 2.3 plus three? OK, we can do that. Is there an additional delta that we need to invest, and over what period of time, to help us get from the 1.2 to the 2.2 a year? And I -- I see the questions of Senator Wicker and -- Senator Ricketts was asking some of these questions in a Foreign Relations Committee meeting the other day.
I think I think what they're asking is for the Pentagon and the White House to kind of put down on that third criteria, OK, what's the additional delta that we might need to invest going forward? We've done 2.3. We could get three if we do the guaranteed of deliverables to the Aussies. But there's probably some additional delta, and it doesn't have to be like in this year's supplemental.
We're talking about delivery of subs in the 2030s. But I do think my colleagues would like to see what that sort of third element is, what -- what additional investment would be needed over what period of time, how would that investment be programmed. And so I would, should you be confirmed -- but this is also a message to just the Pentagon and the White House.
I hope they will present to this committee especially, OK, what is the additional investment that the US is going to need to make to get us from the 1.2 to the 2.2. I think we can do it. And I think if we do it, it will be fantastic for our integrated defense capacity. I would just hope that we might be able to have that discussion to answer some of the legit questions that I think folks are raising.
I think this offers an amazing opportunity for the United States in the Indo-Pacific, and I want to make sure that we take full advantage of that opportunity. Thank you, Admiral Franchetti.
Thank you, Senator Kaine. Senator Ernst, please.
JONI ERNST:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Admiral, for appearing in front of the committee today. And congratulations on your nomination, and thank you as well to Jim and Isabel. Thank you so much for your wonderful support. We do appreciate that. So, a number of members have brought up, of course, the defense industrial base and the lack of -- of capacity or ships that we have.
Senator Rounds brought up the USS Boise. Well, when we sat down in my office, I had a -- a different ship that I brought up. It was the USS Sioux City, and I would like to discuss that today. When we spoke, you talked about the need to drive the Navy towards becoming a more lethal force, and I absolutely agree with that.
The current threats to our national security challenge us to reevaluate the investments that we're making in our future fleet. And I'm very sensitive as well to the cost to our Navy, which is why we must ensure that the Navy buys the weapon systems and equipment that will meet the operational threats of tomorrow.
The USS Sioux City, for those that are watching, for their information, is a littoral combat ship. It was decommissioned last month after only being commissioned for five years because it was not operationally effective in the future threat environment. And Congress deserves its fair share of the blame for appropriating funds for constructing unnecessary ships.
But I believe that Navy leadership should have spoken up very aggressively in opposition to the LCS. And so, in light of this situation, Admiral, do I have your commitment to building only the most lethal Navy possible?
Yes, you do.
And Admiral, do I also have your commitment to ardently speak up against actions that do not support the most lethal Navy?
Thank you. I appreciate that, and appreciate the discussion we had the other day. I think it's incredibly important that those of us that sit here on this committee understand that, while there may be parochial interests in our home states to moving ahead and building certain types of ships, when it's not in the Navy's best interest, we should stop it, OK?
So we should not be appropriating money to programs that aren't necessary for our Navy nor not wanted by our Navy. So I appreciate the commitment there. As we're talking about again about building and our defense industrial base, on your disruptive capabilities, your office -- disruptive means upsetting the status quo.
So with that, the Navy, because of how long it takes to build ships is not traditionally disruptive. So how do you plan to work with the Defense Innovation Unit, DIU, to integrate cutting edge technology from our private sector so that we can move that into our large Navy programs?
Well, thank you, Senator Ernst, and it was a pleasure talking with you the other day.
Thank you.
I am very focused on, you know, getting this right mix of ships between our large conventional platforms, but integrating these defensive disruptive capabilities into the force. And we've really been using our unmanned task force to test the waters on that for the last two years. And as you've seen the results out in Fifth Fleet where we've been able to leverage the best in commercial industry to be able to bring that together with our allies and partners to provide essentially great maritime domain awareness over large bodies of water and knitting that together to have a common picture through a mesh network.
So these are the kind of capabilities that we're looking at. They've done a great job in Fifth Fleet. We've also scaled that now down into Fourth Fleet, which operates around South America, just demonstrating that in an exercise called UNITAS and again very effectively. And of course, we're looking to scale this into Seventh Fleet.
We're doing a experimentation with some of these capabilities. And if confirmed, I'm committed to really putting down the gas on the -- on the pedal to accelerate these capabilities, leveraging work with DUIX, leveraging the replicator initiative and all the funding that we can get to be able to push these through into our fleet warfighting hands.
I appreciate that. I think we can work smarter, not necessarily harder, but definitely smarter to meet our end goals. So thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Senator. Senator Warren, please.
ELIZABETH WARREN:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral Franchetti, congratulations on your nomination. Jim, Isabel, good to have you here today. So for nine months, the Senator from Alabama has personally blocked the Senate from approving promotions for more than 300 military leaders. We are missing Navy commanders in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
The Secretary of the Navy has said the impact of these holds is quote, playing Russian roulette with the very lives of our service members. And now with Admiral Gilday's retirement, the Navy has no confirmed Chief of Naval Operations, but the price our nation will pay for the reckless behavior of Senator Tuberville will reach far into the future.
Admiral Franchetti, the Navy, like most of the services is always competing for the best leaders of tomorrow. So how important is a pipeline like the Naval Academy for recruiting those leaders of tomorrow?
Senator Warren, it was a pleasure to meet you the other day. You know, as we look right now as our Navy is facing challenges all around the globe, threats from our adversaries, we want to have the right people with the right level of experience in those positions. And as the -- we continue to not have the confirmed people that we've nominated with that experience, we're going to continue to see an erosion of readiness.
As far as the Naval Academy goes, it is an amazing place. I had a chance to serve there as a battalion officer. And you know, they bring together the best and brightest talent from all across America that are willing to serve our nation and they really come out and they do a great job. So whether they serve for their original commitment or they serve for 30 years, I'm very proud of all of our midshipmen at the Naval Academy as well as our midshipmen across our other commissioning sources in OCS.
And I take it you're saying this is a part of the leadership pipeline for the Navy.
It is.
So one of the people held up by Senator Tuberville is Rear Admiral Davids, who would be the first female superintendent of the Naval Academy. Seeing someone like her at the helm will inspire other people who might not otherwise pursue a career in the Navy. Senator Tuberville likes to talk about how we're in a recruiting crisis, but for the first time in 60 years, the Naval Academy started the school year without a confirmed superintendent.
And every young person at the Naval Academy, every young person who is thinking right now about applying to the academy, and every young person anywhere in the Navy must confront head on the fact that Senator Tuberville has turned both the Navy and the Naval Academy into one more political football. The Senator's actions are damaging our military's recruiting and we will be paying a price for that for decades to come.
So let me ask you about another impact from these holds. Let me ask about families. Admiral Franchetti, you -- have you heard anything about the impact of these holds on Navy families?
Yes, I think our Navy families are dealing with a lot of uncertainty. We ask a lot of our families to move, uproot, find new schools, find new jobs for our spouses, and I have heard a lot of concerns from our families that they are having difficulty navigating that space right now.
All right. And one last question, and this one is about the promotion system. The 300 plus holds on the top ranks has an impact on everyone who is one level down, two levels down who can't move into a spot that has been vacated. Admiral Franchetti, the Senator from Alabama is treating these holds as a minor inconvenience, but the servicers are telling me that even after the holds are lifted, the promotion system will be tangled up for months or years to come.
So what is your best estimate of how long it will take the Navy's promotion system to recover?
Senator, I think just at the three star level, it would take about three to four months to move all of the people around, but it will take years to recover from the promotion, if confirmed, for the promotion delays that we would see forward.
So years to come, our military experts project China wants to be able to take Taiwan by 2027 and we'll still be trying to repair the damage inflicted by these holds. The Republicans failure to end this blockade makes it clear they don't care about our leaders, they don't care about the families who have served their country honorably for decades.
It is hard to imagine a bigger propaganda win for our enemies. We need this hold to stop and we need it to stop now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Senator Warren. Let me announce for the benefit of our colleagues that the 10:30 vote has begun. And let me recognize Senator Scott, please.
RICK SCOTT:
Thank you, Chairman. First of all, congratulations on your nomination. I wish you the best of luck and it's nice to see a family that is so supportive. So, you know, you get this a big job. So -- and you've got a great background to be able to do this. So let me just ask you some questions. As you know, Florida's home to probably the best Navy ships and sailors and all that stuff.
But talk to me about Philippines and the importance of the Philippines. The -- I was just did a P8 -- I just did a tour in a P8 over there with the -- actually she was -- the captain was a young lady her -- her plane was from Jacksonville and so she's from Ocala. But anyway, tell me the port -- tell the American public, the importance of the Philippines and why we should be engaged.
We're not just engaged with the Navy there, we're engaged with our Coast Guard too.
Senator Scott, thank you very much for your support to all of our Navy team throughout Florida. I think the allies and partners are really one of our key strategic advantages for the US. We see our potential adversaries do not have those relationships. And again, I think it is a strategic strength. For the Philippines in particular, I'm very excited by the opportunities that we have with the Philippines now.
They are a critical partner, they're in a critical location, and we look forward to continuing to do exercises and build our relationship with both the Navy and the Coast Guard there because there's incredible opportunities for them.
Does it concern you that China is trying to infringe on the -- the Philippines' sovereignty with the -- with the different shoals?
It concerns me that China is really trying to infringe on many people's sovereignty throughout the South China Sea, including the Philippines.
So the Marine Corps is the only service that met their recruitment numbers last year. This year the Navy dropped the recruitment quality standards to the minimum level -- legal level and the Navy will allow some recruits to enlist who score as low as ten on a 100 point scale on the Armed Forces qualification test.
That didn't seem to make a lot of sense. Can you talk about you know that and how it -- how you're going to deal with it?
Yes, Senator. We are in a war for talent, but I would like to make the point that the Navy has not lowered any of our standards. We are using every available level -- lever to us that's authorized to be able to expand the pool of people that we're bringing in. So we've done a few things. We've raised the admission age to 42. And to your specific point, we have brought in more cat four -- up to 20 percent now category four recruits.
But I think when you think about the Navy, we have a wide range of skill sets where we need people with this level of skill and we need electronics technicians with this level of skill. What the bringing in the cat fours is done for us is to allow us to fill the first level. Everyone is eligible for one job at least.
And through our future sailor prep course, through the physical fitness one, we took a page from the Army on that. That's going well. And we also continue to add to the academic rigor of the folks coming in so they can advance to the higher level of skills. So we haven't lowered our standards in any way.
And do you think you're going to be able to meet your recruitment numbers going forward?
So we started out the year thinking we'd be about 13,000 short. We're going to be about 7,000 short. We're doing better month by month than we were last year. And if confirmed, I will continue to make sure that we get out and talk to people all around the world so we can bring in the best talent for our Navy.
OK, thank you. You talked a little bit about when Senator Ernst was -- about the -- the littoral ships and I guess they're decommissioned sometimes with the life just like five years seems -- seems sort of crazy. Can you talk about the importance of these ships and how they're going to fit into the Navy in the future?
The littoral combat ship is still a very important ship to our Navy. We have a validated need for them and the surface warfare mission, but most importantly in the mine countermeasures mission and we will be able to continue to use them for these missions.
Do you anticipate, you know, asking Congress to retire more of them?
I would have to take that for the record after I have an opportunity to do analysis and I will -- I will do that.
Thanks. Congratulations again your nomination. Thanks.
Thank you, Senator Scott. Senator Tuberville, please.
TOMMY TUBERVILLE:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Congratulations. Good visit with you the other day. As we -- we discussed, you know, I'm -- I'm continuously talking to our -- our Joint Chiefs and -- and our leadership about -- about politics. We talked about politics. And I would hope that -- that when you take over your new role, and I'm excited for you, that keep politics out as much as I know you'll have to deal with it some.
But out of the military, as much as we possibly can. Leave it -- leave it to us, politicians, I guess. I want to ask you about we've -- we've got a -- a Vice Admiral that's -- that soon will be talking about confirming. And I just want to give you one example of -- of what I'm talking about here. I coached football for a long time.
I coached teams, put them together. And I had football players, I didn't have different races or wealth or religions and I would never would never try to divide that group and put them in certain categories to where other groups said, what are we doing? Why are we separating this? Because our military is a team.
I mean we've got to win, there's no second place in -- in war. There's the first place, but we got one rear -- Rear Admiral that -- that recently had a party on a ship for the lesbian, gay, and transgender group. Now listen, I've got gay friends. I have no problem, but we are building a team here, a team of people that's got to fight together, do things together.
I mean they had a party, cut a cake, all these things. And to me again, we're going to need everybody, men, women, everybody of -- of every association because, you know, we're a volunteer force, but we want people to love this country that will fight together when things get tough.
And I would just hope that you would spread that around in the Navy once you get in of, hey, let's -- let's build team, let's don't build groups into bigger groups around. What's your thoughts on that?
Senator, I enjoyed our meeting the other day. So, thank you again for your time. Sir, I'll say for the last 38 years, I've been focused on building teams that can fight and win our nation's wars. I'm focused on warfighting, warfighters, and winning. And that's what our military needs to be focused on. And if confirmed, that is the focus I will bring to our Navy every day.
Yeah. What I'm saying is you're the head coach now. I mean, you -- no -- there ain't nobody to look to after you now. You -- you're the person who's going to get the credit and the blame. And I know you can do the job. I'm looking forward to it. But I would just -- you know, the experiences I've had over the years, if we -- we ever start trying to divide into groups within a team atmosphere, which our -- our military is a team, then we're -- we're going to have huge problems down the way.
And, you know, we have problems in our country right now, and I -- I would hope that we -- we don't continue to divide. The other thing I want to talk to you about is workforce. We have shipbuilding in our state in Alabama. We're having a tough time finding people to work in this country in terms of the generations coming up. We don't have a lot of plumbers, electricians, welders.
And why is that? Now, I've got two boys that are 28 and 29. I asked them why. He says, Dad, most of them are getting in big tech. They're getting in areas that -- probably a little bit easier, but also you're going to make a little bit more money and it's not as hard. I mean, most of them grew up with that computer in front of them.
You know, I've -- I have a hard time turning one on because I didn't grow up with one. But they -- they -- and, you know, I get my information from kids that -- also that I -- I coached over the years. But we need a force. I -- I was visiting in Taiwan not too long ago with the -- the chip manufacturer, or the CEO. And he's disappointed because, in our country, they're in -- in Phoenix, I think, they're building a chip factory, and they're having to train welders and -- and plumbers and electricians in Taiwan to send over here to build this facility.
I just can't imagine what we're going to have in our shipyards. And in World War Two, we had 30 shipyards, and now we're four, five, six. Tell me how many ships -- you've been to a lot of our shipyards across the country?
Yes, I've had an opportunity to visit a lot of our private and our -- our public shipyards. And then I would say, again, we really do need this -- this call to service --
Yeah.
To pull out all the levers so we can bring our young people into seeing shipbuilding, ship fitting, pipefitting, plumbers, you know, as a really critical trade --
That we need to build the Defense of our nation.
Yeah. Do you get that sense from the CEOs, people you talk to at these yards, that we are struggling, you know, with -- with workers -- workforce, obviously? And, you know, some -- even some of the places I go to, you know, they're going out and recruiting on their own. They're going to shopping centers.
They're going to some of the fast food joints. One of the shipbuilders that we have in Alabama is -- brags about it, that they -- from a fast food joint, they went in and recruited some people. And their best welder was working at a fast food joint five years ago, their very best. And they brag about that.
So, we're going to need a lot of help from you, you know, in our shipyards of promoting recruitment, not just of military personnel but also of helping you know, some of these shipyards have been able to build and complete the projects that they were involved in. So again, congratulations. Look forward to working with you.
Thank you, Senator Tuberville. Let me recognize Senator Shaheen. And also, I will go vote and she will preside. Thank you.
JEANNE SHAHEEN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, congratulations on your nomination. We look forward to confirming you and have you take office very soon. One of -- one of the concerns that we're hearing in Washington right now is that there is the potential for a government shutdown and for us to fail to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government open.
I know that that has special significance for the Navy because of the way Congress funds shipbuilding efforts. So, can you talk about what the consequences of a government shutdown might be on the Navy?
Senator Shaheen, thank you. And thanks for your time the other day. You know, we ask -- our number one ask is a on time budget. We design our budget with the expectation that we will be able to execute that program that we've balanced. If -- if we have -- just looking particularly at ships, right now we have nine ships in the budget.
And, you know, if we were under a continuing resolution, we would not be able to start work on four of those ships, including one Columbia, a Virginia, a frigate, and a submarine tender. Beyond that, there are additional impacts on readiness, training, ability to move people. There are -- impacts would be very significant.
And how long would that delay the completion of those ships that would be affected?
I think it would really have to depend on exactly when we were able to get a budget and get them started. So, it would really delay incredibly long time if it was a year, if it was six months. You know, you really have to multiply probably two times whatever the delay was to get everything back in order.
But I can get back to you on -- take for the record an exact number.
Thank you. I appreciate that. What -- what do you think our adversaries are going to do if -- with the information that we can't pass a budget? How will China, for example, react?
Well, our adversaries look for every opportunity to undermine the -- the credibility of our military. And again, they would continue to look for opportunities to do that and spread disinformation around the world.
Thank you. I agree. I think it's the absolute worst message we could send at a time like this. We talked a little bit about the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard when you were in my office. We're very proud to have that shipyard in the seacoast of New Hampshire and Maine. It's the oldest continuously operating shipyard in the country.
As we discussed, I am concerned that there seem to be rumors proposing a split between the current command structure at Portsmouth so that one officer would command the installation and one would command the submarine maintenance mission. Do you have any reaction to that? Do you know if the Navy is planning that?
Is that something that is in the pipeline that we should be concerned about and get more information about?
Senator Shaheen, as the vice chief of naval operations, I've been very focused on the maintenance in -- on all of our four public shipyards, including this one. So, what I'm looking at when we talk about the span of command and control of our shipyard commander, I want the shipyard commander to be focused on getting our ships in and out of maintenance on time, and I would like the commander to be less focused on some of the other things that are associated with that, which is, you know, housing up in Cutler, Maine or some of the other broader area responsibilities that we put on that person.
So, again, I don't think you need to be concerned. We'd be happy to brief you on that. But again, I think this is going to be a net positive as we improve the ability of our shipyard commander, just focus on what they're getting paid to do, which is maintain our ships.
While I appreciate the importance of focusing on maintaining our ships, I do think this is a very small, geographically, shipyard. It doesn't have a huge number of regular Navy members assigned to that yard. And I hope you will engage with both the commander and other top officials in the shipyard on their view of what that might mean and the challenges that that might present for the shipyard in -- before a decision is made.
Senator, have you -- you have my commitment to do that.
Thank you very much. Just because I'm almost out of time. I just want to point out that last month five Granite Staters graduated from the inaugural Machinist Pipeline program, which is designed to train participants for skilled manufacturing jobs. And it's funded through the Navy and DOD submarine industrial base efforts.
I wanted to applaud that effort and hope that we will look at the lessons learned and be able to expand on that. But congratulations on that initiative. Thank you. Senator Mullin?
MARKWAYNE MULLIN:
Well, that caught me off guard. Thank you so much. And Admiral, good to -- good to see you again. If you would indulge me for a second, I -- I'd tell you I've been observing your -- your husband Jim and Isabella behind you, and you guys have raised a great daughter. It touched my heart when Jim was mentioned a while ago about supporting you and the family supporting you, and your daughter reached over and patted him on the leg.
And I thought, you know, as a -- as a father of six children, three daughters, that touched me. And so, congratulations, Admiral, on having a strong family. And Jim, considering that that the admiral is gone all the time, you've raised a great daughter, and you can see there's a -- there's a bond there. Families go through a lot while you're serving the country.
And as it has been mentioned multiple times, we want to thank them as much as anybody. And -- and so, thank you so much. I -- a couple of things I want to talk about. First, I want to talk about the -- the University of Oklahoma. The Navy has been investing in research on unmanned systems, but systems to have -- systems seem to have trouble getting out of R&D and actually finding those systems.
For example, the University of Oklahoma has -- have been doing some amazing work with the radar navigation for unmanned surface vehicles in denied GPS environments. How can these systems get out of the Death Valley and into the hands of the warfighter faster?
Senator Mullin, thank you for your time the other day, and thank you for your --
Absolutely.
Recognition of my -- of my family. I also agree they're great.
Right.
As far as the unmanned systems, and more broadly getting these technologies out to the hands of the warfighter faster, this is a -- a critical focus area of me. And if confirmed, I will continue to focus in this area. It has to be a partnership with the commercial sector, with academia, and with our research institutions that we have within the Navy to bring those capabilities out into the field so we can experiment with them, test with them, get best of breed, learn a little, test a little, learn a little, learn a lot.
That needs to be our approach. And so, working with the initiatives under the Replicator Initiative and standing up our own Disruptive Capabilities Office, which is based on the work in our unmanned task force, we look to be able to speed these through the process more effectively in the future.
You -- what are we doing to engage our commercial partners to maybe help with that and help facilitate that?
So, the -- the unmanned task force that we've had for the last two years was really designed to go out and survey the landscape of what is out there and what's available in the commercial industry. They would have our known gaps that we're trying to fill, and then they would try to marry those up with some of these technologies so, again, we could bring them out into the Navy and test them.
So, we're continuing with that effort, and I think it's been very fruitful. And if confirmed, I look forward to continuing that.
Thank you. Switching gears a little bit, there's been a report that -- it was evidently a sensitive but not classified document was released. One of our news agencies got hold of it, and it was talking about the capacity of the shipbuilding and the shipyards inside China, and specifically said they're able to produce -- handle capacity around 200 and -- or 23.2 million tons compared to the US of about 100,000 tons, which is about a 232 times greater capacity to build to -- to build and maintenance their -- their fleet.
And regardless if it's actually quoted by him or not, and I'll probably mess up his last name, but I think everybody will understand what I'm saying, Admiral Yamamoto, where he has famously said, which it's debated if he actually said it or not, that I fear all we've done is woken -- awakened a sleeping giant after the attack of Pearl Harbor.
We don't know if he actually said it or not, but we do know that he was very against attacking the US. He was concerned about our industrial complex and the way that we could speed up and -- and be prepared for war. And -- and he didn't think there was a possible way to win because of that capacity. One of our largest adversaries now has that capacity.
And at -- and anytime you talk to anyone in the -- in the industrial complex side, from whatever we're building to whatever we're trying to advance, every time it's five to seven years before it comes out. I have huge concerns with that. And considering you're going to be over naval operations, what are we going to do about that to be able to put the fear of God in our adversaries, that we can spin up and we will spin up if you attack us?
Senator Mullin, if -- if confirmed, this is one of my main focus areas. Again, I watch with concern the building capacity of China. It isn't all about capacity. It's also about capability. It's about manning. It's about munitions. And it's about that ecosystem of warfighting that we will do with the joint force.
We have the most formidable force today, and we will continue to have that in the future. And I'll work to that, if confirmed.
Thank you. I yield back.
MARK KELLY:
Thank you, and I'll recognize myself here for five minutes, and I want to follow up on Senator Mullin's questions. This is what we mostly talked about, is what he brought up in his question. So when I met you, Admiral, earlier this week, we talked about our shipbuilding capacity and what the Navy can do and what are the Navy's responsibilities when it comes to coordinating with and supporting the private sector.
So I want to talk a little bit about that and a little bit about MARAD. So just specifically, Admiral, what do you believe the Navy's responsibilities are when it comes to supporting private sector shipbuilding to ensure that we have the sealift capability that we need?
Well, Senator Kelly, thank you again for your time. And you know, sealift is one of the core enduring functions of the Navy. And I believe our responsibility is to continue to indicate what is that capacity that we need to be able to move our force around. I think if you look at the conflict in Ukraine, you continue to see the importance of sealift.
And as we do all of our wargaming and contested logistics study, we need more logistics ships to be able to do that. So defining that and providing headlights and continuing in our three pronged approach, which is continuing to do a maintenance, life extension for our existing ships, buying used ships and continuing to procure new, that's really where the Navy needs to focus its efforts.
Do we feel like we have the sealift capacity we need right now?
Well, we need more sealift capacity. As we continue to look to, especially in the buy used program, this is a great opportunity for us. And we think it will be very cost effective going forward.
And you mentioned contested logistics, which implies that there is a risk that we are going to lose some of the capacity we have today. So we need additional capacity. And last year's defense bill required that MARAD conduct a national maritime strategy which meets both the commercial and military needs of our country.
Let me talk a little bit about the disparity between ourselves and China, which Senator Mullin was getting to. He talked about China having a 232 times capacity over us to build a maintain ships. Right now, China has 5500 oceangoing merchant vessels and we have 85 or somewhere in the mid 80s. So with regards to MARAD's strategy -- strategy, their national maritime strategy that they were -- that they need to supply to us, how is the Navy planning to participate in the execution of that strategy?
Senator, you know, we have a strong working relationship with both the Transcom commander and with the MARAD Administrator, Ann Phillips. And she came and spoke at our Sea Air and Space symposium earlier this year and really laid out what she's doing to improve MARAD's capability. And where the Navy could support.
Right now, we haven't -- we have not participating in their study, but I appreciate you bringing it to my attention in the call and I will, if confirmed and as the Vice Chief, will connect with Administrator Phillips and understand how we can best support their study going forward.
Thank you, Admiral. In my remaining time, totally different topic. The President recently he hosted a trilateral summit at Camp David with the United States, Japan, and South Korea and I was encouraged by some of the progress there. We've had a deep partnership with Korea and Japan for years. I used to be stationed in Japan in the late 80s, early 90s and it's great to see this cooperation continuing and actually growing.
Admiral, I know you've had some experience leading multilateral exercises. I used to participate in those as a pilot. Team Spirit, Cope Thunder, those and some others. And this is just one of the many ways that we can strengthen our cooperation with our key partners. So I just want to ask briefly in my remaining time, given the significance of sea power in the Western Pacific and the importance of these partnerships for our own security interests, how do you plan to approach naval collaboration and increasing interoperability between the US, Japan, and South Korea?
Senator Kelly, our allies and partners really are a key strategic advantage. And if confirmed, I will continue to provide opportunities for exercises, to bring together not only those two key allies, but also others. In fact, next week I'll be hosting over 150 -- 105 heads of Navy and Coast Guard from around the world for the 25th Annual Sea Power Symposium.
We're going to be talking about security through partnership and talking about interoperability, be one of the main topics during the discussion. So again, I'm very focused on improving and increasing our interoperability with our partners all around the world because, again, strategic advantage is something our adversaries just don't have.
Yeah, and I don't know if Team Spirit is even an exercise anymore, it probably has a different name by now and it used to be pretty much just us in South Korea. But you could see the need for naval exercise that is not only us, but it's our other -- our other allies in the region, Japan, South Korea, you know Australia, that it could send a strong message about, you know, that we have allies and we're -- we're capable force.
Thank you, and I'll recognize Senator Budd.
TED BUDD:
Thank you, Chairman. Admiral, congratulations and thank you for being here. I enjoyed our conversation last week in my office. Out in INDOPACOM, Admiral Aquilino, Commander there recently stated that his metric for success in a potential conflict is the ability to prosecute 1000 targets in 24 hours. We talked about that.
So can you talk a little bit about what the Navy's programs are, including manned and unmanned platforms as well as munitions that will help enable them to do that? And I'm looking for as concrete examples as possible. So if you can differentiate between what the fleet has now and then what you're investing in, that would be very helpful.
Senator Budd, I appreciated our conversation the other day and, if confirmed, look forward to continuing to work with you. You know, the Navy -- and I saw Admiral Aquilino's comments about that. Again, as we look at our Navy writ large, part of the part of making ourselves a credible deterrent force is having those munitions that we need.
In our Presidential budget request this year, we have requested a significant increase in those munitions and we really want to try to, in -- as best we can, work with industry to max out their production lines. Some of the key munitions that we're investing in are our SM-6, our Tomahawks, our LRASM, our JASSM-ERs and, again, solid rocket motors.
These are areas that we -- we need to invest in and -- and continue to work with industry to max out those production lines as well as Congress and the administration to get the resources we need to continue those investments.
Thank you, Admiral. You know at the end of the day, I think we all want to deter conflict from happening in the first place, but the deterrent effect of our undersea warfare capability can't be understated. But we also -- we can't take it for granted. You mentioned in our meeting last week as well as a few times this morning that we need to produce at least two Virginia class subs plus one Columbia class sub per year.
However, we're currently only producing 1.2 attack subs annually. So what are some concrete, and again I emphasize that word, some concrete ways we can increase sub production but also improve readiness rate of the existing submarine force?
Well, our undersea advantage is very critical, especially in the Indo-Pacific, but really globally. As far as production goes, we do need to increase production of Virginia class submarines. And if confirmed I will work with -- with industry partners and our broader community to make sure that we are giving them all the resources they need.
I think three areas that we're really focused on both in our public and our private shipyards, the private and public to do maintenance and production, they're all competing for workforce. It's not only the people, it's also the experience level. So we need to continue all our efforts to grow the workforce that works there.
The second one is we really need to maximize the effectiveness of those shipyard workers using data analytics to map out processes, making sure they have all the tools they need to get more hours on the job every day. And then, we also need to make sure that they have the spare parts and also a pool of equipment.
And we have requested it in our budget to develop this pool of materials and spare parts that they need to be able to move through these maintenance periods. When we did some analysis, and I've talked with a lot of project superintendents, they see one of their main choke points as not having the supply needed to be able to do these jobs.
So a lot of supply chain effects, and I think we can work with them on that. More broadly, getting people across our nation interested in service in the shipyards as well as service to our nation, I think is a national effort that we should be undertaking.
Thank you, Admiral. You mentioned shipyards, what are you doing to improve cyber security? What do you intend to do to improve cyber security in those shipyards for the Navy?
Well, cyber is a really challenging warfare area and it is only going to get worse. We need to bake cyber resiliency into all of our platforms as we're designing them. And if confirmed, I'm committed to doing that.
So as a fiscal conservatives who believes in the need to modernize our forces at the same time, can you explain why the Navy is spending billions developing its own sixth generation fighter While the Air Force has already heavily invested in the next generation air dominance program? And the question behind that is, are there any opportunities for collaboration to improve both the speed of the program and economics here?
Senator, I'm very much in favor of collaborating on all of our joint capabilities. And if confirmed, I will look for opportunities to continue to collaborate with not only the Air Force but all of the other sister services on weapons programs, similar to how we're doing with Army for our long range strike hypersonic weapons.
Thank you. I believe my time is expired. I wish you the best of luck.
Thank you, Senator Budd. Senator Rosen, please.
JACKY ROSEN:
Well, thank you, Chairman Reed, of course Ranking Member Wicker for holding this hearing. And I'd really like to thank Admiral Franchetti for your service to our country and for meeting me this week because, you know, you have served our nation with distinction and honor. I want to acknowledge your husband, Jim, your daughter, Isabel, who also serve our nation as a military family.
And I want to underscore, I know we've all talked about it, some of your accomplishments, your professional accomplishments. It's evidence of how qualified you are, Admiral Franchetti, to serve as chief of naval operations. Admiral Franchetti began her naval career as a service warfare officer serving on numerous ships and critical roles.
During her time as a flag officer, she served all over the world and crucial roles both inside and outside the Pentagon. Most notably, she has led the Navy's forces in both Europe and Africa as the head of the US sixth Fleet and she has commanded not one, but two carrier strike groups at the same time. Admiral Franchetti your deeply impressive career history is evidenced that you are clearly well qualified to serve as chief of naval operations and will break barriers as, I want to say, I am so proud the first woman to ever serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
But this is about more than making -- just making history. This is about making our nation stronger, having diverse experiences and backgrounds in the rooms where decisions are made, well that makes us stronger and will make our military stronger. And it's past time that we have the first woman on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and any efforts to stall or block this nomination.
This role from being filled will only hurt our military readiness. It will embolden our adversaries and harm our military families, your family. And that's why I call on the Senator from Alabama to stop the political games and let us confirm you Admiral Franchetti along with the hundreds of other qualified nominees in the same way we've done for years.
I look forward to that vote. Now, I want to turn to quality of life at Fallon Naval Air Station. We talked about that because we are so proud to host the Naval Air Station Fallon. It's home to Top Gun, our nation's Premier carrier air wing, and Seal training centers. While its location provides the necessary range space to ensure the fleet is deployable and operationally ready, the base is considered a remote duty installation with quality of life issues that accompany it. NAS Fallon has existing public private venture with Lincoln Military Housing to build 172 new housing units to remedy their critical housing shortage, at least for sailors in the local community.
However, Lincoln Military Housing has yet to fulfill its contractual obligations and instead it is prioritized building in San Diego due to the relative cost advantage. So Admiral Franchetti, as we discussed in our meeting, how can we ready this -- remedy this problem? If you're confirmed, will you commit to enforcing the contract with Lincoln military housing so that 172 units that our sailors need in Fallon, well, we need them as soon as possible.
Thank you, Senator Rosen. And thank you for your time. You know, quality of service for our sailors and for their families is a top priority for me. As a vice chief, it was my number one priority along with shipyard maintenance. I am very focused on making sure that our sailors have what they need in terms of housing, in terms of child care, in terms of everything, the resources they need for health care, the things they need to be able to do their jobs when called.
I'm not familiar with the specific case of -- of Lincoln that you've raised here, but I will take that for the record. And again, if confirmed, I understand the challenges of remote duty stations and I will continue to focus on making sure that they have what they need, so our sailors can do their jobs.
Thank you and I want to move on quickly to some other issues we're having at Fallon. We discussed this, the range flooding. The Shetler Reservoir right outside Fallon, Nevada has experienced more frequent overflows in the past decade. It's causing flooding to Fallon's B-16 range, which is rendering it inoperable for ground combat training.
While the Bureau of Reclamation owns a reservoir, its infrastructure and water flow impact, Navy operations and all while the Navy, of course, investing millions of dollars into range modernization. So again, Admiral Franchetti, if confirmed, can you commit to working with me and all the intergovernmental partners to route the water around our B-16 range so that no longer floods The range, halts training, and risks of course flooding to Fallon generally?
Senator, we learned a lot of the value of working with an inter-governmental agencies through our Fallon range extension discussions. And if confirmed, I will continue to collaborate to make sure that we can use all those facilities.
Thank you. My time is up. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Rosen. Senator Cramer, please.
KEVIN CRAMER:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Admiral, for being here, for our conversation the other day. Thank you for your service. Thank you to your family as well. When we all say it, we really all do mean it individually and collectively. We just want you to know. So thank you for that. What I wanted to delve into has been pretty thoroughly covered, but maybe I'll just step back.
It was -- it was interesting as you could tell the discussion that began with Senator Wicker as it relates to particularly -- specifically to AUKUS. And then, as it got broadened, I think a little bit with Senator King talking about shipbuilding in general, particularly the places he's been. And by the way, I very much appreciated your -- your comment about the national call to service, that the call to service isn't just the military, it's -- it's the entire value chain.
And -- and we talked a little bit about mission and maybe we could expand a little bit on that. But I especially appreciated then-Senator Kaine's bringing more of a dynamic relationship or perhaps outcome if the next responsibility of Congress is, you know, taken seriously. How does all of -- how do our geopolitical friends and alliances actually add more value than just 1.2 to 2.2, you know, Virginia class subs per year?
I just -- I also want to give you another minute to maybe elaborate a little more on that because I think, particularly in the workforce piece of it, you had some pretty profound things to say about how we can perhaps at least give it our best, right, to -- to -- to step things up so that we're meeting the -- our needs as well as the needs of our allies.
Well, thank you, again. AUKUS -- and I appreciate your time in our conversation the other day. I am focused on, you know, building relationships with all of our allies and partners. Again, they're our strategic advantage and the more that we can work with them and share information, build interoperability, the stronger our nation and our Navy and all of our militaries will be. AUKUS is a particularly great once in a generation opportunity to knit together these three really capable allies who we already work with moving forward.
But as we look about to the national Call of Service and we think about things like navies where you may only know about the Navy, if you live in a coastal state where there's a naval base or near a big naval air station, we really do need to get our people out and about to have a conversation with America about everything that the Navy can offer them and focusing on our mission, our enduring mission of sea control, power projection, deterrence and sealift as I mentioned earlier, as well as maritime security.
I think that excites people about what we do and we'll be able to bring people not only into the Navy but into our defense industrial base where we also need capability to maintain and deliver our submarines. We've got lots of opportunities to get out there into the high schools and middle schools even with a STEM programs, a sea perch or robo sub or we have many other initiatives.
And again, I think people getting excited about national defense will help us not only for the military, but also for the nation.
Well, I do come from the center of the North American continent. Literally, we have a monument to prove it. And -- and there are many patriotic sailors from North Dakota, including some admirals and whatnot. But I appreciate what you're saying and I want to help advocate and facilitate that, even in the middle of the -- of the continent.
So thank you for that. I want to wrap up with something I didn't intend to do, but I'm sorry that so many of my colleagues want to drag uniformed officers into their political fights. And I'm sorry that that had to happen to you a little bit ago. But Senator Warren said it is clear that Republicans don't care about our servicemen and women and their families.
It's clear that we don't care about our adversaries and their allies. Do you believe that, that Republicans don't care about you and your families? I mean, that was -- that's a blanket statement that she made.
As a member of the military, I believe that everyone in Congress supports everyone in our military. As I said in my opening statement, I thank everyone for their support to our Navy sailors, our families, and our civilians.
I appreciate that. Now I'm going to ask you this question, is it your understanding that if Secretary Austin were to lift or rescind the rule to have the military pay for access to abortions that Senator Tuberville would lift his hold and we could -- we could go back to -- to unanimous consent confirmations?
Is that your understanding that that one person, the Secretary of defense would rescind that order that we'd be -- we'd get exactly what our Democratic friends say they want?
I don't want to speak for Senator Tuberville or any other member of this committee, so I do not know what that outcome would be.
OK, that's fair enough. It's my understanding that that -- that would do it. So one person, Secretary Austin, come on. Do the right thing. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Senator Kramer. Senator Peters, please.
GARY PETERS:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral Franchetti, congratulations on your trailblazing nomination and thank you to you and your family for your service over over many, many years. Admiral, we had a chance to speak on the phone about a variety of issues. I appreciated that phone call. And one of the issues that we talked about was Congressional investments in the frigate industrial base and -- and the critical role that citizens are playing in my home state of Michigan, building the next generation frigate to ensure that the Navy can continue to outpace and outmatch our adversaries.
Given shifts in US policy to increase deterrence campaigns and operations in the Indo-Pacific, along with concerns for ensuring the frigate industrial base can guarantee the, the necessary quality of shipbuilding and technological advancements that we need, my question for you madam is, if confirmed, what recommendations would you offer to speed up the innovation, the production, and the fielding of the Navy's next generation constellation class frigate?
Well, thank you, Senator Peters. And thank you for your time the other day. The frigate, I'm very excited about it. For most of my career, frigates were the workhorse of the Navy. You know, we're planning to build 58 frigates and they're going to play an invaluable role in our force. As far as the frigate, we are using a lot of lessons learned from previous ship procurements to make sure that we measure twice, cut once, do all of our land based testing and integration ahead of time, and really make sure that we stay firm on the configuration management so we get a good ship built out on time and then we have an opportunity to make sure that that is the ship and its capabilities and its design is what we need.
And then, once we have the opportunity to operate a couple of them, I feel that we will have the opportunity to look to moving that into multiple shipyards. And I think that will really speed up production at getting more players on the field in terms of frigates.
Very good. On the topic of next generation naval platforms, the war in Ukraine has highlighted the utility of as well as the dangers posed by unmanned underwater vehicles. The Ukrainians have been using these platforms to great success, as you know against the Russian Navy. Bloomberg recently published an article written by Admiral Stavridis where he argued that the Great Lakes, given their size and their seclusion, provided what could be an ideal venue for testing and evaluation of these emerging technologies.
So my question for you, madam, is if confirmed, could you walk me through how the Navy will advance technologies associated with underwater UUVs and how these maturing efforts in the Navy in this area may increase the need for some alternative locations like perhaps the Great Lakes to serve as a testing area for this future technology that is essential?
So unmanned capabilities, both under, on, and above the sea, play a critical role and will continue to play a critical role for the mix of capabilities we need to get after the pacing threat of China, but also other adversaries. For the last two years, we've had an unmanned task force that was designed to go out into the commercial industry, get an understanding of what capabilities are out there, marry that up with gaps that we have in the fleet to be able to integrate them together, and move forward in a lot of good experimentation.
So if you look out into the Middle East where our fifth Fleet is in Task Force 59, they've been able to do significant number of operations and exercises using unmanned technology, both ours and with our allies and partners to provide maritime domain awareness and knit together those pictures through a mesh network that gives us a good common operating picture for everything that's around.
We're doing the same thing in Fourth Fleet. And if confirmed, we're standing up the successor to the unmanned task force, which would be a disruptive capabilities office to be able to look at these technologies further, not just unmanned but lots of different technologies to give ourselves the advantage that we need.
We'll certainly be looking for different venues to be able to test out these capabilities. And if confirmed, I will continue to do that with the team.
Great. Well, thank you, Admiral. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Senator Peters. Senator Cotton please.
TOM COTTON:
Admiral, congratulations on your nomination and thank you for your years of service and thanks to your family for their support as well. The United States hold a significant advantage over China in submarine warfare. It's well known that attack submarines are expected to play a critical role in any fight in the Pacific.
The current production rate though of Virginia class submarines is only 1.2 per year. That's behind the Navy's stated goal of two per year. The AUKUS agreement to provide Virginia class submarines to Australia will add to that burden. Have you seen the evidence that the Virginia class production rate will increase from 1.2 boats per year?
Thank you, Senator Cotton. Thank you for your time the other day. As I said in our call, undersea advantage is critical, especially in the Indo-Pacific. And as the vice chief, I was very focused on our -- both our maintenance of our submarines, especially our attack submarines, getting them in and out of the shipyards on time, and working with industry to help them increase their production of our submarines.
So yes, we are only at 1.2, We need to get up to about 2.2 for Aukus. So again, continuing to partner with industry to get after their biggest challenges are -- that's my focus. So working on workforce development, making sure that we can go out and recruit the people that they -- help them recruit the people that they need to do that is critically important, data analytics to understand throughput through the shipyards so we can be more effective with the workforce that we do have, and then making sure that they have all of the long lead time materials, the parts, the spare parts that they need to be able to move through that production line very quickly.
And in our budget, we have requested some of these parts in a rotatable pool of materials to make us more effective, getting our ships and submarines out on time.
Given those steps, when does the Navy project that it will be able to go from 1.2 per year to 2.2 per year?
Well, I'll have to get with industry to talk with them about what their projection is. Again, industry has a huge role in this in their modernization of their own industrial capacity. I'm grateful to the Congress for appropriating funds for us to be able to invest in that submarine industrial base and we'll continue to work with industry to get those projections.
Since you mentioned that, the Navy will invest $2.3 billion between fiscal year '23 and fiscal year '27 to bolster the construction -- new construction industrial base for submarines. It sounds like a lot, $2.3 billion, but it's less than 3 percent of the $81 billion total set aside for submarines. Do you think 3 percent is enough for this kind of general -- generational investment in our biggest advantage against China?
I think we need to continue, as you said, this is a big investment in our industrial base. As we continue to modernize our industrial base through our own SIOP program and continuing to work with industry to gain the capabilities they need to deliver our ships on time. That's my focus area. And as I continue to work to develop a balanced budget that gets after our really critical capabilities including submarine warfare, I will continue to do that and provide that information to the secretary and the chairman.
How do you -- how do you think industry might benefit from a bigger investment than just that 3 percent investment?
I would have to defer to the industry leaders and the CEOs on how they would plan to use that investment and how they would make sure that it is going to the production capabilities, but also the workforce development that they need to be able to increase their production capacity.
OK. OSD, Cape, and the Navy have recently completed a Submarine Industrial Base 2025 study looking into the specifics of the plan and funding to achieve the AUKUS goal to develop -- develop at least three Virginia class boats for Australia. Have you been briefed on the results of that SIB 25 study?
I have not yet been briefed on the study, but I will get briefed on it and, if confirmed, I will continue to work to better understand it and what we need to do with it.
It's a little surprising to me that in your current role and nominated role that you haven't been briefed on that yet. Do you know why Cape and others in the department wouldn't have briefed you yet?
Well, I think it's just my own bandwidth capacity right now. As you know, I'm performing the role of the vice chief of naval operations and the acting CNO right now. And as soon as I get back, I'll make sure I get that brief on my calendar.
OK. Thank you. I think that is important for you to get -- get briefed on it. Like I said, I'm disappointed that the department has not already briefed you on it. I think they should. And for that matter I think they should brief us on it as well because we're in the same boat, so to speak, as you are.
So I ask the chairman to take the steps necessary to ensure we get the same briefing that I believe the admiral deserves as well. Thank you, Admiral.
Thank you, Senator Cotton. And that is an excellent recommendation, and we will follow up. Let me now recognize Senator Manchin.
JOE MANCHIN:
And let me thank you Senator Blumenthal for allowing me to ask the question very quickly before I have to go to another meeting. First of all, Admiral Franchetti, I want to thank you for your service. I want to thank your family for being here and supporting you because I know the sacrifices made both ways.
And I just -- I admire that. Admiral Franchetti, we had a nice conversation. You have all the qualifications and you have the experience to do a terrific job and we're going to be there to support you. But I think we work best as -- as Senator Cotton asked, is the more we're informed to be able to help constructively, I think you'll find all of us in a bipartisan way willing to do that.
But what I want to talk about because you've gone through so many areas here, with your experience, you know, you have seen firsthand the evolution of the cyber domain and the progression our DOD and services have made to keep pace with expanding field of cyber operations and their capabilities. So my question would be, if confirmed, how do you intend to bolster the Navy's cyber operations specialties and expand the scope and capacity of the Navy cyber capabilities as to better enhance the joint force and our national defense?
Well, thank you, Senator Manchin. And thank you for your time. I enjoyed meeting you the other day. Cyber warfare is a critical domain that is only going to become more important going forward. If confirmed, I will continue to work to meet our Navy cyber responsibilities. As you may be aware, we just created a cyber designator for our officers and a rating for our enlisted people.
And if confirmed, I want to ensure that these people are focused on cyber warfare all the time. This is what they joined the Navy to do. This is what they want to do. We need to make sure they have the training and the tools needed to be able to do their jobs and meet the mission requirements for both offensive and defensive cyber.
And if confirmed, I will continue to focus on this area to make sure we have the right incentives in place to retain them and also that they have good work environments to be able to do this job.
My only recommendation would be is making sure that we're interacting with all the other services because sometimes we have a little territorial problems, as you know. And we now we have one hat which really works well and I just -- I'm very confident you'll be able to work within That domain and hold it together.
Thank you for your service.
Thank you and I'm very committed to working in a joint environment with Cyber Comm on this.
Thank you, Senator Manchin. Senator Sullivan.
DAN SULLIVAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Admiral, good to see you again. Congratulations on your nomination. I appreciated our discussion last week. I want to begin with kind of a big picture discussion about the Navy and a lot of -- there's been a lot of press recently. Here's The New York Times from last week. "Faced with evolving threats, the US Navy continues to struggle to change." Here's from the National Review two weeks ago, "Sea change rebuilding the Navy for the Pacific." And then you and I talked about this, a very good 60 Minutes piece, Norah O'Donnell led that.
At the end of that or during that interview, it' very long, about 40 minutes on 60 minutes, She asked the CNO is the Navy in crisis? Shrinking the Navy when the Chinese navy is increasing dramatically, my view priorities mixed up. We got the climate change strategy 18 months ago and the 30 year shipbuilding strategy at midnight before the CNO's SecNav's posture hearing, which is complete, backwards priorities, is the Navy in crisis?
I think it is. A lot of people think it is. What's your view? And if you think it's not, what do you see as the biggest challenge and how do we address it?
Senator Sullivan, thank you again for the opportunity to meet with you. Last week. I enjoyed your -- I enjoyed our conversation. The Navy is not in crisis. We are the most formidable navy in the world. Working together with our Marine Corps team --
-- We're shrinking --
-- We deliver options every --
Shrinking our surface fleet pretty dramatically, is that a problem?
The Navy is not about a number of ships. The Navy is about capability, and that comes from many things. It comes from the number of ships we have. It has to do with the capabilities each individual ship has and how they knit together as a warfighting ecosystem along with our joint partners and allied partners.
We need to have the ammunitions, we need to have the people, and I'm confident that our Navy, if called today would fight and win against any adversary.
So to my question on biggest challenge, biggest problem and how you would fix it, if confirmed, what is that?
The biggest challenge right now is getting more players on the field. I think that's a three part --
-- So not -- so not shrinking --
-- Problem --
-- Is that what you mean? So don't shrink the Navy?
So what I mean is --
-- What do you mean by more players on the field?
We have a lot of ships that are tied up in maintenance right now and we need to continue -- we're moving in the right direction, but I'm not satisfied with that. And if confirmed, I will continue our efforts to make sure that we get our ships in and out of maintenance on time so they can join the fleet and be ready to fight and win.
Well, one -- one thing I am -- that I think has been problematic with the Navy is a responsiveness to this committee in our oversight role. Some of us, myself included, take this very seriously. I just received from the CNO and the SecNav just a couple of weeks ago the questions for the record that I asked them in April at their posture hearing.
So it took a half a year for them to get back to me, and the answers weren't even responsive. I had asked Secretary Del Toro, I know you were asked that today, I'd like you to answer it, Congress has given you multi-ship procurement authorities over the past three NDAAs, but you've never used it for amphibs.
Why won't you use it? That was a question. And the answer was a cut and paste from another answer. It didn't even answer it and we took a half year to get that. It's ridiculous. So can I get your commitment, if confirmed, that you can step up the Navy's game to make sure when we are doing oversight, which the Navy needs that you're actually responsive?
Because right now, I think you've been failing on that.
Senator, you have my commitment to respond to all the requests from the committee in a timely manner.
Not a half year? Is that timely, a half year?
That is not an acceptable amount of time.
Thank you. And to the question of using your multi-year procurement authorities, what of that? You haven't used it yet.
Senator, if confirmed -- and I will get back to you on that. I want to take a little bit more time to really understand and study that.
OK, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm almost out of time here. I'm going to ask one more question and then I might stay for a second round, if that's OK. Admiral, you and I had an extensive discussion. And again, to me, this is just an unacceptable lack of following the law by the leadership of the Navy on the issue of 31 amphibs.
This committee held many hearings on it, worked with the Navy, worked with the Marine Corps and put into law last year this, which is now the law, the Navy -- naval combat forces of the Navy shall include not less than 11 operational aircraft carriers and not less than 31 operational amphibious warships, of which -- not less and shall -- not less than ten shall be amphibious assault ships.
That's the law. It was unanimous, by the way, in this committee. And when the Secretary of the Navy brought us his 30 year shipbuilding plan at midnight before his hearing in April, in 30 years, the Navy never hits 31 amphibs. It's kind of shocking to me. Are you going to hit 31 amphibs according to the law?
And let me ask another question. Does the Navy or OSD or, heck, even the President for that matter have the discretion after reading the law and looking at Article one Section eight of the Constitution, which gives the Congress the power to provide and maintain a Navy, are you going to hit that number? I mean, you don't have an option.
Senator, our amphibious forces are a critical part of the naval force and I am very committed to working with the Marine Corps and General Smith as he defines a requirement for the force.
No, we defined the -- we defined it.
As he --
-- Mr. Chairman, it's a really important issue.
As he communicates the need for the size of the force that he needs. We have 31 amphibious today. And if confirmed, I'm committed because we have a validated need for 31 amphibious in addition to it being a law. So I'm confirmed -- I'm -- if confirmed, I will continue to work with the commandant with the secretary to ensure that we meet the requirements of 31 amphibious.
Thank you. Senator Blumenthal, please.
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL:
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. Thanks for your patience. Thanks to your family as well as you for your service, your husband, Jim, your daughter, Isabelle. Favorite name of mine, because it happens to be my mother in law's. So -- but most important, thank you for your decades long service to our country.
You and I discussed recently the need for more support for our sailors in all spheres of quality of life, but most especially when their ships are in port for maintenance, long term maintenance, which requires them to live somewhere. And for Xavier Sandor, it meant living on a ship that was in a sense a construction site without water, quiet, other kinds of tolerable conditions.
You and I both know his story and others who took their own lives because of these conditions. And I appreciate your support for the provisions of the Seaman, Xavier Sanders Support for Sailors Act, which is included in this year's NDAA. I look forward to Congress approving the NDAA. But I want to ask you again as we did during our conversation about your commitment to the -- the need to better care for our sailors in those circumstances, but also provide for adequate housing and counseling for them, which is the thrust and purpose of the measure that Senator Murphy and I have sponsored in the name of Xavier Sanders.
And his family's courage and support have inspired us to pursue this issue. And I hope it will you too.
Senator Blumenthal, thank you very much and thanks for our conversation yesterday. I really appreciated it. Sir, mental health is health and as someone who has experienced suicide in my own immediate family, there is no one more committed to providing our sailors and their families the resources they need to deal with all of the challenges that they face.
As we think specifically about the shipyards and our quality of service, as the vice chief, I was appointed by the Secretary of the Navy and the CNO to lead a cross-functional team to dig deep into all the challenges that our sailors face there. We leveraged the results from several different investigations to go through all of the recommendations and we've made some good progress.
And if confirmed, I will make sure that we continue that progress. One of the key things that we put together is really a mental health playbook that gives leaders at every level all of the information they need from having good conversations to being able to connect people to the resources they need. And this is being used throughout the fleet and it's having an impact.
But more than that, we need to continue to have high quality standards for livability and habitability in our shipyards before they move back on board the ship. We are working to move every sailor in industrial environment off the ship so they have that, as you mentioned, quiet place to regenerate when they're not working.
We have embedded mental health closer to all of our sailors in the shipyard as well as other health resources. We're putting chaplains on every one of our ships and we're continuing to hire mental health providers. I know it's a national challenge to do that, but we're committed to doing that. So again, you have my commitment that I will continue to work on this, if confirmed.
I appreciate that answer. I want to ask you a question about Ukraine, which perhaps you can begin to answer here, but supplement in a written response. There has been a lot of reliance on the army -- our army to train Ukrainian war fighters. Our special operators and the army have been principally involved. I don't know how much involvement there has been by the Navy in our support for Ukraine, but a lot of the missiles and other threats to Ukraine have been fired from Russian ships off the coast.
And I wonder whether there is more armament that the Navy could be providing to counter, for example, the harpoon missiles and so forth, counter those airstrikes from the Russian navy in the Black Sea or the Sea of Azov or wherever the ships are placed?
Senator, the Navy has had a long standing relationship with the Ukrainian navy. As Sixth Fleet, I had many opportunities to go and work with the Ukrainian navy, especially in one of our exercises called Sea Breeze. The Navy continues to support the presidential drawdown authorities and look for resources that could be used for Ukraine.
And I will take that for the record to go back and look if there are any additional records. But again, we are following the support to the presidential drawdown authorities.
If you could take it for the record and without saying whether the Navy would or should provide it, because I recognize you can't go beyond the administration, but talking hypothetically what could be used that is not being used now. And there may be reasons not to use or provide those arms. So I'm not asking you to endorse the actual provision of specific weapons platforms, but just to -- to give me an idea of what hypothetically could be provided.
Yes, Senator.
Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator Sullivan has assured me he has just two more.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan, you're recognized.
Admiral, you and I had the opportunity to talk about force design and Marine Corps Air Force design and it's a bold initiative by the Marine Corps. It's not without its own controversy, but a big component of that is its focus on joint expeditionary ops with the -- with the Navy. And one of my issues with the previous CNO was it seemed a bit of a one way street that the Marine Corps focuses a lot on working really, really closely with the Navy.
But in a lot of the Navy's strategy documents doesn't seem to be that reciprocated. My own view is if the Navy's not fully on board with Marine Corps force design stand and force combat concepts, that is going to -- that will fail. More specifically, the landing ship mediums are essential to the marine littoral regiments operating as stand in forces and conducting expeditionary advanced base operations.
The 2024 budget includes just six LSMs being ordered over the next five years, which wouldn't even support one Marine Littoral regiment, let alone the three that are planned in force design. How will you advocate for resources more effectively than your predecessor to ensure production of LSMs with -- in support of the Marine Corps Force design?
Senator Sullivan, as we discussed, I'm very supportive of force design 2030 and I'm very committed to working with General Smith as they continue to iterate on that very important concept. I think one of the challenges is with our strategy documents is that force design came out at the same time we were generating a lot of our strategy documents that you may have seen.
But as we look forward in our own force design document, the Marine Corps and force design is totally integrated into that. And I'm fully committed to supporting the Marine Corps as they evolve in this chain. As far as the landing ship mediums, we have a working with the Marine Corps to set a requirement for 18 initially.
OK.
So again, we can get those ships out, iterate on the concept, and make sure that it's what they need before we move forward and I'm committed to working with the Commandant to do that.
So the 18 is -- that's obviously up from the six that was in the FY '24 budget.
No, the 18 total to make sure that we have the requirements right before we move on to their follow on goal which is about 35 if I have that correct.
OK. Let me ask one final question to the Chairman's keeping on time with my two questions. This one is we discussed it and to be honest, I've not asked a question in a hearing on it, but when I first looked just this morning at the CNO's -- previous CNO's reading list and there was a lot of controversy on one book in particular, how to be an anti-racist?
But actually when I looked at it, I was kind of shocked to see almost half the reading on that, on that CNO's reading list under the topic of sailors, which there are several different topics, is on racial politics. So how to be an anti-racist. That's one. Why we can't talk about that at work, how to talk about race, religion, politics and other polarizing topics, That's another.
Sexual minorities in politics. The new Jim Crow Mass incon -- Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. You know, I have no problem with sailors reading these kind of books on their free time. But as you know, the Commandant -- the Commandant or the CNO's reading list is something that's quite serious.
And in my experience with service reading lists, it usually relates to lethality, warfighting, the history of the Navy, biographies, heritage. There are thousands of books like that that sailors can learn from. I have a theory on why these kind of books got on the reading lists. And I'm going to ask it. I have time, Mr. Chairman.
It's important question actually. Probably had some, you know, campaign operative for the Biden administration, get a job in the Pentagon, took a class on national security in college, and now he thinks he's going to tell the Navy what's good for them, right. How do you think these kind of things got on the reading list?
And can you commit to me, if confirmed, for your reading list to focus traditionally on what most reading lists -- almost all reading lists, history, culture, war fighting, naval history. Like I said, you and I talked about a bunch of really good books. I don't know why there's so much focus on race, read it on their off time, but it seems to me a real missed opportunity when the Navy's probably the most, you know, deep culture, heritage, great history that sailors should learn about that before reading all this stuff, in my view.
What's your view and can you commit to me to get back to what should be on normal reading lists for sailors and Marines?
Senator Sullivan, again thank you for the book and, you know, I -- as I told you in the office call, I'm very focused on -- on war fighting, war fighters, and winning. I don't know the process by which books are on the CNO's reading list. But if confirmed, I will develop a process and I will focus on war fighting, war fighters, and winning.
Thank you. I mean it's your reading lists, right. So you can put whatever in my respectful vice you get some, you know, far left civilian who somehow found a job at the Pentagon, never served in the military. I guarantee you that's what happened here. Pushing this agenda. I would politely tell them to pound sand and that you're going to focus on warfighting, heritage, and lethality.
And I think that's a safe place for you to be and I think it's the place most Americans want the CNO of the Navy to be on the CNO's reading list. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Admiral, thank you for your testimony today. You've demonstrated you have the skill, the experience, and the patriotism to lead the United States Navy and I know you could not have done it without your family beside you. So I wish you what -- what do they call them calm seas -- I'm a West Pointer.
I don't know what the --
Fair winds and following seas.
I wish you fair winds and following seas and I wish you a speedy confirmation and I'd be proud to support your nomination. With that, I will adjourn the hearing.
List of Panel Members and Witnesses PANEL MEMBERS:
SEN. JACK REED (D-R.I.), CHAIRMAN
SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-N.H.)
SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-N.Y.)
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CONN.)
SEN. MAZIE K. HIRONO (D-HAWAII)
SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA.)
SEN. ANGUS KING (I-MAINE)
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MASS.)
SEN. GARY PETERS (D-MICH.)
SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-W.VA.)
SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH (D-ILL.)
SEN. JACKY ROSEN (D-NEV.)
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-ARIZ.)
SEN. ROGER WICKER (R-MISS.), RANKING MEMBER
SEN. DEB FISCHER (R-NEB.)
SEN. TOM COTTON (R-ARK.)
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R-S.D.)
SEN. JONI ERNST (R-IOWA)
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN (R-ALASKA)
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-N.D.)
SEN. RICK SCOTT (R-FLA.)
SEN. TOMMY TUBERVILLE (R-ALA.)
SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OKLA.)
SEN. TED BUDD (R-N.C.)
SEN. ERIC SCHMITT (R-MO.)
WITNESSES:
CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS NOMINEE LISA M. FRANCHETTI
Adm. Lisa Franchetti
14 September 2023
Subject specific information for the media
Events or announcements of note for the media
Official Navy statements
Given by Navy leadership
Updates on sailors from around the Fleet
Google Translation Disclaimer