straw is teenagic international studies on maritimes security and navy maintenance challenge hads. he detailed ongoing processes and plans for maintenance and new ship construction to work toward goal of a fleet of 355 active ships by the year 2035, this was about an hour and 15 minutes. >> all right -- good morning everyone. i'm tom karco senior fellow here in international security program at csis and delighted to kick off a the dialogue with vice admiral moore, the dialogue represents a co-host and series between csis and u.s. naval institute, and it seeks to highlight both current thinking and future challenges facing the

navy, marine corps. and the coast guard. today represents our second dialogue for 2017. and we look forward to welcome you back for additional events in the year, we would also like to thank in a special way lockheed martin and huntington industry for their support in making this event really the series possible. and before we get underway for big events like this we like to make -- a brief announcement safety announcement we don't expect my difficulties but should there be anything as a -- we want to make sure that you know we've got exits right here in the become on both sides and stairs down the front and both myself and anthony belle in the back will be your responsible officers to kind of directout in right way just incase anything should come up. just look for one of us. and so for our forral introduction to get us started i'll turn things over to chief executive officer of the u.s.

naval institute, and we're happy to have him here and ton part of us and rks thank i. thank you. >> well welcome those ho don't me pete, and cisc proud to bring you this maritime dialogue series continuation in our thiferred year and as mentioned special recognition to sponsors huntington industry and lockheed martin. for making this event possible, i'll introduce our speaker for today. a 1981 graduate of the academy also holds degrees to george washington university and a naiflt nuclear engineering degree from m.i.t. l after serving 13 years as a nuclear -- warfare officer he made it to the community there he served in mostly focused on repuling,

complex, overhauls of aircraft carriers. each command included major program manager for in service aircraft carriers and program executive officer for submarines peo subs. finally last year in june tom moore assumed command as command in nfc and i point out there's over 75,000 uniformed and civilian employees it is entirely responsible for the contracting and supervision of all navy ship and sub shipbuilding and responsible for the maintenance and the systems that go on those ships directly. so we welcome admirable tom moore who controls one quarter of the navy's budget. [applause]

>> thanks pete. i'm reminded of that by the way you have one quarter of the budget that's not necessarily -- a good thing. so good morning, and thank you for the invite this morning. before i get started to last night was a big might for the navy. couple of things. one, my band carriers played live down at the water front, and then see what was the other thing that went on last night, oh, yeah other thing is we delivered the ford, and -- [laughter] to the navy so a big night having worked on general ford for most of the past ten years -- just came back from a very -- successful acceptance trial and survey and navy accepted delivery of the ford last night. so you heard it here first. so thanks for the opportunity to come talk this morning. the theme that was given was the maintenance challenge and how to reset the fleet and so what i

would like to do is talk about this and kind of in the context of talking about where they're headed to size of lee and then talk about what we're doing to grow the size of the fleet on new construction side within importantly talk about, you know, how the maintenance side of the -- of that equation fits in. it's not, you know -- as we were talking before hand, it's not -- it's not high either. you have to do both. and so sometimes we tend to forget about that having been a ship holder for most of the lhasa years but also having spent three years with that fleet readiness i'm well aware that you have to do both you have to maintain what you've got and you have to continue to build going forward. so if you haven't already read red paper get a copy it's a good read and like to read if it is short with pictures in it so it is great for command master chief. lips do not get tired when they read it.

and white paper talks about importantly up front that what the current security environment is. and he makes three key points and these three koa points are applicable when you're talking new construction or maintenance on the house and three key points are time matters. has to be a sense of urgency in some of the things we're getting after today, and that plies to across the board. to getting submarine out on time and design ships quickly to get them built quicker second thing is that pace is exponential and threats we're facing today, the line that's going on in the near competitors say russia, china, the pace they're changing the ability is growing and we have to keep up with that pace. as they like to say kind of like we went into half had time in the football game in 2,000 up about 28-3, and kind of pop the

champagne and said game sofer and, in fact, referee are said half had time is over, ready to start the second half and we'll get there when we get there and kind of strolled out mid-way through the third quarter only it find score is 28-24 so that capability gap between us u and competitor is closed an something that's a keen interest to us -- here on the navy side of the house in terms of what the capability that we need going forward so there's a lot of discussion going on today about what is it that navy that we need and -- or not necessarily what does navy we need in 2040 but in the 2020s but we tab what's the navy we need today. and we're trying to take a little bit of a lead angle and figuring out what is it that navy we need probably in the mid-20s and go make decisions based on kind of that navy that we need in the 2020s. and there's been a number of recent studies some done by the navy some done by independent groups about what is it and what

should it look like and they have kind of varying concern knickses of ships and stuff, but at the end they all came to the same conclusion that we need a bigger navy than we had today and all around the 340, 350 ships so clearly size of the fleet does matter going forwards and capable that have fleet is going to importantly as well. so how do we get there from here? so -- one of the things when we talk about the sizes of the fleet and i'll get questions often about hey you know 18 budget dpght add a bunch of new ships. what happened? and we were never going to be able to turn that around overnight, i think what you're going to see and a little bit more in the the -- later in our mark is 18th budgets holds what we have on new construction side but makes significant investment on parking lot house which if you listen to the chief testimony back in february, is saying the first dollar we ought to get goes to readiness that's what

you're seeing in the 18 budget. now we spend a lot of time talking about what is strategy of the future and future white navy paper and it is it all that goes to what navies strategy is going forward. and it is easy to say having been in washington, d.c. now since 1999 i tell people i'm on my 18th palm which is kind of hard to imagine. and if i had a dollar every time someone said you know what we need to build strategy first, and then strategy will drive the budget. and you know in the world that we live in that sounds great but reality of it is -- you don't want a budget completely driving your strategy but you can't ignore that question live in a fiscally constrained environment but what we like to say is it is a reenforced strategy and i think that's the reality of where we are today. so -- we're going to increase the build of the ships that we have today and think industrial base can probably build over next 7 years --

facing capacity what question of 29 more ships than we have in original 23 ship plan. we've got to get more capable for that dollar and figure out where the know and curve is to get them to work on this stuff and then we have to figure out how to innovate and what exactly we're going to work on in the new construction side of the house so we're going to continue to build -- that's a going to continue to build what we have today. and that is job going discussion on lcs and -- that is still kind of turning arranged inside pentagon and owe answers in the white house and see things going on in that particular area. as we head further out and heard me talk about this and and future service -- what the replacement is that's going to be quickly important as well. kind of a new buzz word inside the pentagon is swap. space weight and power. and if you've heard me talk about before, as we go build the

future navy, while i can't tell you exactly what it is going to look like but one things important as we build a platform is to make sure platforms have enough space, weight, and power to adapt to future threats we're kind of in an age of electric ships and did 1,000 and carriers are prime examples of kind of building in space weight, and power -- into the platform so that you can dapght and go forward. and interestingly you know you have the class around today in serving well. as we've gone and they're beginning to build flight 3a and provide more spies and more power many that going forward. and those ships are -- kind of unique in their able to stay around. it was interesting -- my first department on u uss cunningham and probably got rid

of them at the 25 point and didn't do maintenance on them if anybody served on ddg knows that they were tough to maintain. but reality is we didn't spend my money on maintenance side so at the a 25-year point a lot of people think we ought to get rid of these things because they're -- rust buckets. the reality of it is -- that we really got rid are of a lot of those ships because from a comment system standpoint they're obsolete so fast forward to today, with the board class today and take a look at open architecture and radar and vertical launch, and now you have a platform that can stand around, stay around a lot longer so now question of to kind of shift the thought process now we have a system that is not obsolete so back over to maintenance side of the house and now it if you want to get more service line as a whole you have to do the maintenance on it. and you know admiral daily and i when i became back in 2008 and

force command we reached this epiphany with not spent my money doing maintenance on our service ships for about ten years and woke up one morning and found out oh, my goodness failing and we don't have ships that can get to their expected service life. and you know in hindsight it doesn't tack a rocket scientist to figure out if you don't have maintenance you can't expect ships to get to where they need to go to and gone along happily saying you know whatnot safing maintenance and to do other things it's working. and reality of it we were consuming service life of the ships that were built and eventually it caught up to us. and spent better part of last probably eight to nine years -- digging ourselves out of their hole particularly as it relates to service, you know, private and service ships. so one of the key components i think of getting out to the size of the fleet that we need is going to be looking at taking ddg and what we have today and

extending the service life of these ships. most of them are in 35 year range so we're taking a pretty close look at what would it tack to get them out another five, ten years. and reality they have for a steel hall if you do the maintenance, you can get the service life out much longer. and with today's open architecture and vertical launch there's greater tonight for us to make investment relatively small investment to keep the ships around longer than we have today and people will say we have never gone past 35 year and i will point out routinely take aircraft carrier to 50 years ep reason we do that is because we consistently do it maintenance that you have to do on aircraft carrier to get to 50 years so we know how to do this. and i think what you're going to see is we're going to take a very serious look and taken service life of existing fleet and extending outside to ten years if you do that. and you've soon probably some of the structure assessments which

gets us to 35 ships around 35 if you keep ships and then build new. we can probably accelerate that to get into 355 proanl about ten to 15 years with a relatively small investment over a 30-year period so take a close look at that. one of the things that i have -- you know king thely pointed out as we go look at the new design and go look at the future service is we should not design a ship with the service life of -- plan service life of 25 to 30 years. doesn't make any sense so we ought to go plan service life at 40 plus years for all of our shps and then -- build in the swap context power in them to adapt them going forward so ting that's going to be part of our strategy going forward. so last part and thing i wanted to talk about is the maintenance side of the house and kind of resetting the fleet. if you heard the vice chief back in february he talked about the fact that -- if i have a first collar i get

new dollar i needs to go to readiness and good news is that fy18 budget has unpress amount of money and 7 billion dollars to do maintenance on our ships and that's good. we need that. although as i tell them we have reare sasheses we scdz for. okay. now it is over to us to deliver. but it is important to understand when you talk about maintenance that -- it's not just resources and not just about money and add energy people that can't be the only part of the solution here. clearly 9. billion that we get there help us and grow naval shipyard and grow to i think that's where we need to be to king king king king king consistently only a third of them deliver on time and on the carrier side of the house but 12

of the 17 that are in maintenance overhall or enactivation are behind so we have to turn that around. and so people will help certainly the capacity piece of that is important. but it is not the only piece of it going forward. now number one mission priority is on time delivery of ship and submarine and reason is -- because of the 235 ships that i have about a third of them any time are under the control even in some availability. to the extent that we don't get them out on time it causes great stress on the force and may have is remembered an article back in january, february you can't remember the exact month where a reporter said that yesterday for the first time did not have an aircraft carrier and first time since world war i and -- when you think about it part of that was because we were down to ten carrier and the maintenance

available and didn't know for if last eight months took 13 and so it within the lost to me when i came into the job a year ago -- and now the ability to get job and submarines on time is important to reare set the fleet and to what you need so back to any original comment one we need more people. clearly -- but it can't be only about the people. a couple of other things we have to do here so one, i have to add capacity to do the wok and that gets to people's house. and now figure out new ways to train the work force kids today they're coming in, they're different. learn differently than we learned, and typical timeline to get a train worker naval shipyard by the time you get them in the door and down to do something useful it was five years and we have to cut that back. and new training method today looking to have somebody who can turn and do something useful in ships had this two to three years versus five years so question of to think drchghtly

about how we train this young men and women coming in today because they learn differently than we do. we have to make investment in shipyards both in private side and public shipyard side in order to get the work done more productively than we're getting done today. many of our shipyards some of them are -- several hundred had years old a lot of them were designed to build ships. and in the early part of the 20th century and they're really not set up to handle maintenance the way that should be. we typically are -- many terribles of capital improvement in the yard, we make investment in equipment and replace equipment on order about every 20 to 25 years industry standards is about 10 to 15 years less than that. i have buildings that are over 100 years old you know i can't get worked on. so we better go make an effort to look at from an industrial engineering stand point how do question set yards up and willing to make investments in our naval shipyards in order to get work done more productively going forward.

timely, you've heard probably heard kevin talk about this many years ago. we've got to take the entire industrial base into account here. we do have capacity other place when is we don't have capacity to do in our own yrd and one shipyard concept and news on sub marine work going on right now. so we have of challenges ahead of us by i think the good news is from the maintenance side of the house i'm very encouraged where we're headed. we have resources we need and we have a firm strait ji going forward and start delivering ship and submarines on time and extend expected life of the service that we have and also be a part of our main strategy. when you combine those two things together and build strategy that we have a path to get to 355 and may be a i believe to get there sooner than

we would otherwise get there by just building new so with that i will will -- conclude my remarks and have a seat here and happy to take any questions that you might have. >> well, thank you for those remarks and for the audience and for our guest speaker will start with a few questions up here an open it up and get a discussion going and plenty of interaction, and intention between readiness today build for the future and go back all of those 18 problem whatever you said you worked on that was probably will on first one and probably will today. but one thing that sticks out is that and fleet running at a high tempo didn't mention the leet response plan but that made more

of the fleet more available for tasking. and you alieud to the report and didn't mention it by name but have we caught up enough, i mean, back in 2008, 2009, corrections were put in place but it strikes me that from a maintenance standpoint and from a need from modernization things are pretty tightly wrapped and pretty tough, pretty tough to catch up. how caught up are we? are you satisfied? and maybe you don't agree with the premise. but i think it's a particularly challenging scenario. >> well, i think we have made major gains to catch up. but i don't think we have dug ourselves out of a hole and we have member from the board sitting over here. so the recent -- created event this is of the navy air with o.c. pass for land. so there's a couple of aviators that got there.

so i think we've closed the imap. gap but i think we're almost there and one of the things that -- i saw before if you don't once you get, if you don't then king thely maintain funding that you can rapidly lose the edge that yods. you had and that's important when you talk about the orp because it was built and they put maintenance at the front for a reason. it was in recognition that you've got to get the maintenance done. so we're doing that but it was designed really to provide more force. right. so you'll hear admirable davis talk about it designed to reset the force, provide, you know, power forward in rotational manner but also meant to provide surge capacity. and i think we with haven't, you know, we haven't yet tapped into the surge piece of it.

and we're likely to see more use for instance, you know in aircraft carrier once she's in 36 month psych with a six month maintenance stability that works up for eight to ten months, you know she's got a significant period of time so you send her on a deployment and you come back we would look to continue to use her again. i think -- you know we're going to go look at -- you know, made the investment in maintenance and go get the use out of platform but as you go use platforms, you're consumed the life service life and that is circles back to the importance of your are point in the beginning is okay we're going to use the way it is meant to be used and make the forces available. then we've got to continue to make it more important to do the maintenance because there's a direct correlation between how much you use them and how much maintenance you have to do. one of the interesting things we found is -- in the post 9-1-1 era, even

though total number is of the fleet didn't change dramatically, what we found is 40% more deployed days than we had before and it is kind of like running car at church or across country we were running car across country a lot more. and so we have to do more maintenance on it. >> yes. so you mentioned that thank you for that shipyard and the need to recapitalize a lot of infrastructures and go up maine and see buildings over 100 years old, and so if that's important, is there money budgeted for recap you mention that had you've got maintenance money, are you allowed to apply that to efficiencies and upgrade to the facilities and the capacity you have? >> i have limit haded authority to take the money to do that. one of the things i've been working and serious discussions and -- frankly defense committee have been very open about having a discussion about --

providing more flexibility on some control on the use of that hundred. to make some of the investments we need on the same side, you know, the side of the house, the budget is relative to rest of the budget relatively small. we need to compete for those dollars as well. and we're laying out a long-term investment strategy for naval shipyard specifically asked me what's had the plan? it tbets back to my original comment which is -- just throwing more money and more had people at the problem south is not going to make us more productive. it will help. but there's a number of other elements to the productivity piece and one of those is making the necessary investment in capital equipment to welding machine and et cetera providing shops and if you go -- you know, to get your work done, that flows the material and flows the work into the ship. better than we do today so -- while we don't make investments we need to make today that's pretty clear.

i mean, we make the -- meet the 6% thrermd that's mandated by congress but that's kind of a hold what you and we have to take a serious look at what it takes to go -- invest in the shipyards particularly if we're going to go up size in fleet. naval shipyard can handle 235 ships but if you're talking option shops through to handle 300 ship navy you have a completely different issue. >> agreed. just to get become to capacity issue, u you've got a lot of folks out here who are working in industry. you've already many your remarks highlighted the fact that the 18 as far as next proposed budget it came down on focusing near material readiness make sense to a degree. but there was a lot of people frankly who were expecting a little bit more, you know, with the same number of ships in the ship count for 18 as there were in previous administration's

budget. are there things that you are looking at and are there things that industry should be looking at as you lay in for the ramp up to 355 which, you know, so 18th kind of a readiness this year but what should they be looking at? %... continuing to build with aligned to have.

an individual figure out how we can build quicker for the next set of ships. some of those were continuing with carriers. in the white paper we would like to get to 12. that would change from five to four. one of the things were looking to do. and then on the surface side of the house we've got a number of efforts that will yield a diffidence going forward. we've had to continue to make the case on the budget side of the house, resources necessary to get that done. that's challenging in the environment that we're in today. i think we will see in the 19 budget and beyond we are laying out a compelling case for what we need and what it will cost forward. >> you mentioned capacity also in terms of people. you also mentioned may be dusting off kevin mccoys one

shipyard concept. are we saying strains in competing for the same people? a couple observations is that what we found with the sequester, the fiscal cliff and some of the wild swings was that we were turning on and off. when you went back you try to find that person with that skill set, they either were not there or you had to pay more. and then the last i saw, you would have the latest, that you are still a little short on the government side of hiring the shipyard workers. you had a goal through 60 of having about 2000 more than you currently have on board. are we beating ourselves in this? is there a better way to? >> there some tension early on and in the near term, we do compete for resources with other industries. so when we do have these downturns retained to lose the workforce. short-term. but to your question can make it

the workforce necessary to go build the ships we need and do maintenance? the answer to that is yes. we have had that in the past. when i started working in the '90s, we had 27,500 workers in the naples shipyard. -- naval. we've got to provide a package of the things that would interest you and people to come work at the naval shipyards today. we do compete for some of those people, so in the short term we grab people they would like to have and vice versa. but if there's a stable, predictable plan and we know we will grow the size of the force, and i talk to leaders of industry they are not worried that they can grow. and, frankly, i'm not worried that we're going to have a problem growing the size of the naval shipyards as well. we have a good plan and will be

able to press on. >> last question before he we opened it up to the ideas. you mentioned the good news is, we have a big bump up in owing to him, operation and maintenance money in the near term. what's the next big thing that you think past that that you'd like to see more investment, some from a fibrosis is template weighting to focus, if admiral moran would send the next dollar on-chip maintenance, 19.8 billion, what's the next dollar go to? >> so i think in my lane on the main aside, the next articles into investing in shipyards. making it necessary to go make them workforce more productive. there's an expectation, and correct expectation for the flick that will give you all this money and what you do

deliver things on time but once you get the workforce and jeff the workforce that you need, we expect you to get that. one of the challenges we face today is we've added a significant number of people in never shipyard over the last six, 70 is that i have a pretty young workforce. half of the people today have been less than five years. that's as we add another 2000 over the next two years, that trend, that's not good to change. we've got to recognize we have a young workforce. we've got to go train them so they can become more productive and we have to provide them facilities to be more productive. the expectation is correct, i'm going to give you people, i'm going to give you the dollars but at the end of a i need to have those dollars go build ships and planes and weapons as well. once you get the workforce trained and it is there, i expect you to be able to figure out how to do a 250,000 man days

for example. that's a challenge we face. my next dollar would go into investments in the physical plant of the naval shipyards to make that more productive so we can ultimately start tipping that budget over a little bit so we can go somewhere else. >> okay. let's open it up. we have a few folks here. we can call an on you. sydney, you get the first question. >> sidney friedenberg, breaking to fit. good to see both again, admirals. admirals. you set the very interesting things about how, if we invest in maintenance and extending the service life of our current ships we can get the 355 a lot faster. the big return on investment for that. i would love you to walk through some of the details and the numbers on that, how much life

you again out of what ships? can we get another five years or is it much more nuanced across class and blocks and so forth? what are sort of your best case, middle case come worst-case scenarios for how much time you can bring that goal closer to present? >> so the answer to the question is yeah, i think it applies to all the ship set up vertical launch. we will not go back, some of the earlier ones but i think the studies looked at basically i think 5354, i can't, i can't remember the number. it essentially applies to all with exception to a field. how much service life can you get out? you can certainly get at least

five more years. i think we've taken a look at, i'm convinced, extremely low risk. frankly, we kind of look at it from, i think you can at least get out to the next dry docking to make use of one in five years here with relatively low risk and low cost. they key is due the maintenance that you need to do and then have some baseline modernization capability that you like to have. today that is baseline nine. we have an idea what that would look like. i think that's a relatively low risk proposition. as i said, running numbers, you could probably shave ten to 15 years off of what it would take to get the 355. obviously that's not, i'm not

the decision make all that but from a technical side of house, nancy doesn't see anything technically that would prohibit us from extending the service light of the ships. i didn't do the maintenance and the modernization so they remain, their combat role that going forward. we know how to do that. i don't think this is something that we leaning that much on. i will say on the aluminum side of the house, widow have as much knowledge based on the aluminum and how they react over time. we've seen some of the challenges on that. so i'm not willing to go lean toward yet how far we can get the aluminum hulls ships which is a 25 service life. there's a technical issue. on the nuclear side of house,

separate issues. i think we probably sharpen pencils, they need to be where the need to be today. what i'm looking at is the service of the house. how long we can take those out and issues associated with the hulls. >> cacannot just jump in and ask you one on cyber. we think of other commands having the lead on cyber. but in fact, for the fourth being in the for sure building there's a huge challenge. could you talk a little bit about special efforts required in that arena, cyber compliance? >> that's a great question. i probably should've mentioned that in some of my remarks. and i would say as part of this effort to extend the service life, when i talk about

modernization, cyber is a key piece of that. a lot of people when they hear cyber they think, if they don't know the i.t. system, i'm responsible for all the systems come all the combat systems for cyber protection -- perspective and we got to stay out of out of it. i have three main mission priorities. on-time delivery, cyber for the very reason. the thing everyone read about in the paper, that gets our attentions really pretty quickly. the reality of it is that our ships and submarines today, there is not a system on the ship that doesn't have, that's not heavily invested in software computers. i just came from the gerald r. ford, a magnificent ship and she has a machine control system that allows you to take 1000 people of that ship that

operates the ship remotely and not have security watch and some of the things we did in earlier days. that's great stuff. but all that stuff has computer associate with it. so the cyber piece is not just don't hack into my e-mail on my credit card. it goes a lot further than that on ships today. we have a very big focus on how we go manage. >> have you had to set up any new organization or bring on new folks to do with that? >> yeah, we stood up, we have a chief information officer now that we've grown the size of my workforce there on a lot of the cyber folks in the engineering director. we have a cyber counsel who i meet with monthly. work very closely on standards.

yeah, as we grow navsea and we have to grow navsea if we grow the size of the force and we're looking pretty close. that's a key point. >> more questions. megan, you had your hand up earlier. period right here. >> since sidney devries favor of ask my first question, i'll ask you about the public shipyards picky region try to get the same maintenance ability done with fewer man-hours tha. i was just wondering if that was a result of upgrading the yard infrastructure like you make it or if that would take maybe how you approach the processes, how you kind of innovate? >> i think it's a combination of all those things. so one, if you've ever been, i use ingalls as an example after hurricane katrina.

katrina was a terrible blow to the gulf coast but whenever opportunity to rebuild facilities and rethink how to lay things out, look at how it is performing today, they're knocking it out of the park. anybody that doesn't does will tell you how your shops are set up, a long way towards cutting, making more productive. the second piece of it is workers coming in today, training them and putting davis training to get them up to speed quicker and supplying with tools to make a more productive. one of the things, we tend to be a pretty conservative organization on how we use technology. this great opportunity out there, and i think to use technology, cell phones, et cetera, there are security issues within the would allow us to be more productive.

today's kids learn a lot different. they are not used to throwing a drawing of the table. they are well-versed on taking an app on a phone and looking at the drawing and taking a picture, something on a ship and pushing a button and having the manageriamaterial delivered to . there's a lot of opportunity that is well beyond just adding people. >> will the government work well with what we have today, allow you to take -- another thing to put on? >> that's nothing to put on the pilot. again, we are fairly conservative about our use of new technology. but we get there eventually. if you go look at it today there are two things. when i started back in 1981 and i never would've imagined we would allow yourself to do. i think it's a recognition that you got to embrace the technology that does come with some risk. if you don't recognize it just

the way people learn in the way we can information, i think we're missing a great opportunity. >> right here in the front, on the end. >> you mention the long-term plan for the public shipyards. could you be more specific about what you are assessing terms of investment and people? and when do you anticipate the state t wrap up? is a study congressionally mandated or is that something that the navy is doing on its own? >> it's not congressionally mandated. we did a study back in 2013. 2013. we're kind of sticking with a plan today. this is something that i've asked for so we kind of got off and it is on the own a couple years ago when the hired industrial engineer to go look at the layout and how workflows and the map that were people had to walk between the shops.

they were able to cope with that on a plate and they show that to me last year. we made an investment to go out and do the same thing at the other three shipyards to go get somebody that is formal induction into to look at the yards, map out where all the existing shops to become were to be left want to to get work done and then where if you to optimize that, what would you do so combination of that and the capital improvements facilities in terms of voting machines. the last piece of that is drydock. as a go to block five, the submarines won't fit in a lot of the existing drydocks. the carriers for example, used 13.8 hour on the pier. and have different cooling requirements. we got upgrade the docs as well. we have a long-term plan, investment plan that i've shown

that includes both the drydocks and the facilities invested to get there. it's not cheap. we're talking, you are talking on a drydock site house probably over the next 30 years and investment on the order of three to $4 billion necessary to make the drydocks compatible. those are kind of must haves if you want to have the virginia class and you want forward class carriers, you have to have the drydocks. the second piece of that is a little more competing with edwin else for the dollars. so yes, that plan, we have the basic outlines of it. and answer will be in the fall and rethink will finish up more details in probably february in 2018. february of next year.

i think i will have a boat on this thing wrapped up and play at what we need to go pick on having this conversation with defense committees as well. they're very supportive and want to help. spirit i'm moving over here. >> i'm mike stone from reuters. thanks for coming in. you talked about frigate and delivery and keeping costs down and up want to understand how much time navsea would need with a foreign design frigates in terms of survivability systems and breaking that down and if you can answer that, then how that would compare to domestic side? >> don't know that it would take, you know, i don't know, i don't think it matters where the design comes from in terms of whoever develops the design in

terms of how long it will take us to evaluate it. i think that the thought is here on the frigate that it will be a competitive environment that will include a look across the broad spectrum when you consider a foreign site as part of that competition. we haven't gotten to that point yet, but if we got to the point where we were considering those designs, it won't take navsea in a log of the safety translated from german or dutch or something to the analysis in terms of the survivability. i don't think there's any time difference. >> the gentleman right here at the end. pasha mic. >> rick burgess. admiral, the nimitz class is halfway through its cycle, and is wondering is the ford delight of a midlife, and if so, will it be like a gap between the last nimitz and the forward?

>> yes. forward you have the fourth is designed for midlife refueling as well. we've gone on some insight of house to life ship course. we look to what it would take to get to life of ship 50 core for a forward class and i think we concluded technologically feasible, it would make sense from a cost standpoint if you keep the ship for 5 50 years it got to bring it in to a midlife overhaul anyway and the refueling portion is only 10%. not the critical past sigh think we conclude that from a cost standpoint it just made sense. we will refuel the forward class. let me do the math in my head. forward delivers yesterday she'll be around for 50 years. so our first rc h will be in 2040. 2040. at 23 years to that so let's see, the last bush last in its

class, and she will be around until 2057. so her midlife refueling, i can ever do math in public, will be in 2030. there will be all of it of a gap in refueling program between when we refuel the last of the nimitz class and when we would do forward. a century of the be when we deliver bush in 2008-9 and delivering ford 2017. there will be an eight-year gap. i'll have to address will get to. there will be a lot of in activations going on at the same time. i suspect that will counterbalance, if you're a new producer in shipbuilding, that would counterbalance the loss of the work. >> over here on the right.

>> good morning. a lot of what you spoke about this morning, as you today to problem in a lot of ways, taken when it comes to data sets. the one data set of being soft come off of oem equipment, whether it be rolls-royce turbine. for example, we have a huge amount of data it comes off of turbans that fly through the sky on a commercial level all aroud the world, provide really insightful way to do predictive maintenance on the aviation sector that's commercial applications. within the navy there's a lot of other data that comes off the ship where the custodian is the u.s. navy and you may have information come off of o&m equipment that is owned by the oem it. if you're trying to bring this information together and keen insight from it, how do you see handling that? we talk about cyber but how do

we handle, who owns the data works who protects it? and was able to interpret it in a way that enables you to gain efficiencies? >> so one, i'm a big believer the navy should own the data going forward. and you're right, we absolutely have a lot of data coming off our ships today. we don't frankly make great use of it. you talked about rolls-royce engines. we've been up, the navy leadership has been up to general elective -- general electric to do it they have been doing. i think that's the direction we are absolutely need to be headed. so i have come on surface ships to the other system called the integrated condition assessment system. we have the ability to click data for years. frankly we don't do a lot with the data to us make decisions. but as we go to some of the systems we have today with like the class machinery control system, we have the ability to

collect vibration data and temperature stuff, and we absolutely have to go take a step forward and become more mature in the use of that data. it is driving us to go figure out how to make use of the big data to make better decisions going forward? it's a cross a whole host of different applications. in my world is on the maintenance site. how do you use data to make better decisions about when you do maintenance and what type of maintenance you do. the commercial industry is light-years ahead of us in that particular area, and we've got to get better at it. but to the data portion of it, we need to get the navy to own the data so that we can make some integrated decisions about what we're going to do. >> right up front. we will get you a mic. >> thank you. john hubble with national defense magazine. as you go the size of the fleet and extend service lives, how much do anticipate that o&m cost

will increase as you get towards that 355 ship never? are you concerned those additional cost will eat into the amount of money available for procurement and new builds? >> clearly like a car, in our experience with enterprise or nimitz now, 42 years old, they do take a little bit more maintenance towards the end of their life. but if you're going to get the 355 chips you will have, yet to recognize upfront you have a higher o&m cost. if you're going to go into this thinking you could go the size of the fleet by 80 ships and you're not, your other consul not go up, you've got a problem here so i think we recognize the costs are going to go up. they are a little bit higher towards the last played a part of stages, the life of the ship but they are not astronomically higher than the nimitz class. part of the way you can keep

those costs under control is to make i a consistent investment into the maintenance throughout the life of the ship. what we have found on the nimitz class is when you do the maintenance consistently in accordance with the plan, that you don't get any major anomalies. when you don't, then you have problems. the classic example for us is theodore roosevelt in 71. as we transition many years ago from a maintenance into what we call today the incremental maintenance plan, most of the carriers got a complex overall to kind of reset them. tr missed out on it. so when she got into her midlife refueling, if you to look at how many she typically would've had, she would've that significant fewer mandates work on her inner first 22 years of life than the first nimitz class came in and

69 and 70, 7070 as well. we had a very challenging refueling overhaul, not surprising. so i think you've got to come yes it'll cost you a little more towards the end of life, we had to factor that into our plans, but they key is consistent application and maintenance plan and making investment nestor on a regular maintenance. if you do that then you won't have these major in the last five to ten years. [inaudible] >> you have to do both. as in the beginning you have to do, you have to do the procurement and you have to do the maintenance. if anybody thinks we could get to 355 with it having growth in both of those accounts, they are living in lala land because us not just going to happen. we have to factor both of those in to the equation, and went to

have an honest discussion about the budget. but if you want to get the 355, you've got to do both pick you got to build and you got to maintain. if you skip on one of them, which is been our history, then you run yourself into trouble. if we're committed to 355 ships, we have to be able to willing to go make the investments on the maintenance site is. i'm not concerned they would eat into the procurement side. i do think that one of the things back up on new construction site of house that we don't pay enough attention to is be willing to spend more money up front so that total ownership costs of the ship or the rest of its life comes down. and i think we don't tend to make those investments away the budget works is, the budget year you are in matters and maybe the next budget year but it's hard for people to make investment today that a going to send you my ten, 15, 20 is done through. we had to take a a more total

ownership costs perspective is against an extra ships, wanting to make that investment. the ford class for all the talk about how much of the first ship cost, we did make an investment in that ship that would save $4 billion per ship over 50 years compared to a nimitz class carrier. and so that's a significant savings. and while people may not be interested in that $4 billion savings today when they're struggling to balance the budget to build ships, i guarantee you if your fleet commander 15, 20 are some an out and just several ford class carries out there,, the maintenance class will be significantly less you'll be pretty happy. >> on the end right there. >> toby harshaw from bloomberg view. you mentioned briefly that this

had happened on the private side as well as the public. you went into great detail on what you're doing in your yards, but short of hoping for another hurricane, what do you do to make sure that the private side invest as much money in that as you guys are? >> so obviously were not going to root for another hurricane. so i think, if you go look at the ship builders today, i think, i'm satisfied the ship builders are making the investments, that they need to make. you can go look at new shipbuilding today, some of the things they're doing to build facilities that will allow more work to be done inside, a unit outfitting which is an investment that will allow you to get more work and do for class carrier work inside. the challenge has was bent on my set of house is that the private sector is incentivized to make those investments because it

makes them more profitable going forward. we are willing and we have been in contracts with the new construction side that are willing to partner with them and share some of those costs if they're willing to make those investments, kind of a cap ex in. i'm satisfied the yards today that are out there competing for work by making the investments necessary to keep those yards competitive. that's one of the great things about competition, if the competition incentivized them to make it necessary in the art to make the more profitable. that's the challenge on my set of house is i'm not out to make a profit. what's the incentive for me to make investments in the yard? i need something along the same, i need the same type of thinking. to me the investment is i get more productive and, therefore, i spent less o&m dollars. less maintenance of dollars in the future so there's more money

available for procurement. >> okay. question here in the center. >> admiral shannon. >> good morning. jim shana, naval academy class of 1981. that's who i am represented today. you made a point earlier about a resource constrained budget. if you could explain a little bit more about that, taking into consideration your service on the staff, the role you played then on can the maintenance dollars increased or after you left and then what are you seeing today among the resource sponsors? does n-4 play the same role or has a shifted over? how does it impact you and your bike? >> we are clearly, we clearly always have more requirements then we have dollars. i don't think that's a new today.

the gap may be bigger but we've always faced the challenge. the organization today places more a role of managing dollars from n-9 n-4 still plays a prominent role in assessing whether requirements are and i think the process more transparent and more open than i've seen in the past. you need, i'm going to get quoted on this, it doesn't operate sometimes on an enterprise fashion. in other words, and it was designed that way. they were pretty much focused on -- >> a building advocacy. >> yeah, so they are the advocates for that. so they tend to advocate for that. and so i think what we're trying to get after is an enterprise that says hey, where should the next dollar go to make the most

impact for the navy? i sinks the n-9 organization in concert with white icing today in my 18 years in d.c. is it as good as it's ever been. we are having that open discussion in kind of a corporate board manner, if you would, decide where the money going to go. what happens if you put the daughter here? what happens, what do we do? we are looking instead of winners and losers, it's more of getting back to sing those kinds of questions, what does the navy need? i think we're trying to work pretty hard to optimize the resources we have to get to the need we need. i'm satisfied with the processes we have today and where we have fine-tuned it to make it better. pretty good, pretty robust, and the navy leadership we have that

one side is doing a terrific job of i think managing debt. i think as a result we have a better outcome. >> just a few seconds left and i see the general in the front row side to ask this question. there was some concern that especially the amphibious had not received the love and attention. you talked about the service navy within the service navy you've got those assets which are very large, very complex and important. the guitar will be about recovering the readiness and are you satisfied? >> well, i've got a marine on my staff who manages amphibious ships for me, which does maintenance, talking to the marine corps all the time, a very strong advocate for the amphibious warfare branch.

where there may been in the past a tendency to place more of the resources than the nuclear side of house, today i think with robust classification across the board. we understand the life requirements of the amphibious ships. starting with 17, being well-maintained today. we're sending them ready finish up -- i'm

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> you mentioned industry helping out with the submarines. i was wondering if you could say which yard that is going to and why -- [inaudible] >> i can't tell you what your because it will be competitively bid.

we will see how that goes. >> okay. >> nineteen was the capacity, really the rally. i had to get money in 18 and start planning it. it really was more about -- >> we will leave this at this point to bring you comfort of the u.s. senate. let you know that you can find out more about it at c-span.org, and in the search box type navy maintenance. texas congressman roger williams says a member of his staff was shot at baseball practice in virginia where republican steve scalise was wounded this morning. he is one of the coaches said the gunmen arrived at the practice at about seven eastern this board and open fire. several other people were wounded including law enforcement personnel. congressman joe barton was also at the practice with his sons. a picture from roll call photographer tom williams of the cognitive and his sons as they

board the subway in the capital after this morning shooting in virginia. the democratics are practicing at a different field and they stopped to pray for the republican colleagues shortly after the shooting. president trump at this response. congressman steve scalise a louisiana a true friend and patron was badly injured but with fully recover. our thoughts and prayers are with him. and first lady melania trump tweeted this out. thank you to the first responders who rushed in to help those who were hurt in alexandria, virginia. my thoughts and prayers to everyone. of course we'll keep you updated with any changes, any updates on this story as they happen. u.s. senate about to gavel income continue working on legislation expanded use penalties against iran. live coverage gracious father, our shield and defense, we look to you in these challenging times. lord, the shooting at the congressional baseball practice