LT COURTNEY CALLAGHAN: Good afternoon, I'm Lieutenant Courtney Callahan, the public affairs officer for Rear Admiral John Gumbleton, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for budget, who will brief the Department of the Navy's submission for fiscal year 2022. Following the overview, he will take questions for approximately 15 minutes.
Please limit your questions to one with a follow-up. Rear Admiral Gumbleton, over to you sir.
REAR ADMIRAL JOHN GUMBLETON: Yes, thank you. And good afternoon ladies and gentleman, and thanks for attending today as I provide an overview of the Department of the Navy's FY '22 president's budget request. This request maximizes naval seapower and provides mobile, self-reliant and survivable forces ideally suited to combat the contemporary threats the nation faces.
The budget request reflects the cascading priorities as detailed in the U.S. strategic guidance. At the top of this hierarchy is the president's National Security Strategy (NSS). The guidepost for subsidiary guidance is listed before you. The NSS priorities are centered around protecting the American people from the threats posed by an ascendant China and resurgent Russia, as well as regional adversaries, violent and criminal non-state actors, and extremists.
In his message to the force, Secretary of Defense Austin enumerates three priorities, to defend the nation, take care of our people, and to succeed through teamwork. His message reiterated China is our number one pacing challenge. The Chief of Naval Operations’ Navigation Plan (NAVPLAN) 2021 solidifies the Navy as ‘America's away team… engaged in a long-term competition.’
This strategic vision prioritizes developing a team of naval warriors, as well as delivering a more ready, lethal, and better connected and larger hybrid fleet. As outlined in the commandants planning guidance and force design 2030, U.S. Marine Corps is vigorously redesigning the force for a fundamental pivot back to naval expeditionary warfare.
Before reviewing the budget themes, the department's request is an analytically driven approach, supported by a strong history of reform in order to maximize the value of each dollar, and fully supports the president's National Security Strategy. Under defend the nation, our number one priority, the strategic ballistic missile summary - Columbia includes the second of three years of incremental funding.
Additionally, we request procurement of eight battle-force ships and 107 aircraft. The department continues to innovate in distributed maritime operations, enhanced by investments in platforms, hypersonic weapons, and unmanned capabilities.
We prioritize investments in force design programs that underwrite the Marine Corps’ expeditionary nature and ability to contribute as the part of a larger naval campaign, including key efforts like long-range fires, sensors, and network modernization.
Under enhancing readiness, the Marine Corps continues to implement wargaming results into their training, while the Navy makes targeted investments in ship maintenance and flying hour accounts, while also investing in shipyard infrastructure optimization plan, or SIOP, to recapitalize the infrastructure at the Navy's four public shipyards.
The department remains committed to our most valuable asset, its people. Our request increases focus on eradicating sexual assault and harassment, and emphasizes the mental and physical readiness of our fighting force and their families. These priorities fiscally balance and allow the nation's strategic objectives ensure our sailors and Marines are capable of projecting synchronize lethal and nonlethal effects across all domains.
Today, 90 percent of the world's goods are transported on oceans, and more than 95 percent of critical communications line spans the ocean floor, posting global internet trade and traffic. This will remain so in the coming years.
We recognize that China and Russia posture themselves to project military power in the maritime domain. Both desire to change the world stage, bent to their interests rather than the rules-based order that has served the U.S. and world economies since the end of World War II.
Your Navy Marine Corps team is charged with deterring Chinese aggression, countering a resurgent Russia, removing illegal weapons from the high seas, keeping international chokepoints open, and preventing disruptions like the Suez Canal blockage in March from becoming a purposeful tactics from malign actors.
All of the previously mentioned items are constant, but what is changing is their trajectory of naval power in the modern era. Chinese shipyards produce more tonnage and are on a record pace to surpass the size and capability of your Navy and Marine Corps, and one may ask to what end?
The future is uncertain, but potential conflict and risk to free trade will be in the maritime domain, and your Navy Marine Corps team must be ready. To meet the challenges discussed, the Navy Marine Corps provide forward postured feed based forces, including over 41,000 sailors and 33,000 Marines currently deployed or on their way on 113 ships to include two carrier strike groups and two expeditionary strike groups.
A few recent examples of naval forces providing security and stability around the globe include the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group returned from deployment after the longest continuous time at sea in modern history. The Makin Island Amphibious Group conducted combined operations and multilateral exercises throughout U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (Indo-PACOM) area of responsibility (AOR).
The Truman Carrier Strike Group deployed and extended on station, remaining ready to respond. And Marine Rotational Force Darwin is forward deployed, reassuring partner nations in the Indo-PACOM theater. Overall, your Navy Marine Corps engaged in joint integrated operations around the globe with our partners and allies providing immediate response options to our leadership and deterring our adversary.
Transitioning to the fiscal slides, the FY '22 president's budget request for the Department of the Navy is $211.7 billion, a $3.78 billion increase from FY '21 enacted. In our top left, you will see a graph by service split percentage. The Navy budget at $161.6 billion, the Marine Corps budget at $47.9 billion, and the secretary budget at $2.3 billion.
Although the details may be too small to read, the bar chart to the top right depicts a yellow line representing our top line and FY '10 constant year dollars, which is essentially flat. Beginning with the lower left, the Navy budget remains flat with growth and personnel in R&D accounts. The lower right, the Marine Corps budget increases by 6 percent with real growth in their operational maintenance and procurement accounts. Budgetary constraints continue to force prioritization of requirements and the Department made a strong commitment to reform initiatives, harvesting savings for reinvestment. During the budget bill we realigned tens of billions of dollars toward higher priority programs and divested of legacy capabilities.
Moreover, budget decisions are reinforced through war fighting analytics, as part of this analysis, values assessed in iterative war games, mission and campaign analysis, and experimentation. Accordingly, the department's FY '22 requests is strategically aligned, reform minded, and underpinned by analysis and wargaming for the right mix of readiness, modernization, investment. Next I'll highlight changes to the budget request. You'll see in these next slides how the Department request enables us compete, deter, and if necessary, defeat our adversaries while we accelerate development of a modernized integrated all domain Naval Force.
So for shipbuilding, the Department appreciates the strong support by Congress for naval shipbuilding in FY '21, which included an additional Virginia class submarine and one expeditionary fast transport over our request for eight ships. This year we seek an additional eight battle force ships. Our budget request includes two Virginia class submarine, one Arleigh Burke class destroyer, one guided missile frigate, one John Lewis class replenishment oiler, two towing, salvage, and rescue ships, and one auxiliary ocean surveillance ship.
Other significant ship building investments include the Columbia Class program. Requests $4.6 billion, which includes the second increment of the first boat, representing 21 percent of our SCN appropriation. In addition, the Ford Class Carrier Program requests $2.4 billion for incremental funding for CVN 80 and 81. Virginia class submarine budget request $6.4 billion for two block 5 fast attack boats, and the Department's request funds the one DDG 51 flight three destroyer mentioned earlier.
And the guided missile frigate request includes $1.2 billion for the third frigate of the class and adds $85 million to begin funding of the land-based engineering test site. We are requesting four additional landing craft, two additional ship to shore connectors. Additionally, we request $2.5 billion for the third and final increment of the John C. Stennis refueling complex overhaul. Finally, our request includes five used Sealift ships, an affordable way to recapitalize our strategic lift requirement.
Shifting to aviation procurement, the Department appreciates the strong Congressional support of our aviation program in FY '21, including the added funding for an additional 23 aircraft. Our funding decreases from FY '21 enacted as we completed the planned buy of the F-18 super hornet, the P-8 Poseidon, VH-92 presidential helicopter. In this budget, our significant aviation investments include the production of the F-35, Bravo and Charlie lightning 2s, we're are requesting 37 F-35s in this budget.
We request five E-2 Delta Advanced Hawkeyes as they enter the fourth year of a five-year multiyear. The KC-130 J Super Tanker also enters the fourth year of a five-year multiyear. Moving to rotary wing, we are requesting nine heavy lift CH-53 King Stallion helicopters, and this request provides the Navy Marine Corp with eight MV-22s. Next, we continue to increase our training capacity with a procurement of 36 additional TH-73 training helicopters (AHTS), and finally the Marine Corps is requesting six medium altitude long endurance tactical (MALE-T) vehicles to support the Marine Littoral Regiment (MLR). Excuse me.
Moving to enhanced competitive capabilities, this chart provides an overview of some of our key lethality and modernization investments, strengthening our objective to provide hybrid naval forces capable of projecting lethal and non-lethal effects across all domains. Research and development funding increases by 13 percent for the Navy, and 9 percent Marine Corps, over FY '21 enacted amounts. For the Navy, part of this increase reflects the Software and Digital Technology Pilot Program, first enacted in FY '21, which allows software development and acquisition to be under a single R&D appropriation.
This year, the NexGen enterprise network is moved into this account, other significant investments include increases to conventional prompt strike, both joint strike fighter variance, TACAMO, and the ground based anti-ship missile. These investments illustrated to your left are synchronized. The Navy is investing in key manned platforms, unmanned platforms, including air, surface, and subsurface vehicles, cyber and information warfare capabilities, and Marine Corps force design capabilities and units. And perhaps most important, investments in the Naval operational architecture, linking them together seamlessly to integrate sensors, platforms, and their weapons to facilitate distributed maritime operations.
Since Force Design 2030 was announced in March 2020, considerable progress has been made as Marine Corps enters into year two of this 10 year modernization effort. Marine Corp began the divestment of legacy systems and functions and modified its force structure in ways that support operations of the stand in force. Major increases to these critical programs include ground-based anti-ship missile, MUX/MALE-T platforms, the F-35 Bravo, and MAGTF electronic warfare family of systems. The programs listed on the bottom half of this slide represent the most critical programs related to the commandants force design modernization effort.
As we transition to this next section, I would emphasize that readiness remains a clear department priority. And FY '22 signifies a change for the Department's gains on ship and aircraft maintenance, has led us to fund these accounts to hat we can afford versus our previous model of funding to what we could execute. Focus on performing to plan has led to maintenance availabilities, trending up for on-time delivery. These ship maintenance improvements are a result of better contracting strategies with our OPM pilot and more accurate availability duration planning.
On the top of the slide, we continue to grow our ship maintenance account by 6 percent above '21 enacted. This growth is for private contracted submarine maintenance for Hartford, Boise and Columbus. Additionally, the Department's requesting continues to invest in growing the productivity of the naval shipyards, increasing them by 1000 workers, bringing the total up 37,000 teammates. And the Navy expands the OPM pilot to include private availabilities for surface ships in both fleets.
At the bottom of the slide you'll note that the ship operations funding increased 7 percent over last year. This program increase will support additional carrier strike group deployments with additional steaming days, as well as the associated increase and repair parts. Funding also supports a larger number of ships in the military, sealift command. Training for Marine Corps readiness at the top of the slide, you'll see that the budget remains flat and consistent with the depot maintenance required for wheeled and tracked vehicles.
The strategic choice to divest heavier, more expensive equipment is allowing the Marine Corp to increase throughput of equipment at its depots. This includes an additional 253 combat vehicles over FY '21. To the bottom, the Marine Corps continues to prioritize war fighting readiness with an increase of 3 percent supporting operational forces, field logistics, maritime pre-positioning, and cyberspace activity. And finally, an increase for the Marine Corps Enterprise IT service will reduce security vulnerabilities and improve Information Technology service. Looking at aircraft depot maintenance at the top of the slide, funding remains consistent with FY 21 enacted levels to sustain gains and aircraft mission-capable rates. The Navy has maintained 341 up Super Hornets since October of '19, up from an average of 255 jets.
This remarkable turnaround came in part by improvements at our aircraft depots, reducing the time to conduct maintenance and returning aircraft to the fleet. On the bottom half in air operations, this budget increases the flying hour program by 11 percent to account for more up aircraft, enabling pilots to execute more of their training matrix, leading to improved pilot proficiency and safety. Accordingly, we're resourcing 92,000 more flying hours in an FYI 21 request, including increased funding for embarked Carrier Air Wings (CAW). To train our student naval aviators, we led five new contracts for maintenance of our pilot training fleet, an increase of $258 million from FYI 21. This critical investment will support increased student pilot throughput supporting the recovery from our tactical aircraft pilot shortfall.
Turning to installations and facilities. At the top of the slide, you'll see the Navy installations and support graph. We continue to take risks in our shore infrastructure to balance our overall program within the constraints of the budget. Although the Navy budget decreases 5 percent from '21 levels, the base operating support portion increases and addresses initiatives to improve childcare waitlist and climate change, like electrical vehicle leasing and charging stations.
Navy facilities sustainment restoration and modernization funding decreases are primarily in the funding for the China Lake earthquake recovery and Kings Bay dry dock projects as we approach their final stages of those efforts. FSRM projects in FY 22 are focused on SIOP, fleet warfighting priorities, and utility infrastructure repairs. Reviewing the bottom slide in the Marine Corp installations and support, you'll note funding increases for BOS by 7 percent, which supports collateral equipment for national disaster project completions, communications grid, and cloud updates, as well as child and youth programs, SAPR and Wounded Warrior Program enhancements.
Additionally, FSRM funding increases 20 percent to include over $100 million for infrastructure reset for Energy and Climate resiliency. Other increases support Cyber Command, force design infrastructure, and upgrades for gender integration at Recruit Depots. As we key into our greatest asset, the people that support the department's mission, we remain committed to programs that support our force and enable them to execute as a cohesive team maintaining our advantage at sea. This budget request includes a 2.7 percent pay increase for our sailors, Marines, and civilians.
The department is putting a renewed emphasis on building respect for the dignity of every team member. We will leverage our diversity and talents to maintain a tactical advantage through a culture of trust and confidence. At the top of the slide, the chart shows the active Navy request is 1,600 strength lower than FY 21, which accounts for force structure changes. This request continues our investment in providing training to the best sailors in the world with programs like ready relevant learning, live virtual constructive training, and develops the Naval Community College.
In January, over 500 students from the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard were selected to participate in a limited Community College pilot program. In FY 22, the effort will expand to include up to 5,000 students. Moving to reserve Navy at the bottom, we continue our commitment valuing sailors as we prioritize assessing active military into our reserve fleet. And finally, the Navy Reserve end strength decreases slightly as we reduce reserve helicopter squadrons. Looking now at the active duty Marine Corps, the top of this chart reflects a reduction of 2,700 strengths from FY 21 to align with the commandant's force design effort to reallocate resources for new capabilities.
The budget request supports a plan one-to-three deployment-to-dwell ratio, providing a 2.7 percent pay increase to support the individual marine and their family. The pay raise in addition to the maturing of the force accounts for the budget increase despite a lower overall end strength from FY 21. The Marine Corps Reserve end strength reduces by 1,700 in FY 22 due to the reduction of tank and bridging companies, as well as a marine unmanned aerial vehicles squadron. As we review the department's family housing programs at the top of the slide. This budget funds the construction, operation, maintenance, and leasing of family housing worldwide.
Our request reflects a 6 percent increase from FY 21, funding projects like the revitalization of 97 officer-enlisted family townhomes, as well as a renovation of the historical Marine Corps barracks in Washington D.C. Our investments in military family housing directly improved the quality of life for our sailors, Marines, and their families. Moving to military construction at the bottom, the request reflects a 21 percent increase over FY 21 and funds 29 projects grouped as you see on the slide, including 14 projects for the Navy and 15 projects for the Marine Corps. The department is continuing to invest in SIOP, including the second increment of the Portsmouth dry dock and a dry dock saltwater system for CVN-78 in Norfolk.
Finally, $530 million of the department's military construction budget request is in direct support of the Guam Defense Policy Review Initiative to reduce the U.S. military footprint on Okinawa, relocating some forces to Guam. In our final section, building on SecDef Austin's top three priorities, I would point out that our budget continues to strengthen the department's enduring military to military relationship with existing allies. On this slide, the department's budget requests underscore that international cooperation and exercises and operations is a critical aspect of building alliances and partnerships, and our fleet commanders will focus on full interoperability at the high end of naval warfare.
These critical partnerships generate key capabilities, increased capacity, provide access to valuable strategic positions, and guard the rules-based international order around the world. America will always be a nation-leading with diplomacy first, and working closely with like-minded friends and allies is a force multiplier and strategic advantage that our competitors cannot match. To summarize, the department's budget drives operational concepts, capabilities, and plans to bolster integrated deterrence and maintain our competitive advantage. The request funds readiness to affordable levels through sustained investment and performance improvement. It accelerates investments in more lethal network capabilities, and concepts integrated with the Joint Force.
And finally, the department's request was a collaborative, analytically driven approach that represents the best mix of readiness for today, modernization for tomorrow, and investment in the future given the resources a lot. This completes my overview, and I look forward to your questions.
LT CALLAGHAN: All right, we'll start on the phone with Chris Cavas.
CHRIS CAVAS: Hi, thanks for taking my question. I appreciate it. So, could you talk about the decision to fund only one destroyer? You have three ships left in the current MYP multi-year procurement that runs out in 2022. DDGs 137, 138, 139, presumably the ship you're asking for now is DDG-137 already slated for Ingles. How are you going to explain this delay with 138 to Senators King and Collins and the rest of the New England delegation? And separately, are there penalties the Navy will have to pay for not executing this entire multi-year procurement on time? Will you have a new MYP in 2023? Or are you pushing that back a year? Thank you.
RADM GUMBLETON: OK. Thank you for the question. First of all, when it comes to any budget, this was absolutely an affordability question where the goal of the department was to balance the first priority, which is investment in Colombia recapitalization. A second priority, which is to prioritize readiness to deliver a combat, credible force for today, invest in lethality and modernization, and then grow the warfighting capacity at a rate supported by our budget controls. And so, when you ask the question with respect to the second DDG, this was clearly a hard choice with respect to what we could afford as we build the Navy for the '22 budget. Finally, with respect to the penalty in the multi-year, there was a $33 million multi-year penalty. The hard choice being that the Navy chose to invest the cost of the destroyer in a blended mix of readiness, modernization, and capability for the future.
LT CALLAGHAN: OK. In the room, we’ll go with Sam LaGrone.
LAGRONE: Hi, admiral. The budget documents from DOD say that y'all are divesting about $1.28 billion across two Ticonderogas, an LSD, some Mark VIs, four LCS. Can you talk about where those savings are going? Is there a direct correlation to the Navy budget? Because everything that the DOD has said so far has been pretty purple in terms of hypersonics, 5G, A.I., it's all been very vague. Is this money going back into the Navy? Could you be a little bit more clear on where these funds are going? Thank you, sir.
RADM GUMBLETON: Yeah, you bet. So that is accurate. So we intend to inactivate those ships that were mentioned. And that money has been re-rolled back into our '22 budget. Recognizing though, that this is a '22 only budget, so, therefore, we can comment on that. But much of those savings for the divestment of those ships are really a FYDP profile, the operations sustainment costs, and so we can't comment on the future FYDP of them. But those resources are being rolled back into the Navy's program for future investment in what we believe is the best lethality and capabilities we need for both modernization and investment for the future.
LAGRONE: Just a follow-up, just to be clear. You can't say where that funds are going because they're going to be in the FYDP, but Congress and the public aren't going to have access to that, sir?
RADM GUMBLETON: So there are savings in '22, and those are rolled right back into, again, readiness, modernization, and investments, but the larger scale of those savings do occur in the FYDP, and those will be decided during our POM '23 budget build.
LT CALLAGHAN: On the phone Jeff Schogal.
SCHOGAL: I thank you. Has the Marine Corp's divestment of tanks allowed it to accelerate the procurement of the amphibious combat vehicle, which is currently expected to be fielded by 2028?
RADM GUMBLETON: Well, thank you for the question. The plan for the ACV is to increase the buy from 72 to 97 [correction: 92] vehicles in FY 22. And so the tank divestiture is a piece of that. However, I wouldn't say that is the only piece of that. The Marine Corps is also divesting as briefed the 2,700 strength. It's a blend of all these divestitures that the Marine Corps is using to reallocate towards forced design initiatives.
LT CALLAGHAN: OK, in the room Megan Eckstein.
ECKSTEIN: Hey, thank you so much. I wondered if you could talk a little bit more about the Project Overmatch and the NOAA side of the portfolio? You know, while the unmanned vehicles are in the RDT&E budget this year, kind of what's being done on the network side to prepare for when those are ready? And how does this year's budget kind of get you more towards that vision as the distributed operations?
RADM GUMBLETON: Thank you. So for the operational architectures, absolutely a priority. Project Overmatch with funding in the budget of FY 22 has the three R&D lines that also happen to be classified. But those values do increase.
ECKSTEIN: OK. And just I mean, some of what you've discussed is, you know, being funded to the full need and others kind of budget limited. When it came to Overmatch and the network type stuff, I mean, is that funded to the greatest extent, you know, that they're able to work through technologically, or was that limited in terms of the top line in any way?
RADM GUMBLETON: So Project Overmatch is the priority right behind Columbia. And so it competes quite well for funds. I wouldn't say it's resource-limited at all.
ECKSTEIN: Thank you.
LT CALLAGHAN: On the phone Pat Host.
HOST: Hello. I was looking to see if the Navy and Marine Corps were going to start its future vertical lift efforts in the budget this year, and I didn't find anything. What's going on there?
RADM GUMBLETON: You are correct. So there is no future vertical lift in the FY 22 budget request.
HOST: Is there a reason for that? Why aren't you starting your effort this year? Why aren't you funding it?
RADM GUMBLETON: You know, I'll be happy to take that one for the record.
HOST: Thank you.
STAFF: All right. In the room, Lee Hudson.
HUDSON: I wanted to ask about the FA-18 divestment. How do you plan to make that case to Congress? Like for instance, are there enough other aircraft to augment the divestment? I was hoping you could talk a little bit about that.
RADM GUMBLETON: Yeah, thank you. So for the divestment, we're talking Legacy Hornets. And so I think the department's going down from 150, down to 15 and intends to walk that down here in future years. So that's fully incorporated with the program. So as we invest in the 37, F-35s we spoke of. And then also match that with the fact that we're increasing the readiness and availability of our Super Hornets and investing in their service life management. And so that blend of those three programs together is how we intend to manage that.
HUDSON: Thank you.
LT CALLAGHAN: On the phone, Aiden Quigley.
QUIGLEY: Hi, thanks. My question is the unmanned campaign plan. What investments is the Navy making in this budget to support that?
RADM GUMBLETON: Thank you. So unmanned campaign plan has investments across both the undersea and surface portfolios for the large and mid-size UUVs. So there's money in the R&D portfolio to continue that effort.
LT CALLAGHAN: All right. In the room, Paul McCleary.
MCCLEARY: With the cruisers, in one part of the budget, you list cruisers you want to divest of, and elsewhere, it looks like there are seven that you want to get rid of. Is this part of the FYDP, or where do those seven come from?
RADM GUMBLETON: Yeah, thank you. So the total amount of cruisers that we seek to deactivate is seven. Five were always programmed in, and so it's just part of the end of their service life. However, two additional ones were part of the -- were new to the program and represent $1.5 billion over the FYDP. And so we're seeking to divest those two additional cruisers to reallocate those funds to other priorities.
MCCLEARY: All right. And the LCS 9 is only a couple years old, why was that included in the LCS divestitures?
RADM GUMBLETON: Yes, so as they looked at LCS -- LCS 5 happened to just have a maintenance availability and we're putting a Naval Strike Missile on it and it's getting ready for a deployment. And so we looked at -- for the total of four to reinvest those -- that -- those funds across the FYDP, and 7 and 9 were the most suitable ships for that reason.
LT CALLAGHAN: On the phone, Richard Abby [correction: Abott]
ABOTT: Are -- is the Navy continuing former Secretary Modly's Stem-to-Stern Strategic Review saving billions of dollars per year? And was that part of the part of the budget planned allocated this year?
RADM GUMBLETON: Yes, so absolutely. I think this budget and our next budgets are all extraordinarily reform-minded. As we look at a pressurized budget going forward we really have to maximize every -- every penny. And so looking hard at our programs, what we're investing in reform initiatives, whether it's Perform to Plan or otherwise, to invest in the right blend of readiness, modernization investments starts with these efficiencies, so absolutely.
LT CALLAGHAN: In the room, Caitlin Dornbos.
DORNBOS: With the shipbuilding budget decreasing, will the eight additional ships keep the Navy on track toward the 355-ship goal or is that priority pushed off?
RADM GUMBLETON: So I would -- I would tell you that eight ships a year is not going to get to 355. And so all things being equal, if you have a 300-ship navy and a 30-year life, you have to recapitalize at 10 per year and so eight is not going to do it.
That said, we're consistent with last year's request of eight ships. We're requesting eight this year again. And we have to manage. Again, it's all about not having a hollow force, making sure we're ready today, modernizing for tomorrow and then the investment for the future. And with this top-line allocated, this is the right blend to do that.
LT CALLAGHAN: In the room, Steve Trimble.
TRIMBLE: The NGAD program and FAA -- F/A-XX, I couldn't find any reference to it in the R-1, just wondering if there's anything in the budget for -- for those programs.
RADM GUMBLETON: Yes, there is. And the NGAD is a classified program.
TRIMBLE: So no -- no budget then? Yes.
RADM GUMBLETON: So no comment here.
LT CALLAGHAN: Looks like we -- do we have any last questions?
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. That’s all the time we have here. I’ll be available in the CHINFO spaces to touch base if you have any follow up questions.
RADM GUMBLETON: Yes, have a great weekend, everyone.
UNKNOWN: Thank you.