Deputy Assistant Navy Secretary for Budget Rear Adm. Randy Crites, News Briefing on President Trump's F.Y. 2020 Defense Budget Request
LT CMDR CHAMBERS: All right, good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. In a few moments, Rear Admiral Randy B. Crites, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Budget will present the Navy PB 20 submission.
Following the presentation and time permitting we'll take some of your questions, Admiral.
REAR ADM. RANDY CRITES: Feeling kind of lonely up here. All right, hi everyone. Thanks for joining me today as I provide an overview of the Department of the Navy's fiscal year '20 President's budget request.
I'll spend 20 or 25 minutes on this and then we'll have time for questions as he already highlighted. Just to highlight right up front that for the Navy and the Marine Core this request absolutely fields a formidable force in all domains of naval operations.
It's a force to deter and when conflict is necessary, to soundly defeat any threat to the United States.
Let's go ahead and go to the first slide, please. So this really provides the output of our budget request. Our budget is strategy driven and it's focused on maximizing our naval power. The resources, the force required to implement the National Defense strategy and aligns our people, capability, and processes.
Our budget builds on the prior year investments that we've made to deliver increased readiness and lethality both today as well as in the future and synchronize for the joint fight across the different domains.
In terms of capacity, our budget does provide for a larger overall force. We deliver more people, we deliver more platforms, and as well as the enablers that make us whole. We also deliver a better and more innovative force through investments and improve our legacy platforms and provide for a more robust and lethal mix of next generation opportunities.
Let's go ahead to the next slide, please. So beginning with our guidance, I would just highlight across the top there beginning with the National Security Defense and Military strategies in the center with Secretary Spencer's guidance on people, capabilities, and processes.
CNO Richardson's recently released Navy strategy and distributed maritime operations and design for maintaining Superiority, Version 2.0 and Commandant Neller's Marine Corps operating concept.
I would just say the central theme of all this guidance is the return to great power competition and our fiscal year '20 budget request reflects the implementation of this guidance to ensure that the Department can compete, can deter, and can win and are ready to conduct prompt and sustained combat operations to protect America as well as preserve our strategic influence in key regions around the world.
Let's go ahead to the next slide please. So today's execution of that guidance really is the result of the resources that we had available and the hard choices that we made in prior years to field today's Navy and Marine Corps, but at the same time the budget that I'm going to show you here adapts to the changes that we're seeing in the security environment and I just want to highlight some of that.
We are seeing an increase in reliance in the maritime system. I think many are aware that maritime traffic has increased nearly four-fold over the last two decades.
We have more than 90 percent of all global goods being shipped on the high seas. We have new trade routes that we're opening up to the north and I think new technologies are making undersea resources more available.
So I think the key take away there is just that our seas are more heavily used, they're more stressed and more contested than ever before. And so the competition is clearly on. We know that both Russia and China are fielding high-end military capabilities and frankly ideologies that are incompatible with the rules-based international order.
And so for us to be able to continue in that environment we need to be bigger, we need to be better, and we need to be more ready and that's sort of the outline of this brief. I don't have an agenda slide in here, but I'm going to talk to our budget in terms of bigger, better, and more ready.
Go ahead to the next slide. I just want to provide a little operational context as well. So I highlighted some of the challenges of some of the things that are going on around the world today.
We have Navy/Marine Corps forwarddeployed on -- at sea. 19,000 sailors, 10,000 Marines that are either deployed or underway on 91 different ships -- two carrier strike groups, two amphibious ready groups additionally we have 20,000 Sailors, 32,000 Marines that are forward deployed ashore as well as 5,000 Sailors and 24,000 Marines in the Indo-Pacific.
Just to cover a few examples of operations and activities that have been going on here recently. We have the USS Donald Cook operations in the Black Sea.
Recently we had the South China Sea operations of USS Spruance and USS Preble as well as the recent Taiwan Strait Transit of the USS Stethem. So all of -- much of that there around China was focused on demonstrating freedom of navigation as a matter of fundamental principle.
We also have the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group that participated with the U.K., the French and the Australian navies in the Arabian Gulf as part of Operation Freedom Sentinel.
And again, I would say for, you know, kind of the key takeaway here, the Navy and the Marine Corps continue to be engaged at high tempo in harm's way, providing immediate response options, assuring our allies and deterring our adversaries.
Let's go ahead to the next slide, please.
So to provide a little historic trend of the Navy's fiscal environment, I always start off by saying that we're very appreciative of the fact that we've had increasing funding over the last couple years.
The -- this idea of adequate, stable and predictable funding continues to be a very high priority. The highest, I would say. For FY '20, the combined base and contingency operation budget for our department is $205.6 billion. That's base plus OCO, the required amount to execute the National Defense Strategy in the budget that you're going to see here.
This is a 4.8 percent increase, as compared to our FY '19 enacted budget. And since '17, we've averaged an annual budget growth of about 5.7 percent, averaged over those three years. That's not corrected for inflation, that's just a -- straight number.
So last year when we were here, we talked about the erosion of -- our military advantage that occurred during those lean years, that you can see there in the center of the chart. And I would say this budget puts us on a much better trajectory to kind of restore that competitive advantage.
So the budget increases do provide stability, support our readiness as well as allow us to increase our combat capabilities while we grow capacity where it makes sense.
However, I would also highlight that even with the increasing budgets, I would just point out the yellow or the gold line that runs across the chart, which is FY '10 (constant year) dollars, applied to the individual bars. So our actual buying power today is about the same level as it was in 2010 and 2011.
OK. Let's go to the next slide, please.
So this slide provides, really, an overview of the money moved by appropriation group compared to FY '19. The enacted request is where we're at today.
For the -- it's hard to see but at the bottom there -- Navy request is for $159.7 billion, and the Marine request is for $45.9 billion. I think the -- you'll see there that in all the groups, we're seeing increasing funding with the exception of procurement up to the top right. There is some slight decrease there. And I'll explain -- some of the adjustments as we go through the briefing, OK?
Next slide, please.
So as I mentioned earlier -- the outline of this is really in terms of the bigger, better and more ready force. I want to start off with our readiness. I want to start with people, frankly, because they're our most important resource that we have, and our greatest advantage, in my view.
And what I would say here is that both our, you know, Sailors, our Marines, our active reserve, including the Civilians -- without them, we can't do any of the missions that we're required to do. And you can see, at the very top left of the chart, that shows our battle force ships that are increasing over the FYDP.
Today, we're at 289. We will achieve 296 by the end of '19, 301 at the end of FY '20 and then we get out to the 314 towards the end of the FYDP, which is about a 5.5 percent increase in our battle force ships.
In terms of our active end strength, which is at the top of the chart for the Navy, will grow to 340,500. That's 5,100 end-strength increase, which supports the new platforms, the new capabilities as well as addressing fleet needs and it reduces gaps.
At the bottom, for the reserve force, it remains nearly steady. It delivers a relevant operational capability that would continue to preserve our strategic depth and aligns to the force structure adjustments that we made. And our budget also includes the 3.1 percent pay raise that's already been highlighted today.
OK. Next slide, please.
OK. So this is the Marine Corps. So you can see that the Marine Corps end strength is increasing to 186,200. That manning does support the Marine Corps operating concept and delivers more experienced, better trained and capable force.
Along the bottom for the Marine Reserves, they're steady at 338,500, which continues to deliver a ready, relevant response force, a force that's capable of seamlessly augmenting, reinforcing and operating as part of our total overall force.
Next slide, please.
For the civilian personnel, this account, we're also increasing here, 1.5 percent between F.Y. '19 to F.Y. '20, which is balanced to provide for our new platforms and capabilities. We are bringing on more skilled labor for our shipyards and our air depots.
We're also including scientists, engineers, cyber-experts and others as we bring on new technologies and operating concepts. And all this is geared correctly towards implementing, improving our readiness and lethality.
Next slide, please.
So we'll spend a minute here on ship depot and ship operations. Ship depot maintenance is top of the account. So from a ship depot maintenance standpoint, we do increase our funding 6.8 percent over where we were last year. We're funded to 95 percent of our required -- requirement, which we believe is the max executable capacity that we have in '20.
That said, we are committed to ensuring that our ships are ready today, as well as in the future. We do know that in some cases, we have maintenance backlogs, so more work than we can get pushed through.
We have some delays in cost growth that we're working very hard, through process improvement, to get after that. We're investing in skilled labor, equipment, infrastructure and -- and that sort of thing, all focused on growing our capacity, improving our productivity and workflow.
And we're also working contracting strategies with our civilian industrial partners, I should say, to improve predictability in future workload, which will incentivize some private sector growth.
We do grow our shipyard workforce up to a little over 36,100 full-time equivalent. And then down at the bottom for ship operations, that account also increases by 5.5 percent, from -- as compared to last year. It funds 58 days under way while deployed, and 24 days under way while non-deployed per quarter.
The increased investment is also applied to consumables and repair parts for the ships. The bottom-line takeaway, I think, from this bottom lineis that we are delivering ships that are combat-ready and worldwide-deployable.
OK? Let's go ahead to the next slide, please.
For Marine Corps, you know, just these combat elements, we deliver forces ready to meet the expeditionary naval force requirements. At the top of the chart, you'll notice that the ground equipment budget does decrease slightly, as we near completion on our reset strategy.
Equipment reset is 99 percent complete and we'll finish it up this -- at the end of this year. We maintain our Marine Corps equipment availability at 82 percent, and serviceability at 93 percent.
At the bottom, Marine Corps readiness funding -- increases by 13 percent, which does provide for a more ready, agile and capable force.
OK. Next slide, please.
Let’s shift and talk about aviation depot maintenance and air operations. So aviation depot is at the top. Funding does decrease slightly from '19 to '20. You can see, we go from 1.5 down to 1.4. This really is in alignment with the different mix of airframes and engines that we have required in '20.
Additionally, we do provide additional funds to our key performance drivers, such as aviation logistics, equipment readiness, engineering support, spare parts. And again, similar to the ship depot maintenance efforts, we're working process improvement through data analytics, predictive modeling and support from our industrial partners.
We are funded to max capacity, it's 95 percent of our modeled requirement, and we are making progress towards the SECDEF's goal of 80 percent mission capable strike fighters.
For air operations, at the bottom, we do increase that account by 4.2 percent which amounts to about 25,000 additional hours, to align for increasing mission capable rates. And we here as well are funded to our maximum capacity. All of our squadron -- squadrons are deploying from combat ready and I think what I would say as a takeaway here, we continue to provide the available aircraft by providing the right part at the right time, along with our correct number and mix of skilled maintainers. So, a big focus area.
Shifting to installations and facilities, so this is an area that we've taken some risk. In recent years, we've increased funding so Navy's at the top, Marine Corps' at the bottom. We're at 87 percent of our sustainment requirement. That's 87 percent of the OSD goal, which is a good thing. I would highlight, though, that for the Navy, we have a pretty sizeable backlog of deferred maintenance and repair to the tune of about $14 billion. And for the Marine Corps, it's near $9 billion.
PB-20 investment is going to arrest the degrade of shore facilities and makes target -- targeted investments in mission critical infrastructure. And I think the increased funding is absolutely going to help with our material condition and we do hold the BOS -- base operating support about steady.
At the bottom, I'll talk about the Marine Corps. So, their account is funded to 88 percent of the DOD requirement. The -- that's in sustainment. And their funding increase is 28 percent over where it was last year. This supports the commandant's infrastructure strategy and does better contribute to force generation -- force readiness. Also included in this is an additional $443 million of restoration and modernization to help with the hurricane damage from Michael and Florence.
In addition, we're working F.Y. '19 in execution to try to get additional funds to help with the substantial damage that occurred in Camp LeJeune, Cherry Point, New River and Albany. Next slide, please. So, want to transition away from the readiness discussion and move to the -- the capacity, the bigger better part of the brief. So, I would highlight at the top that you can see, based on -- as I mentioned earlier, based on our operational context and what we're seeing out there in the world today, that we need to grow.
And so I've already highlighted how we'll grow across the FYDP. We do achieve 355 in F.Y. '34 under our current plan. There is a long-range shipbuilding plan, 30-year shipbuilding plan that will be released next week along with some of our other budget material that will provide the specifics of how that's achieved. And then down at the bottom, I would highlight that these are some of our key capacity increases.
I've already mentioned people. In terms of munitions, our preferred munitions are all increasing, our weapons budget grew by 16 percent from F.Y. '19 to F.Y. '20. We're expanding on our unmanned capacity as we move towards a more distributed, lethal, and cost-imposing force, as the future of conflict is changing. These investments help us expand the competitive space that we're operating in. We continue with our strike fighter and other aircraft investments and then at the bottom, we're also expanding our information warfare efforts.
Let's go ahead to the next slide, please. So, our budget request provides significant investment towards innovation to deliver better forces both today as well as in the future. Our research and development account increases by $1.8 billion from '19 to '20 which is a 9 1/2 percent increase. Our ship, aircraft, and weapons development efforts are sustained. We have Columbia Class there, you can see at the top right, it's on track. We began investment in the future large surface combatant with CHAMP which is the Common Hull Auxiliary Multi-Mission Platform. We began leveraging hull and equipment commonality.
We're increasing funding for F-35 to bring in increased lethality in the area of weapons development. We are providing for longer-range and hypersonic weapons and increasing investments in areas like conventional prompt strike as well as the standard missile family of missiles. And under the green heading there, you can see that, for the Marine Corps investments through areas like the amphibious combat vehicle, high-mobility rocket system or HIMARS, the ground based air defense and ground-to-air task-oriented radars.
I would just also point out that the Marine Corps continues development to -- protect mobility, enhance maneuver, long-range precision fires as well as air defense which is laying the foundation for their contribution to any Naval campaign that we might have. And then down at the bottom, again, you can see accelerated acquisition is continued, directed energy, lasers, applied AI, machine learning, additive manufacturing, big data analytics, as well as cyber.
OK, next slide please. So, in the area of information warfare, and this crosses multiple different appropriations and really covers the spectrum of competition, you can see at the top, we're dealing with it every day as folks -- you know, people are trying to get into our networks, to -- all the way through lethal combat. So in the center there, we'll continue to invest in our legacy platforms as we modernize those as well as our future capabilities.
In terms of increases to legacy capabilities that are provided through our other procurement Navy account, those are increased as that budget grows by 8 percent as compared to '19. Cybersecurity, command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, the resiliency of our networks, our weapons systems and infrastructure, are prioritized in this budget. We begin procurement of the Distributed Common Ground System, DCGS Increment 2. We increased quantities for the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program, or SEWIP blocks 2 and 3.
We increased quantity for Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services, which is CANES. And along the bottom of that chart, you can see over to the left, we are growing our force of information warfare experts. We are leveraging new technologies to be better and more capable and we're also working on policy command and control to ensure that we can employ it.
The Marines Corps are -- play a major part here. Big contributor in the cyber arena and the budget funds cyber manning, training, and equipment for full spectrum cyber operations within the Marine Corps forces cyber command and personnel equipment and supplies for the Marine Expeditionary Force Information Group which helps us manage our information operations.
Next slide, please. OK, shifting to talking about unmanned, and I think it was -- it's been highlighted throughout a couple of the other briefs that autonomy is an area that we have invested in, in this budget. And we'll just highlight there at the top that we began procurement of the large, unmanned surface vessel which will serve as both a sensor and a shooter. It will be smaller, potentially more cost imposing and more attritable than conventional ships in addition to be more -- in addition to being more affordable.
We procure 10 large unmanned surface vessels, that's two per year. They're -- these are currently funded as they're laid in now, through research and development, however we expect to transition this program to ship construction at some point later in the FDIP as we further develop the capability of the command -- command, control, and the concepts of operations through fleet demonstration.
At the center, you can see our undersea investment in areas like XLUUV or Orca, these are the undersea unmanned. We've procured nine of those development articles focusing on payload integration, military utility assessment, as well as vehicle employment, to accelerate solutions for emerging fleet requirements.
And then at the bottom, MQ-25 Stingray, we did enter into a contract in August for the MQ-25 which will accelerate IOC, initial operating capability, of this into the FYDP. Let's go to the next slide which is ship procurement.
OK. The department absolutely appreciates the strong support that we received from Congress on naval shipbuilding. Last year, we requested 10 ships in our budget request, and we were given three additional ships by Congress. This year, we are requesting 12 battle forceships.
And I think it was also highlighted earlier with the largest ship construction budget request in 20 years. Starting up towards the top left there, with the Columbia-class program, it continues its four years of advanced procurement for the lead ship and remains on schedule to meet its first patrol in 2031.
We have a second ballistic missile submarine that will be laid in in FY '24, and then we'll begin serial production of the Columbia-class beginning in '26. In the second quarter of this year, we did award the contract to build two Ford-class carriers. It was a contracting strategy that gained us over $4 billion in efficiencies and savings.
Two-point-four billion dollars of those savings were inside the FYDP. And then going down, I would point out that, as part of the work that we did with OSD and in alignment with the National Defense Strategy, we added a third Virginia-class and a third Arleigh Burke class destroyer in FY '20, which brings that program to 11 Virginias over the FYDP and 13 destroyers inside the FYDP.
Continuing down, it's not highlighted here, but we do complete -- in PB19, we completed the LCS buy. That was for 35 total procured. We currently have 18 LCS awarded and in various stages of construction which provides sufficient workload for our builders as we transition to the future frigate. And you can see the frigate there.
Construction will begin in '20. We have nine of those laid in across the FYDP. In FY '20, we're requesting two John Lewis-class fleet replenishment oilers, as well as advanced procurement to fund one oiler in FY '21. There's a total of seven over the FYDP.
The department requested two T-TATS which is the towing and rescue salvage ship in '20, and there are five of those over the FYDP. We begin construction of the T-AGOS which is our ocean surveillance ship in '22. We are requesting four landing craft, or LCU ships, in FY '20, with 20 of those laid in across the FYDP.
On the Ship-to-Shore Connector Program, we did restructure that program due to construction backlog and contract delays. And then in terms of hard choices, I would just highlight that we made the very difficult decision to retire CVN-75, which is the Harry S. Truman, in lieu of the previously funded refueling complex overhaul that was scheduled to occur in FY '24.
The adjustment is in concert with the Defense Department's commitment to proactively pursue diversified investments in next-generation advanced and distributed capabilities, including unmanned and optionally-manned systems, and to provide a strong demand signal to the industry for these new future capabilities.
This approach does pursue a balance of high-end survival platforms like the aircraft carrier, as well as a greater number of complementary, more affordable, potentially more cost-imposing and attritable options. So we biased this decision towards the future, mindful that we still have time to respond to further analysis.
There is a force-structure assessment and other work ongoing that will help us validate this decision. Let's go ahead to the next slide, please. In the area of aviation procurement, this account does decrease by eight percent from where we were last year to this year, as we complete the buy on several different type model series, and some of the aircraft that we are procuring in '20 are lower cost.
We continue production of the F-35B and C Lightning IIs that you can see. The split's there between the Navy and the Marine Corps, in terms of the carrier variant. There are 202 of those laid in over the FYDP -- or I'm sorry, yes, Bravos. Two-hundred and two total; 82 of the F-35 Bravos, and you can see the 120 F-35Cs and the splits between the two.
We complete the final E-2D Advanced Hawkeye multiyear procurement in FY '23, and that brings us to a total of 70 aircraft. We will enter into a multiyear contract this year for the F-18. That will span from FY '19 to '21, at 24 aircraft per year. Continuing down, we do complete the -- a buy of the P-8 aircraft for our final six. That takes our buy to 117.
We increase our logistical capacity and capability with the multiyear buy of the KC-130J Super Tanker. We ramp up the CH-53K King Stallion production and multiyear procurement of the CMV-22 Osprey carrier onboard delivery variant. On the unmanned front, we purchase two MQ-4C Tritons in '20, as well as 17 across the FYDP, and then you can see the future quantities of the MQ-25 highlighted there.
The purchase at the very bottom there, I think you see the six MQ-9 Reapers which fulfill urgent operational needs for the Marines that we intend to transition this to a program of record once we complete the program validation process. OK, I just want to talk briefly about -- next slide, please. Audit -- yes, you got it. OK, a little bit about audit, just to highlight what's going on in this area, a lot -- lot of work going on here.
In FY '18, the department did complete an enterprise-wide audit where we looked at our processes, our systems and the resources, which did highlight areas where we need to improve our business practices, as well as our internal controls. I think leaders at every -- every echelon between -- both inside the Navy and the Marine Corps are focused on implementing process and system changes to help improve.
Audit uncovered low inventory accuracies, which is another area that we're looking hard at to put in systems that provide better transparency, validity, as well as accountability.
Some of things that this is leading us to were consolidation of the number of our financial systems, including enhancing our current enterprise resource planning system, strengthening our internal controls through security access and interface, also looking at the number of feeder systems that we have to feed our financial system in trying to eliminate redundancy.
We're trying to drive this into our culture. I think it really comes down to the stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and at the end of the day the efforts we do here result -- will turn into greater readiness and (inaudible) for us. Next slide, please. For reform, in support of the National Defense Strategy, the defense budget operations plan prescribes reform across all the different business areas as a means to drive greater efficiency.
And this is -- this is, again, focused on getting the most out of every single dollar that we get. And this is another area that -- we're doing a lot of good work on. For our budget request this year, you will find that between the Navy and the Marine Corps, we identified $1.9 billion worth of reform savings in FY '20 and $9.4 billion across the FYDP.
And that's in additional to the $25 billion worth of savings across the FYDP that we're currently tracking that were identified and laid in and continued to be tracked across the current FYDP that were laid in during previous budget cycles. We track our reforms in five main categories that you can see up there. For -- just for example, an acquisition process improvement will capture some of the multi-year savings, some of the efforts in Sailor 2025, under policy reform. So my point here I think is, is that audit and reform really do kind of go hand-in-glove and we're trying to be more efficient and get the most out of the dollars we get.
OK. Next slide, So I think just to summarize that we are focused and driving towards a bigger, better, more ready naval force. We know that the competition is on. There is a lot going on out there. We do need to be bigger and better and more ready. We align this program to the strategy. We deliver on program wholeness to ensure that we can sustain our strategic advantage over our competitors.
And with that, I look forward to any questions that you might have.
LT CMDR CHAMBERS: Thanks, Admiral. We've got about 10 minutes for questions. Please identify yourself and your organization, we'll try to get to as many of these as we can. Mike?
Q: Yes, Mike Fabey from Jane's. Admiral, can we talk a little bit about the Truman? So, for example, how much money are you going to save with the FYDP how much money are you going to look to save overall? And as you kind of left the door open for -- it sounds like this was sort of a going back and forth kind of thing, why do this now before you have an FSA I mean, what's the driving kind of thing going right now?
REAR ADM. CRITES: I'll go after the first one. I think I mentioned earlier part of this I was trying to drive at -- you know, just send a signal that we're serious about this, right? We are focused on some of these issues, capabilities that we need to get and we need to get after it today.
We're not in Kansas anymore. And we have to get moving. So that's part of it. I highlight the studies and the work that's ongoing just because we need to prove to ourselves that we're making a good decision here.
In terms of the savings, inside the FYDP, were captured about $3.4 billion worth of savings. We estimate there is another $2 million roughly of savings that are procurement related outside the FYDP. And then there will be about a $1 billion a year savings associated with the operations and maintenance. That's the fully burdened cost associated with the carrier and the associated air wing.
LT CMDR CHAMBERS: Megan
Q: Megan Eckstein, US Naval Institute). I wanted to ask about aircraft procurement. It looks like both for FY 2020 as well as the rest of the FYDP, there is some decreases in F-35 procurement and Super Hornet procurement (inaudible). And I just wondered if any of that was related to the Truman decision, if any of that was related to, you know, the unmanned systems are kind of why we're seeing...
(CROSSTALK)
REAR ADM. CRITES: No. I think that some of those are, you know, we're just running -- getting the completed program in some cases. In terms of the F-35, I think some of that was tied to some force structure mixes. I believe it was highlighted earlier that the tac-air mix was looked at very closely this year.
So the mix between F-35Bs and Cs for the Marine Corps drove some of that, and then there was little bit of affordability in there, right? We're trying to build a balanced program. And when I mean balance, I mean I've got to have everything. I've got to have the people. I've got to have the munitions. I've got to have the readiness across the board.
So, you know, we have the constraints that we have within our top line. And, you know, we went after this in an analytic way to build the best program that we could. And this is where the chips fell out.
Q: Are there certain aircraft programs that you would identify as being sort of budget constraint-related or?
REAR ADM. CRITES: No, I would say no. The -- and to answer your other point, there -- none of those adjustments were related to the Truman decision, if I didn't answer that.
LT CMDR CHAMBERS: David?
Q: Admiral, David Larter with the Defense News. The large unmanned surface vessel, I mean, the RFI came out two weeks ago, right? So what are you buying?
REAR ADM. CRITES: Right. So today we're leveraging an effort that was -- that's being bought today in '19. So we'll buy two more of those in '20. And I'm not going to get into the capabilities today, on what that will entail, but the capabilities would likely transition to the labor. Currently envisioning how this will work to something that has vertical launch built in, and that would drive us to change the way the program is currently laid out to ship construction as we validate the requirements.
But we've got to get through the details of concept of operations, command control, how is it going to work in a distributed environment. But we need these test articles and we need to bring these things on quickly so that we can actually see how this is going to work.
LT CMDR CHAMBERS: Justin
Q: Hi Sir, Justin Kat with Inside Defense. Could you speak to what this budget is doing in terms of the Navy's 20 year shipyard optimization plan? (inaudible) costs $21 trillion and the executive summary explicitly says that the Navy would require top -- top line to at least execute it.
So what money is in this budget to do that?
REAR ADM. CRITES: Sure, let me -- so it's about -- you know, I should -- I should have labeled this better. Too many papers. Let me find it here, I've got it. I think it is right here. Here it is. So in F.Y. 20, we have $454 million that's laid in. Of that, about $150 million is OPM, which is tied to procurement of modern repair equipment and tooling.
There's $204 million that's really in OMN, which is focused on modernization of dry docks, material handling and ship service support in both Norfolk and Mayport -- I'm sorry Norfolk and Portsmouth, they have the shipyards, and then there's additional funds in MILCON, which provide for improved dry dock flood capability at Norfolk as well as up in the carrier docking in Puget Sound.
So $454 million that is currently laid in and then we have about $2.7 billion that's programmed over the FYDP focused on shipyard -- shipyard improvements.
LT CMDR CHAMBERS: Otto.
Q: Otto Kreisher SEAPOWER Magazine, you talked about Reaper, buying Reaper for the Marine Corps. The Corps has a program called MUX, Reaper is not shipboard capable, is that what's replace (inaudible).
REAR ADM. CRITES: So we're still working on an MUX program, I don't think I have the numbers and I can get you a more complete answer but we still -- we're still working on that.
Q: OK, so if the Reaper is not a replacement for that group five retirement which --
REAR ADM. CRITES: I don't think so. I'm going to -- I'll get you -- I'll have to take that one -- take a look up on that one.
LT CMDR CHAMBERS: Tony
Q: Tony Capaccio Bloomberg. Question on the determent, Navy budget documents indicate you spend about $537 million already expended it for a reactor core port. Is that going to be wasted, or what happens with the money that's been spent in the reactor core?
REAR ADM. CRITES: So you are correct that in 2008 we procured one and in 2011 we procured the second core that were tied to the Truman. Those will essentially on the shelf as emergency replacement core for the Nimitz program and until the life of all the ships are done.
So if they're needed, they would be used, if not then no. So yes, I mean we expended a total of roughly $538 million, that's correct.
Q: Consider it wasted money then if you're going to spend if you're not going to do this, it's going to be on the shelf...
(CROSS TALK)
REAR ADM. CRITES: It will be -- it will be -- it will be, you know working with naval reactors, they will be placed on the shelf -- in availability in case we need some sort of emergent situation would arise. That's the plan.
Q: Well quickly on the case 53K, you're buying six this year, the plan was nine. Does that reflect the many problems that program's having?
REAR ADM. CRITES: So we do have a way ahead I think on the -- on the CH53, we're waiting to get some additional money in R&D this year to make some corrections. So we believe we have a way ahead on that program. So yes.
Q: Thank you,
LT CMDR CHAMBERS: Rick.
QUESITON: Rick Burgess SEAPOWER Magazine.
REAR ADM. CRITES: Yes sir.
Q: I noticed on the aircraft procurement table, the training helicopter is broken up by Navy and Marine Corps, which I thought was odd because the Navy is technically the owner of (inaudible)...
REAR ADM. CRITES: Yeah,probably should put those back together, I don't think there's any reason to have them broken apart.
LT CMDR CHAMBERS: Sam?
Q: Hi, (Sam Lagrone with USNI News.
Can you talk a little bit about these large surface combatants, you're buying 10 of them. Are they all test articles, is there a validated requirement for it, like you know...
REAR ADM. CRITES: No so -- so as I already stated, the intent is to bring these things on board so that we can start using them and demonstrating what we can get from them. There will be test articles initially, at least the way they're laid in now, but they will transition as we, you know, built the program a record.
So, I mean that's the same answer I just -- just provided.
Q: I mean what are these things? I mean are they hulls that float in the water...
REAR ADM. CRITES: So there are 200 to 300 foot 2,000 ton -- I'm not sure what the final hull form will be, that's what we're using today in terms of what the ghost fleet buy is. But I don't think we know yet exactly what the hull form will be.
That's more work to be done.
Q: I mean just to follow up -- I mean just to make sure that we understand that where do the requirements for this come from, all of a sudden you're talking about the future years defense (inaudible)...
REAR ADM. CRITES: Comments from -- sure.
Q: ...(inaudible) billion dollars for an expenditure for that.
REAR ADM. CRITES: It comes from -- it comes from the fact that as we look to the way distributed maritime operations are going to work and how we're going to fight a future fight, we are looking at what these investments need to be and what we need to bring on, and this is one of the things we need to bring on, and to do it if I -- I need to get started on it so that we can actually develop all the documents and the things that you're highlighting.
But those things will absolutely come.
LT CMDR CHAMBERS: Yes.
Q: Steve Trimble with Aviation Week. Can you say what's in the budget for FA-X?
REAR ADM. CRITES: I'll have to take a look up on that, I don't recall off the top of my head.
Q: Both for the '20 and the (inaudible) if you could take it for the record.
REAR ADM. CRITES: Yes, I don't -- I don't know the answer to that one, sorry.
LT CMDR CHAMBERS: I'm sorry, go ahead.
Q: Thank you. What if the Congress doesn't allow you to retire the Truman, how does that affect your plans?
REAR ADM. CRITES: Well obviously if -- if we weren't allowed to retire the Truman, we would have to identify other sources to restore it. So I don't want to get into a what if game, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
But I'll leave it at that.
LT CMDR CHAMBERS: We've got time for about one more question. Ben.
Q: Ben Werner, USNI. question about the expeditionary medical facilities, you're going to be cutting six of those. How many people are we talking about and (inaudible)...
REAR ADM. CRITES: So it's about 3,100 people in F.Y. 20. About 5,300 total over the FYDP. This was in alignment with the National Defense Strategy and an alignment of our most stressing operational plan to align that community with -- with what we need to essentially cut the excess.
So that's what -- that's what's going on there.
Q: What happens to those -- those people? I mean (inaudible)...
REAR ADM. CRITES: So they'll -- they will be through -- it will be -- it will be managed very carefully through normal attrition and -- and that's how that will work.
LT CMDR CHAMBERS: All right thanks, that's all the time we have today. If you have any follow up questions please contact myself or Lauren..