Ranking Member Courtney's Opening Statement for Hearing on Game Changing Innovations and the Future of Surface Warfare

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling today’s hearing on game changing innovations and the future of surface warfare. Thank you to both witnesses for providing their insight.

Today, our surface warfare combatant fleet consists of destroyers, cruisers and the littoral combat ship. Due to the truncation or cancellation of recent surface navy recapitalization programs such as DD(X) and CG(X), our Navy is forced to rely on ships that were designed decades ago with different security challenges in mind. As a result, even if we achieve the shipbuilding levels laid out in the Navy’s current 30-year shipbuilding plan, we still face sustained periods of shortfalls in both our small and large surface combatant fleet. That means that we have to ensure that we are doing all we can to not only build up the size of our surface fleet, but also do more with the fleet we have.

I recently visited the production facility where the air and missile defense radar (AMDR) is being developed. This new radar will be the backbone of the next flight of Arleigh Burke class destroyers. To say that this new radar is an improvement as compared to the current radar is an understatement. While I am very impressed by this and the innovations made with the associated weapons, most of these improvements are defensive in nature. While very effective, they are, in most cases, very costly. We must continue to work on new systems like directed energy weapons, electromagnetic rail gun, and hypersonic projectiles that can assume the defensive missions at a much lower cost. This will allow the Navy to pursue new offensive weapons that can operate and be effective in any combat environment.

On the small surface combatant side, while initially skeptical, I am encouraged by recent news regarding Frigate improvements being considered and the potential for back fitting those improvements on LCS. Modest improvements like the inclusion of an over the horizon missile could have dramatic impacts to the overall effectiveness of both ships. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on what their views of what a small surface combatant should be.

I also believe that the Navy should start yesterday on designing a new large surface combatant as a follow on to the current Ticonderoga class cruisers. Even with the current modernization plan for cruisers, those ships can only be stretched into the 2030s and with very limited numbers during the years leading up to that. That puts us way behind for fielding a replacement capability. Adversaries are going to continue to try and develop weapons that will challenge our ability to effectively utilize our aircraft carriers. It is, therefore, all the more important that we have a ship capable of defending the carrier in any environment. This new ship design could also enable the Navy to possess the space, weight, power and cooling necessary to incorporate high energy weapons. As I mentioned earlier, the inclusion of the AMDR will make our current Arleigh Burke destroyers the most advanced in the world, but we must begin looking at what the future will require of a large surface combatant.

In the near term, we must also look at how we fight and ask ourselves if there are innovative ways in which we can maximize the capabilities of our current fleet. Concepts like “distributed lethality”, which is an approach being developed by some of our top strategic thinkers in the Navy, attempts to do just that. I look forward to learning more about this novel concept as it continues to take shape.

Lastly, I understand that Deputy Secretary Work is initiating what he calls the Third Offset strategy which will seek to regain the technological and operational advantage as compared to other forces around the world. I am encouraged by this and feel that the surface Navy is in a position to contribute and benefit greatly from this new effort. I am however concerned that, unlike previous “offset” efforts, the current fiscal environment will challenge our ability to achieve the same innovations that occurred previously. This and the challenges I described earlier are just a few of the many reasons why we need to remove the burdens of the budget control act and sequestration. If we expect to have a realistic shot of achieving “game changing” innovations, we can't do it with one hand tied behind our back.

Whether it is providing missile defense in the Middle East, conducting strike missions on terrorist targets, or deterring aggression in the South China Sea, our surface warfare fleet is being called on to perform a diverse set of missions at an unsustainable rate. It is imperative that we continue to modernize and recapitalize our surface Navy in order to meet the expectations our country demands of it.

I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing today and to the witnesses for appearing here today. I look forward to their comments.