The reductions in Marine Corps end strength should not impact current Operational Plans.
the Marine Corps needs a minimum of 38 amphibious ships.
I understand that the Navy will be requesting a $33.8 million ATR to cover increased research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) cos...
With a range of alternatives to petroleum already commercially viable and in use, why should the Navy subsidize the development of biofuel r...
I am committed to ensuring we provide the best trained and equipped Marine units to Afghanistan.
But no additional purchases?
Construction of the follow-on Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) seaframes (LCS-3 and -4) is almost finished--with their costs leveling out at about...
I just want to add my voice at the end of the hearing, in support for these creative initiatives.
I won't pursue this except to say that, what is your confidence that the F-35 will not experience further cost overruns?
Secretary Mabus, as you know, the LCS combat capability comes from the integration of three interchangeable types of mission modules into th...
But, the force reductions the Marine Corps proposes may result in the loss of combat-experienced Marine Corps noncommissioned officers.
The Marine Corps maintains its operational forces at a high level of readiness.
What is the Navy doing to enable it to reactivate at a later date the seven cruisers it plans to retire early?
It is critical to change the minimum requirement from 32 amphibious warships to 33 over the next year.
The cost to complete construction of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) aircraft carrier has overrun significantly.
They fill in a vacuum that exists in the private sector. They fill a vital need.
What we saw is the argument made: well, heck, they cost more in the short run.
Has there been unexpected cost growth in the CVN-71 RCOH, and, if so, please explain the reasons for this cost growth;
