 Good afternoon everybody. Welcome to the next brief. Rear Admiral Brian Luther is the Director of the Department of the Navy's Fiscal Management Branch. He's going to deliver his presentation, roll out the Navy's budget, and then we'll go over some ground rules and take some questions. Good afternoon. As you mentioned, I'm Rear Admiral Brian Luther, and I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to brief the Department of Navy's Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget submission, in which I'll address our portion of the second step of the Department of Defense's multi-year effort to restore readiness. The brief will be broken into four parts. The first will briefly review the current and evolving strategic guidance. The second provides the operational context in which the naval forces operate in today's world. And the third I'll review historical challenges that underlie the requirement for the current readiness reset. And finally, I will provide a summary by appropriation group. The national level guidance that provided us the mission sets which drove the operations of the last decade are under review. Earlier this month, the Department of Defense began a defense strategic review. This brief will not provide fit up or out your procurement quantities due to the ongoing review and a possible change to mission sets in four sizing constructs. The cooperative strategy for 21st century sea power informs naval force employment across the listed naval missions to balance readiness against current fiscal challenges in a global security environment that is volatile, unstable, and increasingly competitive. Senior leaders from the Secretary of Defense, service secretaries, and chiefs to service resource sponsors and program managers have briefed and testified to the growing challenges and sense of urgency to respond to the advanced capabilities and increasing pace of development demonstrated by potential adversaries. Despite fiscal challenges, the global employment of naval forces remains extensive. Over 100,000 sailors and Marines are forward based or deployed around the world. They've operated across the Baltic, black, Mediterranean, red, and Arabian seas, the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans, and on the ground in 37 countries. A few examples are participation and inherent resolve to include the Dwight D. Eisenhower and George A. W. Bush strike groups, as well as electronic warfare support for Marine Corps squadrons based in Inserley. The USS Ross and Barry are responding to Syria's use of chemical weapons. Make an island in Baton amphibious ready groups with the 11th and 24th Marine Expeditionary Units, or MUSE, deploying a shore to provide support in northern Syria. Marines from the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force, or MEF, assisting Afghan partners in Helmand province. The USS Zephyrin-Schmal, which would embark Coast Guard law enforcement detachments, seizing over 5,000 kilograms of contrabanded Operation Martillo. The U.S. NS spearhead conducting civil military operations in Guatemala, Honduras, and Colombia. A hundred Marines from the Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force, or MAGTAF, Southern Command, U.S. SC, Regina, Mesa, and Verda, and elements of the 24th new, again, provided humanitarian assistance and disaster relief to the people of Haiti after Hurricane Matthew. Sailors and Marines participated in Baltops, a high-end joint exercise in the Baltic Sea region, and later Marines tested their war-fighting skills in a cold-weather environment during the Norwegian-hosted exercise Cold Response. On the other side of the world, the largest international maritime exercise, the Rim of the Pacific, RimPak, brought together 26 maritime nations, including China, along with 40 ships and submarines, over 200 aircraft, and 25,000 personnel. A U.S.-led naval training maneuver near the Gulf of Guinea was transformed into a counter-piracy mission, where navies from five African countries tracked the hijacked tanker through their waters and successfully freed the vessel and rescued the hostages. In support of Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa, U.S. Naval Forces Command operates Camp Lemonnier, the United States' sole forward operating base on that continent. Earlier this year, the Marine Corps relocated their first operational squadron of F-35Bs to Iwakuni and increased the capability of its rotational aviation combat element in Darwin, Australia, with four MV-22 Ospreys. Overall, the Navy Marine Corps today remains deeply engaged, operating at a high tempo in harm's way, providing options for national leadership, assuring allies and deterring adversaries. There is no expectation that demands will slow down based on the last 15 years as shown on this slide. It shows that deployment lengths have been increasing as the fleet has been decreasing 40%. The chart shows fleet size and gray starting in 1993. Annual deployments in blue and deployment lengths are shown by the green line. It shows over time the Department of the Navy has deployed a growing percentage of the fleet by increasing the average length of deployments. The optic is clear. A smaller force, more heavily used, will burn out faster. The recent oversubscription of naval forces that has accelerated the aging of our ships and aircraft, increased maintenance requirements, and compressed training and maintenance schedules is shown in more detail here. This shows the last four years of sea-based deployments. The red line depicts the maximum number of deployable ships the Department of the Navy can provide using its sustainable force generation model, known as the Optimized Fleet Response Plan. Services, as force providers, must balance the needs of generating both the current and future force requirements with available funding. The blue area represents the actual number of deployed ships by month. The box in the upper right is the oversubscription for that year. It is worth noting that the average use of the last four years is 5% more than the funding provided could generate. The oversubscription of deployed forces, combined with BCA reductions, exacerbates the impact of shore establishments, non-deploying forces, and readiness-enabling accounts. An illustrative example of a readiness-enabling account is aviation spares. This slide represents funding and associated full-mission capable rates for the last 17 years. There are multiple takeaways from this slide. First, high sustained operating tempos require sustained levels of higher funding. Second, readiness trends lag fundings both ways. Third, it's difficult to maintain FMC on multi-emission aircraft. It's harder when the force is heavily used and harder still when the force is aging. In modernization, all too often a bill payer is key to maintaining capabilities. The funding profiles on this slide are familiar. The black line is the 2012 budget. The last time, strategy and budget were aligned. The red is the funding by BCA, and the maroon is the enacted budgets, every one of which was delayed by a continuing resolution. It is worth noting that the final enacted budgets for the first two years of BCA were below BCA. And that the FY17 budget, when submitted last year, was 3.9% below the President's budget of 2016. This forced the department to make hard choices to balance, during which only three areas were exempted. Deployed and next to deployed forces. Personnel and shipbuilding. Shipbuilding being the least reversible of our mitigations. The takeaway, however, is not the dollars, although important. The takeaways are what the profiles represent. A strategy funding mismatch. Budget instability, combined with consistent and lengthy CRs. And most importantly, the squandering of a precious resource of time. Time that should be spent maintaining our tactical advantages. Every year we operate under the mismatch. In a CR, we pay a price in time. Decrease productivity and reduce purchasing power. Beyond showing a reduction in funding, the area between the Black and Maroon lines by year represents the decline in training of non-deployed sailors and Marines, a decline in material conditions of ships, of aircraft, of ground equipment and shore facilities. And the total area between the lines represents the urgency with which we should address this shortfall. Reversing this trend and rebuilding the readiness of the current force was the guidance from Secretary of Defense Mattis. His budget direction was clear. Improve war-fighting readiness, which was addressed and enacted in the FY17 bill. Restore program balance by continuing to rebuild readiness and filling holes in this summit. And finally, after the defense strategic review is complete and during the next President's budget submission, build capacity and improve lethality. Additional guidance from the Secretary was to gain full value from every taxpayer dollar spent on defense thereby earning the trust of Congress and the American people. Accordingly, this budget supports auditability goals set by Congress and the Department of Defense, which is to undergo an audit in FY18. The Marine Corps will be under full financial audit this year. The 2018 President's base increased $12.3 billion from $159 to $171.5 billion in this summit. Operations and maintenance increased to $54.6. Military personnel increased $2 billion to $47.6 billion. Procurement accounts increased $800 million to $49.5 billion. Research and development $500 million to $17.6 billion. And infrastructure increased $370 million to $2.2 billion total. The next section of slides will provide a detailed overview of how the Department addressed, by appropriation, requirements to enhance readiness to include modest personnel increases, how the ship's aircraft and ground vehicles will be sustained, the proper training of our personnel in preparation for their deployments, and how we maintained our ship procurement profiles, made difficult tradeoffs and aviations, enhanced weapons procurement, and made investments in key technologies to better posture us. It is important to note, however, the effects of multiple years of insufficient resources cannot be corrected by the increases of one budget year. The Department will require stable, predictable funding over multiple years to achieve sustained positive results. The ship depot maintenance fund to 100% using base and OCO funds it funds 10 additional ship availabilities for a total of 71. It complies with the current 246 law by the end of FY17 will have six cruisers inducted in modernization. This submit will also fund an additional subset for an additional induction. It funds LSD midlife modernization. It increases planning engineering and maintenance support manpower to align the workforce to the projected workload. And it modernizes major shipyard equipment and IT infrastructure at a rate above benchmarks to improve workforce performance. We continue to leverage the skill sets and capacity of private industry to augment our efforts. And for the future we work to continue a backlog of deferred maintenance which currently stands at $3.5 billion. The ship operations growth from FY17 to 18 is comprised of increases from 13 new warships in the inventory as well as an increase of two ships in our MSC fleet. The increased ship count combined with increased fuel prices leads to a minor growth in this program. And using base and OCO ship operations funds as with the 17 requests, 58 days underway per quarter when deployed and 24 days underway when not deployed. In this submit aircraft depot maintenance is funded to capacity which is 89% of the requirement. This is an increase from last year where we funded the air depot maintenance to 85%. Capacity is limited to different reasons at our fleet readiness centers. Capacity is limited by the hiring of civilian personnel, others by physical space and aging tools and materials. In all cases we are investing to correct these limitations. The flying hour program funds flight operations for Navy Marine Corps squadrons, fleet squadrons, and air training. The flight hour program is funded to the maximum executable level. The growth is driven by increased cost per hour, primarily for repair parts to return non-mission capable aircraft to service. Aircraft are primarily legacy hornets with some MV-22s and CH-53s, ECHOs included. In the past, many of our aviation enabling accounts were under resource to fund flying hours. This out of balance funding contributed to ready basic aircraft gaps and decreased mission capability rates. Executing the training and deployable flight hours requires more than just the flying and depot maintenance funding. It requires sufficient funding for enabling accounts such as aviation logistics, aviation support, and funded in APN aviation spares. The aviation logistics support was increased 6% to a high of 87% of the requirement. These logistic contracts for the F-35, KC-130J and B-22 and E-6B are funded at an all-time high and we anticipate future growth as more F-35 center of the fleet. Aviation support, primarily program-related engineering and logistics, is funded higher in 17, but not to 100%. This account also funds critical chain initiatives to improve depot throughput and increased hiring of planning engineering and maintenance support manpower to align the workforce to the projected work floor. And aviation spares is funded to the highest level in the last 14 years at 91%. The way ahead for the Marine Corps will maintain the equipment they have and prioritize investments in key programs that are aligned to the marine operating concept. The Marine Corps Force 2025 will provide a rapidly deployable scalable force able to succeed across the full spectrum of conflict. In that regard, a 92% reset, the Marine Corps is nearing completion of ground equipment reset from the Sencom Air of Responsibility. Funding remains at 79%, which is executable levels at the depot and is consistent with previous funding levels. Funding for operating forces is indicative of our investment in the marine operating concept. It includes increased investments in net-centric information technology services, funding the fielding and operations maintenance for six additional ground air task oriented radars or Gator, the Marine Corps next generation ground radar, battle space awareness that funds spares for small unmanned aerial systems to include Raven, Puma, and Wasp. The network on the move, which the same systems bought in the last two fiscal years and supports 35 systems being procured in FY18 as we bring this critical capability to our deployed forces. The Navy and Marine Corps installations provide physical environments essential for the individual, unit, and total force training, material sustainment, unit recovery, and equipment reconstitution. This submits funds facility sustainment at 78% for the Navy and 74% for the Marine Corps. While these levels are roughly 7% higher than 17%, they are down from the 85% for Navy and 84% for the Marine Corps funded in FY16. The provided sustainment funding will be prioritized to preserve critical facility components and to perform facility maintenance that affects the health and safety of sailors, Marines, and their families. However, we continue to carry risk and facility sustainment and we will need to closely monitor and manage the material conditions of our facilities. In depot investment, this submit exceeds the 6% legislative requirement. 10% is provided across the shipyards and 8.7% for fleet readiness center and Marine depots. As always, our ability to successfully complete our mission rests on the Navy and Marine Corps team. Sailors and Marine, active duty and reserves, our civilian teammates and all our families. Key to recruiting and retaining the force for the Navy is continued support for the Sailor 2025 program, which is comprised of three main efforts, a modern personnel system, the ready relevant learning system to support modern teaching initiatives focused on providing the right training at the right time in a sailor's career and increased sailor readiness. This submit funds a pay raise of 2.1% in line with the enacted pay raise in 2017. Both services align end strength and force structure. For the active Navy force, the net increase is an additional 4,000 billets to fund a final end strength of 327,900. This increase is due in part to cruiser modification, LCS blue and gold crew concept, the joint strike fighter initial operational capability requirements, support to increase Marine Corps end strength, for example, corpsmen and chaplains, expeditionary staging base four and total ownership costs to include the individual accounts in the TPPH account. Civil reductions occurred in the major headquarter activity billets and recruiters following the consolidation of the regional headquarters recruiting districts. Lastly for the active component, this request increases funding for the Navy permanent change of station or PCS moves to begin recouping risk Navy assumed in 2017 due to funding constraints and as we work towards the C&O's goal of a six month lead time on written orders for sailors. The Navy reserve shows a modest increase as we complete a period of planned growth that has been in progress over the last six years. The primary growth areas are cyber, unmanned aerial systems and shipyard surge maintenance. Additionally, we are permanently fortifying off installation of Navy operational support centers with armed and trade reserve security personnel to protect our sailors against threats. For the Marine Corps, the Marine Corps is the nation's crisis response force, which provides the nation the ability to respond to unexpected crises from humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts to major combat operations. The summit funds an active duty strength of 185,000 Marines and a reserve end strength of 38,500. End strength provides overall dwell ratios of one to two for active forces against the sustained goal of one to three and one to four for reserve forces. The makeup of this force was informed by Marine Corps Force 2025. A year long review which focuses on the changes necessary to successfully operate in the increasingly complex global environment and it builds a balanced MAGTAP optimized for global threats. Several key information initiatives include the establishment of a MEF information group to improve increased offensive cyber operations and communications battalions, increased reorganized aviation intelligence support in its intelligence battalions, new infantry battalion to size, and increased long range precision fires through high Mars rocket artillery battalion. The budget funds the civilian workforce required to restore readiness. To accomplish this, the department's FTE or full time equivalent increased at shipyards to meet schedule maintenance reduced the backlogs that have accumulated over the last decade. Overall, the Navy working capital fund FTE increased for engineering and support for an expanding profile of airframes for STEM personnel at surface warfare centers for NAF sub personnel needed for increased weapon support at spa war for tactical communications and cyber support to handle aviation maintenance backlogs. It also funds an additional 226 civilian guards to protect the Department of Navy installations. The department remains committed to complying with the MHA and the budget reflects a decrease of 310 FTE for headquarters. Overall, the civilian personnel numbers highlighted here reflect the essential role in our civilian personnel play in our mission success. The department appreciates the continued strong support in Congress of Naosha building. Changes in this budget from the President's budget 17 plan reflect congressional action which added an LCS and an LPD. New construction totals remain the same in the submit as were submitted last year. Other construction totals reflect a reduction of 3 ship to shore connectors. Kesha building efforts in this submit are the Columbia Class Program. It continues with its second year of advance procurement funding for the leadership SSBN 826. 826 remains on schedule to meet its first deployment in 2031. Procurement funds for Columbia are requested in SCN however to comply with law any appropriate SCN will be deposited in the national sea-based deterrence fund. We are using two authorities provided by the NSBDF continuous production of common missile compartment components and advanced construction. We plan to award the next aircraft carrier USS Enterprise in March of 2018. CVN 80 is incrementally funded with $1.9 billion requested. Fiscal Year 18 is the final year of funding for the John F. Kennedy with $2.6 billion requested. CVN 79 is on track to deliver within the cost cap. Two Virginia class submarines are requested and they are the final two block 4 boats in the FY14-18 multi-year contract. The department is requesting funding for two destroyers. These destroyers will be funded will be a flight 3 ship funded with the advanced missile defense radar and are requested as part of the shipping operation. One Latorial Combat Ship is funded. We continue to procure LCAS mission packages with two surface warfare mission packages 0205 replacement oil is requested in 18 along with advanced procurement for a future oiler. The oiler contract was awarded in 16 for one ship and five priced options for future oilers. The 18 is the first of those five priced options and the department is requesting a second combined towing rescue and salvage ship with a planned award in January of 2018. The department appreciates the continued strong support of Congress and aviation procurement. Changes in this submit from the 17 plan reflect congressional action which added six total F-35s, 12 FNA-18s, 2C-48 alphas, two AH-1Zs or Zula Cobras, one MQ-4 and four MQ-8s. Procurement totals for the submit decreased from 99 to 91 aircraft. A reduction of two F-35 Charlies, five Zula Cobras and five MQ-8 tritons were cut with one P-8 added. Key aircraft procurement in this submit include 14 F-18 Super Hornets and 24 F-35s with four Charlies and 20 Bravos to address efforts to mitigate our strike for a shortfall while we continue the transition to a fifth generation fighter. On the rotary side there was a small decrease in the Zula Cobras which was for fiscal balancing specifically to fund a comprehensive strategic recovery plan aimed at maintaining combat relevance through capability improvements. The 53K replacement for the CH-53 Echo helicopter completed its milestone C review in 17. Low-rate initial production or L-rep before aircraft continues in 18 leading to an IOC in 20. This submit request funds to procure the first six Navy CMV-22s to replace the C-2 cot. Forecast IOC for the Navy variant is fiscal year 21. This submit includes a requested multi-year authority to complete the production buy for both Navy and Marine Corps MV-22s. For our unmanned systems can continue to L-rep procurement of three MQ-4 tritons. The fleet delivery of early operational capability is planned for this year and the MQ-8 fire scout production was truncated because sufficient inventories on hand to meet planned LCS deployments. The program will continue to be assessed as the LCS and frigate program progresses. In weapons procurement the submit provides a net decrease of 10 weapons with reductions funding and optimal risk of weapons and enhanced capabilities. The Navy begins procurement of the small diameter bomb Block II which adds moving target capability for the F-18 and F-35 aircraft. Amaran quantities were decreased to procure the first lot of form-fit function refresh missiles which will replace 80% of the missile guidance section components. Jagum's Milestone Sea was delayed from 17 to 18. The 17 funding will be used to procure the first L-rep quantities and maintain IOC for 19. Due to the delay no missiles were requested in this submit. In shipboard weapons the Navy added 100 Tomahawk missiles to obtain quantity cost savings. The request includes 66 OKO missiles to replace those expended in the Red Sea in Syria and 34 baseline missiles. 18 also begins procurement of modernization kits to be installed in FY 19 with recertification. The Navy decreased RAM Block II quantities to invest in an upgraded capability to counter emerging complex raid threats. This submit includes initial procurement of the Block II Evolved Seasparrow Missile Procurement and the Harpoon Block II Plus Mods. The Block II Seasparrow replaces the guidance section with an improved seeker and the Harpoon provides an expanded capability to provide more accurate targeting. The Navy increases the buy of the LCS surface-to-surface missile module which is the Longbow Hellfire to provide LCS the ability to protect sea lanes and to move forces quickly through a choke point or other strategic waterway. The submit provides substantial investments to modernize enhanced capabilities that currently feel the systems in order to continue to overmatch our adversaries. It includes key investments in cybersecurity to ensure resiliency of our networks and operational technology, advanced efforts to outpace the threat in C4I electronic warfare and information warfare domains is supported by the Consolidated Float Network and Enterprise Services and the Navy multi-band terminal system. Various ship and submarine modernization efforts include the Summarine Warfare Federated Tactical System which provides hardware and software upgrades to submarine sonar, fire control, imaging, electronic warfare systems, as well as integrating unmanned aerial system and advanced electronic warfare and attack capabilities. The DDG modernization ensures the fleet meets or exceeds at expected service life at 35 years for Flight 1 and 2 and 40 years for Flight 2 alphas. Another enabling count the OPN Spares is funded to 85% of the requirement. The Marine Corps and PMC continues to balance ground equipment, procurement and future development to support the current fight while modernizing to dominate a future fight. It funds major programs including the procurement of 527 joint light tactical vehicles, three gator systems, and the initial procurement of 26 amphibious combat vehicles. Procurement of ammunition Navy and Marine Corps funds munitions and related weaponry that replenishes weapons expended and ongoing contingency operations. It funds major fleet requirements such as general purpose bombs, JDAM guidance systems and airborne rockets. Ammunition also range from the 5 inch 54 guns on cruisers and destroyers to precision guided artillery. While there is general agreement, we must increase the size of the fleet. The urgency associated with budget and certainty and increasing global volatility requires that we implement improvements in concept development, research and development and rapid fielding efforts to accelerate the fielding of advanced capabilities that will provide our fleet a force multiplier effect. In the R&D appropriation, science and technology funding remains steady at approximately two billion per year. The Navy's top program programmatic priority, the Columbia class submarine, supports common missile compartment efforts, nuclear technology development, strategic weapons system integration and ship design efforts, capability assessments to ensure the multi mission frigate paces future threats and aviation and the F-35 is funded to maintain the F-35 Charlie IOC of 2018, the next generation jammer and the F-18 fatigue life expectancy. The request includes $67 million of technology maturation in the unmanned undersea vehicles, needing to increase endurance, payload hosting and payload delivery capability. There's funding for Navy cyber situation awareness, combat system cybersecurity, enterprise workforce and building control systems. The Navy invested $15 million to establish the digital warfare office whose priorities include setting requirements, prioritizing resources and leading efforts related to information and systems operability. We've increased investments in laser technology to accelerate delivery of more laser capabilities to the fleet. It builds on the Navy's successes with lasers with funding for the surface naval laser weapon system in a low power module with a future investment of $107 million. The Navy is focused on increasing the speed with which we provide warfare war fighters with critical war fighting capabilities. To facilitate this, the Navy implemented emergent needs and accelerated acquisition policies for the Maritime Accelerated Capabilities Office or MECO program and the rapid prototyping experimentation demonstration or RPED projects. The Marine Corps major R&D initiative continues to be the amphibious combat vehicle. For military construction and family housing, the Milcon submission reflects a 13% increase compared to 17 and funds 35 projects, 18 for the Navy and 17 for the Marine Corps. The program focuses on target investments that provide maximum readiness and war fighting capability to include shipping repair training facilities, paint blasts and rubber facilities, repair facilities for avionics and lift fans, and ammunition recapitalization for Chambersfield, Indian Island and Mayport for missile magazines. Construction of four projects in Guam supports relocation of Marine forces in Okinawa and the family housing budget includes the operation maintenance and recapitalization leasing privatization and oversight of the department's family housing worldwide. Overall, this budget provides the investments required for the Navy and Marine Corps to execute its missions as assigned against the backdrop of complex global security and challenging fiscal environments. It affects the best balance of investments across our readiness inputs of people, equipment, supply, training, ordinance, networks and infrastructure. Balance resourcing across readiness generation efforts provides a wholeness to the force that will allow us to maintain the capabilities and capacity to accomplish the missions of today and the future. This completes my review. I look forward to your questions. We have about nine minutes, so I'll be quick with the ground rules. Of course, this is on record for attribution. When I point to you, go ahead and please state the name and the publication and please also limit your questions to today's brief. Hi, sir. Megan next time with the US Naval Institute News. So you spoke of this year being a readiness year and not necessarily a growth year. But Navy and industrial based folks have talked about for the LCS program meeting three ships to keep the base healthy and for the LPD program meeting that LPD 29 Hall to help with the transition to LXR. So I was just wondering what the discussion was as you were putting this budget together around those two and how industrial based health played into your talks. So as you said, the guidance was fixed, filled the holes for 18. And but the industrial base is a consideration for the shipyards, for airplanes, for weapons. So we the direction was clear, filled the holes first. And then as we go forward for the future, we will look at the industrial base and and we will conduct a review to ensure that we understand truly what a minimum sustained rate is for an acquisition program. And then we will review and what is the sustainable. The goal for the Navy is to have both shipyards available to compete for the FFX competition down the road. So we would respond accordingly in the out years if it was necessary. Hi, Admiral Sydney Friedberg breaking defense. Just to get the big picture right of not a growth year, compared to the Obama plan from last year for Foyight 18, when this was an out year, we're still the same number of ships being built and the exact same types of ships being built. And I believe the aircraft are also very similar. I think you said different sort of 99 in last year's flight. The airplanes, 99 to 91. What type was was was coming coming down to that? The type of airplanes that that came down. Yeah, we reduced some F-35s were reduced. And as I mentioned the Zulu, there's five Zulu Cobra's, but they self-funded their main modernization program. So they took quantity and then bought capability with that. We truncated the buy of the fire scout because we have sufficient inventory on hand to address that. I think those were the three major ones. Hi, I saw a man with aviation week. So two quick aircraft questions. Number one, why, what was the reason for the decrease in F-35Cs this year? And two, I didn't see any mention of the next generation aircraft fighter, FAXX I think. Can you just explain why there's no mention of it and what's what's the plan for that? Has it been delayed? I'll start with the first. So to continue the theme of 17, we had to make hard choices and so we maintained our readiness accounts and we had to balance somewhere. And so we tried to hold the line as best we could in our procurement accounts, but if there was something. So reducing just two F-35s allowed us to maintain the IOC in 18 for the F-35. So we made a hard choice and but maintain the risk to allow us to maintain IOC. So that was a cost-benefit analysis on that one. Or it's deferred? The F-35s? Well we'll look at that as we go forward with the defense strategic review. So all the out years and I and you know I think Mr. Roth mentioned this earlier, right? So the as we go through those 10 mission sets will be examined. Those 10 mission sets are the driver for the utilization of the forces. So if something comes out different that says, hey we need a different force sizing construct, then that may drive. My expectation is that we will continue to fly airplanes off aircraft carriers and we'll look at what the demand signal is and then procure the aircraft appropriately to the DSR when it comes out in August or September. For your FFX, I'll have to, I don't have that off the top, so I'll get back to you on that. You said that or eliminating those aircraft allowed you to get to IOC in 2018. Can you just be more specific on that? No, we maintain IOC and to maintain IOC, right? Where does the money go, like how does that work? Well I can't take you as a, you know, this is a dollar and fund it through but I will tell you in the aggregate we increase funding as I mentioned for example in aviation spares. So aviation spares at a high level. We went to those enabling accounts, so PRE, PRL. So we bought engineers to do dispositions for the maintenance. We bought Navy One Capital Fund people to do to handle the IOC for the JSF. So the two airplanes for the JFF that may have been programmatically to balance the increased requirements in other accounts. Okay, Justin. Hey, Justin, don't believe inside defense. I just was wondering, I think it was about a billion dollars it's going to be requested for just one LCS. The ships have been coming in around 500 million. So why do you need that much money for just one LCS? I'm not familiar that we ask for a billion dollars for one LCS. Oh, is it about six? Excuse me. Well, in the second part of that question, how does this budget set up the transition to the frigate going forward? So as I mentioned earlier, we'll take a look to maintain an industrial base that remains competitive. And so in the R&D effort, we're funding the capabilities assessment to assure we know what the FFX needs. And then we are on pace to do a fourth quarter 2020 award for the FFX. So that's the end state that we want to do. You mentioned in brief that 4,000 sailor plus up, how it's going to be apportioned. And I was wondering if you could go more granularly, say this many sailors will be part of the blue and bold concept, this many for the expeditionary If you give me a second to get to it, I can. Actually, it's this is a delaying technique. Let's go to the other brief. I know that approximately 2,000 are in our IA and TTPH, the overhead associated with friction so we can we can get sailors to their ships on time. There was a thousand for cruisers modification 450 for the LCS balloon gold concept, 373 to support the IOC for the JSF support for the Marine Corps was 163. And the expeditionary staging base was 100. And that adds up roughly to about 4,000. Sir, Richard, with regard to that single LCS for 2018, does that represent a down select to a single hull design? It does not. The intent is to have two shipyards competitive in 2020. We maybe it seeks to have a competitive bidding process. Okay, Chris, last question. Chris Cab's defense news, actually following on the LCS, my understanding is that OMB wanted to add another LCS into this budget to make two. But but the the submission here is for one, which is the Obama request. Are you is there the possibility of the Navy submitting an addendum to this or a modification to this request and going up to two ships? As I know today, we are not submitting an amended budget submission for a second LCS. Do you plan on submitting a amended budget submission right now? As of right now, I have not been directed to create nor submit an amended budget submission. Okay, thank you everyone. You have follow-up questions. You can direct them to me. We up here with Kerry as well.