December 2010 Navy
By RADM Casey W. Coane, USN (Ret)
Continued from last month’s issue – Navy, November 2010
Elsewhere in DoD
When we published the Seascape IV in May 2009, there was no bid award for the new Air Force tanker. Now, sixteen months later, there is still no award and so that sad saga continues. In the interim, Northrop Grumman and EADS North America split up their partnership, with EADS deciding to bid after threatening to drop out completely. UAC a Russian state-owned aerospace group threw its hat in the ring only to fail to submit its bid on time. Both Boeing and EADS claim that their tanker is the one ready to fly. We mention this only because this tanker program from start – former DoD then Boeing employee going to prison, Senator McCain killing the tanker lease deal, and now a three- year bid process – to finish, has been a story about how not to buy a defense asset.
If you read our article on the F-35 in the August issue, you know that it is quite an airplane. It is also the largest program dollar wise in DoD history. This past spring, cost overruns caused a Nunn-McCurdy breech and the program had to be recertified before Congress. As a part of that, Secretary Gates restructured the program, fired its military director and replaced him with VADM Venlett, formerly the Commander Naval Air Systems Command. Lockheed’s public voice is that the restructuring was a good thing, has allowed the program to get on track, and costs are now below the government’s estimates. Time, of course, will tell; and, as we said in August, the bar is very high.
In early September, rumor began to circulate that Secretary Gates was taking a hard look at the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the many years late and hugely over budget replacement for the old and tired AAV. We wrote in the last Seascape that there were some in the Corps who acknowledged that it was time to cancel this program; and yet, sixteen months later, it limps along. Last year, we wrote that the flat-bottomed EFV was not what today’s IED defenses require – V-shaped hulls. Another issue gaining traction is that with today’s very accurate and proliferating anti-ship missiles, “from the sea” means perhaps sixty miles plus to the beach – a long swim for any tracked vehicle, even one that is water-jet propelled.
Many of you have heard of Secretary Gates’ recent initiatives to trim staffing and move dollars from tail to tooth. His plan is to cut $100 B from overhead across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).1 The papers like to write a lot about trimming Flag and General Officers, but the real issues are things like eliminating U.S. Forces Command in Norfolk and the 6,000 jobs associated with it. He has also targeted the growth within the Pentagon of 1,000 jobs since 9-11. His aim is to reprogram dollars to ensure adequate defense spending in the face of difficult budget battles. Part of the “tail” that he wants to fix is the steady increase in health care spending and the relative percentage of his budget that it eats. Fixing that means passing more of those costs onto service members, particularly the retired.
Since he has announced his departure next year, the question is will he get this accomplished and can he make it stick? For example, in April, the Pentagon scrapped the two-year budgeting cycle that Secretary Rumsfeld had put in place. Why? According to Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, “Everyone involved just ignored that second year. The building ignored it. Congress ignored it.”2 Big ships turn slowly. The Pentagon epitomizes that and then some. Perhaps Secretary Gates will have better luck.
The Navy
If you are still with us, we are finally going to talk about our Navy. Congress likes the Navy; we have friends there. That doesn’t mean that the Navy gets a thumbs up on everything or a free pass on anything. Far from it, and Associations like ours have to keep pressurizing the situation (new Pentagon speak for work hard). The Navy version as told by VADM Terry Blake, N-8, at the recent retired flag conference is that we did well in 2010, expect to do well in 2011 and are well-positioned for 2012. We are “resetting in stride,” he said. And there is good news. The Virginia Class has moved to full-rate production of two boats a year. The Navy will likely get its full request for F/A- 18 E, F, and Gs when the NDAA finally passes. The badly needed P-8s look to be funded fully in 2011 as well. The Arleigh Burke, DDG-51 line has been restarted and likely fully funded for 2011. The Navy is seeing financial success in its desire to increase the number of Burkes and Cruisers that have the upgrades to make their Aegis systems capable of ballistic missile defense. That is due to the Administration’s decision not to base missiles in Poland and to increase sea-based missile defense. Unmanned vehicle programs are moving forward with great emphasis from the CNO on the underwater vehicle R&D. The first Fire Scout unmanned helicopter ISR asset will be on deployment when you read this. For those of you who remember DASH, Fire Scout comes back. The Navy version of Global Hawk, the BAMS aircraft, has been delayed, but the Navy prototype is flying in the combat theater and operational & support concepts are maturing.
Of course, in the personnel accounts, the Navy is enjoying both the easiest recruiting environment and the highest retention ever. Life is good if you are CNP. To his great credit, VADM Ferguson, CNP, is moving ahead with innovative telecommuting (20% of his Pentagon staff telecommutes at least one day a week) and other programs taking the best from industry practices to achieve remarkable increases in retention among married women for example. At the same time, he has applied rigorous analysis to determine when a change in recruiting will occur and to plan for action to keep pace with that change.
So what is not so good? Well, here is one. The Congressional Budget Office has said that the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan is short by 19.5 percent or $93 B.3 That there is disagreement isn’t unusual, but the CBO has looked at a number of different ship programs and generally finds fault with the Navy’s estimate of the cost growth in the out years. A second complaint the CBO has is that the Navy overestimates the length of time that it assumes a ship will be in service, noting that the Navy recently had to change its 40-year assumption for the early Arleigh Burkes to something less. If you are familiar with the budget process, we always assume we will get well in the out years. The CBO is saying that the Navy is just too optimistic.
By the time you read this, we should have had a downselect in the LCS design competition. The Navy’s plan, then, is for more than one shipyard to produce the chosen design. As of this writing, one problem with the program is that neither of the two designs can yet be built at or under the Congressionally mandated ceiling of $440M. We believe that is one of the reasons that the Senate Markup deleted one of the requested LCS from the NDAA. Both LCS-1 and LCS-2 have internal systems yet to be installed and tested. To complicate this issue, the warfare modules, antisurface, antimine, and antisubmarine are nowhere near completion and not ready for deployment. This time, it is the Government Accountability Office (GAO) finding fault saying that the “Navy risks buying Littoral Combat Ships with mission packages that don’t work and are years away from doing so, resulting in a fleet of vessels unable to do their jobs...”4 This type of hyperbole is not uncommon. Nonetheless, there is a lot about LCS that is troubling considering we are counting on having 55 of them.
Elsewhere in shipping, the CGX was cancelled by Secretary Gates and the very expensive Zumwalts truncated at three ships. The follow-on destroyer to the Burkes is likely to be very dependent on how LCS turns out. Replacement of sixteen Ohio class SSBNs with fourteen of a new class is now underway in the design phase. The Navy sees these vessels as $7+B ships and the CBO sees them as $9+B. Either way, one ship a year would consume roughly half of the shipbuilding budget – a problem yet to be solved. The Navy would like Congress to fund these as National Strategic Nuclear Arsenal assets outside of Navy TOA. Don’t bet on that just yet.
Navy Reserve Component
As integration of the Reserve Component into the Active force continues, it become a bit harder to get a true sense of the force. Without question, Navy leadership at the highest levels has developed a true appreciation for the skill sets, patriotism and determination of our Reservists. In places like the Expeditionary Combat Command, where a bit over 50% of the force is Reserve; in medical; in cyber; in intelligence; the Reserve Component clearly has an established and valued presence. Reserve SPECOPS forces have grown in importance and size. Reservists still make up a large percentage of the Navy boots on the ground in theater and a bit over 50% since 9-11. VADM Debbink believes that the current IA deployment requirement can be sustained. The manpower accounts are in such good shape that Perform to Serve is reaching into the lower ratings. Overall end-strength is about stabilized at 65,500 SELRES and 10,800 FTS. This is all good stuff. If I were Chief of Navy Reserve, I would, and he does, take great pride in what the Component has done since 9-11. As a former Chief of Navy Reserve said to us once, “the Navy is getting the Reserve it wants.”
There is the other side of the coin; and, to be fair, there always will be issues that need tackling. That’s true in any company. The two most troubling remain the common pay system or to be precise, the lack thereof, and the need for better care of those returning from combat and demobilizing. For two decades, we were hamstrung by the requirement for DIHMRS to be the joint service effort. After twenty years and millions of wasted dollars, DIHMRS died this year. Now, the Navy says it will be 2014 before a new Navy system will be ready. Perhaps that is what it takes to POM for and field a new system, but we wonder what would happen if it were the Active Component that couldn’t get paid on time?
Unfortunately, among those outside the service who work with returning warriors, the Navy has the worst reputation for how it manages Reservists returning from an IA deployment. We all know that there are some bad eggs in the crate, people who want to milk the system; but that is too easy an answer. If there is one Sailor who is sent home when he or she should have had medical attention instead, that is one too many. If there is one Sailor who develops PTSD after returning home and doesn’t get the attention needed, that is one too many. These aren’t easy problems to solve, and our opinion is that many NOSCs are not equipped to solve them properly nor are they equipped to do the best job to communicate with the families of those deployed. It is a work in progress, but progress is the operative word.
Aside from those two worries, there is the perennial concern that when budgets get tough, the Active Component has traditionally looked at the Reserve Component as a bill payer. An integrated force should mitigate that; we will see. After all, the easy stuff to cut was hardware and that is mostly gone already. There is also the requirement in the QDR to preserve a strategic capability in the Reserve Component. The intent in that document is a real surge capability not simply defining those not operationally mobilized as strategic reserve. We remain concerned that the strategic surge in the Navy Reserve today is in the “tail” not the “tooth.”
Conclusion
If we were to compare this Seascape with the other Services, we think that the Navy is, indeed, in a good place, a Global Force for Good, the commercial says. Control of the sea lanes for commerce is a national priority and that means ships and naval aircraft. If one looks at the nuclear defense triad, it is the submarine leg that is strongest. Our Sailors, Active and Reserve, are a new greatest generation. Some things in Washington never change; some challenges will always remain. We are certain that the Navy needs AUSN and other associations to take that message to the public and to the “Hill.” We will be there every day!
References:
1 Newsweek, 20 September 2010, p39
2 Defense News, Vol. 25, No. 16, p1
3 Navy Times, 7 June 2010, p20
4 Defense News, Vol. 25, No. 33, p4