Navigation Brief
ALEXANDRIA – Good Evening, Drifters
This is an e-newsletter originally published Sept. 17. Since the publication, Secretary of Defense Esper was fired and the White House has put forward new ideas for how to pay for a fleet expansion, but experts have raised questions about their math.
If you are someone who thinks the Navy should be bigger, I have good news and bad news.
The good news? The Secretary of Defense agrees with you! The bad news? Not entirely clear where the money is coming from just yet, and you may not like the answer when you get it.
That’s what I want to talk about tonight. So stop binging Cobra Kai on Netflix, pour yourself a nice dram and let’s review what SECDEF Esper had to say this week about the Navy.
Let’s Drift!
DBL
Where’s the Devil?
Always in the details.
First, let’s dive into Mark Esper’s remarks at Rand Corporation on the future of the Navy fleet.
Here’s Esper’s central argument:
Excerpt: Ship numbers are important, but they don’t tell the whole story.
They do not address the types of ships and the capabilities of the vessels being counted; the skill of the crews that operate them; the prowess of the officers that lead them; or the ways in which we fight and sustain them…just to name a few.
Nonetheless, we must stay ahead; we must retain our overmatch; and we will keep building modern ships to ensure we remain the world’s greatest Navy.
That said, to compete in a 21st century high-end fight, we will need a future fleet that optimizes the following operational attributes: first, distributed lethality and awareness; second, survivability in a high intensity conflict; third, adaptability for a complex world; fourth, ability to project power, control the seas and demonstrate presence; and fifth, capability to deliver precision effects at very long ranges.
This future naval force will be more balanced in its ability to deliver lethal effects from the air, from the sea, and from under the sea. This fleet will be made up of more and smaller surface combatants; optionally-manned, unmanned, and autonomous surface and subsurface vehicles; unmanned carrier-based aircraft of all types; a larger and more capable submarine force; and a modern strategic deterrent.
To be completely honest, who could argue with that? This is the fleet I argue for all the time on Twitter, only with the added BBGN for fun. (One of these days I’ll release on this platform my white paper on why we need the BBGN, and, yes, I’m deadly serious about it.
But there’s a crux coming, and that’s the money.
Excerpt:At the same time, this force must be affordable in an era of tight funding; sustainable over the long term; and operationally ready and available at higher rates.
In addition, it must have a robust and healthy industrial base, with modern shipyards and highly skilled workers, which have the capacity to build and maintain the fleet we need.
He’s saying there’s not influx of money and the Navy needs to reconstruct itself to be affordable.
The speech goes on to talk about how he had David Norquist, deputy secretary of defense, conduct a force structure assessment to get at that more affordable fleet.
Now here’s what that study found:
Excerpt: In short, it will be a balanced force of over 355 ships – both manned and unmanned – and will be built in a relevant timeframe and budget-informed manner.
And we will build this fleet in such a way that balances tomorrow’s challenges with today’s readiness needs, and does not create a hollow Navy in the process.
To achieve this outcome, we must INCREASE FUNDING FOR SHIPBUIDLING [emphasis mine] and the readiness that sustains a larger force. Doing this and FINDING THE MONEY WITHIN THE NAVY BUDGET AND ELSEWHERE [emphasis mine] to make it real, is something both the Navy leadership and I are committed to doing.
Look, that’s some touchdown dance stuff if you are a navalist, right? Maybe, maybe not. Really what this comes down do is where does the money come from.
And here’s where we get into a little controversy: Time for some inside baseball.
The remarks distributed to the media prior to the speech differed from the remarks given at Rand live. Here’s what Esper’s prepared remarks as distributed said:
Excerpt:This week I met with the Deputy Secretary and the team to discuss their findings. The results are a game-changer that reflect a good deal of serious work and effort based on facts and data. This study will serve as our guidepost as we program and build our future fleet, and conduct follow-on assessments. In short, it will be a balanced force of over 355 ships – both manned and unmanned— and will be built in a timely, relevant, and budget-informed manner. And we will build this fleet in such a way that balances tomorrow’s challenges with today’s readiness, and does not create a hollow Navy.
To achieve this outcome, we must increase funding for shipbuilding. This means we must get back to the same levels of spending dedicated for shipbuilding in the Navy budget that the sea service committed during the Reagan era – 13%, as compared to today’s 11%. This is something both the Secretary of the Navy and I are committed to pursuing.
Now, recall what CNO Gilday proposed at Surface Navy Association in January: A one percent realignment of the DoD budget to cover shipbuilding.
You can read about that here:
Amid Pacific naval arms race, US defense chief calls for increased funding for ships
But that’s not what was in the prepared remarks. The prepared remarks call for an increase from 11 to 13 percent of the Navy’s budget, which sounds a little like Esper’s original remarks were calling on the Navy to self-fund the increase.
The devil is indeed in the details and Esper’s remarks as delivered do leave open the possibility that the Navy will have to find some money in house and other money will come from elsewhere. So let’s give it the benefit of the doubt and wait on the budget to see what shakes out.
On to The Hotwash!
The Hotwash
Some fun comments from Adm. Grady at Fleet Forces Command on the news that China is working on a third aircraft carrier.
As reported by Sam LaGrone: “To me that makes all the sense, they’re a maritime power and they understand the great value that comes from carrier aviation and how that can shape the international environment. It’s taken us over 100 years to get that right,” Grady said during the American Society of Naval Engineers 2020 Fleet Maintenance Modernization Symposium.
“Lot of blood, lot of loss of life, a lot of sweat and tears to make naval aviation work. We’ve got a huge lead and one that will continue to expand into the future. Go ahead and build that big ship, but to build the eco-system that is naval aviation that brings that ship to life – that’s going to take a lot of hard work and time.”
Read the whole story here: U.S. Admiral Talks 3rd Chinese Aircraft Carrier: ‘Go Ahead and Build that Big Ship’
More Reading
What, don’t think you can replace them fast enough? Navy Mulling Extending Service Lives of Nimitz-class Carriers
Pandemic spells opportunity for Coast Guard cadets
Navy’s ‘Black Widow’ exercise tests capabilities in a North Atlantic submarine battle
The future US Navy carrier air wing will fight at extended ranges, admiral says
Fair Winds: Sailor dies after colliding with a bus while on his skateboard
|
