It May Sound Like Comedy, But It Shows Good Judgment

Chris Cavas probably had some fun writing this article, because it is one of those things he knows readers just shake their head after reading. The bulk of the article is discussing the current conference named "The Road to CG(X)". The conference is described as:

This conference will address the requirements and challenges associated with designing and building the Navy’s next-generation, multi-mission surface combatant. The CG(X) will leverage technologies proven by engineering development models for DDG 1000, and CG(X) will add capabilities for sea-based ballistic missile defense systems and higher power advanced sensors. Due to the need to provide high levels of power for sensors and weapons and target delivery, the CG(X) will require very highly capable electric power system. The conference will explore the issues involved with integrating these multiple advanced capabilities into the design and construction of modern warships while accommodating affordability and acquisition process imperatives. The conference will consider technical risk, cost and schedule mitigation approaches to support the CG(X) acquisition plan in line with the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan.

Sounds awesome! We have high hopes for the CG(X), and can't wait to see what the Navy is thinking regarding the cruiser replacement program. However, as Chris Cavas is reporting, one topic off the agenda is... the CG(X).

Acknowledging that the Navy’s next-generation cruiser program is a “fairly controversial topic,” the service’s top shipbuilder warned attendees at an engineering conference not to expect too many details.

“We’re still in the early stages of development,” Vice Adm. Paul Sullivan, head of Naval Sea Systems Command, told a Crystal City, Va., audience Monday. “We’re not ready yet,” he said, “to discuss details” of the new cruiser, known as CG(X).

Sullivan provided the keynote address at the opening of a two-day conference sponsored by the American Society of Naval Engineers. The topic of the conference: “The Road to CG(X).”

Although the cruiser program “represents the very heart of the future surface Navy,” Sullivan repeatedly mentioned items that would not be discussed at the conference, including details of the super-secret Analysis of Alternatives for the ship, or discussions of the cruiser’s hull form, radar or missiles.

What!?! These guys should be pissed! The article goes on to highlight some comments by Ronald O'Rourke who weighs in a bit with his personal (not as a CRS employee, rather as a professional researcher and among our favorites) opinions regarding what this means. Essentially, Ron believes this is a sign the Navy has decided to wait for the next administration, and won't comment on new programs until then. While it is certainly comedy to hold a conference on the CG(X) and not discuss the CG(X), if we are thinking critically about this, we think waiting for the next administration before discussing details of the CG(X) is the right thing for the Navy to do.

There are a couple of different ways to clear the white board on shipbuilding, a process the Navy needs to do to build its credibility, and unless you want to go down the same route as the Air Force, and send some folks packing, the best way is to simply do nothing and wait for the next administration. With the CG(X) program specifically, this is a wise move. For best results, the DDG-1000 would get canned this fiscal year as well, allowing the Navy a much whiter board to work with for shipbuilding. That may or may not happen, but as long as we are thinking critically, we think it would help more than it would hurt.

There are two points here. First, the DDG-1000 and LCS represents the current direction of the Navy, and about the only aspect of the current shipbuilding budget that can be seriously adjusted to meet the requirements of the new maritime strategy. Fact of the matter is, if the House wins the current debate, and we hope they do, the Navy will be in position to buy a big mothership and small surface combatant to execute the maritime strategy over the next 3 decades. We have advocated this position from a strategic view of maritime strategy on the blog many times. Probably won't happen, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't.

For the CG(X) though, this program will happen no matter what else happens in shipbuilding, and no matter who is elected president. All that is yet to be decided are the details, several of which can swing in a number of directions depending upon who is elected the next president. Neither candidate has been asked, nor has weighed in (nor is likely to) regarding the fleet strategy for the future, so by saying nothing the Navy can claim under the next administration that they were part of the process for establishing the systems requirements... after all, with issues like ballistic missile defense focus, nuclear power, and hull form part of that discussion the next administration will probably have a say on the subject. The CG(X) represents a critical replacement program for current cruisers, and is about the only aspect of the shipbuilding budget over the next two decades that will not be cut.

While it is probably unpopular for the Navy to play the stall card regarding the CG(X) program, we think it makes a lot of sense. Introducing the program in the last few months of a lame duck presidency could potentially damage the long term viability of any decisions made regarding the CG(X) program. From our point of view, it is much smarter to wait and let the new administration weigh in to insure the CG(X) gets the political support it needs regarding the specific metrics that will define the platform.