Norman Polmar Fires a Broadside, Reloads, Fires Again

Holy Crap! Tell me what you really think Norm! When blogging for DefenseTech, Norman already does a great job cutting through the noise and giving solid analysis, but this is great stuff.

In October 2008 Proceedings (subscription article), after running down a solid history and comparison of the DDG-1000 program, through its cancellation on July 31s, and the new plan for DDG-51s, Norman Polmar fires several broadsides of criticism on the leadership of the Navy, including naming names. This conclusion holds nothing back.

The failure of the Navy's leadership to understand and manage the development of the Fleet has reached a critical level. When the DDG-1000 situation is looked at in conjunction with the San Antonio (LPD-17) and the Littoral Combat Ship programs, both characterized by massive delays and cost overruns, it is obvious that the a new approach to Navy ship requirements and construction is needed. Questions must be asked about the Navy's processes in these critical areas. And, the Navy's leadership must be questioned. The Navy will have a new secretary, under secretary, and assistant secretary for shipbuilding and research when the new presidential administration takes office in January 2009.

In August 2008 the Naval Sea Systems Command received a new commander (Vice Admiral Kevin M. McCoy) and a new program executive officer for ships (Rear Admiral William E. Landay). But changes are also needed in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. And, senior officers in the Office as well. The new Secretary of the Navy as well as the new Secretary of Defense must take such actions as necessary-including possibly convening a top-level, objective, blue ribbon panel-to make certain that the Navy's leadership fully understands its responsibilities and challenges.

Emphasis mine. I am not going to pick teams in the DDG-1000 / DDG-51 debate: 86 the battleship, time to evolve the Navy towards 21st century solutions that make sense within the resources available.

However, the leadership discussion here is fascinating. It isn't uncommon to see leadership criticized in Proceedings, but this goes beyond simple generic leadership criticism. Norman Polmar is questioning the capacity for leadership by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and the major problems in the Navy. It isn't the first time, in fact the number of voices are growing. We are moving beyond a credibility problem in shipbuilding and have moved squarely towards a crisis of confidence in leadership, a crisis of confidence of strategy, and most importantly, there are no public defenders of the Navy... none.

It is empty to hear Admiral Roughead discuss balance for the fleet under the 313-ship plan. It is empty to hear about 21st century challenges at a time the latest bright idea in the Navy today is to build the DDG-51, the best of the 20th century. I have very little confidence in a Navy that pushes a maritime strategy that has been intentionally absent a link to acquisition. Chap nails it, Norman Polmar is on the money, Chris Cavas had it right: there is a desire for genuine, consistent leadership that people can believe in.

A big problem is the lack of evidence publicly that such leadership exists. Nobody outside the inner circle can credibly discuss who Admiral Roughead is, or what he believes. There are no evangelists in the Navy today, and ideas counter to the status quo are far and few, rarely supported, and often prevent creative minds from advancement beyond the level where those officers speak out. There is no communication from the leadership in the Navy, no message that resonates, and the absence of debate is so evident that I see more fire and emotion regarding the Navy in the blogosphere than I can find anywhere else.

Good job Norman, you won't make Roughead's Christmas card list again this year, but it is good to see Proceedings print something relevant to the leadership concerns that is building momentum in regards to the Navy. It will be interesting if the Navy's leadership responds, in the past, they zip up the tent door and retreat to the closed door.