Good day at SNA today. I attended a few presentations and some of it is worth recounting for you.
REP Rob Wittman (R-VA1)
Rep Wittman was a replacement for Rep Todd Akin (R-MO2), both of whom are on the HASC and the HASC Seapower Subcommittee.
Witmann is an unabashed supporter of the Navy and he gave an excellent speech in which he diplomatically yet firmly questioned the Administration's commitment to appropriately funding national defense, especially the Navy. I don't have a recorder and I don't write fast enough to guarantee that these are quotes, but they are pretty close:
1. The procurement and R/D budgets are not sufficient to meet the Navy's needs.
2. He spoke of "significant" maintenance shortfalls for surface ships (mentioned the INSURV reports on STOUT and CHOSIN specifically.
3. Said we need to spend $25B a year for 30 years to get to 313 ships--clearly not in the program.
4. Believes a force level of 275 (where he believes we are headed) is unacceptable. "Quantity does matter"
5. "Planning should drive budgeting, not the reverse"
6. Talked about a 48 boat SSN force being insufficient to meet COCOM demand, given that today's 53 hulls only meet 60% of the demand.
7. News about QDR causing him "deep pause". Loss of CVBG(S) will be a matter "for Congress"
8. Very anxious about costs of OHIO Replacement--50% of available shipbuilding funds.
9. Lauded the "non-budget constrained review" underway at Congressional direction to parallel QDR.
10. Anxious about repeating "90's Peace Dividend" after 10 years of war.
During the Q and A--a someone indicated that Ron O'Rourke of CRS says that the Navy always gets what it asks for--and since it isn't asking for enough, is the Congress willing to move independently to drive up topline. He enthusiastically affirmed they are, stating that he and Gene Taylor are trying to get to $20B a year.
SECNAV Ray Mabus
I was disappointed in SECNAV's performance the first time I saw him up at Newport last summer. I was glad to see that he'd improved. He's clearly a polished speaker and a fine politician, but it was nice to hear him mastering the lingo of the modern Navy.
He talked about acquisition reform (no surprises) and he talked said "there is such a thing as a good idea cut-off point"--something that the Navy is really going to have to get disciplined about.
The Secretary stressed the importance of a robust industrial base to national security and also for its economic value. During the Q and A, I asked him to comment on the lack of any shipbuilding funds in President Obama's stimulus package, given the industrial base importance and the pressures on the SCN account. He quite logically answered that he wasn't in office during the time of the stimulus discussions.
Panel Discussion: Confronting Irregular Challenges in a Hybrid Security Environment
This was a pretty interesting panel, moderated by Director of Irregular Warfare on the OPNAV Staff, RADM Phil Greene. His panelists included Dr. Martin Murphy of CSBA, ADM Harry Ulrich USN (ret), VADM Kevin Cosgriff USN (ret) and RADM Carol Pottenger.
Murphy started out with a brief, informative and well crafted set of remarks that reflected themes he's made elsewhere; specifically, that Navies (in this case, ours) are the forces best suited to confronting the irregular environments that drive regional challenges. The ability of the Navy to blend warfare with constabulary duties and diplomacy creates influence.
ADM Ulrich followed with a classic ADM Ulrich pitch. Confident, unadorned with niceties, to the point. And the points were:
1. Irregular warfare is only irregular to us, not them.
2. We will be measured in the future by what we create not what we destroy
3. We can no longer speak of "general purpose" forces and "special" forces; war in the 21st century will not be fought and won by "someone else".
4. The irregular fight will come to the homeland.
VADM Cosgriff's presentation highlighted points raised by Dr. Murphy with respect to the inadequacy of the terminology used--such as "irregular" and "asymmetric". He strongly asserted that we should not "asymmetry" to the other side.
Finally, RADM Pottenger took issue with some perceptions/misperceptions in the media/trades about her command (Naval Expeditionary Combat Command) and how it AND the Navy are reacting to irregular challenges. NECC is NOT the Navy's Hybrid Force--it is part of a force aligned to confront irregular challenges. Pottenger volunteered that she wasn't sure that Strike Group Commanders are being adequately trained for what she called "disaggregated" operations.
During the Q and A, a question was raised about Maritime Domain Awareness--"was it a ghost" or was it something that industry should be preparing for and investing in. Ulrich had a chilling comment--saying that "it will only get fixed when an incident happens and there is a Congressional investigation.
RADM Ray Spicer
RADM Spicer is the Deputy N3/N5 at OPNAV, and he spoke about The Hybrid War and Our Maritime Strategy. Spicer's a good speaker and he did a good job in not rehashing the strategy--he simply focused on three of its operational pillars--Forward Presence, Deterrence, and Maritime Security, and he made a coherent argument for how those three pillars have evolved even since the development of the Maritime Strategy to encompass a more direct approach to irregular warfare.
Spicer showed a great deal of class and patience during the Q and A with a questioner who chose to deliver a lecture on Psychological Operations, Natural Law, and the War with Islamic Radicalism. The man rambled for no less than probably four minutes, and Spicer sought to take him seriously.
There were a couple of other things on the agenda that I didn't make it to--there's real money-earning work to be done and someone's got to do it...
More tomorrow.
Bryan McGrath
No comments:
Post a Comment