Today's Hearings on the Hill

There are two House Armed Services Hearings today that might interest folks. I know I'll be watching both of them online.

Jul 12 2011 1:30 PM
The Evolution of Strategic Communication and Information Operations Since 9/11
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Rayburn House Office Building - 2118

Witness Panel

Ms. Rosa Brooks
Professor
Georgetown University Law Center

Dr. Christopher Paul
Social Scientist
RAND Corporation

Dr. Tawfik Hamid
Senior Fellow and Chair for the Study of Islamic Radicalism
Potomac Institute for Policy Studies

This panel will either be fantastic or terrible, and there won't be room for much middle ground. US STRATCOM is in the dumps right now, as evidenced by the complete absence of STRATCOM for Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and more importantly - the general image of the United States globally. For example, when the German crowd started cheering for the US womens soccer team in the world cup game Sunday, it marked the first time in my living memory a foreign crowd cheered for the US during an international sporting event. We have an image problem.

IO is a very interesting topic, and a conversation I think Congress should jump into. Is it successful IO when the CIA runs a vaccination program to obtain Usama bin Laden's DNA? It might be, but hopefully the extent to which our nation can run Information Operations extends beyond our ability to scam foreign populations. Can IO be used to shape the movements of the bad guys? Our greatest fear is that information quality cannot be assured, but I often wonder how effective we are in placing doubt into the minds of our adversaries regarding the quality of their information.

Jul 12 2011 3:00 PM
How Does the Navy Get Ready, and Where are We Today?
Subcommittee on Readiness
Rayburn House Office Building - 2112

Witness Panel

Vice Admiral William Burke USN
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations
Fleet Readiness and Logistics (N4)

Vice Admiral Kevin McCoy USN
Commander
Naval Sea Systems Command

It would be a wasted opportunity for Congress if they throw softball questions at this panel today.

Why are INSURVs classified? While it might be fair to classify some details, the idea that a result must be classified is a load of bull. Speaking of INSURVs, why does the Navy conduct INSURVs on $220 million ships but not conduct INSURVs on aircraft that cost almost as much? Does Congress even realize that the material of a P-8 squadron is probably going to cost more than the material of a Littoral Combat Ship Squadron? BAMS is going to be expensive too. Does the concept of Capital Asset need to be revisited in the 21st century?

Why isn't the Navy talking about the need for LCS tenders or more oilers for a growing fleet? Tell me why the Navy 313 plan added more quantity of ships but decreased the quantity of logistics ships? Oh, and in the process, the LCS consumes more fuel than the ships it replaces. The logistics of forward deployed LCS operations doesn't add up without adding more logistics ships, but the Navy isn't even discussing the potential need yet. Someone needs to raise the red flag, because the absence of even a generic logistics discussion for supporting LCS operations raises questions whether the Navy is being serious about LCS operations.

13 of the 31 currently overmanned ratings are in the aviation community. 6 of the 31 are in the Sea Bees. Roughead testified about reducing shore based infrastructure, is this what he was talking about? Ten years ago optimal ship manning and the disestablishment of the shore based maintenance activities for ships became the cost saving approach for the Navy. We have seen the results to the surface fleet as a result. It appears now it is naval aviation's turn under the axe. These are tough choices, and may be the best of the bad choices, but the Navy needs to explain it.

It is possible the LCS-2 issue will get some attention in this hearing. This really isn't a big issue as people suggest. Known problems with known solutions aren't the challenge for LCS, known or unknown problems with unknown solutions will be the LCS challenge. Those problems are coming, and may already exist. For example, a lot of people have made noise about the material condition of LCS-1 based on pictures. Stupid. They saved money primarily due to a late FY11 federal budget and decided these things will be addressed during the upcoming dock period. Good decision, I think. External corrosion isn't the challenge LCS has - the treatments plus shore maintenance support will prevent that from being a problem. The LCS corrosion issue is internal to the ship, including engine spaces. How does the Navy address corrosion inside the LCS hulls when most of that surface isn't treated for prevention and the crew simply doesn't number enough to deal with the issue while underway? The LCS is such a strange discussion, because my impression is people on the outside are always complaining about the wrong problems.

It would be a tragedy if the COBRA JUDY replacement didn't get some attention. The COBRA JUDY replacement encountered the same problems on sea trials that were identified on builders trials, and the government accepted almost all the spaces of a ship that failed acceptance. VADM McCoy told the Senate earlier this year these types of shipbuilding problems were solved, but the COBRA JUDY problems were announced the DAY AFTER THE HEARING he testified to the Senate the problems were solved. In other words, the Navy hides the ugly before giving testimony. It begs the question what news we will learn tomorrow that sure would have been useful for Congress in the hearing discussion today.