CRS IW

The Congressional Research Service recently produced a document that provides a fairly comprehensive and accurate overview of the past several years of Navy involvement in IW and CT.  Also included are pertinent sections of the FY13 NDAA and appropriations acts. Most interesting, however, are the additional oversight questions, especially this one: "How many Navy personnel globally are involved in IW and CT activities, and where are they located? How much funding is the Navy expending each year on such activities?"

The answer to that question would likely surprise most observers if provided in terms of man-days and ship-days dedicated to these operations.  Many in OPNAV - including individuals in the IW Office - have argued that large multi-purpose combatants can adequately support IW and therefore specialized platforms, especially smaller less expensive ships, aren't required.  There is truth that larger CRUDES and Amphibs are adequate for most of these missions.  But what this argument misses is the fact that naval vessels engaged in supporting IW operations often get tied down for extended periods of time and aren't necessarily immediately available to prepare for or respond to major contingency operations.  And one only has to look at recent record deployment lengths and deferred maintenance to understand that we simply don't have enough ships to meet current COCOM demands.  Because these missions aren't going away anytime soon, the Navy should increase emphasis on acquiring additional platforms specialized for IW in order to free up higher end platforms for conventional missions.  There are numerous reasons for acquiring smaller, cheaper, more numerous platforms to complement the Ferraris in today's fleet.  In the long run, this move will save wear and tear on major combatants and provide vessels that are more optimized for the missions at hand.

The opinions and views expressed in this post are those of the author alone and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Department of Defense, the US Navy, or any other agency.