A Legend Passes: RADM Wayne E. Meyer

The official DoD release.

Retired Navy Rear Adm. Wayne E. Meyer, regarded as the father of the Navy’s AEGIS Weapons System, passed away today.

"I am deeply saddened by a great loss to our Navy family,” said Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations. “Rear Admiral Meyer’s passion, technical acumen, and warfighting expertise served as the foundation of our Navy combatant fleet today. On behalf of the men and women of the United States Navy, I extend my deepest and most heartfelt sympathy to the Meyer family. He was a close friend and mentor to so many of us. His legacy will remain in the Navy forever."

Meyer was born in Brunswick, Mo., on April 21, 1926. In 1946, he graduated from the University of Kansas with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering. He also held an master’s degree in astronautics and aeronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School.

Meyer’s Navy career began in 1943 as an apprentice seaman. In 1946, he was commissioned an ensign in the U.S. Naval Reserve and was transferred to regular Navy in 1948. After several years at sea, he returned to school in 1951 and attended the Joint Guided Missile School, Fort Bliss, Texas, and the Naval Line School, Monterey, Calif., and eventually served as an instructor at Special Weapons School, Norfolk, Va.

Meyer returned to sea as executive officer on USS Strickland, followed by service on the commander’s staff, Destroyer Force Atlantic. He was then ordered to USS Galveston.

In 1963, Meyer was chosen to head the TERRIER desk in the Special Navy Task Force for Surface Missile Systems. He turned down a destroyer command to continue his work with missile, radar, and fire control systems, and became the founding Chief Engineer at the Naval Ship Missile System Engineering Station, Port Hueneme, Calif. In 1970, the Navy chose then Capt. Meyer to lead the development of the new AEGIS Weapon System in the Naval Ordnance Systems Command.

In this position, Meyer was promoted to rear admiral in Jan. 1975. In Jan. 1977, he assumed duties as the founding project manager of the AEGIS Shipbuilding Project. This project was ultimately responsible for the construction of all of the Navy’s current cruisers and destroyers - with 89 ships built or in construction, and more in planning. This is one of the longest and largest naval shipbuilding programs in history. He retired from active duty in 1985.

In Nov. 2006, the Secretary of the Navy announced that an Arleigh Burke class destroyer, DDG 108, would be named in honor of Rear Adm. Meyer. Christened on Oct. 18, 2008, the ship utilizes the same combat system that Meyer helped to develop, the Aegis Combat System, including the SPY-lD, multifunction phased array radar. This advanced system makes the AEGIS ship the foundation of the U.S. Navy’s surface combatant fleet. Additionally, when the ship is commissioned in Philadelphia, Pa. on Oct. 10, 2009, it will be manned with a complement of highly trained sailors, providing the Navy with a dynamic multi-mission warship that can operate independently or as part of carrier strike groups, surface action groups, or amphibious ready groups, ensuring USS Wayne E. Meyer will lead the Navy into the future.

Rear Adm. Meyer’s personal decorations and service medals include: Distinguished Service Medal; Legion of Merit; Meritorious Service Medal; Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation Ribbon with Bronze Star; China Service Medal; American Campaign Medal; World War II Victory Medal; Navy Occupation Service Medal; National Defense Medal with Bronze Star; Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal; Vietnam Service Medal; Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation; and Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Unit Citation.

His other awards include: American Society of Naval Engineers Gold Medal, 1976; Old Crow Electronics Countermeasure Association Silver Medal; Distinguished Engineer Alumni Award, University of Kansas, 1981; Naval Ordnance Engineer Certificate #99; Fellow in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Missile Systems Award for distinguished service, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1983; Navy League's Rear Admiral William Sterling Parsons Award, for scientific and technical progress in construction of the nation's AEGIS fleet, 1985; Harold E. Sanders Award for a lifetime of contributions to Naval Engineering, American Society of Naval Engineers, 1985; Admiral J. H. Sides Award for major contributions to Anti-Air Warfare, National Security Industrial Association, 1988.

In 1977, Meyer was designated a Pioneer in the Navy's Acquisition Hall of Fame in the Pentagon. In 2008, he was presented with the sixth annual Ronald W. Reagan Missile Defense Award.

RADM Wayne Meyer is remembered as the "Father of AEGIS" and should be credited for giving the United States the most powerful Naval Weapon System the world has ever seen. A lot more here, where I pulled this bit.

Remarks as Delivered by Admiral Mike Mullen
Delivery of the 100th AEGIS System, Moorestown, NJ
27 November 2024

Secretary Etter, fellow flag and general officers, foreign guests, other many, many distinguished visitors, ladies and gentlemen. I really am delighted to be here and thank you for joining us today… as we celebrate the delivery of the Centennial AEGIS combat system to our Navy. To echo what Charlie Hamilton said -- “What a great Navy day.” What a great Navy day.

I would like to extend a special welcome to a mentor and a dear friend, Admiral Wayne Meyer, the “Father of AEGIS.” It is also very special to have here today, someone who I consider a Saint, that will have a very high place in Heaven, that’s Anna Mae and many others from the Meyer family. I’m very fond of speaking to the needs to recognize the sacrifices of our families of the families of men and women in the uniform. And I assure you that there has been that sacrifice in the Meyer family as well. We simply would not be here without it. I am not sure that many of those working on that very first AEGIS system would have believed that one day the Navy would be accepting System One Hundred except, of course, for Admiral Meyer. He was never not sure, he was always committed to realizing the full potential of this fantastic combat system or to constantly improving it along the way.

It was his belief in rigorous system engineering that got us here and it is those same principles that must lead us forward, not just in AEGIS but in all aspects of engineering design in our Navy. All you have to do is ask him and he’ll tell you.

Now being the CNO, you think I might be able to affect this program and I always worried about having the might before Admiral Meyer. He loves this work with a passion. Every time we speak, it seems he is quick to tell me that my career peaked about 12 years ago. It’s always good to hear how I haven’t progressed since I left command of YORKTOWN. He then always goes on to explain, like only he can do, how the AEGIS system is always reaching for new heights.

It is truly a system that has delivered time and again. We saw it during the Cold War, when our brazen motto was: “Stand by, Admiral Gorshkov, AEGIS is at sea!” We saw more recently during the Desert wars, as our AEGIS ships performed brilliantly providing a shield to the fleet, launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, interdicting smugglers, controlling aircraft - and so much more. We see it today, as AEGIS is at the heart of our surface Fleet that is globally deployed in defense of freedom.

While founded on the same basic system design that graced TICONDEROGA and YORKTOWN this Centennial System’s advanced combat system and revolutionary radar - truly represent a new era of technology. For while AEGIS was originally optimized for blue water operations against Soviet bomber raids, this system brings unprecedented capabilities to the fight to the new wars and the new enemies we now face. These enemies know no bounds. They believe nothing that we believe. It is the war that we must win and it is a war we will win. In today’s fight, AEGIS is a sword and shield that enables us to command the sea, control the littoral, project power ashore, and safeguard our troops and our allies from growing threats like ballistic missiles. Nothing else at sea today even comes close.

AEGIS ships today truly represent naval excellence, strength and freedom. And are the foundation for a strong fleet and a strong Navy which this nation has always had and must have for the future. But it isn’t just our Navy; there are other navies as has been stated. AEGIS is sailing strong aboard Japan’s KONGO class of destroyers as well as Spain’s F-100 and Norway’s F-310 frigates. And it will not be long before AEGIS is put to sea aboard new destroyers in Australia and the Republic of Korea. Wherever freedom is challenged, AEGIS is there. Thanks to Admiral Meyer and this team, Sailors across the globe can sail confidently, they have the best equipment this great country can produce -- with the best training we can provide. I am mindful, that sailing with them, is a little piece of every one of you here, those of you who design, build, test, and deliver AEGIS. Yes, where AEGIS sails, you are there too. Your hard work - your enthusiastic patriotism - your dedication to putting AEGIS to sea is every bit as important as that of the Sailors who operate this terrific system in harm’s way. To this entire Navy team, Lockheed Martin, and specifically to the workers here at Moorestown, thank you -- I appreciate what you are doing for our country. And I know each of you work tirelessly everyday to make AEGIS even better. I am convinced that as you embrace open architecture you will stand on the shoulders of this great AEGIS legacy as you take this program to new heights. Legacy -- clearly, the AEGIS Fleet has a legacy of excellence. But, some use the term “legacy” to refer to “antiquated systems.” I have even heard some call our in-service Fleet, “legacy ships.”

AEGIS and the fleet is anything but that. As AEGIS transitions to open architecture, innovation will rapidly and simultaneously be introduced throughout our Fleet. O-A assures that there will be no “legacy ships” - instead, every ship of the line will be a state of-the-art combatant. It is clear to me that we must spread this open approach across the entire Navy. When I say open, I mean open systems, open competition and open the throttle. I want to move as fast as we can. Open architecture starts with fielding systems that leverage commercial standards to create an interoperable Fleet that connects seamlessly with our sister Services, our allies and many other global partners.

Navies all over the world are excited about the idea of coming together in a 1000-ship navy to help each other meet the difficult challenges ahead. But to do that we must be able to talk to each other and it is open systems that will enable us to work together as one. As we open the throttles and move quickly forward it is clear that Admiral Meyer’s principles of “build a little, test a little,” of innovation, and of sound systems engineering are the model we must continue to follow. It is a model that is reflected soundly in the 100th Aegis system we accept delivery of today. Every AEGIS system needs a home, and this Centennial System is no exception -- it is heading to Bath Iron Works in Maine for installation in DDG-108, or, as they like to call her in Bath: “Hull Number 503.” When he hears someone refer to a ship simply by her hull number, Admiral Meyer always reminds us that “a ship has a name for a reason!” Indeed, the namesake of a warship inspires the crew and instills a fighting spirit. To have one’s name immortalized in an AEGIS warship is a high honor indeed -- both for the individual, and for the ship. And that’s why DDG-108 will forever be known as United States Ship WAYNE E. MEYER. Honor - we are all so proud!

I can think of no better name for a warship of the U.S. Navy than WAYNE E. MEYER and no better tribute to the man who delivered engineering excellence to the Navy and instilled operational excellence in the fleet. Now, I know you’re proud of the Wayne E. Meyer Institute for Systems Engineering at the Naval Postgraduate School and the Wayne E. Meyer AEGIS Education Center in Dahlgren, but those buildings will never get underway. So, yes, Admiral, ships do have a name for a reason, and that’s true of this one in particular.
Many of us here have seen first hand how your commitment to learning, your demanding standards, your fighting spirit and your extraordinary leadership changed our Navy indeed; revolutionized warfighting while changing everyone around you -- for the better. It is a spirit and character that will undoubtedly serve the crew of MEYER well as they serve in defense of freedom.

Just as your noble legacy lives in every AEGIS ship, it will confidently guide those who sail in the one that carries your name. You can take great pride in knowing that some day soon a young Commanding Officer will surely consider command of the USS WAYNE E. MEYER the peak of his or her career.

You have blessed us all for over four decades. May God continue to bless you, your family, our Navy and our Nation.

The USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG 108) commissioning will be at Penn's Landing, Philadelphia on October 10, 2009.

George Will, Offshore Balancer

George Will has come out with a full-throated call for us to change course in Afghanistan, and redeploy to a largely offshore-based force that would concentrate its counter-terror efforts on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border with airstrikes, TLAM shots and special forces raids. This view is very consistent with what the international relations theorists known as "Offshore Balancers" have been saying ought to be our abiding strategic approach (and most everywhere else, for that matter). Chief among them is Professor John J. Mearsheimer, whose realist advocacy of balance of power politics is quite well-known in the field.

I haven't developed an opinion on the way forward in Afghanistan; to the extent that I have one, it would be to give the new commander some time to implement his plan. Sorry, but I'm just not much of a land war guy.

That said, I remain incredibly interested in Offshore Balancing as a strategic posture. Back in the heady days of the development of the Maritime Strategy, we at one time had a number of "grand strategy options" on the table--proto-strategies that could serve as the nucleus of the nation's maritime strategy. One of these was an Offshore Balancing strategy, advocated early on by Professor Robert Art, a respected scholar advising us as part of our "Blue Executive Panel" (also on the panel was Michele Flournoy, USD (P)) . We looked closely at Offshore Balancing as a grand strategy and what the ramifications for an OB derived maritime strategy would be.

It was a fascinating exercise from start to finish. The Fleet players in multiple strategy games at the Naval War College were interested in Offshore Balancing, but more like one is interested in zoo animals. You don't mind looking at them and talking about them, but you don't necessarily want to join them. Offshore balancing represented two things to our players--the first was that some saw it as the strategy of a power in decline, something many did not want to ascribe to us. The second was that it was a strategy appropriate to a nation in severe economic straits with considerably fewer resources to devote to its military (and military adventurism). Remember--this debate was going on in Newport between January and April of 2007.

There were some voices in the mix who called for us to dispense with an Offshore Balancing option--because it siphoned off intellectual energy necessary to develop the other "legitimate and likely" options, and because there seemed so little chance that it would ever be adopted. I (and Professor Barney Rubel of the War College) disagreed strongly and went to VADM John Morgan (my boss at the time) to review the bidding and get his topcover to more fully develop an Offshore Balancing option--which he enthusiastically provided. Rubel and I believed that while we had the intellectual mass assembled, we might as well flesh out the basic underpinnings of an Offshore Balancing inspired Maritime Strategy---just in case.

Here we are, two plus years later--a power in decline (relative to others, though I believe not necessarily so in absolute terms), facing a massive fiscal crisis in which pressures on defense budgets are high and support for the ongoing land-wars is waning. The Japanese just elected a government that seems at least at first blush to be a bit less enthusiastic about our presence there. The Brits just let a terrorist go in order to secure oil rights. Governments we helped elect in Afghanistan and Iraq are increasingly hostile to the strategic ends we espouse in those countries. The stage is being set for a re-appraisal of Offshore Balancing as an appropriate strategy for this country going forward.

If there is any good news in this development, it means lots of work for the Navy and Marine Corps....

Bryan McGrath

Strategic Shift Coming

We are not going to be allowed the privilege to read General McCrystal's report on Afghanistan. Maybe in 10 years someone will release it, but until then we discuss what the various folks are saying in the context of the report. I'm a big fan of Dr. Cordesman, so this is hard to ignore, but the comments that caught my attention on the topic come from John Nagl.

America has vital national security interests in Afghanistan that make fighting there necessary. The key objectives of the campaign are preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a sanctuary for terrorists with global reach and ensuring that it does not become the catalyst for a broader regional security meltdown. Afghanistan also serves as a base from which the United States attacks al-Qaeda forces inside Pakistan and thus assists in the broader campaign against that terrorist organization -- one that we clearly must win.

U.S. policymakers must, of course, weigh all actions against America's global interests and the possible opportunity costs. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, low-cost strategies do not have an encouraging record of success. U.S. efforts to secure Afghanistan on the cheap after 2001 led it to support local strongmen whose actions alienated the population and thereby enabled the Taliban to reestablish itself as an insurgent force. Drone attacks, although efficient eliminators of Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders, have not prevented extremist forces from spreading and threatening to undermine both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The so-called "light footprint" option has failed to secure U.S. objectives; as the Obama administration and the U.S. military leadership have recognized, it is well past time for a more comprehensive approach.

I read a great book once discussing the less than encouraging record of success in counterinsurgency campaigns, in fact, I think I've read another great book that said something like that too. Look, I get it... what we are doing in Afghanistan isn't working and we have approached a moment of decision, but ineffective efforts and the ability to select alternative options neither suggests the way ahead nor the destination.

My problem with the massive increase towards a new counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan isn't that I believe the method couldn't be effective, indeed I believe with enough troops and investment, we have a decent shot at successfully securing population centers. What I don't understand is how that translates into the strategic objectives of preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a sanctuary for terrorists when in fact Pakistan is serving as a sanctuary for terrorists today. It seems to me we have a serious geography problem in strategy execution, and I do not see how any strategic method, counterinsurgency or otherwise, is going to achieve the strategic object of denying safe havens to the enemy as long as the approach includes allowing the enemy a safe haven (in Pakistan).

John Nagl is completely wrong btw, the so-called "light footprint" option has not failed to secure US objectives, at least the objectives as I knew them to be after 9/11. Afghanistan is currently not serving as a sanctuary for terrorists to enact attacks with global reach, which is the specific strategic objective he cited that the US is fighting to achieve. US military objectives have been unclear in Afghanistan for so long that his statement almost sounds accurate. It isn't accurate.

Both John Nagl and Anthony Cordesman are brilliant competitive strategists in my book, but until someone clearly articulates what the ends of strategy are for the US/NATO effort in Afghanistan, the discussions concerning ways and means to execute strategy serve only to distract from the objective, not achieve the objective. Until I see a meaningful strategy that addresses the drug issues, the Pakistan issues, and the NATO combat support issues - count me in favor of whatever liberally violent, low-cost strategy the President comes up with that kills the most bad guys.

Keeping the Carriers

From the September Proceedings comes this one from Captain J. Talbot Manvel, U.S. Navy (retired):

The Obama administration is planning a risky and unwise move to cut the Navy's aircraft carrier force during wartime. If the force is reduced to ten by not refueling the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) in a couple of years, it will save billions of dollars, especially if the Navy also eliminates the ship's air wing...

Twelve is a good number of carriers to have. To maintain a force of 12 whose service life is 50 years, each should be replaced every 4.5 years. But in 2008 we pushed our luck and reduced the force to 11. In doing so, the Navy stretched out the new construction replacements. It delivered the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) in 2003, the USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) in 2009, and plans to deliver the Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) in 2015.

Once a carrier is cut from the force it is not easily regained. It takes at least 12 years to increase the force by one with a new carrier while it takes only one year to reduce it by one or more. And that's assuming no war losses.

The CVN folks are doing what the rest of the Navy has been unable to do - they are attempting to make the case for seapower as it connects to national strategy, and describing the availability of aircraft carriers as the safety net for maintaining the United States as the global superpower. As the primary contributors of the naval force actively engaged in the wars of the 21st century (carrier aviation provides ~50% of the total fixed wing sorties over Afghanistan today), the carrier crowd can demonstrate their flexibility and purpose to the nations security better than any other group of the naval service today.

The carrier crowd has a problem though. Aircraft carriers are an enormous national investment, and while there is clearly no threat today to aircraft carriers anywhere on the scale of what carriers faced by the Soviets in the cold war, there are trends in maritime surveillance, precision weapon range, and saturation techniques of low cost unmanned systems that suggest the future of aircraft carriers is uncertain. Where are the discussions inside the Naval aviation community what the future of naval aviation looks like? I don't find the Joint Strike Fighter argument particularly convincing.

Every think tank in Washington believes the future of naval aviation will be determined by the success or failure of unmanned armed combat systems, and I'm in full agreement with them. The significant jump in endurance and range offered by unmanned systems over their manned alternatives allows aircraft carriers to significantly expand not only their reach to the bad guy, but their operating environment from which to conceal their position from the bad guy. The range of the FA-18 models is not sufficient for the future in the face of emerging trends, and despite a small increase in endurance and range, the F-35 is not a significant enough step to justify enormous investments for aircraft carriers that may or may not be relevant in 50 years. If the Navy replaces every Nimitz class carrier with a Ford class carrier, that design must remain relevant into the 22nd century. While I am fairly confident seapower will be just as relevant to the United States in the 22nd century as it is today, I am not convinced the big nuclear aircraft carrier will be the relevant platform of that era, indeed the way the Navy drags ass on supremely critical systems like the E-2D and has no answer for fixed wing ASW and Tanker replacements, I'd settle for just getting a realistic view of 2025.

Building a single platform for what amounts to 75% of a total fiscal year shipbuilding budget is a hard pill to swallow when naval aviators today are hesitant to even discuss what the future of naval aviation looks like other than fielding the Joint Strike Fighter. It should be an easy for the naval aviation community to begin discussing how unmanned aircraft will change carrier aviation, because the changes will undoubtedly be significant. True, that discussion will require naval aviators to admit they are no longer individually king of the hill, BUT, it was naval aviators who once proved to the battleship Admirals that their time had passed, so the real question is whether the naval aviation community is going to mimic the battleship Admiral and stand in the way of evolution, or embrace the evolution necessary to insure carrier aviation remains the dominant combat power at sea the rest of this century.

---

If you ever get a chance, ask Captain Manvel to see his CVN-21 models, particularly the stealth aircraft carrier carrier model they looked at when evaluating designs for CVN-21. Even though it was probably completely unaffordable, I was taken in by it, until he noted how the design (like all aircraft carriers) really wasn't stealthy at all - from the top. He has several models of various designs looked at, and they are very interesting.

Also, if you get a chance to hit the library or simply have an old copy, a good review on the CVN-21 development process is available in Captain Manvel's Better Big and B(u)y the Dozen article from the June 2006 Proceedings.

Russia Window Shopping European Amphibious Ships

It would appear the Russians are keeping their options open when it comes to buying European amphibious ships. In late June, the HNLMS Johan de Witt (L801) made an appearance at the International Maritime Defence Show held in St Petersburg. Among the visitors was Russian Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Vladimir Vysotskiy. is a much larger brother of HNLMS Rotterdam (L800), the Dutch Landing Transport Dock currently undergoing repairs at Scheldepoort in Vlissingen-Oost. According to this Dutch media report, the Dutch LDP is competition to the French Mistral. Translation from blog regular Gijs.

Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding in Vlissingen could win an order for four Russian amphibious transportship.

This was confirmed yesterday by CEO Hein Ameijden. "But there are also a lot of contacts between the French and the Russians, I understood from the newspapers. And I give the French a very good chance," Van Ameijden said.

In late June, in the port of St. Petersburg, the International Maritime Defence Show 2009 was held. The amphibious transport ship HNLMS Johan de Witt was there at the invitation of the Russian Federation. Several manufactureres of products in the field of naval construction had an exhibition on the Johan de Witt. Although a Damen stand was not present, there were talks about a possible order for the first time in St. Petersburg.

At 16,800 tons, HNLMS Johan de Witt (L801) is not as large as the French Mistral, but is less expensive. HNLMS Johan de Witt (L801) was built to transport the combat logistics and support elements of a Netherlands Marine Battalion, where HNLMS Rotterdam (L800) would carry the assault element when the ships operated together. Typically HNLMS Johan de Witt (L801) carries around 550 Marines. Additionally, HNLMS Johan de Witt (L801) has aviation facilities for supporting up to 6 medium helicopters.

These ships are very mature however, with design similarities between the British Bay class and the Spanish Galicia class, suggesting configuration could be optimized for the Russian needs.