Maritime and National Security Blog

Happy Birthday Chiefs - 2012

Happy Birthday Chiefs! 

This is an especially good time to reflect on the state of the CPO Community. Therefore this is not a message of pat on the back happiness, but one of where can Chiefs go next. It is about where Chiefs have been and how well the community is developing.  This is an important topic of reflection.  If Chiefs are not providing the Navy with the best possible leadership and improving their own community, then they are losing ground.  This is not acceptable.

On this 112^th CPO Birthday the Navy is starting the Year of the Chief.  Certainly the intention is to hold up the Chief’s Community as an important part of the U. S, Navy.  It will hopefully go beyond simple celebration and start (or perhaps resume) a change in Navy culture that will ensure the progress and influence of the CPO community for years to come.  Why is this necessary? 

Starting with MCPON John Hagan and gaining more traction under CNO Admiral Vern Clark and his MCPONs James Herdt and Terry Scott, MCPONs gained some influence over policy and in turn helped bring the CPO community into a more important and recognized role within the Navy.  These MCPONs and those before them were activists who endeavored to advance enlisted well-being through policy. In the years since Vern Clark, MCPONs have been much more about Public Relations then helping shape policy and improve leadership.  CNOs have been much less supportive with one even hostile toward CPO progress as leaders and policy shapers (he did have good PR though).  The attitude seems very much elitist; policy and good ideas are the province of Officers, not Chiefs – stay in your lane.  There have been more steps back than forward.

Granted the current MCPON is popular, but the Chiefs community deserves a more influential advocate in Washington.  The Navy is developing in ways that that the CPO Community can shape.  Today Chiefs not only maintain their reputation for common sense deckplate style guidance, but also most can boast academic credentials that give additional weight to that guidance. 

Remember Chiefs, common sense and a college education are not mutually exclusive – in a Chief that is.

Some things coming down the pike or already here are new manning concepts (LCS and DDG-1000), dealing with the tremendous amount of data available to Watchstanders, the increasing burden on the Wardroom that could easily be shifted to senior enlisted, improving fiscal responsibility, changes in Navy strategy that effect enlisted distribution and training, developing Chiefs beyond the voluntary and unevenly executed CPO 360 program and many, many more.  The Chiefs need to take a lead in shaping these changes, anticipating problems and improving the lot of all enlisted, if not, it becomes 1892.

Another New-Old Idea for Submarines

The United States has world class nuclear submarine designers and an exceptional industrial base that crafts those designs into the best nuclear submarines built anywhere.  The Sailors of the United States Navy then make them the deadliest on the planet.  This is a very potent combination, exceptional design, manufacture and operation and with the VIRGINIA class, exceptional acquisition, a rarity in the Navy.  Only one problem, this network that turns ideas to steel¹ and steel into a feared combatant is under assault.  Yes, politicians again.

Fortunately there is a solution, one that goes beyond our borders and helps improve our national security while using the industry that created VIRGINIA.  This idea uses our prominence in submarines.  It requires and relies on our leadership. It necessitates a look a bit behind us in order to move forward.   It obliges us to look beyond any particular engineering prejudice and examine the value of the solution for the long term.  This solution does not compel our Navy to move away from current submarine concepts, but to include another concept that will broaden the strategic and tactical range of options for our national defense. The solution is one that has been broached (apologies to the submarine community) before and always gets a reaction from the Navy akin to telling them to shift from sail to coal – sacrilege.

There is much to recommend this new idea, but Navy leadership over the past number of years has shown a deft hand at deflecting the new in favor of the comfortable or the politically expedient solution – think LCS, a new concept made old and tired by poor acquisition, unimaginative design, worse manufacture and all the advantages politics offers.

A smart individual leverages strengths and strengthens weakness.  Our strength is submarine design, construction and operation.  Our weakness is numbers versus the planet’s vast oceans and the motivation of aggressor nations. Right now the United States is the preeminent submarine power in the Western world.  Britain and France closely follow and Japan is a bulwark in the Pacific.  Other allies are not even in the submarine minor league and yet should have a skilled and deadly, if smaller submarine force capable of regional denial to any adversary. 

It is not possible for U. S. submarines to be responsive to every mission, conflict or crisis.  Probably the one salient idea that did come from the office of the former occupant of the CJCS position was the 1,000 ship Navy.  It is unfortunate that it did not become a reality.  The basic concept is to expand the reach of the U. S. Navy by the use of strategic partnerships with other Navies.  This requires a certain capacity for each country’s Navy and their willingness to take up some of the burden in a manner similar to U. S. operations².  This would free the U. S. to apply submarine capacity to areas not well covered by other nations and provide more focus for the unique strengths of U. S. submarine power.  This arrangement would also be a powerful deterrent to aggressors.  It requires all member Navies to cooperate strategically, tactically and have the wherewithal to do both.

As far as submarine operations go, we can really only consistently rely on the British, the Japanese and the French under President Sarkozy.  We need also to have reliable submarine partners in Canada, India, Brazil and Australia.  There are certainly other nations that would add greatly to a network of submarine operations, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, Italy and Norway might also prove apt partners in submarine operations.  The problem is having a reliable submarine that each nation could afford.

The solution, the United States should design and build a Joint Fast Attack submarine with partner nations.  The Joint Strike Fighter is the precedent, but with a plus in the submarine community, it would be built a lot smarter and in a more cost effective manner.  The VIRGINIA Class proved a submarine could be designed, built and delivered under cost and ahead of schedule.  We have a superb industrial base that should want to work this project.  There are a number of nations who need submarines and are usually offered used models because of cost. The problem for us – the Navy hates anything but nuclear power.  However, we can put our submarine industry to work and probably produce great boats at a lower cost per unit, when we approach the problem in a joint way.

Notes

1. This certainly includes all of the innovative technology
2. There are certainly sovereignty and treaty concerns

Australian Submarines Outdated

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/sinking-feeling-our-subs-outdated-20120227-1tz3h.html

Warship Costs

http://newwars.wordpress.com/warship-costs/

Politics Infects National Defense

People and organizations change when there is incentive to do so. 

It has not escaped the notice of defense related companies, they can best obtain and then retain, generally regardless of cost, any contract by spreading it across as many Congressional Districts as possible. They have been doing this for a number of years and it gets worse as large defense companies acquire smaller ones.

Command economic signals via the political flavored acquisition system have replaced performance, value and other tenets of capitalism.  This process does little to encourage companies to change or new companies to enter the market.  Certainly Small Business set asides provide some notion of fairness, but in the end these companies just provide extra insulation to the larger primes looking for a check in the box and low rates to offset their larger payroll.

This means there is less likelihood that market based decisions will replace political direction in defense contracting.  Actually using performance and value as acquisition criteria, defense acquisitions might find opportunity for businesses to grow in business friendly states with new and different companies vying for business. In turn, realizing the need to attract business, non-business friendly states might just change to gain a defense related company or business.  It would help the defense industry and the general economy.  Certainly California could use some Texas-like changes and the NAASCO shipyard is certainly among the most efficient with good quality control.

Mississippi certainly has a cost of living advantage for the folks working at the shipyard in Pascagoula or in the Austal facility on Alabama’s Gulf Coast.  There are some quality issues to discuss, however – (think cathodic protection). If politics and the inane defense contracting system forces production to these areas there is again no incentive to change.  Also note that the House Armed Services Committee, the Navy, DOD, Congress and the White House have all bought off on spending precious shipbuilding resources on not one fairly useless combatant ship, but two.  National Defense should be politically off-limits.  Most people in Washington would think this a naïve position, beyond a worker’s commute from DC; this would be considered common sense.  So what are we lacking on Capital Hill and at the Pentagon?

 

Happy Birthday Chiefs - 2011

When a group of individuals bound by trust, tradition, heritage and unselfish service celebrates over a century of that service they must do two things.  First and foremost they must celebrate.  Then they must also look inward in order to look ahead.

First, celebrate.  All who know you wish a Happy Birthday to each and every Chief Petty Officer in the United States Navy, wherever you are serving today.   The title of Chief Petty Officer will remain eternally connected to that day in 1893.  The Chief Petty Officer rank will also carry the happy burden of all those intervening years.  It is up to those currently wearing the Anchor to maintain and grow the CPO community ahead of where the Navy needs you.  You are leaders after all.  It is also incumbent on those who wore the Anchor to stand by to provide the ready store of knowledge and experience for those in uniform.

Secondly examine.  Are you better as Chiefs, individually and as a community today than you were a year, two or five years ago?  Have you lost or gained ground as a leadership group?  Are you setting the standard or complying with one set for you?  Is your experience and leadership put to work and respected or do people work around you?  Are you well served by those senior enlisted above you?  Have you identified the problems the Navy has now and may have later?  Are you working as a group to get ahead of those problems?  Is each and every Chief living the tradition, heritage and principles that define the CPO?

The Chiefs Community has many traditions, and a substantial heritage. For example, Chiefs traditionally do not stand still and let the Navy pass them by, Chiefs lead.  That leadership is not bound by the confines of the ship, sub, squadron, staff or team, but is bound only by what makes the Navy a better fighting force. Tradition is a fine thing, but the Navy needs CPO leadership, tempered and guided by that tradition not restrained by it.

 Happy Birthday!!

Still Defining National Security

Defining National Security is an important first step in forming a strategy to actually secure a nation.  The elements contained in most definitions refer to survival and safety of a nation and the protection and well being of its citizens.  The country must use various means to accomplish this secure national condition from threats that are overt or covert and originate from within or from without. Therefore a succinct definition might sound something like the following one.

National Security is both a condition secured by national action and a country’s ability to act to protect its national identity and independence from overt or covert attack by any nation or group whether domestic or international through the use of appropriate hard and soft power.

It is important to include elements other than strictly military action; this is accomplished by adding soft power (economic aid, diplomacy, etc.).  It is also important to establish that National Security is both a condition and an action.  Including both independence as a nation and the identity of that nation goes more completely to securing a wide range of conditions that may be important to any country’s citizens.

Independence certainly includes the safety and well being of citizens from foreign or domestic tyranny, but the inclusion of national identity also includes the values inherent in that nation.

There was a lot missing in the other definitions of the term National Security.  It certainly is more than just keeping enemies at bay.  National Security must account for keeping the nation true to its founding or rebirth as would apply to formerly colonial nations.

This blog and how it comments on National Security depends on a complete definition and the above one may just fit the bill.  Your comments are invited.