Notes to the New CNO Topic Week

By J. Overton

It’s not all about the ships, the planes, or even the Sailors.

Every day, the majority of the U.S. Navy is spending its time on shore duty. It follows that shore installations are also where the majority of naval operations, strategy, and innovation are carried out. The Navy’s 71 remaining bases show amazing resilience. Some were first built in the days of sail, some were ravaged by wars, natural disasters, and political fluctuations, and yet still they ably sustain the modern Navy.

Ranging in size from the equivalent of a small village to a mid-sized city, some produce their own power, have malls, schools, airports, and wildlife refuges, all seemingly separate from their primary fleet support purpose.

But shore installations are the U.S. Navy’s most vital, complex, and resilient platforms, as close in form to a capital “ship” as we now have. However, they have their own unique critical vulnerabilities. Coastal areas tend to be the most populated, the most environmentally sensitive, most prone to disasters, and have the most desirable real estate. Multiple stakeholders share waterfront property with the Navy, and their interests will, at times, be at odds with a base’s operations or existence. 

Bases are also the centerpieces of the Navy’s most controversial issues, or at least those issues most relevant to those outside of naval policy and strategy circles. Most citizens and Sailors are unaware or uninterested in LCS variants or FONOPS but may have visceral opinions on issues like jet noise, mold in government housing, and hazardous chemical plumes. These feelings are easily and frequently converted into impactful actions by political decision-makers. 

Naval culture adds to base vulnerability by placing less value on bases than on mobile platforms. Ships, submarines, and aircraft elicit emotional attachments, are given personalities, and hold mystique far beyond that of any building, pier, or parking lot. 

But when damaged or decommissioned, the former can often be returned to action. However, once a base is gone, its prospects for coming back into Navy service are very slim.

Recent “Big Navy” strategic documents and designs, however, totally neglect shore installations, save one mention in “Design 2.0” which calls out their use in community relations. Important as that role is, bases’ size, location, and presence means they are continuously carrying out effective naval strategy. Some of that is direct and traditional – overhauling ships, fueling aircraft, training submariners. But much of that is better described as “collateral strategy” – using the means available through local presence to establish global ends. 

In the months ahead, the CNO will draft strategic documents – designs, white papers, or sailing directions – putting his orders down for how the Navy will “…be the Navy the nation needs now, and [how] we will build the Navy the nation needs to fight and win in the future.”  Shore installations will play an integral role in achieving these goals. Hopefully they will receive the explicit, substantive inclusion they merit, and in so doing will help ensure that the Navy and the nation don’t forget seapower’s dry foundation.

J. Overton is a civilian employee of the U.S. Navy, was previously an adjunct professor for the Naval War College and Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and served in the U.S. Coast Guard. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government.

Featured Image: An aerial view of ships moored at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam for Rim of the Pacific 2016. (U.S. Navy Combat Camera photo by Mass Communication Specialist First Class Ace Rheaume/Released)

Notes to the New CNO Topic Week

By Lieutenant Commander Ryan Hilger, USN

For all the talk of being in great power competition, the OPNAV staff is not acting like it. The Pentagon is famous for slow rolling any senior officer who tries to disrupt the status quo, endangers pet programs, or pushes community-threatening systems. The lower echelons have a strong belief that their pet programs are exactly what the Navy needs to win a war, regardless of how over-schedule, over-budget, or incapable the systems are. They use arguments about great power competition and lethality to defend budget packages, but not to deliver capabilities rapidly. The capability of our fleet still largely looks like it did two decades ago.

Meanwhile, our adversaries are outpacing us in many areas. China will likely deploy unmanned systems in greater numbers than the United States, and far sooner than we can. China, in another example of intellectual theft, has stated that their stealth drone program, the CH-7, is on track for its first flight in 2019 and will reach Initial Operating Capability in 2021. By comparison, glacial acquisition processes and entrenched cultural resistance to change have reduced the U.S. Navy’s MQ-25 program from an unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) to a humble refueling platform. MQ-25, whose X-47B predecessor conducted carrier flight operations in 2013, might reach the Fleet by 2024. The Chinese fleet of today is virtually unrecognizable from what it was two decades ago.

Should war break out, we must fight with the fleet we have, not the one we wish we had. In 1934, with global peace deteriorating, Congress passed the Vinson-Trammell Act to increase the Navy’s battle count to the London Naval Treaty limit—102 new ships in 8 years. This act provided the fleet that the Navy went to war with in 1941. Quantity matters. Under this act, the Pensacola-class cruisers were developed, optimized to the limits of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1920. 

The Navy had many Pensacolas in its inventory by 1941, but it had also continued iterating the platform, eventually arriving at the New Orleans-class. These two classes fought side-by-side in the Solomons. Yet the Navy would have been at a severe disadvantage early in the war had it waited to perfect a new large surface combatant in the 1930s. All ships were needed. A similar situation is playing out with the Large Surface Combatant program, and the Navy is making a mistake by waiting.

It is time to kill our darlings. We cannot deploy the Navy the nation needs with the many pet programs we have. Underperforming programs must go. Follow Secretary Esper’s lead and hold “Night Court” for the Navy—which freed $31 billion for major Army priorities. If the program manager could not articulate how his program supported the Army’s priorities, then funds were shifted elsewhere.

It is time to actually align our budget with our priorities, rather than allow dated legacy programs to dictate the conversation. CNO Gilday must sell Congress on his fresh priorities and make his signature on the Navy’s budget submission reflect them. The Navy and the nation desperately need it. 

Lieutenant Commander Ryan Hilger is an engineering duty officer with Strategic Systems Programs in Washington, DC. His views are his own and do not represent the Department of Defense. 

Featured Image: PHILIPPINE SEA (Sept. 17, 2018) The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) leads the Ronald Reagan Strike group, including the Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers USS Antietam (CG 54) and USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) and the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Benfold (DDG 65) and USS Milius (DDG 69), during a photo exercise for Valiant Shield 2018. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kaila Peters)

Notes to the New CNO Topic Week

By LT Adam Johnson, USN, and LTJG John Maslin, USN

Senior leaders in the Navy are currently working with a partial dataset, one that is missing an untapped information source: aggregated input from junior personnel. This can be provided by creating an organized communication network of junior personnel (officer, enlisted, and civilian) to serve as an active repository for senior leadership, providing vital insights from the base of the Navy’s hierarchy.

For the first time in in decades, the Navy is operating in a world of great power competition. Across the organization, Sailors are being told that each of us must do our best to ensure that our Navy retains its competitive advantages. One of the most effective ways to do so is by informing planning and strategy. We must ensure Navy leadership has access to relevant information to procure and program tax dollars effectively to best deploy forces, develop weapons systems, and ultimately win our nation’s wars at sea.

Just as a computer model is only as good as its data, a leader can only make a decision that is as good as the information they are utilizing. To paraphrase Mr. James Geurts (Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition), in order to win the fight, before the fight comes, the Navy needs to find new ways to be more agile, innovative, and collaborative. 

Incorporating a non-discriminatory dataset from the junior ranks into senior-level decision-making could be an ‘X-factor’ for several reasons. First, it would provide senior leaders with crowdsourced, deckplate-level data that, in many cases, they are currently not receiving. Harnessing these collective insights from a generation that has grown up in a technology-fueled world that is entirely dissimilar from the early experiences of our senior leaders could pave the way for new strategies for how the Navy conducts business.

Additionally, adding this dataset would empower junior personnel to think critically about big-picture Navy issues and get them more personally invested. Transferring the collection and initial assessment of data on issues that the Navy values would not only include junior personnel more intentionally in the decision-making process, it would create an immersive, self-organizing learning environment with a high return on investment, increasing critical business acumen, and paying dividends as junior personnel promote and assume higher responsibilities. The best way to implement these processes and gather aggregated information would be through a collective group that serves as a liaison between the junior ranks and senior Navy leadership. This is currently being tested at the officer level.

As generations undergo a “changing of the guard,” it is imperative that Navy culture adjusts to better embrace, capture, and exploit new ways of thinking. As the United States continues to operate in an increasingly fluid and rapidly changing global environment, it is imperative that we leverage all resources, including the insights of our junior personnel, to deliver combat-credible military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of our nation.

If you are interested in learning more about the officer test program, please email [email protected].

LT Adam Johnson is a Supply Officer currently serving in an Integrated Logistics Support internship at Program Executive Office Aircraft Carriers. He previously served as an instructor at the Navy Supply Corps School in Newport, RI as well as Assistant Supply Officer on USS LASSEN (DDG 82) in Yokosuka Japan. He is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy.

LTJG John Maslin is a Supply Officer currently serving as the Shipbuilding and Conversion Financial Manager for New Construction Aircraft Carriers at the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. He is a graduate of the University of Colorado and is currently pursuing a Masters at the University of Cambridge.

These views are presented in a personal capacity. 

Featured Image: PHILIPPINE SEA (July 26, 2019) Gas Turbine System Technician (Mechanical) Fireman Cody Murray practices fighting a simulated fire with the Sailors from the flight deck crash and salvage team during a damage control training team evolution aboard the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam (CG 54). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Toni Burton)

Notes to the New CNO Topic Week

By LT Blake Herzinger, USN

Our Navy Reserve is crying out for attention. However, high retention may lull Navy leaders into thinking the system is working and Sailors are well-cared for, when in reality they are gritting their teeth to make it to 20 years of service. Administrative problems associated with reserve mobilization are critical and plague Sailors until the day they are demobilized and sent home, and sometimes beyond. The USNR’s vision of providing transparent and seamless administrative systems is unrealized, with gaps wide enough to accommodate a Carrier Strike Group and transparency on par with a Papal Conclave.

Reservists are being deployed into billets across the joint force that are not reviewed closely enough to reveal that many are jobs so unimportant that commanders are purposefully gapping them, choosing instead to fill them with “cheap” labor. Sailors arrive to service equipment that isn’t present, analyze intelligence that’s not being collected, and develop target packages for missions not being executed.

When reservists deploy, they are confronted with crippling financial complications, from unpaid travel expenses to salary issues rendering them incapable of paying their bills at home. Sailors are told in their first week of mobilization that they will not be repaid for travel expenses within the Congressionally-mandated timeline for reimbursement, but “not to worry, because the issue is receiving flag-level attention.” Sailors use personal savings and credit cards to settle the Navy’s bills. Some arrive home after nearly a year deployed still waiting on repayment.

Issues including non-payment of housing allowances, incorrect debts being assessed against Sailors, and checks held 100 days past the end of deployment are commonplace. In most cases, the Navy will eventually make its Sailors financially whole, but who will pay Sailors’ bills in the interim? I have yet to encounter the landlord that accepts IOUs, nor the utility company that provides power on the promise of reimbursement, nor the grocer that offers food on credit. Should Sailors tell their landlords not to worry, because the issue is receiving flag-level attention? Members are being plucked from homes and workplaces and placed into a position of financial instability, draining personal savings, and causing insecurity in families. Sailors’ minds are divided between their deployed duties abroad and ensuring their loved ones are not put out into the street at home.

Stand down mobilizations until the processes are in place to pay Sailors what they’ve earned. Conduct a mission analysis for the USNR, and closely vet the list of mobilizations. Assume responsibility for the financial outlay of deploying sailors via centrally billed accounts. Modernize and optimize our pay system using existing commercial platforms that provide simplicity and transparency.

Navy reservists are ready and eager to serve, but what message do they receive when they arrive on deployment and are told the duties they have arrived to execute are unimportant or nonexistent? Administrative problems have administrative solutions, but without attention from above, they will languish and Sailors will suffer the consequences.

Lt. Blake Herzinger is an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve, deployed to U.S. Fifth Fleet. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not represent those of his civilian employer, the U.S. Navy, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This piece was first published by Cdr. Salamander in a longer format titled “A Breach of Faith: The Navy Must Fix the Way it Pays Mobilizing Reservists.“

Featured Image: NORFOLK (Sept. 14, 2019) Gunner’s Mate 1st Class Joshua Halford mans the rail aboard the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Raymond Maddocks/Released)190914-N-IC246-0270