Consolidation: US Navy to Stand up PEO LCS

From Chris Cavas at DefenseNews. This is a very good idea.

The offices that manage the U.S. Navy's littoral combat ship (LCS) program are to be combined under one executive, according to a Navy official, bringing together the ship and mission module development efforts for one of the service's largest ship construction programs.

What is involved with the reorganization?

The program offices are all established under the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). While a detailed announcement is expected soon, the reorganization would reportedly include the following offices: Remote Minehunting System (PMS 403); LCS Mission Modules (PMS 420); and Mine Warfare (PMS 495) - all now organized under the PEO for Littoral and Mine Warfare.

From the PEO Ships side, the offices of Unmanned Maritime Systems (PMS 406) and Littoral Combat Ship program (PMS 501) would be included.

The LCS is a complicated program and had way too many program offices under the old model, particularly in the modules and mine warfare in particular. Now the in-service and acquisition offices are all in one office and can be better coordinated.

Why was LCS a bad fit for PEO SHIPS? Because LCS is not like other warships, indeed LCS is more like Carriers. Cruisers, Destroyers, and Amphibious Ships do not come with the engineering for reconfiguration options of major capabilities that make up the ship. Yes, while Amphibious ships have plenty of options for Marines, they do not have serious engineering considerations for equipment brought plugged into the ship itself like the LCS does. This will get particularly important down the road as mission modules are fielded in deployments.

I see a lot of forward thinking in this decision, and I also see this as the first major organizational example where the Navy is acknowledging that the LCS is not like previous types of surface ships.

I look forward to seeing who is named the first PEO LCS. While I wouldn't necessarily wish this job on anyone because it will be hard as hell, I think the Navy has an opportunity here.

The obvious choice is to do what is always done, and pick someone from within NAVSEA who did a program manager tour for a ship class or system. This has been the model that the Navy always uses for selecting PEO Flags.

Acquisition experience is seen as a requirement for any major PEO Flag tour. If I was picking from the pool of acquisition professionals to take up the LCS, I think the top name would and should be Rear Admiral James D. Syring, current PEO IWS. Sincere apologies to everyone else, but that guy is the only program manager rock star in uniform today, and the only other options would be if the Navy wanted a civilian who serves or served as the Auxiliary Ships, Boats and Craft program manager over the last decade.

Interesting detail though, in this case the acquisition aspects of the ship hulls are already worked out for what will be the tour duration of the first person to hold the PEO LCS tour, and the focus will be on module systems. I think we also have to look at the LCS and realize; what this program needs more than anything right now is someone who can set up and organization that will initially include multiple acquisition managers, and not send in an acquisition micromanger that could potentially create new problems during this consolidation. This means you need qualities of leadership of someone who can set up and run a major office in the Navy while also having someone who can move the LCS into the role of an operational asset for the warfighter.

I'm not saying this idea has a chance in hell, but in my opinion the 1st PEO LCS needs to be someone with a ton of operational experience in conditions of hell, preferably an Amphib SWO with enough experience that allows the PEO LCS to speak the language of the operators but run an office in NAVSEA without stepping on acquisition egos. There are very few people who fit that description, particularly someone who can walk in to NAVSEA with rock star credibility at the operational end.

But I found one, and because of the unique conditions of the existing LCS acquisition program, and how what NAVSEA needs right now for LCS more than anything else is a leader with serious operational leadership experience who understands what these ships need to be successful in the fleet - I'd pick Rear Admiral Richard B. Landolt.

If he is good enough that PACOM sends him to every place in the Pacific where hell visits Earth, he is certainly good enough for the LCS program in NAVSEA. It is the same concept actually. With that said, the outside approach only works for the first PEO LCS tour due to current conditions of the program, and only if there is a great deal of acquisition experience and quality in the staff of folks who will help set up that office. In other words, it would be smart - once, but timing for that one time could be an important factor for the future of the ship.v

I don't know and have never actually spoken to either of these two men, but as an observer I think either of them would be a great choice for this job as either the insider, or outsider, depending upon what is thought to be required. I know people think I'm loony for suggesting an outsider should be legitimately considered, but more than anything the LCS needs the influence of a proven warfighter - which is a quality NAVSEA doesn't really have the bench to support right now. I don't know who the Navy will pick as first PEO LCS, but the SECNAV and future CNO cannot afford to pick the wrong guy for this job.

The Littoral Combat Ship program is the most discussed and most observed budget activity in the Navy, and I can prove that with empirical data should anyone doubt. The next CNO needs to make sure that whoever fills the PEO LCS job is the smartest guy in every room, and both names I have suggested fit that requirement.