Time To Look Ahead

If something happened the last two weeks, I probably missed it. I have been 'in the bunker' putting in the work hours while I have hours remaining on my contract as I lead into professional uncertainty in the near future. As regulars should know by now, I embrace challenges associated with change; fear of the unknown is for the people who don't take risks nor take the chances in life necessary to earn the rewards of risk.

My contributions on the blog over the past several weeks (if not much longer) have been rather pathetic. My apologizes, but thankfully the blog has been in good hands with the other authors. Two points:

1. The blog comment system will change very soon, hopefully by Sunday. People who leave unprofessional content in my comments will no longer be tolerated.
2. I have never been so excited to write on several subjects, and November is loaded with so much to discuss it may carry well into the rest of the year. Some have suggested a public forum isn't really the best place to discuss some of these emerging concepts, ideas, and doctrines; but I intend to show people they are incorrect and that the larger community of experts have plenty of good ideas to contribute. Be thoughtful and wise about contributions, because I assure you over the next few months many important folks will be reading.

Before we look too far ahead, it is important to look back to this week and examine a critical section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 SEC 125. I think there is a lot here to ponder as we approach several new emerging discussions. The Navy no longer can afford the luxury of frustration regarding where they have been. Collectively, the Navy with the DoD must be thoughtful in decision and analysis regarding the future. The ideas must be bigger than technology, and technology must align with the bigger ideas.

SEC. 125. PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS FOR FUTURE NAVAL SURFACE COMBATANTS.

(a) Limitation on Availability of Funds Pending Reports About Surface Combatant Shipbuilding Programs- The Secretary of the Navy may not obligate or expend funds for the construction of, or advanced procurement of materials for, a surface combatant to be constructed after fiscal year 2011 until the Secretary has submitted to Congress each of the following:

(1) An acquisition strategy for such surface combatants that has been approved by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

(2) Certification that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council--

(A) has been briefed on the acquisition strategy to procure such surface combatants; and

(B) has concurred that such strategy is the best preferred approach to deliver required capabilities to address future threats, as reflected in the latest assessment by the defense intelligence community.

(3) A verification by, and conclusions of, an independent review panel that, in evaluating the program or programs concerned, the Secretary of the Navy considered each of the following:

(A) Modeling and simulation, including war gaming conclusions regarding combat effectiveness for the selected ship platforms as compared to other reasonable alternative approaches.

(B) Assessments of platform operational availability.

(C) Life cycle costs, including vessel manning levels, to accomplish missions.

(D) The differences in cost and schedule arising from the need to accommodate new sensors and weapons in surface combatants to be constructed after fiscal year 2011 to counter the future threats referred to in paragraph (2), when compared with the cost and schedule arising from the need to accommodate sensors and weapons on surface combatants as contemplated by the 2009 shipbuilding plan for the vessels concerned.

(4) The conclusions of a joint review by the Secretary of the Navy and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency setting forth additional requirements for investment in Aegis ballistic missile defense beyond the number of DDG-51 and CG-47 vessels planned to be equipped for this mission area in the budget of the President for fiscal year 2010 (as submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code).

(b) Future Surface Combatant Acquisition Strategy- Not later than the date upon which the President submits to Congress the budget for fiscal year 2012 (as so submitted), the Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the congressional defense committees an update to the open architecture report to Congress that reflects the Navy's combat systems acquisition plans for the surface combatants to be procured in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal years thereafter.

(c) Naval Surface Fire Support- Not later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the congressional defense committees an update to the March 2006 Report to Congress on Naval Surface Fire Support. The update shall identify how the Department of Defense intends to address any shortfalls between required naval surface fire support capability and the plan of the Navy to provide that capability. The update shall include addenda by the Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of the Marine Corps, as was the case in the 2006 report.

(d) Technology Roadmap for Future Surface Combatants and Fleet Modernization-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall develop a plan to incorporate into surface combatants constructed after 2011, and into fleet modernization programs, the technologies developed for the DDG-1000 destroyer and the DDG-51 and CG-47 Aegis ships, including technologies and systems designed to achieve significant manpower savings.

(2) SCOPE OF PLAN- The plan required by paragraph (1) shall include sufficient detail for systems and subsystems to ensure that the plan--

(A) avoids redundant development for common functions;

(B) reflects implementation of Navy plans for achieving an open architecture for all naval surface combat systems; and

(C) fosters competition.

(e) Definitions- In this section:

(1) The term `2009 shipbuilding plan' means the 30-year shipbuilding plan submitted to Congress pursuant to section 231, title 10, United States Code, together with the budget of the President for fiscal year 2009 (as submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code).

(2) The term `surface combatant' means a cruiser, a destroyer, or any naval vessel, excluding Littoral Combat Ships, under a program currently designated as a future surface combatant program.

This is a very interesting inclusion in the FY 2010 Defense Bill. The Future Surface Combatant, not the restart of the DDG-51, is now the major focus of Congress. If I was taking bets, I would read this as saying CG(X), CG-47, DDG-1000, and DDG-51 will all be replaced by a new large, modular future surface combatant yet to make the design board, and DDG-51s will be filling the gap until that program gets off the ground.

The Future Surface Combatant is the heart of the discussion leading into the next decade. We will be building 2 submarines a year for the next several years, that will not change. The Navy will be replacing the SSBNs next decade, that will not change. The Navy will be building 15 new Littoral Combat Ships between FY11-FY15, and that will not change.

Everything else is a question mark. Everything is on the table. It is not a question of what the US Navy will look like in the 21st century, it is a question of what they will be doing, and how they will be doing it. It is time to begin blogging the discussion how the Navy will fight, and see if the doctrinal ideas hold up to public examination and scrutiny. I suspect we will see plenty of resistance to change; there always is.