Strategy of the Second Move

Below are select remarks from the speech given by Secretary Robert Gates on the future defense budget and priorities of the Department of Defense. Full transcript available here.

Trimming the Fat

The Department of the Navy proposed savings of more than $35 billion over five years. Those measures include:

• Reducing manpower ashore and reassigning 6,000 personnel to operational missions at sea;
• Using multi-year procurement to save more than $1.3 billion on the purchase of new airborne surveillance, jamming, and fighter aircraft;
• Disestablishing staffs for submarine, patrol aircraft, and the destroyer-squadrons plus one carrier strike group staff.

The Navy also proposes to disestablish the headquarters of Second Fleet in Norfolk. During the Cold War, this command had distinct and significant operational responsibilities. Today its primary responsibility is training and mission preparation, a function that will be transferred to the Navy’s Fleet Forces Command. This change would affect approximately 160 military positions. And no ships will depart Norfolk as a result.

Reinvestment

The Department of the Navy, as a result of the efficiency savings, is proposing to:

• Accelerate development of a new generation of electronic jammers to improve the Navy’s ability to fight and survive in an anti-access environment;
• They’ll increase the repair and refurbishment of Marine equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan;
• They will develop a new generation of sea-borne unmanned strike and surveillance aircraft;
• They will buy more of the latest model F-18s and extend the service life of 150 of these aircraft as a hedge against more delays in the deployment of the Joint Strike Fighter;
• And finally, the Navy will purchase additional ships over the next five years - including a destroyer, a Littoral Combat Ship, an ocean surveillance vessel and fleet oilers.
  

The Marine Corps

The Joint Strike Fighter program received special scrutiny given its substantial cost, ongoing development issues, and its central place in the future of U.S. military aviation. In short, two of the JSF variants, the Air Force version and the Navy’s carrier based version, are proceeding satisfactorily.

By comparison, the Marine Corps’ short take-off and vertical landing variant is experiencing significant testing problems. These issues may lead to a redesign of the aircraft’s structure and propulsion - changes that could add yet more weight and more cost to an aircraft that has little capacity to absorb more of either.

As a result, I am placing the STOVL variant on the equivalent of a two-year probation. If we cannot fix this variant during this time frame and get it back on track in terms of performance, cost and schedule, then I believe it should be canceled. We will also move the development of the Marine variant to the back of the overall JSF production sequence. And to fill the gap created from the slip in the JSF production schedule, we will buy more Navy F/A-18s.

Today, I am also announcing my agreement with the recommendation of the Secretary of the Navy and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to cancel the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. This program is of great interest to the Marine community so I would like to explain the reasons behind what I know will be a controversial decision.

The EFV’s aggressive requirements list has resulted in an 80,000 pound armored vehicle that skims the surface of the ocean for long distances at high speeds before transitioning to combat operations on land. Meeting these demands has over the years led to significant technology problems, development delays, and cost increases. The EFV, originally conceived during the Reagan Administration, has already consumed more than $3 billion to develop and will cost another $12 billion to build - all for a fleet with the capacity to put 4,000 troops ashore. If fully executed, the EFV - which costs far more to operate and maintain than its predecessor - would essentially swallow the entire Marine vehicle budget and most of its total procurement budget for the foreseeable future.

To be sure, the EFV would, if pursued to completion without regard to time or cost, be an enormously capable vehicle. However, recent analysis by the Navy and Marine Corps suggests that the most plausible scenarios requiring power projection from the sea could be handled through a mix of existing air and sea systems employed in new ways along with new vehicles - scenarios that do not require the exquisite features of the EFV. As with several other high end programs canceled in recent years, the mounting cost of acquiring this specialized capability must be judged against other priorities and needs.

Let me be clear. This decision does not call into question the Marine’s amphibious assault mission. We will budget the funds necessary to develop a more affordable and sustainable amphibious tractor to provide the Marines a ship-to-shore capability into the future. The budget will also propose funds to upgrade the existing amphibious vehicle fleet with new engines, electronics, and armaments to ensure that the Marines will be able to conduct ship-to-shore missions until the next generation of systems is brought on line.

Gen Amos' Statement on Cancellation of EFV Program

Topic: CMC Press Release - EFV Termination

Today the Secretary of Defense announced the termination of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program. I support his decision. After a thorough review of the program within the context of a broader Marine Corps Force Structure Review, I personally recommended to both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy that the EFV be cancelled and that the Marine Corps pursue a more affordable amphibious tracked fighting vehicle.

Despite the critical amphibious and warfighting capability the EFV represents, the program is simply not affordable given likely Marine Corps procurement budgets. The procurement and operations/maintenance costs of this vehicle are onerous. After examining multiple options to preserve the EFV, I concluded that none of the options meets what we consider reasonable affordability criteria. As a result, I decided to pursue a more affordable vehicle.

Our Nation’s amphibious capability remains the Corps’ priority. In the complex security environment we face, the execution of amphibious operations requires the use of the sea as maneuver space. A modern amphibious tracked vehicle is the means towards this end. It enables the seamless projection of ready-to-fight Marine rifle squads from sea to land. It is thus the key to allowing ship-to-shore operations in permissive, uncertain, and hostile environments; assuring access where infrastructure is destroyed or nonexistent; and creating joint access in defended areas. It is also central to the entire Marine tactical vehicle strategy for operations ashore. Once on land, an amphibious armored fighting vehicle provides the Marine rifle squad with the protected mobility and firepower to maneuver to a position of advantage to rapidly close with, engage, and defeat the enemy.

The Marine Corps remains committed to develop and field an effective, survivable and affordable amphibious tracked vehicle. To bring this capability to the force sooner rather than later, we intend to capitalize on the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s recent efforts to streamline procurement and to rapidly accelerate the acquisition and contracting processes in developing our new amphibious tracked vehicle requirement.

Shortly, we will issue a special notice to industry requesting information relative to supporting our required amphibious capabilities. We look forward to working with industry in meeting this challenge to field a modern and affordable amphibious tracked vehicle that will support our Nation’s needs.

Strategy of the Second Move

I think it is a good idea to disestablish the headquarters of Second Fleet. I wish this would have gone just one more step further though, because if the goal is to flatten the organization of the Navy - I think one way to do that is to create a single tasking authority instead of having one on each coast. I remember the idea of one fleet, one standard being important at some point earlier this decade. Guess not.

I have not seen the phrase used yet, but I think reading Robert Gates is getting easier. His choices, to me anyway, suggest he is thinking in terms of a Strategy of the Second Move. If you are not familiar with the term or concept, read here (PDF) for background. This (PPT) could pass as the PPT used in that speech. Fold in AirSea Battle Doctrine and you are a blind fool if you are unable to see who is the most influential Think Tank in DC right now.