chefjavier
05-11-2009, 12:08 AM
Adm. Gary Roughead
U.S. Chief of Naval Operations
Published: 4 May 2009
http://www.defensenews.com/images/print.gif Print (javascript: print();) | http://www.defensenews.com/images/email.gif Email (javascript:emThis())
In the past two months, Adm. Gary Roughead, the U.S. chief of naval operations, has visited several U.S. warships under construction, traveled to South Africa and China to meet his counterparts, and watched as his sailors faced down pirates off Somalia in a dramatic showdown that captured worldwide attention.
http://www.defensenews.com/pgf/stories86/050309_roughead_def.JPG http://www.defensenews.com/images/arrow_caption.png
U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead (MC1 Tiffini M. Jones / U.S. Navy)
"We are a busy Navy right now," Roughead says.
The force is "at an inflection point in our history," he told listeners in Charleston, S.C., at the April 25 commissioning of the destroyer Truxtun.
The Navy is working to determine how it will carry out its missions in a globalized world, face potential competitors such as China, and manage the soaring costs of manpower and equipment.
These comments were gathered during several interviews; a full transcript is available at http://www.navytimes.com.
Q. What's the destroyer and cruiser plan?
A. What I am trying to do is not simply build ships to build ships but to build what I believe we need. That's behind my move to truncate the [DDG] 1000. And the [DDG] 51, while some people will say it's old technology, I can guarantee you that Truxtun is not the Arleigh Burke - a far cry from it. What that ship gives is the ability to do integrated air and missile defense. For me, that is very important because of the proliferation of cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. I am really pleased with LCS [Littoral Combat Ship]. We've got the first one out. And LCS 2 is in the high 80s [percent] of completion, so I am really pleased with what I am seeing there. I am very pleased that in the budget we've proposed an endorsement of LCS, and in the budget for 2010, there's the agreement that we're starting the 51 line again.
With regard to CG(X), rather than say, "We're going to run off and build CG(X)," I really believe we need to have a good definition of the total ballistic-missile defense architecture for the department writ large.
Q. Is DDG 1000 a precursor to CG(X)?
A. I think DDG 1000 is going to be a huge informant of CG(X), and that's why I was more interested in truncating [to three hulls] rather than terminating. We can get a couple of the ships out and run them around and see what they do and see if the technologies we put on there will really pay off for us. I am really interested in the hull form. How does it perform? Is that the path to go down? It's a pretty radical departure. We've tested it. We've modeled it. The program office is very thorough. But there is no other designer in the world who has pursued that hull form.
And if it really is a breakthrough technology, can it be scaled up and can it be scaled down? Because if you start getting into nuclear power and bigger radars, can the DDG hull form take it? My sense is it can. But if it can't and you have to scale up, does it scale?
Q. What's the intent for DDG 1000s?
A. There's no question we will employ those ships once they're delivered. Deploy them and employ. I see them in the deployment rotation because, quite frankly, it will be important to operate those ships in different environments, get them up in the high latitudes. What happens when that hull form starts to ice up? What's the effect of that? If people are talking about having to be up in the Arctic areas, it's a good thing to know.
Q. What of nuclear-powered warships?
A. I think it's time we take a fundamental look at what we're doing with our surface combatants, what we're trying to do with them, how they fit in the big picture and on this nuclear-power thing, when [Reps.] Roscoe Bartlett [R-Md.] and Gene Taylor [D-Miss.] first brought it up, there was a connection to the price of gas. That's where I think a lot of folks' heads were. But as we had a discussion with them, you have to take into account the projected price of fuel that we've seen just in the past few years fluctuate pretty wildly. But I do have concerns about the amount of fuel that's going to be out there at the end of the service life of the CG(X). But you have price of fuel, you have price of construction, you have price of maintenance, you have price of manpower. For nuclear ships, the last four are really expensive. So that's a factor that has to be taken in when you build a ship.
Q. Is ship acquisition troubled?
A. Often you'll hear people say shipbuilding is broken. When you see a ship like Truxtun at the pier, it's hard to believe American shipbuilding is broken. [There] may [be] some things we have to do in the acquisition process, but nobody builds ships, submarines or airplanes like we do, so the "broken" mantra is a little bit of an overstatement. I'd say a lot of an overstatement.
It needs to be examined. We need to look at roles and responsibilities again and some of the processes and the lengthy time it takes to turn things. Especially in areas like command and control and information technology, I think that our process is a speed brake on trying to introduce new technology very quickly.
Q. What's the UAV plan?
A. With unmanned systems, it's a new capability, if you will, and because it's unmanned, we're unfamiliar with it. I think we're more conservative than we have to be. I think the technology allows us to go a little faster.
Should the [Fire Scout helicopter] be part of a composite squadron of UAVs, or should it be part of a helicopter squadron? What is the right organization for us to do two things - one is maximum operational flexibility and the other is minimizing the manpower? Folks tend to think of unmanned systems as unmanned. They're pilotless systems. There is no system in the Navy that's unmanned.
Q. How are anti-piracy efforts going?
A. There is a shortage of resources. There are [two dozen warships off Somalia] covering four times the size of Texas. My view on piracy is pirates don't live at sea. Pirates move their money ashore. So the strategy has to be one of deterring and responding and disrupting activities at sea, but the solution is ashore. That's the way it was solved in the Strait of Malacca.
You act at sea, but you have to have the rule of law present to be able to apprehend and prosecute pirates ashore. And that's what's missing in Somalia. There's no rule of law. And it's also a very lucrative business right now. If you wanted to cover that area and be able to respond in 10 minutes, then you're talking about 1,200 warships.
We are providing cover for the region, and we are mindful of where the American ships [like Maersk Alabama] are, and we are working cooperatively with all the forces there.
But I can tell you we are recognizing it is ashore and [asking] what is the right way to do that. We are going to continue to work on getting piracy stopped. The issue is ashore.
Q. Chinese ships harassed a U.S. surveillance vessel in March.
A. We [Roughead and the head of China's Navy, Adm. Wu Sheng Li] had talked on the phone shortly after that. We had an opportunity to share our views, and basically, and you may have seen it in the public record, I'm not sure that China and the U.S. will agree on the law that applies in the Exclusive Economic Zone. We interpret the law to allow us to do military surveillance operations in the zone; they interpret the law to make the zone more exclusive of all things. I think he and I agree that we are going to disagree on the interpretation of the law. But my point that I made then and this time is that there should be nothing done to endanger our sailors or our ships that are operating there.
Q. China put on a rare naval review in April.
A. It clearly was an opportunity for the [Chinese] Navy to show itself, and they did. They had a fairly significant fleet review.
I wouldn't say it was a statement of their intentions, but it was clearly a good view into their capabilities and the types of things they have on their mind.
In times past, I was toured around [a Chinese] ship by the commanding officer and an interpreter. And this time, at multiple stations on the ship, I was briefed on that particular area by a young junior officer in English. That was pretty significant.
I point-blank asked Wu Sheng Li, "So, we're hearing you're going to announce an aircraft carrier."
And he said, "We're not there."
But I know, and I shared with him, we know the development is going on. They've had an ambition for an aircraft carrier since the '90s. And they are working down that timeline. The [Chinese] Navy is going to have an aircraft carrier some day. How they elect to use it and where they operate it is the big question.
Q. What of the bad ship inspections?
A. I'll be interested to see the report [summarizing 2008's ship inspections, in which six ships were deemed unfit]. I don't turn away from the assessments we do, and I'll take a look at it and where we go to fix the deficiencies.
I do think that by backing off an engineered process for long-life surface ship maintenance, we are likely not optimizing maintenance dollars. We may not be spending where we need to and, equally important, we may be spending money on maintenance we don't have to. So, the [Surface Ship Lifecycle Management Activity] is going to allow us to better align that maintenance funding where it needs to be. Then we'll be taking a look at training and not only how do we teach the technicians, but I would submit if you go to our Surface Warfare Officer School [SWOS], we have injected more of what we used to have in a course called Senior Officer Ship Material Readiness Course. The commander up at SWOS is injecting more of those fundamental maintenance processes and technical training. ■
By Andrew Scutro in Washington.
Service profile
■ Battle force ships: 283
■ Aircraft: 3,700-plus
■ 2009 budget request: $149.3 billion
■ Active-duty sailors: 332,110
■ Navy Department civilians: 184,519
Source: U.S. Navy
U.S. Chief of Naval Operations
Published: 4 May 2009
http://www.defensenews.com/images/print.gif Print (javascript: print();) | http://www.defensenews.com/images/email.gif Email (javascript:emThis())
In the past two months, Adm. Gary Roughead, the U.S. chief of naval operations, has visited several U.S. warships under construction, traveled to South Africa and China to meet his counterparts, and watched as his sailors faced down pirates off Somalia in a dramatic showdown that captured worldwide attention.
http://www.defensenews.com/pgf/stories86/050309_roughead_def.JPG http://www.defensenews.com/images/arrow_caption.png
U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead (MC1 Tiffini M. Jones / U.S. Navy)
"We are a busy Navy right now," Roughead says.
The force is "at an inflection point in our history," he told listeners in Charleston, S.C., at the April 25 commissioning of the destroyer Truxtun.
The Navy is working to determine how it will carry out its missions in a globalized world, face potential competitors such as China, and manage the soaring costs of manpower and equipment.
These comments were gathered during several interviews; a full transcript is available at http://www.navytimes.com.
Q. What's the destroyer and cruiser plan?
A. What I am trying to do is not simply build ships to build ships but to build what I believe we need. That's behind my move to truncate the [DDG] 1000. And the [DDG] 51, while some people will say it's old technology, I can guarantee you that Truxtun is not the Arleigh Burke - a far cry from it. What that ship gives is the ability to do integrated air and missile defense. For me, that is very important because of the proliferation of cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. I am really pleased with LCS [Littoral Combat Ship]. We've got the first one out. And LCS 2 is in the high 80s [percent] of completion, so I am really pleased with what I am seeing there. I am very pleased that in the budget we've proposed an endorsement of LCS, and in the budget for 2010, there's the agreement that we're starting the 51 line again.
With regard to CG(X), rather than say, "We're going to run off and build CG(X)," I really believe we need to have a good definition of the total ballistic-missile defense architecture for the department writ large.
Q. Is DDG 1000 a precursor to CG(X)?
A. I think DDG 1000 is going to be a huge informant of CG(X), and that's why I was more interested in truncating [to three hulls] rather than terminating. We can get a couple of the ships out and run them around and see what they do and see if the technologies we put on there will really pay off for us. I am really interested in the hull form. How does it perform? Is that the path to go down? It's a pretty radical departure. We've tested it. We've modeled it. The program office is very thorough. But there is no other designer in the world who has pursued that hull form.
And if it really is a breakthrough technology, can it be scaled up and can it be scaled down? Because if you start getting into nuclear power and bigger radars, can the DDG hull form take it? My sense is it can. But if it can't and you have to scale up, does it scale?
Q. What's the intent for DDG 1000s?
A. There's no question we will employ those ships once they're delivered. Deploy them and employ. I see them in the deployment rotation because, quite frankly, it will be important to operate those ships in different environments, get them up in the high latitudes. What happens when that hull form starts to ice up? What's the effect of that? If people are talking about having to be up in the Arctic areas, it's a good thing to know.
Q. What of nuclear-powered warships?
A. I think it's time we take a fundamental look at what we're doing with our surface combatants, what we're trying to do with them, how they fit in the big picture and on this nuclear-power thing, when [Reps.] Roscoe Bartlett [R-Md.] and Gene Taylor [D-Miss.] first brought it up, there was a connection to the price of gas. That's where I think a lot of folks' heads were. But as we had a discussion with them, you have to take into account the projected price of fuel that we've seen just in the past few years fluctuate pretty wildly. But I do have concerns about the amount of fuel that's going to be out there at the end of the service life of the CG(X). But you have price of fuel, you have price of construction, you have price of maintenance, you have price of manpower. For nuclear ships, the last four are really expensive. So that's a factor that has to be taken in when you build a ship.
Q. Is ship acquisition troubled?
A. Often you'll hear people say shipbuilding is broken. When you see a ship like Truxtun at the pier, it's hard to believe American shipbuilding is broken. [There] may [be] some things we have to do in the acquisition process, but nobody builds ships, submarines or airplanes like we do, so the "broken" mantra is a little bit of an overstatement. I'd say a lot of an overstatement.
It needs to be examined. We need to look at roles and responsibilities again and some of the processes and the lengthy time it takes to turn things. Especially in areas like command and control and information technology, I think that our process is a speed brake on trying to introduce new technology very quickly.
Q. What's the UAV plan?
A. With unmanned systems, it's a new capability, if you will, and because it's unmanned, we're unfamiliar with it. I think we're more conservative than we have to be. I think the technology allows us to go a little faster.
Should the [Fire Scout helicopter] be part of a composite squadron of UAVs, or should it be part of a helicopter squadron? What is the right organization for us to do two things - one is maximum operational flexibility and the other is minimizing the manpower? Folks tend to think of unmanned systems as unmanned. They're pilotless systems. There is no system in the Navy that's unmanned.
Q. How are anti-piracy efforts going?
A. There is a shortage of resources. There are [two dozen warships off Somalia] covering four times the size of Texas. My view on piracy is pirates don't live at sea. Pirates move their money ashore. So the strategy has to be one of deterring and responding and disrupting activities at sea, but the solution is ashore. That's the way it was solved in the Strait of Malacca.
You act at sea, but you have to have the rule of law present to be able to apprehend and prosecute pirates ashore. And that's what's missing in Somalia. There's no rule of law. And it's also a very lucrative business right now. If you wanted to cover that area and be able to respond in 10 minutes, then you're talking about 1,200 warships.
We are providing cover for the region, and we are mindful of where the American ships [like Maersk Alabama] are, and we are working cooperatively with all the forces there.
But I can tell you we are recognizing it is ashore and [asking] what is the right way to do that. We are going to continue to work on getting piracy stopped. The issue is ashore.
Q. Chinese ships harassed a U.S. surveillance vessel in March.
A. We [Roughead and the head of China's Navy, Adm. Wu Sheng Li] had talked on the phone shortly after that. We had an opportunity to share our views, and basically, and you may have seen it in the public record, I'm not sure that China and the U.S. will agree on the law that applies in the Exclusive Economic Zone. We interpret the law to allow us to do military surveillance operations in the zone; they interpret the law to make the zone more exclusive of all things. I think he and I agree that we are going to disagree on the interpretation of the law. But my point that I made then and this time is that there should be nothing done to endanger our sailors or our ships that are operating there.
Q. China put on a rare naval review in April.
A. It clearly was an opportunity for the [Chinese] Navy to show itself, and they did. They had a fairly significant fleet review.
I wouldn't say it was a statement of their intentions, but it was clearly a good view into their capabilities and the types of things they have on their mind.
In times past, I was toured around [a Chinese] ship by the commanding officer and an interpreter. And this time, at multiple stations on the ship, I was briefed on that particular area by a young junior officer in English. That was pretty significant.
I point-blank asked Wu Sheng Li, "So, we're hearing you're going to announce an aircraft carrier."
And he said, "We're not there."
But I know, and I shared with him, we know the development is going on. They've had an ambition for an aircraft carrier since the '90s. And they are working down that timeline. The [Chinese] Navy is going to have an aircraft carrier some day. How they elect to use it and where they operate it is the big question.
Q. What of the bad ship inspections?
A. I'll be interested to see the report [summarizing 2008's ship inspections, in which six ships were deemed unfit]. I don't turn away from the assessments we do, and I'll take a look at it and where we go to fix the deficiencies.
I do think that by backing off an engineered process for long-life surface ship maintenance, we are likely not optimizing maintenance dollars. We may not be spending where we need to and, equally important, we may be spending money on maintenance we don't have to. So, the [Surface Ship Lifecycle Management Activity] is going to allow us to better align that maintenance funding where it needs to be. Then we'll be taking a look at training and not only how do we teach the technicians, but I would submit if you go to our Surface Warfare Officer School [SWOS], we have injected more of what we used to have in a course called Senior Officer Ship Material Readiness Course. The commander up at SWOS is injecting more of those fundamental maintenance processes and technical training. ■
By Andrew Scutro in Washington.
Service profile
■ Battle force ships: 283
■ Aircraft: 3,700-plus
■ 2009 budget request: $149.3 billion
■ Active-duty sailors: 332,110
■ Navy Department civilians: 184,519
Source: U.S. Navy