ADM John Harvey here. I'm stopping by this coming Tuesday. What questions do you have for me?

LCDR Matlow, our fairly complete reliance on cyber-based networks and satellite-based communications, navigation and intelligence systems certainly leaves us very vulnerable to an adversary/enemy who develops the capability to "blind" us or to some other type of system failure that deprives us of automated capabilities upon which we have come to depend for routine functions (ex, navigation).
No easy answer to this one - we have crossed the cyber Rubicon, if you will, so we better focus on a) how we're going to protect these systems and b) how we can rapidly adapt to conducting routine operations without them ie, navigate the "old-fashioned" way, communicate long haul via HF and reliance on knowledge of Commander's Intent to carry out the mission rather than constant direction received from on-high via e-mail, etc. All the best, JCHjr

MCPO Treants, I agree with you on the need for increased manning of LCS. There are currently too few Sailors assigned to do the daily work required to keep that ship operating properly. The good news is that I think the next flight of the LCS class will be more heavily armed and better-manned - a true warship that can make a difference in the littoral. As to multiple crews for a single hull, I hear you, BUT I think we need to find a way to make that concept a viable one for this class. 4 crews rotating between 3 hulls gets a great deal more overall underway time with fewer ships, particularly if they are homeported overseas (Singapore and Sasebo). Tough to pull off, but worth trying in my book. All the best, JCHjr

The "Boomer" Fleet has operated on the Blue and Gold concept its entire existence. I would think switching between 3 hulls would get very confusing after awhile, especially if they're not identical. Further the 4/3 plan means these sailors are underway even more than Boomer sailors.

I'm not a fan of the LCS class, especially as it's been implemented so far, with competing hull forms. The notion that the DDG1000 is needed to protect them, and we're only building three of them, makes survivability a scary notion to me...

I guess it's going to be a wait and see kind of thing... V/R JBM

Thanks for the answer Admiral. I had no idea we were looking at that type rotation for these ships and, yes, in that case it does make sense. I am still not entirely pleased with no one really "owning" the ship and I have seen first hand what that does on Boomers.

Once one Hull Type is decided upon, then we will finally get to see what this ship concept can really do. Since I have not ridden or served on either type, I have no vote, but am very interested in then ultimate outcome. Thanks again for your service Admiral.

The USS GERALD R FORD (CVN 78) will commission next year, and USS JOHN F KENNEDY (CVN 79) is under construction now to commission in around 2022. The USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 80) should be "underway, making way" by 2027.
You and I will have to hang on until then! I'll see you at her commissioning! All the best, JCHjr

Gives us old guys a reason to hang on. I'd love to go to sea on her for a tiger cruise.

CPL Yang, you've asked a very interesting question. Currently OSD and the services divide the globe up and look at many of the issues we are confronting in a primarily regional manner. This approach is understandable given the reality of what the military has been expected to do over the past 20 years and is a natural outgrowth of the command structure that has evolved since WW 2. One of the downsides, though, is that each Combatant Commander sees his corner of the world in isolation and requests forces he believes necessary to accomplish the missions he's been given. Well, when you add up all the force requests from PACOM, CENTCOM, EUCOM, etc, the combatant commanders are demanding the routine deployment of forces that simply don't exist so an elaborate bargaining process takes place (brokered by the Joint Staff) that gives them all something, but rarely enough to accomplish the missions they've been given and always too much for the services to sustain.
My bottom line is that taking an essentially regional view of the world (our current approach) keeps us from properly identifying our GLOBAL priorities and resourcing them appropriately. All the best, JCHjr

So what I'm getting is, a joint-global security unified as sections, and just for theory sake NATO or have something of a central council/ group of XO (more or less politics above my head)

SPC (P) Brojakowski, I think the President focused the deal with Iran solely on the nuclear weapons issue and not on the many other issues we have with Iran, such as their support for various terrorist activities or how we confront ISIS.
My view is that the deal represented the "least bad" option available to us to significantly delay the day when Iran has nuclear weapons. Absent this deal, I think we would have been heading toward a conflict with Iran within the next three years which would have been a disaster. With this deal, we've bought some significant maneuvering space (10-15 years) during which we can work all the other issues we have with Iran.
Everyone will find something with the deal to dislike, and I'm no exception, but I do believe there are sufficient verification mechanisms that are part of the agreement to enable timely and accurate monitoring of Iran's compliance and that the steps Iran has agreed to take will push their nuclear weapons program back at least a decade.
Ultimately, I believe the fighting against ISIS in Syria and Iraq should be done by the "locals" and not our troops. I also believe that we should do much more to combat the ideas that ISIS propagates on their networks throughout our societies. All the best, JCHjr

And once more sir, if you don't mind. Iran is a large, if not the largest, terrorist supporting nation country in the world. That being said, at what point do we finally listen to our own policies and say we do not negotiate with terrorists. American citizens are being held hostage in the aforementioned country and their release was not worked into the "deal". But the administration under the president bent over backwards and released 5 convicted terrorist leaders in exchange for deserter and traitor, bowe bergdahl. In what way is this okay and how will they be rescued?

ADM John Harvey Thank you, I agree with you 100%. There have been no better options floated, and neither the Status Quo nor war with Iran are options.

The irony right now with Iran, of course, is that they are fighting ISIS, due to the Sectarianism of modern Islam. As a clergy person, I am deeply troubled by people killing people over religion, but even more so, Inter-religionists...

Sir, in muslim religion, the koran says that they must force everyone into islam. So if you were confronted by a muslim and threatened with death, would you gladly accept the terms or would you fight? Or being a man of God, would you stand back and let that happen to someone else or would you step in and fight for or along side them?

MSGT Diaz, please see my answer to a similar question from LCDR Matlow above. All the best, JCHjr

SSG Erny, I've been watching the development of the rail-gun for at least 20 years and just about as long for directed-energy weapons. The physics associated with taking these concepts and making effective, deployable weapons systems is very difficult and progress has been very slow - I think they are still quite some ways off.
Now, the capability that would exist should the physics issues be resolved would be pretty extraordinary, but I'm afraid we're quite a long way from that day. All the best, JCHjr

SN Wright, here's one back at you - I was in command of USS DAVID R RAY (DD 971) en route to participate in the Portland Rose Festival in 1991. I was alongside WICHITA to port refueling while my best friend was in command of USS BARBEY alongside to starboard and just getting the prob over.
So he and I are talking over the SP phone planning our liberty in Portland when all of a sudden there's a tremendous geyser of fuel spewing midships on WICHITA.
I take one look at it, initiated an emergency break-away (after all, I had received 90% of the DFM I needed) and got the hell out of dodge!
Poor old Tom was stuck alongside WICHITA for another 3 hours while they tried to figure out the screwed-up valve line-up that had caused the pressurized geyser.
Just another day at at sea! All the best, JCHjr

Glad I never had a situation like that on an Unrep... v/r JBM