8
8
0
Adm. John Richardson lays out an urgent vision for meeting the 21st century’s sail-to-steam moment.
New technologies — autonomy, networking, 3D printing, and more — are changing naval warfare “like moving from sails to steam, wooden ships to iron hulls, like the advent of nuclear propulsion,” and the U.S. Navy needs to move a lot faster to keep up, says Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson.
“The pace at which potential competitors are moving demands that we in turn increase the speed at which we act” to develop a larger and more capable fleet, Richardson writes in a much-anticipated white paper. “We need this more powerful fleet in the 2020s, not the 2040s.”
Richardson spoke to reporters Monday, ahead of the Wednesday release of the nine-page white paper. He alluded to recent think-tank reports plus a Navy-led one that have argued for a fleet of about 355 ships, far more than the current 275 and, indeed, the three-decade target of 308.
“More numbers are necessary, but not sufficient,” he said by phone from Singapore. “We need a bigger fleet but a different fleet.”
RIchardson said all future ships must be built to accept upgrades with ease and alacrity. New designs should include a hull and powerplant that will last a service lifetime, but “the rest of the ship, we’ll build to modularize and modernize.”
Didn’t the Navy try that with its littoral combat ships, now plagued by breakdowns and far short of the modularity vision?
“LCS was very complex,” Richardson responded. “The technology has come to the point where we can do that with much more agility. Even in LCS, we’ve done a lot to decomplexify operations, with new crewing and operational concepts.”
In the white paper, he writes that the U.S. industrial base has the capacity to build 29 more ships and some 300 more planes than currently planned over the next seven years. But at what cost? In February, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan — the one that gets to 308 ships by 2046 — would cost an extra $5 billion a year. That’s about one-third more than current budgets allow.
Richardson declined to say how much his accelerated plan would cost, saying only that he thought the total would be “far less than CBO predicted, but more than we have in traditional [shipbuilding] accounts.”
How will that be possible? By rethinking everything, he suggested: building ships more cheaply, extending the life of today’s ships and aircraft, and boosting the capabilities of existing ships, planes, submarines, and unmanned vehicles through networking, robotics, and more.
“We need to challenge the assumptions,” the CNO said. “Linear approaches are going to get us to this [future] navy too late.”
That sounds a little like the approach fostered by the Defense Department’s Strategic Capabilities Office, which works with the services to give existing weapons “surprising new capabilities,” in the words of former Defense Secretary Ash Carter. Much of the SCO’s work remains classified — that would be the “surprise” part — but its poster child is a naval project: retrofitting the SM-6 anti-air missile to sink ships.
History suggests big surges in naval shipbuilding don’t last more than a few years. Reagan’s naval buildup didn’t outlast his first term, one reporter noted on the conference call.
Richardson’s response: “It lasted only three years, but we’re still coasting on that surge.” LTC Stephen F. SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth LTC Stephen C. SMSgt Minister Gerald A. "Doc" Thomas SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" SGT Michael Thorin MSgt (Join to see) Maj Marty Hogan SN Greg Wright SPC Margaret Higgins SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SP5 Mark Kuzinski SPC Douglas Bolton COL Mikel J. Burroughs PO3 Michael James
New technologies — autonomy, networking, 3D printing, and more — are changing naval warfare “like moving from sails to steam, wooden ships to iron hulls, like the advent of nuclear propulsion,” and the U.S. Navy needs to move a lot faster to keep up, says Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson.
“The pace at which potential competitors are moving demands that we in turn increase the speed at which we act” to develop a larger and more capable fleet, Richardson writes in a much-anticipated white paper. “We need this more powerful fleet in the 2020s, not the 2040s.”
Richardson spoke to reporters Monday, ahead of the Wednesday release of the nine-page white paper. He alluded to recent think-tank reports plus a Navy-led one that have argued for a fleet of about 355 ships, far more than the current 275 and, indeed, the three-decade target of 308.
“More numbers are necessary, but not sufficient,” he said by phone from Singapore. “We need a bigger fleet but a different fleet.”
RIchardson said all future ships must be built to accept upgrades with ease and alacrity. New designs should include a hull and powerplant that will last a service lifetime, but “the rest of the ship, we’ll build to modularize and modernize.”
Didn’t the Navy try that with its littoral combat ships, now plagued by breakdowns and far short of the modularity vision?
“LCS was very complex,” Richardson responded. “The technology has come to the point where we can do that with much more agility. Even in LCS, we’ve done a lot to decomplexify operations, with new crewing and operational concepts.”
In the white paper, he writes that the U.S. industrial base has the capacity to build 29 more ships and some 300 more planes than currently planned over the next seven years. But at what cost? In February, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan — the one that gets to 308 ships by 2046 — would cost an extra $5 billion a year. That’s about one-third more than current budgets allow.
Richardson declined to say how much his accelerated plan would cost, saying only that he thought the total would be “far less than CBO predicted, but more than we have in traditional [shipbuilding] accounts.”
How will that be possible? By rethinking everything, he suggested: building ships more cheaply, extending the life of today’s ships and aircraft, and boosting the capabilities of existing ships, planes, submarines, and unmanned vehicles through networking, robotics, and more.
“We need to challenge the assumptions,” the CNO said. “Linear approaches are going to get us to this [future] navy too late.”
That sounds a little like the approach fostered by the Defense Department’s Strategic Capabilities Office, which works with the services to give existing weapons “surprising new capabilities,” in the words of former Defense Secretary Ash Carter. Much of the SCO’s work remains classified — that would be the “surprise” part — but its poster child is a naval project: retrofitting the SM-6 anti-air missile to sink ships.
History suggests big surges in naval shipbuilding don’t last more than a few years. Reagan’s naval buildup didn’t outlast his first term, one reporter noted on the conference call.
Richardson’s response: “It lasted only three years, but we’re still coasting on that surge.” LTC Stephen F. SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth LTC Stephen C. SMSgt Minister Gerald A. "Doc" Thomas SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" SGT Michael Thorin MSgt (Join to see) Maj Marty Hogan SN Greg Wright SPC Margaret Higgins SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SP5 Mark Kuzinski SPC Douglas Bolton COL Mikel J. Burroughs PO3 Michael James
137916
Posted from defenseone.com
DoD
Budget
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
3
3
0
Thanks for making us aware SSgt Robert Marx that Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson has laid out an urgent vision for meeting the 21st century’s sail-to-steam moment by leveraging "new technologies — autonomy, networking, 3D printing, and more — which are changing naval warfare “like moving from sails to steam, wooden ships to iron hulls, like the advent of nuclear propulsion,” and the U.S. Navy needs to move a lot faster to keep up."
Adapt or be left to die on the vine.
Adapt or be left to die on the vine.
(3)
(0)
SSgt Robert Marx
That is right! I have always had an abiding respect for the Navy because my father is a Navy veteran and protecting the sea lanes plus the national coastline is important. The founding fathers recognized that the coastline of the US, then only on the Atlantic Ocean, was too long to protect with a standing army but the navy could protect much more economically. All of the founders had a fear of a standing army usurping liberty.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
SSgt Robert Marx, I am glad to see there is a visionary at the helm there. Whether we realize it or not, the Navy is one of the most integral branches of the military.
They carry Marines and SEALS to critical targets. They take the CAS to the enemy quickly and efficiently. They provide their own supplies, as well as using their ships to resupply other branches as needed. They provide underwater surveillance and provide for a moving nuclear arsenal which provides a difficult target to acquire. This also provides a deterant to other countries use of nuclear weapons. They also can provide artillary support for troops, as well as an incredibally effective means to soften up targets before committing a ground force.
For this reason, it is IMPERATIVE that the Navy keeps up with modern technology, because you can safely bet copious amounts of money that Russia, China and Iran are.
Falling behind on this technology while this improve will eventually drop us from the worlds largest military to second or third, and that will be bad Ju Ju for us all.
They carry Marines and SEALS to critical targets. They take the CAS to the enemy quickly and efficiently. They provide their own supplies, as well as using their ships to resupply other branches as needed. They provide underwater surveillance and provide for a moving nuclear arsenal which provides a difficult target to acquire. This also provides a deterant to other countries use of nuclear weapons. They also can provide artillary support for troops, as well as an incredibally effective means to soften up targets before committing a ground force.
For this reason, it is IMPERATIVE that the Navy keeps up with modern technology, because you can safely bet copious amounts of money that Russia, China and Iran are.
Falling behind on this technology while this improve will eventually drop us from the worlds largest military to second or third, and that will be bad Ju Ju for us all.
(3)
(0)
SSgt Robert Marx
Yes the Navy is imperative for national defense, for keeping the sea/trade lanes open, and for projecting military power wherever it is needed. The US has controlled the sea for so long that the National Command Authority almost takes it for granted, just as some perceive with air control. The US has been blessed with the world's most remarkable defense establishment and we must take the steps to preserve it.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Michael James
SGT M. Thorin, Sir; Thank you for sharing.. appreciate the complement.. Navy is important.. as are ALL the branches of our military.. ALL Branches need to be constantly UP-GRADED.. and KEPT that way; considering the demands that we place on our Ground Force and the Efforts we take in trying to keep peace around the World..
(1)
(0)
SGT Michael Thorin
I can get behind that comment. You know, all branches give each other a hard time. Army says Marines "I pick things up and put them down."
The Marines tell the Army that we joined the Army because we could never be a Marine. They refer to us as the second string or the JV team.
Naval pilots cut on the Air Force pilots because they say they can't stand the pressure of a carrier landing. Air Force says that they would never join a branch of service where seamen have to wash the poop deck.
This is all done for the sake of humor and fun. It is good for us to take equal opportunity to recognize just how important each branch is to the other, Coast Guard included.
The Marines tell the Army that we joined the Army because we could never be a Marine. They refer to us as the second string or the JV team.
Naval pilots cut on the Air Force pilots because they say they can't stand the pressure of a carrier landing. Air Force says that they would never join a branch of service where seamen have to wash the poop deck.
This is all done for the sake of humor and fun. It is good for us to take equal opportunity to recognize just how important each branch is to the other, Coast Guard included.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google