| |
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
|
|
Guest Commentary: July 17, 2001
Navy Modernization Is Imperative
The Honorable Gordon R. England
|
The Navy and Marine Corps remain a strong and potent arm of our Nation's military forces. They have maintained a forward presence in all corners of the globe ready to perform any mission called for from humanitarian relief to interdiction operations. Able to deploy on short notice the Navy Marine Corps team provides the theater and regional commanders a well trained and effective fighting force.
In his remarks at the Naval Academy graduation, President Bush said "we must build forces that draw upon the revolutionary advances in the technology of war that will allow us to keep the peace by redefining war on our terms -- a force that is defined less by size and more by knowledge and swiftness… and that relies heavily on stealth, precision weaponry and information technologies." I am in full agreement with this challenge and, while naval forces inherently fit the President's vision, some modifications and alignments may be needed to meet these goals.
But such changes are best made with a full understanding of the uses to which Navy and Marine Corps units are being put today. For instance, forward deployed naval forces are present around the world and are central to assuring the availability of the sea lines through which international commerce and key resources such as oil flow. Also, as Theater Commanders-in-Chief develop their comprehensive Theater Engagement Plans (TEP) in support of the National Security Strategy and National Military Strategy, the Navy and Marine Corps play particularly important roles in TEP execution by virtue of their regular forward presence. And lastly, we know that naval forces are regularly called upon to execute combat tasking on short notice in distant parts of the world. From the time...Navy or Marine forces have engaged in combat over the skies of Iraq, in humanitarian support in East Timor, South America and in Europe.
Looking forward, it is useful to note that for some time the sea services have undertaken an evolutionary shift from operations predominantly on the open seas to operations that include the littoral: an evolution that has underscored the requirement for improved data networking; tailored battle management systems and sensors; and innovative ideas for employing Marines that are attuned to the difficult littoral environment – afloat and ashore. This shift in focus generates a need to look at our equipment across a broader mission range…such as time-critical strike, ballistic and cruise missile defense; littoral and deep water anti-submarine warfare; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; air and ground mobility; and expeditionary maneuver warfare.
We also recognize that we need to recapitalize our force -- by that I mean building new platforms -- for the future. For instance, even as the average age of our ships has been steadily increasing to its present average of 16 years -- and trending upward for the next five or so years -- our building rates have not been keeping apace. Likewise, the average age of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft is about 18 years… close to the age of those Sailors and Marines who maintain them. However, the shape of the Navy of the future may change, as we work to develop a new national military strategy that takes new threats and new opportunities into consideration. Here also building aircraft in sufficient numbers… ideally at economical orders of production… is called for.
We have precious few new programs to recapitalize our forces other than systems like DDG 51, F/A-18E/F, and the new carrier under construction, USS Ronald Reagan. In fact, projected replacement aircraft, such as the F/A-18 E/F and the Joint Strike Fighter do not meet the entire need under current plans, as there are no replacements scheduled for the EA-6B, P-3, or E-2 aircraft and some of our helicopter fleet. New funding may be needed, but I also intend to identify some funding sources through process improvement.
Modernization of our current force is also an imperative because of the requirement to be able to prevail if called upon in the near term. Nonetheless, it is prudent to accept reasonable risk by some reduction of expenditure in these accounts in order to make available assets for recapitalization for the future. ...
The world has changed a great deal over the past decade. But one thing, has not changed: the Navy and Marine Corps needs to deter, train for, and when necessary fight and win our Nation’s battles. As we steam into this new century, I am reminded that forward presence provides an essential benefit for our nation. The Navy and Marine Corps, and in fact the entire U.S. military, contribute to a stable global environment allowing our economy and our citizens to prosper along with other nations and peoples throughout the world. The stabilizing benefits of American military strength are key to our national interests and the well being of the international community. The investment by our nation in its military to underwrite this prosperity is, indeed quite modest.
Note: This column has been adapted from the statement of Secretary England before a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, July 12, 2001.
 How to contact Secretary of the Navy Gordon England
Reading a past guest commentary? Click here for the most current one.
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
