The SIGNAL Blog

The military needs innovation more than ever, but it is less equipped to take advantage of it by nature of its structure. Overcoming that institutional inertia will be absolutely essential for the military to meet its mission needs against the backdrop of severe budget cuts.

The importance of defense innovation was the focus of a Wednesday morning panel discussion at AFCEA/USNI West 2013 in San Diego. Rear Adm. Terry B. Kraft, USN, commander of the Navy Warfare Development Command, set the tone for his fellow panelists when he pointed out that large organizations find it difficult to embrace innovation, as they prefer stability to change.

Maj. Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., USMC, Marine Corps representative to the Quadrennial Defense Review, allowed that military organizations are hierarchal—and hierarchal organizations tend to punish those who challenge the hierarchy, such as innovators. He added that people innovate when they feel threatened. The Marine Corps constantly feels threatened organizationally, so it often turns to innovation.

Adm. Kraft noted that the military used to drive innovation. Now that role is performed by the private sector. The admiral called for making innovation a culture that will empower change.

Rear Adm. Matthew L. Klunder, USN, chief of naval research/director, innovation, technology requirements and test and evaluation, called for using innovation to turn the tables on adversaries. The days of developing multimillion-dollar systems to counter adversaries with inexpensive asymmetric systems are gone, he posited. Instead, the U.S. military should counter them with inexpensive innovations.

The U.S. Pacific Fleet will not be able to meet its mission priorities easily if any of a variety of pending budget cuts comes to pass, according to its commander. Adm. Cecil D. Haney, USN, commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet, told the Wednesday morning keynote audience at AFCEA/USNI West 2013 in San Diego that both the continuing resolution and sequestration offer distinct challenges to the fleet’s ability to meet its obligations amid the strategic rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region.

The admiral notes that the continuing resolution has underfunded operation and maintenance by $3 billion. The nature of the continuing resolution limits the U.S. military’s ability to react to contingencies by not allowing the transfer of funds from different sources into operational accounts.

Sequestration is “a whole new ball game,” he said. It could bring an additional $4 billion to $5 billion in cuts this year alone. And, if both the continuing resolution and sequestration are coupled together, the result will be a true worst-case scenario.

The Pacific Fleet is trying to address its new mission areas, the admiral said. This includes an enhanced ability to operate in a contested environment with low-signature interoperability. It also includes being able to integrate data to deliver integrated fires rapidly.

The U.S. Navy increasingly will need to rely on nonmilitary means to solve problems in the Asia-Pacific region. The U.S. strategic rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific region continues, but its implementation will need to adjust to account for budgetary constraints.

Undersecretary of the Navy Robert O. Work explained some of these nuances to a packed luncheon audience at AFCEA/USNI West 2013 in San Diego. Work noted that many large- and medium-size Asia-Pacific nations are increasing the size of their navies and other maritime forces. By comparison, most European nations are shrinking their fleets.

With this growth in Asia-Pacific naval capabilities comes an increase in gunboat diplomacy, Work notes. States that might seem more likely to use gunboat diplomacy could cause a problem for U.S. interests there. Accordingly, the U.S. Navy must remain engaged in the region.

Work also pitched the Navy and the Marine Corps as “a sure bet” for carrying out the Asia-Pacific strategy, especially in a down defense market.

U.S. Navy shipbuilding will sail on in spite of potentially severe budget cuts, according to the undersecretary of the Navy. Robert O. Work, giving the luncheon keynote address to a packed audience at AFCEA/USNI West 2013, declared that the Navy would achieve its goal of a 300-ship Navy “by hook or by crook” by 2019.

Calling the shipbuilding program “the best it has ever been since the heyday of the 600-ship Navy” during the Reagan Administration, Work noted that the 42 additional ships currently planned all are under contract, and most of these contracts are fixed-price.

Still, the Navy will have to realize savings and cuts elsewhere to address what undoubtedly will be a tight budget. “‘Flat’ is the new ‘up’ in this defense budget environment,” he said, quipping, “We have an average budget … lower than last year, higher than next year.”

And, sequestration might be catastrophic, he added. The Navy might have to furlough its civilian workers for 22 days, which would have serious effects on both Navy operations and the personal lives of those furloughed. That would be only one of many severe repercussions that would afflict the Navy.

“If we have sequestration, we will have a hollow force by the end of the year,” he warned.