The U.S. Navy is re-tailoring its force as it realizes efficiencies driven by budgetary needs, according to the undersecretary of the Navy. Robert O. Work enthusiastically told the audience at Wednesday’s West 2011 luncheon that the new budget direction is giving the Navy opportunities to build the type of force that it needs for the coming decades.

“Our shipbuilding program is more stable than it has been in a decade,” Work declared.

Work described how many budget savings have been re-allocated to other programs, which is providing long-term savings through accelerated development. Some of the programs that were cut were doing well, but they fell into the category of “exquisite capabilities”—highly desirable, but not absolutely necessary. The savings were redirected toward programs that were essential to the Navy’s future.

“We accelerated things that we knew we needed,” he related.

The Navy will “buy smarter,” acquiring exactly the same as it bought last year, but for $8.5 billion less, he continued. However, he admits that what keeps him up at night is the continuing resolution under which the Navy is operating now. The Navy is capped at 2010 levels and cannot begin new programs. “We’ve got to get that fixed,” Work charged, “or it will force the Department of the Navy to make stupid and irrevocable decisions.”

The dynamic modernization of China’s economy and society may owe more to momentum than careful planning. Dr. Xinjun Zhang, associate professor of public international law, Tsinghua University, Beijing, offered that he believes that China does not have a vision guiding the massive changes that define China today.

Zhang offered that China’s current policies have emerged from Deng Xiaoping’s approaches, which he implied were a bit too pragmatic. Speaking at a policy panel that included former U.S. Pacific Command head Adm. Timothy J. Keating, USN (Ret), and moderated by former Good Morning America host David Hartman, Zhang said a lack of vision has plagued much of Chinese policy.

This extended to the lack of progress on reunifying Taiwan with the mainland. While not claiming to be a Maoist, Zhang did praise People’s Republic of China founder Mao Zedong for his vision. Zhang even said that if Mao were to return, he would come up with a solution for reunification.

Zhang warned against pressuring China on human rights and other internal policies. China has “a very complicated government,” he said, as it tries to run a diverse country rife with different ethnic groups and languages. Maintaining stability is important both to China and to the rest of the world.

“I cannot imagine the consequence to the globe without a stable ruling government in China,” Zhang declared.

China and the United States are plagued by a “strategic mistrust” that hinders relations between the two. That statement was made by Adm. Timothy J. Keating, USN (Ret.), former commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, in a panel discussion with Dr. Xinjun Zhang, associate professor of public international law, Tsinghua University, Beijing, that was moderated by former Good Morning America host David Hartman.

To the audience, that strategic mistrust was evident in the exchange of comments between Zhang and Adm. Keating throughout the panel. Both expressed their country’s points of view in direct opposition to each other’s. Despite an amicable atmosphere, the two men expressed diametrically opposed views even when they shared the same policy goals.

Adm. Keating called for greater understanding through transparency and communication, while Zhang said that China feels threatened by U.S. surveillance ships and aircraft at the edge of its territory.

Perhaps issues with North Korea personified the differences best. Both men agreed that their countries’ policies aimed at having a non-nuclear Korean peninsula, and both agreed that removing nuclear weapons development from North Korea was essential. However, Adm. Keating emphasized the urgency of quick action before North Korea developed an effective nuclear arsenal, while Zhang called for patience to maintain stability while all sides worked toward the same goal.

The battlespace dominance enjoyed by U.S. forces for two decades may be disappearing as many potential adversaries begin to employ the very technologies that have served U.S. forces. Dick Diamond Jr., national security trends and strategic issues analyst with Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, warned that the near monopoly enjoyed by the United States in precision guided munitions (PGMs) and surveillance is going away.

“We may not be able to conduct our favorite American way of war in the future,” Diamond declared.

Moderating a West 2011 panel focusing on unmanned systems, Diamond went on to say that the United States may not be able to position forces forward for fighting at a time of its choosing. These forces would be vulnerable to other countries that are procuring PGMs at affordable prices. As a result, maritime forces will need to be positioned farther away from shore.

And, information dominance may be the key battlefield of the future. “Just ask the Iranian nuclear engineers,” Diamond offered.

The U.S. Marine Corps will need to innovate while maintaining its traditional amphibious capabilities as nations act more in their own interests, suggests a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) deputy commander. Maj. Gen. Melvin G. Spiese, USMC, deputy commanding general, 1 MEF, told a West 2011 luncheon audience that the Corps is exploring innovative solutions to meet new international contingencies.

“The U.S. Marine Corps has never met the nation’s needs by being conventional in its approach,” the general declared.

Gen. Spiese emphasized that Marine Corps capabilities hinge on its being able to interoperate with the U.S. Navy. Among those capabilities is amphibious assault, which—as opposed to many new doctrines—remains relevant and important.

The general stated that most nations, including friends, act in their own interests. As a result, it is harder to arrange for allies to go along with U.S. policies. Nations change their policies over time as their national interests change. The United States cannot assume these nations will support it as a matter of fact, Gen. Spiese stated. So, the United States should not place itself in a position where pursuing its interests rely on the policies of another nation.

The U.S. Navy faces an uncertain future if coming defense cuts strike at its shipbuilding budget. The sea service already is underfunded for its shipbuilding program, so cuts in that area could have severe ramifications in its mission-oriented capabilities.

Ronald O’Rourke, a specialist in national defense with the Congressional Research Service, told a panel audience at West 2011 that the Navy did not have procurements that it can cut. The Navy did not use supplemental defense funding to procure new platforms, so it does not have programs that it can cut.

“Some of the lower-hanging fruit in terms of efficiencies already have been picked,” O’Rourke said.

Nor will efficiencies alone be able to make up budget requirements. While the Navy likely will be able to find future efficiencies, if the decline is more than a certain amount then efficiencies etc will not be enough to make ends meet, O’Rourke said.

Without its needed capabilities, the Navy could cut back on ocean deployments by limiting them to specific areas. It also could rely more on unmanned aerial systems and extend the operational lives of older ships and submarines.

The U.S. Navy may have gone too far in emphasizing defensive measures over offensive capabilities, which it may need to rectify quickly. Vice Adm. Richard W. Hunt, USN, commander, U.S. Third Fleet, told the Kickoff Address audience at West 2011 that the recent emphasis on missile defense and cyberspace security may have overlooked the need to maintain leading-edge offensive capabilities in related areas.

“We’ve stepped away and become too defensive,” the admiral declared.

The Navy needs to develop offensive capabilities to take the fight to the adversary instead of merely being reactive, he continued. Protecting the fleet is necessary, but the sea service must not neglect its strike mission. In particular, while citing the importance of cybersecurity, the admiral called for an offensive cyberspace capability—“look at it from a warfighter perspective,” he said.

Maintaining maritime security will require humanitarian activities as well as traditional gunboat diplomacy, according to a U.S. Navy fleet commander. Vice Adm. Richard W. Hunt, USN, commander, U.S. Third Fleet, told the Kickoff Address audience at West 2011 that being able to provide disaster response and humanitarian assistance will be vital for ensuring maritime security.

Many nations “could go either way” in either supporting or opposing U.S. national interests, the admiral explained. If the United States can respond rapidly and effectively when one of those nations suffers a natural disaster, that action could be the tipping agent that swings the nation into the U.S. column, he said.

“It’s not just kinetic power … we must be a global force for good,” Adm. Hunt declared.

Securing cyberspace first requires knowing exactly what it is. That may seem logical, but the nation still lacks a precise definition of cyberspace, and that definition may be vital to make necessary changes in that realm.

Marcus H. Sachs, executive director of government affairs for national security and cyber policy, Verizon, told the Wednesday morning panel audience at TechNet Asia-Pacific 2010 that cyberspace is the one basic operational environment that is man-made. Land, sea and air cannot be altered substantially; however, people built cyberspace and people can alter it to suit their needs. Unfortunately, he said, people seem all too willing just to accept cyberspace as it is without addressing their concerns.

“Fundamentally, the network’s core is rotten. It’s optimized for criminal activities,” Sachs said, adding that this was not the intent of the network designers in the 1970s.

“We must rethink what we want the network to be, and we must get past these old protocols,” he offered. “We need to write the rules. Right now, our adversaries are writing the rules.”