Vice Adm. Robert Harward, USN, deputy commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command, warns that the United States must be as prepared to fight in irregular conflicts as it is for conventional warfare.

The United States has yet to strike a balance between being dominant in regular warfare and being able to fight an irregular war, according to the deputy commander of the Joint Forces Command. Vice Adm. Robert Harward, USN, offered that the United States even might be losing the war in cyberspace.

“You can be militarily dominant and irrelevant,” Adm. Harward stated as he reiterated what most military experts say—an enemy will not fight you in your area of strength. “Our adversaries know what we’re doing … they know better than we do,” he declared.

While the United States may be losing in cyberspace, it will win in Afghanistan, the admiral said. However, the challenge it faces is once again a form of irregular warfare—in this case, information operations. The enemy is portraying U.S. forces negatively to the people of Afghanistan, and the United States must counter that. “The issue isn’t who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in Afghanistan,” he explained. “The issue is do they [the Afghan people] see us as the good guys or the bad guys.”

Future national conflicts may arise from non-state players acting on behalf of a state. Hezbollah, for example, acts on behalf of Iran. This and other sponsored groups could take actions that lead to a war between another nation and the supporting state, Adm. Harward warned.

Fixing Navy shipbuilding was the focus of a panel featuring (l-r) Ronald O’Rourke; Rear Adm. Michael K. Mahon, USN; Fred J. Harris; Vice Adm. Kevin J. Cosgriff, USN (Ret.); and panel moderator Dr. Scott C. Truver.

Change may be good for progress, but it is not good for Navy shipbuilding. A panel of experts addressing how to “fix” Navy shipbuilding agreed that design changes in the process are responsible for most of the ills in Navy shipbuilding. However, they disagreed on many proposed solutions—and whether oft-stated ideas would even work in reality.

Many of the experts did agree on the need for discipline in the design and requirements process. They also want programs to be flexible enough to incorporate new emerging technologies. Yet they could not specify how to produce the best of both worlds.

A totally new perspective was offered by Fred J. Harris, president of General Dynamics NASSCO. Harris described how Korean shipbuilders do not release design drawings until the entire ship design process is completed. When his company built a ship in a Korean shipyard, its processes delivered a ship several months early and 20 percent under budget. Harris said that U.S. shipbuilders do not do enough production design, and he called for early requirements definition and collaboration between government and contractors.

Ronald O’Rourke, specialist in national defense with the Congressional Research Service, said that he believes several approaches may improve shipbuilding. These range from re-assessing the role of analysis over emotion to moving to common hulls and parts for economies of scale. O’Rourke also suggested enabling competition for construction, but Harris did not endorse that concept.

Linda Mills, corporate vice president and president, Northrop Grumman Information Systems Sector, describes how important the defense industry is to the economy.

Providing economic stimulus to the defense sector could be a key part of revitalizing the U.S. economy, said Linda Mills, corporate vice president and president, Northrop Grumman Information Systems Sector. Mills urged that the government take the defense industry into account as it stimulates the economy to keep and create jobs.

Defense is going to be significantly affected by our current economic crisis, Mills stated. She discussed whether it would suffer or benefit from the economic stimulus, and she pointed out that almost all of the military’s equipment is made in the United States. And, defense spending often is the catalyst for enduring economic benefits.

Mills singled out C4ISR systems as being essential regardless of the direction in defense spending. There always will be demand for top C4ISR and cyber capabilities, which she likened to the five senses of the human nervous system in importance to the military.

However, she also warned about the country’s dependence on networks. The nation’s military and commercial networks must be reliably and predictably available and secure, and the threat to these networks cannot be overstated. Mills called for government leadership to unite all aspects of information technology industry in synergistic cooperation on security measures and practices.

How do we find, develop and promote people with the right stuff? Trying to answer that are (l-r) Capt. L. David Marquet, USN (Ret.); Col. Steven M. Hanson, USMC; Rear Adm. Robert P. Girrier, USN; Lt. Col. James R. Crider, USA; and panel moderator Vice Adm. Albert H. Konetzni, USN (Ret.).

New qualities such as initiative, adaptability and technological knowledge are replacing traditional military criteria for leadership. Panelists discussing “how to find, develop and promote people with the right stuff” cited traits that are valuable in the information age of asymmetric warfare. However, the Navy must change its way of rating and promoting personnel if these qualities are to dominate.

Capt. David L. Marquet, USN (Ret.), strategist, Navy’s QDR Integration Group, observed that the number of Navy officers has increased, but the number of officers serving on ships has declined. This will have significant ramifications, particularly in promotion where sea duty is a litmus test.

Rear Adm. Robert L. Girrier, USN, vice commander of the Naval Mine and ASW Command, said the Navy seeks those who value service, loyalty and teamwork and are adaptive, innovative and technically adept. A deep desire for self-improvement is a powerful motivator, he added.

Being under fire brings specific qualities to the fore. Col. Steve Hanson, USMC, assistant chief of staff, G-2, 1st Marine Division, is a former combat advisor team leader in Iraq. He said that the best combat leaders have the courage to work through their fears and are selfless to the point of risking the ultimate sacrifice. Loyalty from the top down is another key quality. A good commander, he said, would have a love for his men in his unit that they would feel—and, in turn, would reciprocate through dedication and loyalty to the point of going against their survival instincts.

But many of these qualities will be overlooked if the Navy does not revamp its personnel system. Several audience members contributed stories about themselves or other naval colleagues whose attempts at self-improvement or advancement were being stymied by the system.

Discussing what it may take to keep people in uniform are (l-r) FORMC Eric W. Page, USN; Lt. Elizabeth Griffiths, USN; MSTC David Getchell, USCG; Capt. Scott Cuomo, USMC; and panel moderator MCOPCG Vince Patton III, USCG (Ret.).

Most service personnel are motivated by a sense of duty to their country, but their services must continue to focus on quality of life—personal as well as professional. These points were driven home in a panel focusing on what it takes to keep people in uniform.

Panel moderator MCOPCG Vince Patton III, USCG (Ret.), noted that the ongoing panel theme seemed to be a focus on family, training and mentoring. If people believe their family needs are being met, and they can benefit from good leadership and professional growth as part of a good team, they are more likely to remain in the service.

Cutting to the chase was Capt. Scott Cuomo, USMC, a scholar at the Expeditionary Warfare School and a former instructor at the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course. Marines “want to win” the Global War on Terrorism, he declared, and that is why they re-enlist in a wartime environment. Citing this commitment to winning, the captain added that Marines also want a similar commitment from government and industry. If there is a challenge out there, he stated, keep sending the Marines into the fight.

This patriotism does not always counter logistical problems, however. U.S. Coast Guard personnel could use some geographical stability, suggested MSTC David Getchell, USCG, chief marine science technician, Coast Guard Sector San Diego. Having longer tours will be better on the family, he said.

Technology will help solve some challenges, said FORMC Eric W. Page, USN, force master chief, commander, Naval Surface Forces. Good technology will help relieve duty pressures and reduce the number of crew required on each ship, he noted.

One panel participant offered insight on why some personnel leave the service. Lt. Elizabeth Griffiths, USN, protocol officer for the secretary of the Navy, expressed regret that this panel represented her last day in uniform. She opted to leave the service because she is the mother of a young boy, and she did not think that she could be the kind of mother she wanted to be if she stayed in the Navy. Her husband also is a Navy officer, and she related how the choice between concurrent deployments—when both would be away from their son for months, and opposite deployments—when neither would be deployed at the same time but they would never see one another—offered no desirable option. She related how she received excellent support during her pregnancy and her maternity leave, but she still faced a challenge as a young parent in a two-military-career family.

Vice Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III, USN, commander, U.S. Third Fleet, describes fleet requirements in a luncheon address.

Many forward deployed ships in the U.S. Navy are becoming independent command and control (C2) nodes as they adapt for more complex missions, according to the commander of the Third Fleet. Vice Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III, USN, told a luncheon audience that C4I is the key enabler for the fleet.

But many requirements dominate Navy wish lists: seamless communication with coalition partners; a common operational picture for sea control; adaptive security measures that are transparent to partners; more automated methods for operations; and continually available afloat networks that run at the same speed as land networks.

Adm. Locklear compared fleet operations requirements to ballistic missile defense. It requires jointness and partnership with other nations, and it also mandates that operations shift from strategic to tactical to theater. Interoperability must include coalition partners, or Navy C4I will not be as effective.

The fleet commander’s top fear is an attack on satellite assets. He allowed that the military knows that other nations are considering it as a military tactic, and how the United States responds to the first strike on a satellite may determine the outcome of the rest of the conflict.

Panelists offering “straight talk from the warfighter” include (r-l) panel moderator Col. Robert Work, USMC (Ret.); Vice Adm. Thomas J. Kilcline, USN; Lt. Gen. Richard F. Natonski, USMC; Rear Adm. Michael C. Bachmann, USN; and Capt. Pete Gumataotao, USN.

The U.S. Navy must re-invent, re-set and re-design to meet its mission challenges in the face of anticipated defense budget cuts, said panelists presenting “straight talk from warfare commanders.” This re-engineering must include new technologies to improve system efficiencies; increased training and simulation; and improved acquisition processes.

Contradicting a previous panel which suggested that the United States should continue to spend about 4 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, Col. Robert Work, USMC (Ret.), vice president, strategic studies, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, declared that an unachievable goal. Not only will defense budgets face cuts because of the current economic environment, pegging defense spending at 4 percent of the GDP would add another trillion dollars to the national debt.

Rear Adm. Michael C. Bachmann, USN, commander, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, chimed in that information technology is a growth area amid declining budgets. He noted that several systems under development or being deployed are drawing interest from non-Defense Department customers. Maritime domain awareness in particular is at the forefront, he declared.

Capt. Pete Gumataotao, former captain of the USS Decatur, said the littoral combat ship (LCS) as a top priority for the Navy. He described the versatile vessel as “a new way” for the Navy.

New technology also is at the heart of re-engineering efforts for Naval Air Forces (NAVAIR). Vice Adm. Thomas J. Kilcline, USN, NAVAIR commander, described how the tailless unmanned combat aerial vehicle that the Navy is testing offers both challenges and opportunities. “We will have that aircraft for our carriers,” he declared.

Rear Adm. Michael McDevitt, USN (Ret.), director, Center for Naval Analyses Strategic Studies (r), discusses China’s modernization as fellow panelist Dr. Jacqueline Newmeyer, president and chief executive officer, Long Term Strategy Group LLC, and panel moderator David Hartman, former host of Good Morning America, listen.

China is moving systematically to be a world power in economics and military operations by 2050, say panelists discussing whether China is a friend or a foe. However, none of this morning’s panelists from the “China: Friend or Foe” breakfast dialogue could resolve that overall issue. They noted that many of China’s moves are based on supporting its long march to modernization, and it sees continued peace in East Asia as a key to achieving that goal. However, it believes it must be able to counter U.S. military power to ensure its continued progress. And, it has gone to war frequently in the past 60 years, often while at peace.

Rear Adm. Michael McDevitt, USN (Ret.), director, Center for Naval Analyses Strategic Studies, noted that China is simultaneously a partner, a competitor and a potential enemy. The Bush Administration “got China right” in its foreign policy, the Obama Administration inherited a good relationship that it mustn’t make worse.

Dr. Jacqueline Newmeyer, president and chief executive officer, Long Term Strategy Group LLC, agreed with Adm. McDevitt on the Bush Administration China legacy, but she noted that China has the “dramatic ambition” to vie with the United States. China does want peace in the region, but it doesn’t want to be encircled by potentially rival or hostile nations.

Adm. McDevitt looked at some issues from China’s perspective. He is concerned that the United States is pursuing a competing strategic framework in Asia, and he noted that most issues are maritime in nature. China’s economic growth engine largely is based in its coastal regions, which are extremely vulnerable to U.S. naval forces.

Newmeyer cast a cautious eye on China’s internal socio-economic structure. She sees “real questions about China’s ability to move up the economic food chain,” particularly given its sclerotic society and government controls that hinder innovative behavior. She also sees “real prospects” for political instability in China, which drives much of the government’s need for internal control.

Panelists discussing “What keeps you up at night?” include (l-r) Vice Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., USN; James P. Craft; Robert J. Carey; Vice Adm. H. Denby Starling, USN; and panel moderator Vice Adm. Herbert A. Browne, USN (Ret.).

No solution to the cyberspace threat seems imminent or even obvious, according to a panel asked “What keeps you up at night?” Cyberspace enemies can attack anywhere, and they don’t need to expend any extraordinary resources to be effect in the infosphere.

Vice Adm. H. Denby Starling II, USN, commander, Naval Network Warfare Command, admitted that he does not have the visibility across the Navy’s networks that most people would agree he needs. And, all an enemy needs is a laptop and access to a Starbuck’s VPN to be a player in cyberwarfare.

The Navy today has a network operations model that is highly people-dependent, he added. Building new networks that are human labor intensive is a non-starter. Security must move away from people dependency as much as possible.

Acquisition is a headache, implied Robert J. Carey, Department of the Navy Chief Information Officer. Regulations and laws hinder development, and cycle times cannot keep pace with information technology.

Vice Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., USN, deputy chief of naval operations for communications networks (N-6), echoed Carey’s remarks. “We’re fighting an information age war with industrial age acquisition,” the admiral stated.

Carey surprised no one when he said that the Navy is moving too slowly into Web 2.0 technologies and capabilities. Most of the Navy’s processes are digitized paper processes, and he emphasized that this must change. When the Navy fully enters the world of Web 2.0, it will free up resources that can be used to acquire other vital systems such as ships.

But none of these efforts will matter if attention is not paid to the supply chain, said James Craft, deputy director, C4/deputy chief information officer of the Marine Corps. Craft warned that if no one can trust foreign sources in the supply chain for weapons systems, then “everything we do is a wash.”

Craft challenged industry to come up with the solutions for Navy IT challenges. Industry should develop open-source solutions and standards “to scratch its own itch,” he said.

Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz, USA, director, Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), offers solutions for defeating IEDs to the audience at West 2009.

The only way to defeat improvised explosive devices (IEDs) is to treat them as strategic weapons, says Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz, USA, director, Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). And, with that approach, networking may be the key enabler.

“We are in a long war against extremists,” the general stated, and he described in blunt terms the atrocities these extremists commit against innocent people, particularly women. This will be a long fight against an enemy whose weapon of choice is the IED.

Gen. Metz described many traditional networking capabilities that are necessary for broad countermeasures against IEDs. These capabilities include being able to access broad types of information on adversaries likely to use IEDs; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance optimization; among network-centric data sharing.

He also revealed that his organization discovered an IED “research and development” organization in Baghdad, and U.S. forces shut it down.

Predictive analysis will help, but achieving it will be extremely difficult, and Gen. Metz does not expect an ideal solution anytime soon. The Defense Department’s data sharing environment is not robust enough for analysts, he said.

Gen. Metz used an audio-visual demonstration of Google Earth capabilities to show what an analyst could learn from real-time, open-source information. Adding classified data to this capability would give the analyst great power to prevent IED incidents and allow forces to attack IED networks, he stated.

The general emphasized that country should maintain JIEDDO even if it pulls forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The threat could come home easily, and then people would clamor for this type of organization after the fact.