Military Modernization Remains a Priority Amid Budget Constraints

West 2015

The SIGNAL Magazine Online Show Daily

Day 2 

Quote of the Day:

“In the past, we would defeat a challenge with the turn of a firing key. But today, the firing key alone is not enough.”—Adm. Philip S. Davidson, USN, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command

Even with the Damoclean Sword of continuing sequestration cuts hanging over budget submissions, the sea services continue to look toward modernization as a key aspect of future force operation. In some cases, planners are hoping for an end to sequestration and the flexibility that would bring to near- and long-term modernization plans. For others, targeted modernization is a way to offset some of the damaging effects of the Draconian budget cuts.

Where sequestration had been the focal point of discussions only 24 hours earlier, Wednesday at West 2015 featured force modernization as its focal point. Military, civilian government and industry leaders discussed modernization plans as well as the ailing defense information technology acquisition architecture.

The one military service that includes operational elements of all the others is the U.S. Marine Corps, and it is relying on networking to help it carry out new missions with fewer personnel. Maj. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson, USMC, commanding general, 1st Marine Division, explained that smaller groups of Marines will have more capabilities than larger units had just a few years ago. As a result, they will include experts, such as intelligence analysts, who would be able to perform advanced tasks because of greater network capabilities.

He emphasized the importance of tactical networking by saying, “Power down, power down, power down,” with regard to getting information into the hands of the warfighter.

In terms of overall equipment, the Marine Corps is focusing on six capability areas, according to Brig. Gen. Joseph Shrader, USMC, commander, Marine Corps Systems Command. These six areas are: fires; network on the move; building up a Marine expeditionary force command element to be able to transition rapidly to a task force element forward; cyber; live virtual constructive training; and ground combat tactical vehicles.

Vice Adm. Ted N. Branch, USN, deputy chief of naval operations for information dominance, N-2/N-6, and director of naval intelligence, told of how the Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) system is the Navy’s network to the tactical edge. He added that the Navy needs the tactical cloud with reachback as well as maritime tactical command and control for a fused operational picture that will give the commander vital decision aids.

One U.S. Navy admiral sees opportunity in the budget cuts. Rear Adm. David H. Lewis USN, commander, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, pointed out that each interwar period since World War I featured significant advances or breakthroughs in military technologies or doctrines—and each of these periods was characterized by virtually no money for defense systems. “This is our opportunity to really innovate,” he declared.

In addition to technology modernization, new ways of training are playing a significant role both in saving money and in adjusting to new missions. Adm. Philip S. Davidson, USN, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, allowed that the U.S. Navy is focusing on training its personnel to overcome adversaries that are closing the technology gap with the fleet. Superior technology is not always a solution to adversaries with diverse approaches to undoing that technological edge.

“In the past, we would defeat a challenge with the turn of a firing key. But today, the firing key alone is not enough,” Adm. Davidson pointed out.

He continued that the Navy is looking at being able to wage electromagnetic maneuver warfare in what may be an increasingly contested digital environment. This discipline would take into account adversarial spectrum denial and cyber operations that hinder the use of many embedded systems.

The core of this approach is to train the fleet to operate in denied bandwidth environments, the admiral noted. This would include a Global Positioning System (GPS)-denied environment. Marines also are training by cutting off all digital networks and going to voice only, noted Gen. Nicholson. “It’s not going to get jammed by some cyberhacker,” he said of traditional radio frequency voice communications.

Discussion of budgetary issues focused less on shortages and more on how to stretch scarce funds. One point that featured almost universal agreement was the broken status of defense information technology acquisition. Both government and industry came in for criticism.

Dr. John Zangardi, acting chief information officer, Department of the Navy, said a program manager’s job is increasingly more difficult with all the rules and regulations. He wondered how much centralized management is good for information technology. Zangardi also pointed out that, unlike shipbuilding or aircraft construction in which government controls the process, industry is in control of information technology.

Gordon R. England, former secretary of the Navy and former deputy secretary of defense, said that many factors keep the Defense Department from operating as a rational enterprise. For example, when he was at the department there were 27 layers of authority from the secretary on down, and the department had 128 studies on how to improve acquisition.

Ellen Lord, president and CEO of Textron Systems Corporation, expanded on England’s description by pointing out the government has “oversight on top of oversight on top of oversight.” She noted that her company has as many as three times the auditors reviewing programs that it used to have. All the time spent attending to audits is time taken away from innovation, she pointed out.

Jerry DeMuro, president and CEO of BAE Systems, added that his firm has audits for 2005 and 2006 that haven’t been completed yet. Addressing England’s comment about Defense Department layers, DeMuro said, “It would be difficult to find someone who says these added layers are improving the product or getting it to the warfighters. It’s time and money we are not spending on innovation.”

Lord offered that companies serving the Defense Department should use commercial practices for providing systems to the military. They should look at the defense market and make smart bets on what the military would need, just as they do when bringing a product to the commercial marketplace.

Ultimately, the much-despised sequestration cuts may be on their way out. James McAleese, a Washington, D.C., attorney who specializes in defense procurement with McAleese and Associates PC, predicted the government will see a last-minute sequester deal in 2016, although it will be late in the year. So, the Defense Department would receive 30 percent to 50 percent of its $38 billion request above the sequestration topline—about $13 billion to $19 billion. Even that limited funding will provide vital help in some key areas.

On the final day of West 2015:

An address by Vice Adm. Jan Tighe, USN, commander, Fleet Cyber Command and commander, Tenth Fleet; along with panel discussions on the Indo-Asia Pacific region and the sea service leaders’ priorities.