Month: March 2023

Source: United States Navy

ANNOUNCER:  Our next speaker is well-known for his focus on preparing for the potential China fight.  He has been laser-focused on manning, training, readiness, and magazine depth.  Please welcome Admiral Michael Gilday.

ADMIRAL MICHAEL M. GILDAY:  Good morning. 

JIM MCALEESE:  Good morning, sir!

ADM. GILDAY:  Mic’s working OK?  Good. 

MR. MCALEESE:  Yes, sir.

ADM. GILDAY:  It’s good to be back.  Jim, thanks for having me back and for all the invisible hands that have put this conference together.  [Want to] thank them as well.

I wanted to briefly touch on four areas this morning, and then hopefully get into some good dialogue back and forth.  Just coming back from the west coast and the historic AUKUS agreement that was signed by the three heads of state.  Probably the most significant multilateral defense agreement in a generation — that puts us on quite a path for the next twenty, thirty, forty years with two key allies. 

President’s Budget (PB)24.  So budget rollout was Monday.  I’ll talk a little bit about PB24.  And what I’d like to do is just give a little bit of background on really what drove the investments that we made and how we’re trying to draw that consistency across the next couple or three FYDPs, so that we end up in the late 2040s with the hybrid fleet that we envision, in the air would be 60% unmanned and 40% manned, and on the sea 40% unmanned and 60% manned. 

So we did very – the Navy – did very well in the budget this year in terms of inside the Pentagon competing for money across a number of areas.  And so in our accounts, from personnel to procurement, to operations and maintenance to Research and Development (R&D), we’ve seen increases anywhere from 2.5-6.5%.  Notably, I think, for shipbuilding, which is always a high interest area, nearly $33 billion, which is the largest shipbuilding budget – or, proposed budget – ever.  In aircraft procurement we dropped just slightly to 17.3 billion [dollars] from 19 [billion dollars].  So about an 8% drop, I think.  But we’re still procuring some 15 F-35s.

Installations, where we’re putting some focus right now, where we have taken a dip in the past over a long period of time and have not invested in bases and places as significantly as we think we should have.  We are trying to get back on step to maintain some level funding there with an increase in installation funding of nearly 20%.

So, taking a look at the friction between near-term readiness and being able to fight tonight, and the pressure that we have to be able to field a force that can prevail, and I believe would prevail if we did have to fight tonight, balancing that against long-term competition and the investments we need to make over the long term.  So in my Navigation Plan I talk about six attributes.  And those attributes not only influence how we think about prioritizing the investments that we make today, but also, as we take a look at the long term and the transitions that we have to make, to maintain that kind of consistency because we think that these attributes, which include distance (so think long-range fires), deception (counter-C5ISRT, the ability to maneuver the force), defense (new investments that we’re making in high-power microwave and directed energy, as an example), delivery (investments we’re making in resupply – so think our new John Lewis oiler class, which we have one of those in this budget, as well as taking a look at unmanned possibility with respect to combat logistics), and then distribution (so coming at any potential adversary across many vectors – both in the virtual and the physical – from seabed to space, heavily leveraging everything that Gen. Saltzman talked about, as well as everything that Cyber Command brings to bear), and then lastly, decision advantage (so that’s putting us in a position, we think, to not only decide, but act faster than any adversary). 

So central to that effort, of course, is the investments we’re making in Project Overmatch, which we believe is going to deliver not only the Navy’s next-generation operational architecture, we believe that that will be the bedrock of the Joint Tactical Network of the future. That allows us to take any data, to push it over any network, in a software-defined environment, where the software decides what the prioritized information is and how that data’s going to flow to the endpoint – whether that’s a decisionmaker or whether that’s a weapon system.  As you’re probably aware, as many of you are aware, right now we have scaled Overmatch to a carrier strike group that’s operating off the coast of California now.  And then we’re looking to scale that fleet-wide after that, and to scale even further across the Navy.

If I look at the Navy’s progress with respect to funding over the last three budget cycles, if I take a look at PB’21 to PB’24 – actually, four budget cycles – we have seen a 37% increase, some $55 billion across that period of time.  Much of that has been from Congress.  All of it is appreciated.  But that kind of substantial growth is not going to last.  The Navy has found $207 billion in savings ourselves over the past decade.  In this decade, out running through the FYDP, we’ve identified more than $75 billion worth of savings.  That kind of work must continue.  I think Senator Ernst (R-Iowa) this morning talked about a DOD that needs to be able to deliver smarter, faster, and there was one other adjective that she used, lethal.  Lethal.  I’m onboard.

But we have work to do ourselves to find more efficiencies and to take that money and to invest it in those areas that we need most.  Now, if you take a look at that 55 billion [dollars] and you think about that 37% increase, what probably ought to come to your mind is that, well, I’m not seeing the size of the Navy grow.  And that’s very true.  So we’ve said up front that we’re not going to have a force that we can’t sustain, and we are not going to field a hollow force. 

And so our priorities remain readiness, modernization of the current force – 70% of which we’ll have in a decade.  So it’s got to be able to keep pace or outpace the threat.  And then capacity.  Numbers matter.  They absolutely matter, particularly if we’re going to fight in a distributed way.  But, again, I go back to the tension between having a force that’s ready to fight tonight and a force that needs to be competitive for the future.  We want to make sure that we can prevail.

So kind of laying out where we are with the budget, the investments that we’ve made, our thinking with respect to how that’ll carry us forward.  We’re doing a lot of work – if I could talk about the third area real quick, which is driving adaptability and then effecting change.  And, in some cases, you can go right to effecting change very quickly.  And effecting change would be taking a look at the way you’re doing things and taking a look at new ways to do them.  I think of Project Overmatch as an example of that, that accelerates that kind of change. 

I think that most of what we do, though, is we’ve become more adaptive, right?  You see us leveraging unmanned in the Middle East.  You see us learning and leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) in the Middle East.  Not only in terms of commanding and controlling unmanned platforms – we’ll have 100 unmanned platforms that are providing maritime domain awareness in the Middle East by this July – but it’s also taking a look at that data lake of information that we’re collecting not only through unmanned platforms, but also that we get through all of our intelligence sources. And then making sense of the environment – being more predictive about patterns of life with ships, with arms that are flowing, with terrorists that are flowing, with routes that potential bad actors might take advantage of. 

And so it allows us to put us in a position of advantage with respect to being more predictive and putting us in a place where we can make an intercept in a much more impactful way than we have been able to do in the past, rather than trying to, you know, find a needle in a stack of needles.  Doing so in a much more informed kind of way.  So there are other ways that we are also taking a look at how we can leverage new technologies.  I think microprocessing, whether we’re using applications in our manpower efforts or whether we’re putting them in the hands of warfighters to make decisions faster and to be able to launch – to take kinetic action quicker – we’re seeing a lot of progress here. 

We’re learning from what the Ukrainians are doing.  One of the things I found remarkable in Ukraine is the fact that they’ve taken many of their citizens from industry, people like you, who are now on the front lines.  They are bringing all of that innovative drive to the battlefield.  And they are changing the way – the Ukrainians are learning war as they’re fighting war.  And for the United States Navy, and I think for the other services as well, it’s one of the most important lessons that we can extoll as we talk to our sailors and our junior officers about their biggest takeaways from that conflict, and how they can make a difference as critical thinkers.

The last thing that I wanted to mention before we go to Q&A is the “arsenal of democracy.”  And that is – that is a title that this country has earned.  It is one of our hallmarks.  It goes back to one of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s (FDR) fireside chats in the early – probably around December 1940, I think.  It is the benchmark for the world.  As I have met with over 40 heads of navy in the past year, discussion about the U.S. defense industrial base is central to all of those discussions.  What are we doing with them to be more interoperable?  In some cases, AUKUS would be an example to be more interchangeable.  And I talk about industry, all you’re doing for us, and they appreciate all you’re doing for them.

But just as the Navy has plenty of work to do under Get Real, Get Better to improve ourselves – I talked about finding additional savings that we can repurpose to make ourselves more capable and more lethal.  I admire some of the efforts that are ongoing in industry.  As an example, and I’ll just talk about the submarine industrial base for a moment, right now they’re producing between 1.2 and 1.4 attack boats a year.  They absolutely need to be at two or above two.  And so part of what they’re doing is strategic outsourcing, where they’re sending a lot of their work – beginning to send more of their work to smaller firms around the country.  And we think that that is going to end up giving us a significant lift, perhaps as much as 0.5 submarines a year here, as we make those kinds of investments.

As all of you are aware, U.S. government subsidizing the shipbuilding industry went away during the Reagan administration.  You’re now beginning to see those subsidies come back.  Some nearly 2.5 billion [dollars] over the FYDP for the submarine industry alone.  A shipbuilder down in the Gulf Coast, taking advantage of the Defense Production Act, to shift their production lines from aluminum to steel.  Some very innovative – now, you know, a shift like that is not inconsequential for a company that size.  And so imagine the board, those are some tense discussions as they made those decisions.  But I think the United States government putting that money in was really important, and probably very much – at least from my view – very much appreciated.

That kind of lift for the industrial base is long overdue.  But what I’d ask of the industrial base, I go back to that moniker of “arsenal of democracy.”  And I appeal to your patriotism, that when you go back to the field to reiterate to your folks, those skilled laborers, just how important their work is.  Whether they’re repairing ships and aircraft or whether they’re building them, how absolutely critical that work is, in a critical decade.  And I would ask all of you to take a stronger look at how you can increase productivity. 

I know, I listen to – I read some of your reports quarterly.  I know that the free flow of cash is important.  I know paying down debts is important.  Delivery of product is my number one ask of you, that that become your number-one priority.  And I know that, you know, if you deliver quicker, you know, you get that final payment when you bring something over the line.  But I would ask that that be – for the country – that that be your top priority.

OK.  With that, let’s take it to questions.  And I’m happy to field anything that you have.

MR. MCALEESE:  Sir, we’ve got plenty of time.

ADM. GILDAY:  Oh, good.  Well, nobody’s ever told me, hey, I wish you’d talk longer, so. 

(Laughter)

MR. MCALEESE:  Sure.  Yes, sir.  We did – we did schedule an extra three hours just for you, sir.

ADM. GILDAY:  Yeah.  I think that probably sets the table.  I could go – you know, I figured we’d go deeper during Q&A to wherever the audience wants to go.

AUDIENCE:  Admiral?

ADM. GILDAY:  Yes.

AUDIENCE:  Yes, thank you, Admiral.  Oh, sorry.  My name is Heberto Limas.  I’m a consultant at Bain & Company.

I have a quick question on SIOP.  Right now the GAO has estimated that SIOP will be going over budget and under schedule.  What is the Department of the Navy’s plans to ensure that SIOP goes back on track and back on the budget eventually?

ADM. GILDAY:  Yeah, so I’d tell you, we’re on track up at Portsmouth.  So Portsmouth, New Hampshire, the shipyard there is our first major investment in terms of drydocks, a drydock that’s about 100 years old.  So, as you can imagine, like a version of “This Old House,” there were some things to learn.  What we did and what we learned in Portsmouth is we took those lessons learned from industry and we applied them in Hawaii, which was a more complex – which will be a more complex drydock project.  So in the same manner by which the Navy has the lead but we’re levering shipbuilders in the design of DDG(X) and SSN(X), we’re doing the same thing in the SIOP project. 

We are bringing industry in to help us make much better-informed decisions on how we’re going to approach these not once in a generation, once in a century investment projects.  So we are applying lessons learned.  We’re already in the water doing work in Hawaii for drydock three.  And that should go under contract by the end of this month.  So it’s not perfect.  We are trying to be a learning organization and to improve ourselves with every single project in SIOP.

Yes.

AUDIENCE:  Adm. Gilday, my name is Harry Kelso.  I’m a lawyer in private practice.  I used to be a lawyer there at the Pentagon.

And I was struck by one thing in terms of the comparison of the number of ships that the Navy had in the ’80s, when we were fighting – going up against the USSR.  And now we have less – even fewer ships, and we got a much larger adversary with China.  Is there any concern that we don’t have enough ships to take care of the security in the seas?

ADM. GILDAY:  Every study that’s been done since 2016, whether it’s been inside the Pentagon, in industry, academia, has concluded that we need a larger Navy.  Every single one of them.  The law says 355.  The latest studies that we’ve conducted have been 355 manned plus another 150 unmanned.  In the middle of another assessment right now that we will deliver to Congress in June.  Those are not perpetual end states.  We are learning from war games.  We’re learning from exercises.  We’re learning from fleet battle problems, from analysis that’s being done both inside the Pentagon and outside the Pentagon. 

So we are not satisfied with the trajectory that we’re on.  We think that it needs to be a steeper climb to 355, to answer your question directly.  If you take a look at the alternatives in the shipbuilding plan, specifically in the last plan that was submitted in 2022, alternative three shows a path to 355 that’s informed by the capacity of industry.  And it makes the assumption that in order to make 355 by, let’s say, the mid-to-late 2030s, you need an injection of 3-5% of resources above our top line.  So we’ve got a ways to go.

ADM. GILDAY:  Yes.

AUDIENCE:  Actually, on subsidies, very interesting point.  And then, you know, in the ’80s, when Reagan disestablished the subsidies, commercial shipbuilding in this country went away.  And the impact on the industrial base and the necessity for the SCN account to carry the whole shipbuilding infrastructure in the country has just driven prices to the moon.  So are you seeing – when you comment on that, and you talk about subsidies – are you seeing that as a sort of Band-Aids, and bits and pieces?  Or are you seeing an appetite at the higher levels and at the secretariat to really bring that capability back, fund it to the level necessary to really get some commercial shipbuilding so we can help offset the humps and valleys of Navy shipbuilding?  Thank you.

ADM. GILDAY:  Yeah, that’s a good point.  So probably the best example would be the submarine industrial base, submarines being our most lethal, stealthy platform that we have with overmatch against any other adversary that we would face right now.  We want to maintain that overmatch.  So our cadence of production for submarines, as far as the eye can see, is two attack boats, plus Columbia, a year.  Columbia is the priority.  So Congress – well, Congress has not yet passed the budget that we just submitted, but in that budget is I think 2.4 billion [dollars] in investment in the submarine industrial base. 

That won’t just go to the two big shipbuilders, which are HII Newport News and Electric Boat up in Groton, but those other companies that I talked about, that we’re doing that strategic outsourcing with, they need to get some of that money.  They need to make the investments in their infrastructure, in their workforce, so that we can sustain that 2.0 cadence, which, by the way, needs to go above 2.0 attack boats a year if we’re going to be in a position to sell any to the Australians.

So there’s a lot of support.  To directly answer your question, there’s a lot of support and a recognition in the Pentagon that that’s important.  What we owe – what the Navy owes – is rigorous oversight in terms of how that funding’s applied.  And we need to see a return on investment for it.  It can’t just be spending for spending’s sake.  So we are really – and, in fact, we’re putting together an organization now that would include a substantial institutionalized organization to oversee AUKUS. 

And those – in the submarine world, there are four big pillars that are tied together.  There’s investments we’re making in undersea domain awareness.  You have your SSBN line.  You have your SSN line.  And then you have AUKUS.  And so there are dependencies across all of those lines.  And they need to be tied together. 

Anyway, I hope I answered your question.  But there’s other – there’s other companies, many represented in this room, that have also been getting injections of capex from the DOD through Navy accounts.

AUDIENCE:  Hi.  This is Brandi Vincent.  I’m a reporter with DefenseScoop.  Thank you.  Over here. 

ADM. GILDAY:  Oh, sorry, ma’am.

AUDIENCE:  Thank you so much, Admiral, for doing this.  I’m Brandi Vincent, a reporter with DefenseScoop.

You spoke a little bit about plans to really scale Project Overmatch going forward, but can you dig a little deeper for us about plans for fiscal year 2024 with Project Overmatch?  What are you expecting and what would you really like to see accomplished?

ADM. GILDAY:  Yeah.  I want to see a successful instantiation in the [Carl] Vinson [Carrier] Strike Group as they deploy.  So we are – when we’re doing experimentation now – and you see the same thing in [U.S.] 5th Fleet with unmanned – it’s not experimentation for experimentation’s sake.  I am trying – we are trying – to experiment and deliver capability within the FYDP against real-world problems.  So Overmatch gives us the ability, right, to sense, to make sense of, to make decisions, and then to act quicker than the adversary, in a way that is resilient and adaptable.  And so I’m expecting big things out of Vinson [Carrier] Strike Group this year.  We can make a decision on where we put – you know, what elements do we accelerate, what elements do we sundown and pivot from, what have we learned?  And so I’m learning – I want to use the Vinson to accelerate the scaling.

Yes, sir. Good morning, how are you?

AUDIENCE:  Good morning.  J.C. with NetApp.

How’s the morale, particularly with going, you know, 40% unmanned?  You know, how do you see, one, morale and, two, what kind of recruiting and workforce do you need in the future to run all those unmanned vessels, going from 60/40 split, particularly with our air wings?

ADM. GILDAY:  Thanks, admiral.  A lot of excitement.  A lot of excitement.  In fact, we are opening up a new robotics rating.  You see elements of the Navy that do a lot of work with AI and robotics.  Explosive ordnances demolition would be an example.  And so we are leveraging what we’ve learned in communities like that to take the aviation community as we work manned/unmanned teaming with the MQ-25 and the current air wing.  The same thing with the undersea, as one of the vendors here in the crowd delivers our XLUUV this year, four more next year, and we deploy those forward.

So we are – I will say, our approach with unmanned is very deliberate.  So we have plenty of lessons learned in the past where we’ve moved too quickly and we’ve made mistakes.  I’m trying to make sure, particularly as we do this experimentation with unmanned, and AI, and manned-unmanned teaming in the Middle East, we’re learning a ton.  But the next place I scale at is not going to be to the South China Sea.  We have more work to do in terms of learning how we bring those technologies together with people that are in standardized ratings today in the Navy, skillsets in the Navy today.

So I think we’re going to, again, learn a lot as we move forward, and gradually make changes in our manpower system.  I think recruiting people – they already see – we already see the value of unmanned that it’s having in our recruiting efforts.

[CROSS TALK]

AUDIENCE: Bill Conley, chief technology officer at Mercury Systems.

I love the “arsenal of democracy.”  Arthur Herman wrote “Freedom’s Forge,” phenomenal book, looking at that.  During kind of the World War II/Cold War era, the government out-invested in R&D industry.  Today there’s three dollars coming from industry for every dollar on the federal side.  As we think about that “arsenal of democracy” in the modern world, what do we need, in particular not for the platforms but for the payloads, to bring that innovation that you want access to, to make sure we keep that tradition alive?

ADM. GILDAY:  Yeah, so as I take a look at unmanned, payloads is not a problem.  There are plenty of companies that build payloads, and we are taking those payloads.  The real magic with unmanned is the integration with AI.  The software integration is what really brings those platforms alive.  What I like about leveraging commercial technology in the area of unmanned is that most of that technical risk is already driven down.  That’s where we’ve had most of the problems, most of the challenges in our major procurement – our major acquisition lines, have been driving down risk, and not driving it down early enough.

And these commercial applications, particularly with unmanned platforms, most of these platforms are already being used in the commercial industry in some fashion.  And so we’re just – we’re just taking that truck and we’re giving it – you know, we’re taking that Tesla-like vehicle and we are taking AI to shape – to give it – to bring it alive, to get after the problems that we need solved.  The other thing is we’ve learned is we’ve seen benefit in having the coders for the AI capability and the platform be separate and distinct vendors.  We’ve seen – we think there’s a level of competition there that we’ve kind of liked.  We’ve seen small companies come in really hungry and committed.  And so we are learning a lot in the AI space in terms of what’s going on in Taskforce 59.  I hope that’s helpful.

MR. MCALEESE:  Admiral?

ADM. GILDAY:  Sir.

Ma’am.

AUDIENCE:  Hi.  Crystal T. with BAE Systems, and I also do a lot of work with National Defense Industrial Association. 

And, first off, I didn’t think I was going to be commenting on commerciality, but thank you.  I love you.  I appreciate that.  Secondly, you know, as I’m sure you know, Navy is associated with the origins of the Cost Accounting Standards Board.  And I’m wondering if that’s the direction that your brain was headed when you mentioned cost control, or did you have something else in mind?  It sounded like you were thinking something very specific.

ADM. GILDAY:  So I think that we have a lot of money in our procurement accounts that I can’t necessarily see as CNO because they are behind technical authorities or acquisition authorities that are grounded in the law, that fall underneath the secretary of the Navy.  And I’m not laying blame anywhere, except to say procurement accounts are 31% of our budget.  And there’s a lot of dough there.  You all know that.  That’s why you’re here.  And so there are ways to look for more efficiencies and then to shift those savings to somewhere else.  I’m interested in doing more of that.  I’m interested in taking a deeper look at where and how we spend our money, and where we might be able to make smarter choices. 

As I said, you know, this 37% increases, 55 billion [dollars] ain’t going to last.  I just met with all the flag officers in the Navy last week.  That was part of my pitch.  You know, wipe those smiles off your faces.  We got some work to do.  Thanks.

AUDIENCE:  If I can, I will close with one last question.  And this gets – and this may be too long a question and too hard to answer in the time we have.  But in my last tour in the Pentagon, I watched platforms continue to go way beyond their expected end of life date.  When we look at the first Columbia coming in, the Ohio that it replaces will be the longest-serving active submarine.  Do we have to start thinking about either replenishing more quickly or changing the way we architect our new platforms?  Is that a challenge to industry?

ADM. GILDAY:  So one of the things we have to get real about, instead of talking about estimated service lives, talking about actual service lives.  So we got a ship in a shipyard right now down in Norfolk.  It’s an old amphibious ship.  It’s 34 or 35 years old.  As I take a look at what eats up our accounts, right, I take a look – in a repair yard – I take a look at new work and growth work.  On average, our new work is about 5% and our growth work is at about 16% across ships in the Navy shipyards.  With that particular old amphibious ship, new work’s at 68%.  So she is four years behind out of the shipyards.  She’s costing us millions more than we need.

We have to make tough decisions here.  That’s money that we could pivot somewhere else.  Then we need to be more innovative with ships that we have in the inventory and how we can use them differently.  The Navy’s requirement for expeditionary fast transports that were built down on the Gulf Coast was 10 of those ships.  Congress has blessed us with 16 of those ships.  So I am looking for ways that we might be able to use them more innovatively.  As a leader in the Marine Corps said in December, it’s not always about numbers.  Ships need to be workable and they need to be usable.

So those ships that aren’t either usable or workable, I might be able to replace those with something that’s a little bit more agile.  We may have to act a little – may have to use it a little bit differently.  I get back to driving adaptability, effecting change.  That’s how we need to think as well in the Navy, and can’t be so wedded to the way we’ve always done things.

Looking pretty serious there, Jim.

MR. MCALEESE:  Can I throw out the very last one?  We got one minute to go.

ADM. GILDAY:  It’s your conference.

(Laughter)

MR. MCALEESE:  You mentioned the 3-5%, right?

ADM. GILDAY:  Yeah.

MR. MCALEESE:  And I think you touched on two themes.

Number one is, could you provide a little more insight into, hey, you know, the eight ships, why those can no longer see the fight, why they have to go?  Number one.

And then, number two, there was obviously a shortfall in the resourcing in terms of the sea services together.  Some insight into that would be incredibly helpful as we look to Congress for a final resolution.

ADM. GILDAY:  Yeah.  I’ll take the last one first.  You asked me about amphibious ships.  Is that the code that you’re asking me about?

MR. MCALEESE:  Yes, sir.  Amphibious ships.  That is the code, the gator, sir.

ADM. GILDAY:  OK.  So it’s been said publicly that, a year ago, the Office of the Secretary of Defense made a decision to take a pause and to do a study on LPDs, and whether or not we would continue with the current hull or whether or not we would shift to some variant of the current hull.  The driving issue there that drove that decision had to do with cost.  So the cost of that ship has gone from 1.47 billion [dollars] to the second ship at 1.5 [billion dollars].  The third one that we’re contracting for right now is probably going to be between 1.9 and 2 billion [dollars].  So that increase will be somewhere between 21% and 25%.  The FY35 ship, unless we did a bundled buy, would like be at 2 billion [dollars] or above, at least a 25% increase.  We’re moving in the wrong direction. 

So it’s an FY25 ship. [The] Marine Corps leader said recently that he is supportive of two-year centers for those ships.  In other words, you begin building one every two years.  We’re just – I just mentioned – we haven’t put the ’23 ship on contract yet.  The line is already running behind.  So, as a taxpayer, if you want to give the vendor money next year for a ship that they can’t bend metal on, okay.  So I think that we have time here to take a look.  And it goes back to the fact that we’re not going to be swimming in money forever and we got to start making some hard decisions.  So a ship in the ’25 line, right, this the FY25 budget, it’s akin to – let me just say this – Congress has given us the authorities in the latest NDAA to do a bundled buy.  And we all agree that that’s the way that we ought to go after those ships.

But to go after a single ship in ’25 and put that in the budget now, based on where we are with all this churn on cost and so forth and this concern about the cost of those ships, it’s like telling a car dealer:  Hey, I really want to buy that minivan.  I’m going to buy that minivan.  Now, let’s roll up our sleeves and talk about price.  You know?  It’s just not going to– it’s not going to drive down the price of that ship.  It needs to be competitive.  Actually, with that production line on that ship, it’s not competitive.  One company builds it.  Okay, anything else on – anything else on the LPD line?  I’m sure that’ll open up some –

MR. MCALEESE:  Going once.  Going twice.

ADM. GILDAY:  Yeah, go ahead. 

MR. MCALEESE:  Oh, my God. Saved by the bell…

AUDIENCE:  Hi.  Caitlin Kenney with Defense One.

On that, for the divestment, again, the earlier question, I’m just interested, what would be the cost to get the ships that you’re – the three LSD ships that you want to divest – to get them to a state where you’d keep them?

ADM. GILDAY:  Yeah, that’s a really good question.  So it’s almost like a rolling average.  Every year there’s a new check that, you know, we got to write on a ship, you know, one of them that should have been out of the yards in 2019 that we’re still, you know, have been forced to keep and are still writing checks on.  I’ll have to just – I’ll have to take that one for the record, if you will, and come back to you with the amount.  I don’t know it off the top of my head for those three ships.  But we’ll get you that information.  It’s substantial.

You know, when we take a look at divestments – I’ll just say real quick, Jim, and I’ll walk

[CROSS TALK]

The entering argument for us is our top line.  And so I said earlier, we’re only going to have a Navy as big as we can afford.  And so then what we do is we stratify all of our platforms in terms of lethality.  And that’s also informed by sustainability, what it’s going to cost us to keep those ships, as well as reliability.  For cruisers, as an example, I’m pulling them into Souda Bay, Crete, or we’re pulling them into Djibouti during deployment to fix holes in the ship below the water line.  I got water going into berthing compartments.  So those are considerations as well.

But lethality is the driver for us, right, given where we are with the pacing challenge.  Stratify those platforms, and then making decisions that those that are the least lethal are going to be on the table to propose to Congress that we decommission.  The friction with Congress is capacity in the repair yards.  And I get that.  But, you know, just having visited a repair yard with a cruiser that’s undergoing modernization, as well as an older amphib, they are not making money on those ships – and they are not lethal.  We’re not going to get them underway for the fight.  So my proposal is, like, let’s reinvest in something that is going to be lethal and it is going to put us in a position of advantage against the pacing threat.

That’s not always met well but, you know, I have other ships waiting to go into maintenance.  We are – our operations and maintenance account is increasing next year to buy even more availabilities for our ships.  Why?  Because readiness is the number-one priority.  I hope that answers your question, Jim. 

Thanks, everybody.  I appreciate your time.

Source: United States Navy

On the far-western edge of the Indian Ocean, a fisherman hauls in his net and is disappointed by the catch. He tosses the smallest back, moves his boat, and throws the net again. Every day, he’s seen the stock dwindle as foreign ships flying African flags, yet hailing from the Far West and Far East, drop trawling nets – thin meshed and massive, to catch everything from the smallest guppy to the largest sailfish. The fisherman suspects his stock is being siphoned away, but he can only watch as his livelihood is stolen by those with more power and more money, hailing from countries he will never see. The daily theft by these unregistered commercial trawlers is illegal, but it’s a gamble they’re willing to take. 

At stake is a billion-dollar resource, and the illicit vessels are banking on a few things. Can African coast guards and navies find them before they flee to distant markets? If they do, can the rogues escape across a maritime border and count on a lack of communication between nations to make an escape? Worse – even if caught, will the suspect fisherman eventually go free because evidence or witness testimony was contaminated during the search and seizure? 

Every day, this high stakes game is played out in the territorial waters of nations sharing the West Indian Ocean.

To Build a Coast Guard: Kenya’s Response to IUU

“Before 2018, they would fish our waters, maybe process [the fish], and then take it back to their nation’s ports,” said Timothy Wamalwa, an operator in the Kenyan Coast Guard. “We’d lose a lot of revenue, and it had become almost normal for anyone to come into our territorial waters, fish them, and then go… For the local fisherman, they rely on the same resource. They had this feeling that they were being deprived of what was theirs. It was illegal, but there was no security organ that could enforce that law.”

It’s not just fish, either. Foreign actors would smuggle goods from resource-rich but infrastructure-poor East African nations, skirting tax and tariff charges to sell at an astronomical profit in foreign markets. More insidious, criminal organizations would smuggle drugs into a country, and people out of them, crippling the communities and condemning the trafficked to difficult lives. 

This changed, for Kenya at least, with the creation of their coast guard in 2018. Wamalwa, a former Corporal in the Kenyan Navy, was an initial recruit to the fledgling service – still so new that it hasn’t yet finalized ranks. But, according to Wamalwa, after only five years of existence, the newly instituted, trained, and equipped force has already reduced illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing of their territorial waters by almost 70%.

“It comes down to law enforcement and capacity building,” Wamalwa said, explaining how the Kenyan Coast Guard spun up its operations so quickly. “A good example is a couple of weeks ago – we just had training with the U.S. Coast Guard on small boat operations… It was a plus to our knowledge and handling of boats at sea.”

Kenya’s Coast Guard, and their 70% IUU reduction, is the beginning of a maritime-success story. But it’s only one country in East Africa. While others are advancing their maritime security as well, the challenge is in advancing together – it doesn’t matter how effective Kenya’s Coast Guard is if a vessel can flee their territorial waters to a safer and less regulated area. Hence why exercises like Cutlass Express 2023 exist.

A Comprehensive Approach: MDA, MOC, VBSS, and COC

Across Africa, partner nations have joined to train and work alongside each other to combat the laundry list of maritime crime on the continent. Over the past week and a half of the exercise, the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy, in concert with an international team of military services and organizations, has conducted a comprehensive approach to combating these issues.

One of the gambits illicit vessels rely on is avoiding detection – to combat this, the U.S. Navy conducted training on a Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) program called SeaVision, bringing partners up-to-speed on the latest capabilities the program offers in flagging, tracking, and documenting suspect vessels, in-and-beyond their territorial waters.

But what happens when the tracked vessel jumps between territorial waters? Most nations have some form of what the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard call a Maritime Operations Center (MOC). The MOC does everything from tracking weather and ships to deploying units for interventions, but their ability to communicate with other MOCs is what makes them special. To facilitate this communication, the U.S. Navy sent two technique trainers to each nation. Even better, the U.S. Coast Guard sent specialized trainers to Mauritius and Kenya to show how a law enforcement perspective is utilized in the MOC.

But when the vessel is tracked, and the nations are working in tandem, someone still has to get in a boat and confront the suspects – what’s known in the military and law enforcement community as Visit, Board, Search and Seizure (VBSS). To build this capability, the multi-national, and multi-service teams worked with exercise partners on a slew of techniques: guns, boat-handling, hand-to-hand techniques, medical, room clearing, and boarding measures, to name a few. Everything that happens during a search and seizure – from the moment a VBSS operator first steps onto a boarding boat, to when the final suspect is arrested, was broken down and analyzed by specialists, and then discussed by the multinational team to bring real-world practicalities to bear. 

This year, there’s added nuance. Traditionally, military organizations specializing in military operations conduct battlefield-style VBSS training. But combating illicit maritime activity isn’t a military operation, it’s law enforcement engagement – something most navies aren’t trained in. In recognition of this, the U.S. Coast Guard responded in force. For the exercise, they’ve deployed a Maritime Security Response Team (MSRT) to Djibouti; a Tactical Law Enforcement (TACLET) team to Mauritius; a TACLET team, alongside a Canadian Coast Guard team, to Seychelles; and a Boat Forces team to Kenya, alongside Tunisian Commando Marines, Royal Navy operators, U.S. Marines, and a reinforcement tactical division from the Georgian Coast Guard.

Additionally, the exercise has brought in representatives from the Navy Criminal Intelligence Service and the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), teaching partners how to search for evidence without contaminating the scene, and ensuring a proper chain-of-custody (COC) is observed for the eventual legal trial. 

“It is a very positive engagement – the exercise has cut across all aspects of security, safety, and the legal sphere as well,” Wamalwa emphasized. “It really helps when we’re out there conducting operations. Now we know what to do, who to report to, how to share information, and with exercises like this in place we’ll definitely continue to build the capacity of the [East African] states, in-as-much as how to deal with illicit activity at-sea. It’s an eye opener to the participants, and going forward, I’m sure we’re going to execute our missions better than we have in the past.”

Law Enforcement Vs Military Engagement: The Difference Matters

U.S. Coast Guard Cmdr. Traci Alvarez, U.S. Africa Command’s (AFRICOM) Maritime Law Enforcement branch chief, was the lead coordinating effort behind the Coast Guard’s presence during the exercise. That presence was critical, because while previous iterations of the exercise included the U.S. Coast Guard, training was primarily approached with a U.S. Navy mindset. The problem in that mindset is a matter of legal authority. It’s also one of the acute differences between the U.S. and African navies: while African militaries – when delegated by their government – have the authority to make arrests, the U.S. Navy does not. Further, because of the difference in mandate, a U.S. Coast Guardsman may see discrepancies indicative of illicit activity that a U.S. Navy sailor might not.

Alvarez has worked with African partner nations, first in North Africa and later in East Africa, for the last two years. Unsurprisingly, she is incredibly passionate about how critical the law enforcement perspective is within the theater, and how an unregulated Western Indian Ocean directly involves the U.S.

“This does involve us,” Alvarez said. “Maritime security around the world is a concern of the U.S. Coast Guard. There are commercial vessels that come this way [through the West Indian Ocean], and we don’t want a spike again in piracy. Additionally, there are some terrorist pockets in these countries – we don’t want people to be desperate and turn to extremist organizations… If you can’t feed your [family], you’ll become desperate.”

But she stressed that problems like piracy, terrorism, and food instability couldn’t be solved by any single nation – it would require a team effort. In recognition of this, the U.S. Coast Guard is working with partners to help find a permanent, and perpetual, solution.

“Our goal is for African nations to patrol their own waters, and to have to the tools to do so,” she explained. “But I don’t think there’s ever going to be a day when the U.S. isn’t partners with these nations. We should always have some sort of presence to assist when needed, but yes – it’s African problems solved by African nations. I think that’s the ultimate goal, and these exercises are a great way to show African partners that the U.S. does care about the stability of Africa. I know it’s cliché, but we do care.”

And the caring goes both ways. Cutlass Express is an annual exercise, in its thirteenth year. Each year, more partners join, and better, more partners buy-in to the law enforcement perspective. 

“Just this week, I saw partner nations more engaged, because we were speaking and training about things that they truly want to understand. I think they enjoyed the search and rescue scenarios, they were thinking outside the box during the drug enforcement scenarios. The enthusiasm was phenomenal… The African nations work really well with the U.S. Military and the U.S. Coast Guard.”

Beyond the Exercise: Success in Seychelles

Above Mozambique and east of Kenya’s southern border sits the archipelagic-nation of Seychelles. It’s mid-Western Indian Ocean setting and location as an entry point to Africa has made this relatively small nation a prime target for IUU fishing, drug smuggling and human trafficking for years. Accordingly, it’s been the focal point for regional training in MDA, MOC, and VBSS processes; and since its inclusion in Cutlass Express, its maritime capabilities have exponentially increased. In tandem with this, for the last three years the Canadian Coast Guard, partnering with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s Global Maritime Crime Program, has deployed personnel to the archipelago to work with the nation’s coast guard and military for each iteration of Cutlass Express. 

“The Seychelles has a small but professional defence force,” said Canadian Coast Guard Cmdr. Stephan King, the service’s delegation lead and senior planner. “They are excellent partners, who bring their regional expertise while also incorporating best practices from other like-minded organizations. Their commitment to their own development and those of their neighbors is more than laudable – the willingness to evolve their capabilities within a collaborative, interregional framework sets an example for other states.”

Now, Seychelles is a regional leader in maritime domain awareness, hosting the multi-national and multi-agency Regional Coordination and Operations Center – the overarching MOC that coordinates efforts beyond the borders of individual countries, and brings isolated maritime efforts onto a regional scale. They’re conducting joint operations outside the framework of exercises with nations like Mauritius, where the two created a Regional Maritime Information Fusion Centre in Madagascar. Equally important, but far less flashy, is the creation of checklists and standard operating procedures for their own forces and partner nations when conducting VBSS. They’ve benefited from the training, and are now shifting from a trainee role to being a key trainer on countering illicit maritime activity in East Africa.

“The Seychelles already do a lot well,” said King “But they are, like most nations, limited in their ability to monitor, detect, and respond to maritime incidents… [Yet] if we can learn anything from working together, it is that there is strength in numbers, and when enough like-minded folks work together, success is inevitable… The big blue marble we inhabit is the only world we have. Exercises like Cutlass Express are outstanding opportunities for developing international relationships, building regional capacity, and deterring malign actors from using the ocean commons for illicit purposes.”

Seychelles is a proof of concept: that law enforcement works, and that exercises like Cutlass Express can create change in the region. When participants believe in the training, work with partners, and dedicate themselves to protecting their “Blue Economies,” they become more than a participant in a yearly exercise. They become an African leader, solving African problems, and making the world a better place in the process.

Source: United States Navy

Armed Forces Entertainment (AFE) set the alley-oop with NSA Naples’ Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) for a slam dunk event as The Harlem Globetrotters took to the court at Naples Middle High School (NMHS).

MWR capitalized on assists to make this event a success.

“MWR was supported by NSA Naples’ Red Cross, USO, the Fire Department, Security and community volunteers,” said Chris Kasparek, NSA Naples MWR Community Recreation Director.

The team, who has performed at NSA Naples in previous years, made its first appearance since the pandemic.

“I think this event specifically signifies that we have significantly made the turn out of COVID here at NSA Naples,” said Kasparek. “It is a step forward for our entire community.”

Globetrotters’ Guard, Darnell Speedy expressed how excited he was to be back on a military tour.

“I came to Naples in November 2019 […] It actually was the last military tour before the pandemic,” said Speedy. “Now I am on the first military tour since COVID, and it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I get another opportunity to share these moments with these people.”

The night of slam-dunks, fast breaks and laughter was one of the most popular events of the season. Tickets for the event sold out within days. The anticipation of the event was evident as fans packed the NMHS gym.

“We had the coolest experience last night with the Harlem Globetrotters,” said community member Dana Elmini.” “They are true entertainers and made everyone feel special and leave with a story! Thank you AFE and NSA Naples’ MWR for making this happen!”

The Globetrotters visited NSA Naples as part of a military tour with AFE that began March 14 at Naval Air Station (NAS) Sigonella.

“This tour is made up of 11 shows, across 10 bases in three countries,” said AFE Regional Manager Michele Krieg.

“This is the 19th year of the Harlem Globetrotters’ military tour with AFE,” Krieg added.

Kasparek says these events are special to the military community.

“It is important for the families here to know they are being reached by those stateside and by those that appreciate what they do for our country,” said Kasparek.

With shows such as this, AFE makes it their mission to provide “the best performances for U.S. troops and family members stationed overseas” and serve “as the biggest morale booster for U.S. Troops.”

The nearly two-decade old partnership between AFE and the team is only a small part of the Globetrotters’ history in entertainment.

The Globetrotters began as a team of reunited high school players in Chicago, Illinois in 1926.

Since 1926, they have entertained more that 148 million fans in 123 countries and territories around the world.

NSA Naples is an operational ashore base that enables U.S., allied, and partner nation forces to be where they are needed, when they are needed to ensure security and stability in the European, African, and Central Command areas of responsibility.

For more news on NSA Naples, please follow us on Instagram @NSANaples and Facebook at facebook.com/NSANaples/.

Source: United States Navy

La Pérouse is a multilateral exercise designed to enhance cooperation in the field of maritime surveillance, interdiction, and air operations by progressive training and information sharing. The French Navy, represented by Mistral-class amphibious assault ship FS Dixmude (L9015) and La Fayette-class frigate FS La Fayette (F 710), hosted the exercise.

“It is vital that the Indo-Pacific remains free and open, connected, prosperous, secure, and resilient,” said Cmdr. Spike Lamson, commanding officer, Charleston Gold Crew. “Every opportunity we get to work with our regional Allies and partners helps to strengthen that goal.”

Additional participants included Indian Navy Shivalik-class stealth frigate Sahyadri (F49) and Komandarm Fedko-class replenishment oiler INS Jyoti (A58), Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) Akizuki-class destroyer Suzutsuki (DD 117), Royal Australian Navy Anzac-class frigate HMAS Perth (FFH 157), personnel from the Royal Canadian Navy, and Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel HMS Tamar (P233).

The ships met at sea to conduct force integrated training and practiced a range of surface and air warfare events to include live-firing exercises, coordinated tactical maneuvering, flight operations, simulated air-to-surface combat exercises and communications drills. Exercise La Pérouse demonstrated combined combat capabilities and seamless coordination between regional Allies and partners underscoring the commitment to peace, security, and stability in the Indo-Pacific.

Attached to Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 7, Charleston is on a rotational deployment, operating in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations to enhance interoperability with Allies and partners serve as a ready-response force in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific region.

As the U.S. Navy’s forward-deployed DESRON in Southeast Asia, DESRON 7 serves as the primary tactical and operational commander of littoral combat ships rotationally deployed to Singapore, functions as Commander, Task Force 76/3 Sea Combat Commander, and builds partnerships through training exercises and military-to-military engagements as the executing agent of the Commander, Task Group Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training.

7th Fleet is the U.S. Navy’s largest forward-deployed numbered fleet, and routinely interacts and operates with Allies and partners in preserving a free and open Indo-Pacific region.