The next president’s Navy – increasing the ‘fear factor’

No matter who’s inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2017, the next President will be faced with the urgent requirement to upgrade the Navy’s deteriorating condition, while simultaneously instilling the “Don’t Tread on Me” mindset to those who would threaten U.S. Naval presence anywhere in the world.

Whether talking about the declining number of surface combatants and their more fragile material condition; or higher deployment rates for ships, aircraft, and the people who operate them; or depleting inventories of ammunitions for vessels; or the declining availability of spare parts for Navy and USMC aircraft, our Navy is increasingly stretched in order to meet its commitments in support of America’s national interests.  And there’s no relief in sight.

{mosads}To make matters worse, the global and national security challenges that are most efficiently met by the Navy’s mobile, independent striking capability are rapidly increasing. 

China is flexing its muscles in the South China Sea and beyond. Russia’s Navy is rising in the Pacific, Black Sea, Mediterranean and Atlantic.  Erratic, nuclear-armed North Korea is showcasing its destabilizing submarine-based ballistic missiles in the Sea of Japan. Iran’s brinksmanship in the Straits of Hormuz is becoming more problematic.  And the conflicts in Syria and Yemen show no signs of slowing. Each of these hot spots requires a robust, durable, and armed U.S. naval presence to reassure our allies and stabilize world events – a presence that is increasingly difficult to guarantee.

During the Carter Administration in the 1970’s, material condition of the fleet deteriorated to a point where ships had to forgo or delay deployments because they were in such sad shape.  Aviation squadrons had multiple “hangar queens” and the wholesale cannibalization of parts – from rotor blades to jet engines – was rampant. That weakness ultimately emboldened our adversaries and led to increased vulnerability, especially to Americans overseas, as demonstrated by the Iran Hostage Crisis, including the tragically unsuccessful rescue mission known as ‘Operation Eagle Claw.’

Telltale signs of the 1970’s – like declining mission readiness and munition inventories are returning. Take the situation with USMC aircraft. Mission capability rates are falling. There is a fighter aircraft shortage. Parts are in short supply.  We simply must prevent today’s mere shortage from becoming a crisis.

There is a clear two-part solution. First, Navy and Marine readiness issues can be addressed by increasing funding, re-provisioning badly needed parts and supplies for existing machines, while also paying for more pilot flight hours and ship steaming days.

Second, to quote RADM Peter Fanta, Director of Navy Warfare Integration, we must ensure “if it floats, it fights.” The Navy has resorted to deploying new ships that are seriously out-gunned. A broken defense acquisition system produced and delivered ships like the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) which lacks any significant offensive firepower. This vulnerability all but invites bad actors to attack.

LCS is a ship looking for a mission and would be an inviting target in a hot war. Originally designed as a modular, reconfigurable, surface platform for conducting anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare or anti-surface warfare, the concept has clearly not lived up to expectations as in reality the ship is dangerously vulnerable, principally because it’s offensive striking capability is not to be feared.

But this doesn’t have to be the case. The concept of Distributed Lethality – the notion of arming virtually every surface ship with anti-ship missiles – could be a near-term game changer.

Outfitting the LCS with a stealthy, over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles like the Naval Strike Missile will eliminate the ship’s current vulnerabilities. With missiles like these on board, the LCS would deter and challenge enemies at a distance – striking fear, rather than inviting attack.

As for the rest of the fleet, there shouldn’t be any exceptions to Distributed Lethality – but that requires near-term investment in advanced weapons for cruisers, destroyers, carriers and everything in between.

As naval experts are actively working on creating a modern, lethal, affordable, Fleet Architecture for 2025 and beyond, we cannot ignore today’s growing threats and the needs of the fleet to combat those threats between now and then. The Fleet of the future – providing increased, distributed combat power and the tactics to counter and deter great powers – is an important endeavor to change the Navy into a force we will hopefully never have to employ against the very powers they were intended to counter.

Forward planning does not negate the needs of the Fleet of today. Hostile navies – great and small – must possess a healthy fear of provoking the U.S. Navy of 2017 in any maritime setting.  Every ship must be able to destroy another ship – at long range.  The advantages go beyond the obvious need to reduce enemy forces.   It addresses the need to impose doubt, increase risk, complicate logistics and create confusion among the enemy by keeping them at greater distances from our fleet.

In an increasingly hostile world, combatting the growing challenges the Navy faces and ensuring Distributed Lethality must be a priority of our next president.

Sandy Clark served as an active duty naval officer for 25 years and served in the Pentagon on Defense Secretary Dick Cheney’s legislative staff.  He started his naval career as a ship-based helicopter pilot and later specialized in anti-submarine warfare, procurement and testing of future fleet technology.

The views expressed by authors are their own and not the views of The Hill.