Down to the Sea in Ships

Congress's Navy-Marine Corps Caucus Focuses on People and Platforms

An Interview with Rep. Edward L. Schrock, Chairman of the Navy-Marine Corps Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives

Rep. Edward L. Schrock (R-Va.), co-chairman of the Navy-Marine Corps Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives, says it takes far too long to move some major procurement programs into the production phase. The planning "just seems to go on and on and on."As founder and co-chairman of the Navy-Marine Corps Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Edward L. Schrock (R-Va.) plays the role of resident diplomat for the sea services. One of his favorite tasks is to take members of Congress out to the fleet, confident that those who see the military at work will be more inclined to support it. A retired Navy captain and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Schrock is an avid supporter of unmanned aircraft and a champion of the Navy's planned Littoral Combat Ship.

He says that the Sea Swap program--i.e., flying replacement crews to ships that are forward-deployed--will bring fundamental changes to the Navy, but that increasing the fleet to the 375 ships that Navy leaders say are needed is going to be "a hard sell" because of intense competition in Congress for budget dollars.

Schrock, 62, represents Virginia's second district, home to hundreds of employees of nearby Newport News Shipbuilding, one of the Navy's major contractors. A second-term House member, he previously served in the Virginia Senate where he supported policies favorable to business and education.

When he arrived at the House in 2001, Schrock discovered that "the Army, Coast Guard, and Air Force had caucuses, but the sea services did not ... so I asked myself, 'why not?'" Today, the Navy-Marine Corps Caucus comprises 90 members: 46 Republicans and 44 Democrats.

Schrock made these remarks in an interview with Sea Power Editor in Chief Rick Barnard.

Sea Power: Under provisions of the 2004 shipbuilding budget, the fleet would contract from 301 ships to 291. Then it would rise to 305 ships by 2009--when, supposedly, the Navy will be building 14 ships per year. The budget funds about seven ships annually until 2009. Is there a risk that the Navy will get the drop in fleet size but not the increase that is supposed to come later?

Schrock: There is an element of risk. I talked with Admiral Clark [Adm. Vern Clark, chief of naval operations] about that. He wants to decommission the Spruance-class [destroyers] because they don't have the technology, or the ability to contain the technology, that we need today. Also, three of the original Oliver Hazard Perry [guided-missile] frigates would go.

Instead of putting money into platforms that eat money, the savings can go into more development of the new platforms that we need down the pike. So I think Admiral Clark's philosophy is right. But we need to make sure the Navy has a vigorous shipbuilding program. I think 14 ships per year are necessary to bring the fleet up to the minimum that we need, which is 375.

In an ideal world, I would want that to happen today. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world nor will we ever. If we are going to truly get to the 375-ship Navy that the current chief of naval operations aspires to, we have to do better than [build] five, six, or seven ships every year. We have to produce 12 to 14 ships every year.

Is there political support in Congress to attain that goal?

Schrock: Well, I can speak pretty much for the folks in the House Armed Services Committee because I hear the debate that goes on. I think they agree. But it's going to be a hard sell because there are so many projects competing for budget dollars. So we'll just have to keep pounding. The war on terror should make us realize that we've got to have a more modern military so that we can fight an enemy as yet unknown.

And we need to shorten the time frame in which these things are built. Something on the drawing board today might not hit the water for 10 to 15 years. That makes no sense. That's one reason why the Littoral Combat Ship [LCS] is such an important platform. The Navy has tightened the construction phase on it.

Nonetheless, I don't like the fact that the first ship is not coming until 2007. I'd like to see them in 2005. That's going to be a transformational ship, because it's going to be "plug and play." You can put in new technology and not have to practically rebuild the ship every time [upgrades are needed]. You just unplug one thing and plug another in.

What about a transformation in capability? Does the LCS provide that, as well?

Schrock: It will be unlike anything we've had. You can use COTS (commercial off-the-shelf systems), and you can really plug them in. That's going to save the taxpayers a lot of money. It is a platform that you are going to be able to keep long beyond any life expectancy of the current fleet. The LCS's primary mission is for close-in, high-speed, maneuverable-type operations along coastlines.

Do you believe the Navy and Coast Guard should share ships' hulls, beginning with the LCS design? Is this something Congress should mandate?

Schrock: Why not? We're going to share designs with the Joint Strike Fighter. It makes the economics of the thing more palatable to members of Congress. When I first entered the Navy, we had our own platforms, the Army had theirs, and nobody talked with one another. The blips on a Navy screen that represented a ship were totally different from what the Air Force was looking at. Nobody worked together. Now, interoperability seems to make a lot of sense. If the Coast Guard and Navy buy the same hull, we'll build larger numbers of ships at less cost per unit.

The Navy has 54 active SSN-688s, a 13 percent reduction of the attack boat fleet in recent years. As the number has declined, the tasking levels have risen because the boats can handle so many different missions. And for the next few years, the maintenance and refueling schedule for attack boats is very high. Will we have a big reduction in sea days? Is that a matter of concern to you?

Schrock: Yes, it is. There are going to be a lot less sea days. Refueling takes a long time. That's another reason why we have to get the Navy up to 375 ships, which includes submarines. If we don't, we're going to continue running into this problem. Or Skip Bowman [Adm. Frank L. Bowman, director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program] is going to have to ...

Row?

Schrock: He is. He absolutely is. It's a real tough problem. There's got to be balance somewhere [between resources and missions].

I think one of my roles is explaining the need for 375 ships. In fact, the Navy-Marine Corps Caucus that we created is one of those avenues that we use to make people understand why we need to provide the money for it. I think that's starting to happen.

You started the Caucus simply to get information to members?

Schrock: When I first came to Congress I found that the Army, the Coast Guard, and the Air Force had caucuses. But the sea services did not. Now, there was something wrong there. I was a retired Navy guy, so I asked "Why not?" And we invited Rep. Susan Davis [D-Calif.] from the San Diego area, who represents a lot of military, to be our partner and she agreed to do it. Our first meeting was in January 2002, and we had the chief of naval operations and the commandant of the Marine Corps with us. They gave a good overview of where we are and where we are supposed to go. We are going to continue to do that, because the more people hear and understand the military, the more likely they will be to support it.

Fewer members of the current Congress have served in the military than at any time in our history. It was my goal as president of the freshman class two years ago to get members of my class out with the military. And we did. We had them on a carrier for a couple of days; we had them on a submarine for a day. We got them out there to see these young men and women--and I emphasize young--doing very complicated tasks with this magnificent machinery.

The reactions you see to the 18- and 19-year-olds by some members of Congress--it's just like watching a fine ballet. It's amazing how impressive these young kids are. And we go anywhere on that ship we want. The Navy is not handpicking people. We go into boiler rooms and any compartment or any office there and talk to these kids. We have to keep that excitement going.

What is your view of the services' aircraft programs?

Schrock: When you consider that some of the pilots flying these planes are younger than the airframes they're flying, you realize that we've got to do something. The F-14s [Tomcat fighters] are going away. It looks like the F/A-18E/Fs [Super Hornet fighter/attack aircraft] have the most advanced capabilities right now to meet the threats that we're facing. I think we need to focus on the Joint Strike Fighter. I sat in the trainer for that and I thought "maybe I'm sitting in the last trainer for manned fighter aircraft--ever!"

That's certainly a possibility! I am a big fan of the MV-22 Osprey [tiltrotor aircraft]. I went to the hearings a couple of years ago in Philadelphia. I was so concerned because they had just lost 24 Marines in one crash. I don't understand why the Marine Corps put them in there in the first place. They shouldn't have done that. But based on what I heard from the crew members who man and operate the MV-22, they were totally sold. ... That platform is going to be one they can use for decades to come.

Every air platform the United States military has ever had has had problems. They don't call it "testing" for nothing. When there is testing, there are going to be accidents. It is unfortunate when lives get lost. It is a terrible thing. But [Defense Secretary Donald H.] Rumsfeld has said you've got to get your act together pretty quick or we're going to cancel it.

Is that the way to go?

Schrock: Well, if they find in the end that it's not going to work, yes. But I'm not convinced that's the case. I think he's impatient. He's the one who wants to transform the U.S. military. The platforms that the Marines are flying now--they're wearing out. You can fly those things only so long. They're flying things today that I saw in Vietnam.

But is it time to say that the testing of the MV-22s is about over? Pass this series of tests or you're dead--are you at that point now?

Schrock: No, I'm not. I want to see the results.

It was not so long ago that the Congress directed that a certain percentage of the aircraft fleet would be comprised of unmanned vehicles [UAVs] for high-risk missions. Is that happening?

Schrock: I'm very excited about that. Everybody says that UAVs are going to be as expensive as current platforms. But what you don't have is the person you have to train and maintain all the time to be in the platform. You can have a UAV that will carry ordnance and move around for 24 hours before it drops it. You can't do that with a manned aircraft.

That [the use of robots] is Buck Rogers come to life. When I was a kid and watched these things on TV, I wondered if we were ever going to have them. Well, yes we are. I've seen some of the smaller examples of them at the Navy Yard. The Predator UAV has some mighty big capabilities. It carries a 1,000-pound bomb. It can do exactly what the manned aircraft can do without the man in it. You're not risking anyone's life.

Have any of the services talked to you about using several UAVs simultaneously to attack prime targets? Are we going to see a squadron of them?

Schrock: Sure. Right now, we have several pilots in different planes going after a target. In the future, you will see one piloted plane able to maneuver and coordinate the activities of two, three, or four UAVs. Take them in, get them to drop their ordnance, and get them out of there. Instead of five pilots on one target, you'll see one pilot taking care of several targets by using UAVs.

Some of the challenges we're going to face--with chemical and biological warfare--the UAVs can certainly come into play to deal with that problem very soon.

What is the future of the Marine Corps lightweight howitzer?

Schrock: First, the weight of the thing is certainly going to make it more maneuverable. You can carry a couple of them on a C-130 [transport aircraft]. They've already agreed to start low-rate initial production right now, and we need to get on that path. The weight, the maneuverability, the digital organization they're going to have is unlike anything we've ever had before in weapons like this. We've got to get production started. That's the problem with some of these platforms--until you make the first one, the planning just seems to go on and on and on.

The operational tempo of the services is very high right now. That has been the case for a couple of years, at least. There's a price to be paid in terms of wear and tear on people and ships ...

Schrock: Yes, there is a price to be paid. But, you know, these young men and women have trained to do exactly what they are being tasked to do. I don't think there is one person in uniform who doesn't want to be over there [in the Middle East] right now. Because that is where the action is. This is payday for them. This is what they have been trained to do.

If you forward-deploy ships--keep them on station all the time and change the crews--that is a good use of manpower. Think of the time that is wasted traveling back and forth when they [the ships] could stay on station doing their mission. Clearly, a lot of folks are in uniform right now because of the situation we're facing in the world. I don't think they mind being there. I think they are delighted. That was truly the case in Afghanistan. I expected to go over there and see grumbling and griping but, my gosh, they were very excited about being there. They knew they were making a difference. The guys who have staff jobs here right now, they're the ones who are griping. They would love to be over there instead of in the Pentagon.

In your own career in the military, did you see a relationship between family separation and retention levels? Do you see it now?

Schrock: Yes, there was. Of course, I was in Vietnam. I think a lot of people got out because the Vietnam War just burned people out. That is something we have to address. If we're going to have our people gone for six or eight months, we've got to have them doing something productive or they are not going to be happy. But you've also got to keep Mom and the kids happy back home. Because, if you don't, Dad's not going to hang around very long. That's why the people issues are so important: the medical benefits, the housing benefits, the commissary, and the exchanges. You've got to make sure you keep those benefits at as high a level as possible or families are going to get disgruntled.

I think it [the buildup in the Middle East] is probably having a greater impact on the families of the reservists than the active-duty people. The active-duty people expect these things [family separations]; the families expect it. But from the reserve standpoint, I think it is starting to take its toll. I recently met a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserve at Langley Air Force Base. He was the police chief of his hometown in Texas. He's just reached his 17th month [of active service] after call-up, and has been extended another year. But he's real upbeat. He was able to go home for his daughter's high school graduation and gets to go home this year for his son's high school graduation. But he said it's really starting to take its toll on his family because they didn't expect this to happen. That is something we need to watch very, very carefully and make sure the families are happy.

What are your other defense priorities?

Schrock: Ship maintenance is a huge, huge issue with us. There has to be more consistent funding to make sure that ships are maintained and we have more ships available. I mean, we can't just bring them in and do a patchwork-type deal and send them out. That's just not going to work. That was the Kennedy's problem [the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy]. They SLEPed her [performed maintenance and upgrades during a Service Life Extension Program, or SLEP], and halfway through the SLEP the shipyard closed and that ship has had problems ever since.

People have to be number one. If you don't have happy crews, you don't have a Navy. Right now, retention in the Navy is at an all-time high: 68 percent. I attribute that to Vern Clark. I do. I was privileged to be at the christening of the [Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS] Preble. Clark was there and talked with the crew. He genuinely loves those people, and that shows. They're willing to go to bat for this guy. I think that's why retention is so high.

We've got to take care of our people. We were not paying them enough. We stretched them so thin that nobody was happy. That's all changed now. We've given them two pay raises and I think they're going to get another one pretty quick. They're worth a lot more than we can ever pay them. But we need to bring their compensation more in equity with their civilian counterparts, or they're not going to hang around. *