By JOHN A. PANNETON, National President
Some elements of the national press appear to have discovered yet another “military crisis” in the making as the services deal with a mandate from Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England to trim military spending by $32 billion over six years. That is less than calamitous for a Defense Department that spends $500 billion annually.
Yet Some press reports portray the services as responding to White House pressures by rushing to reduce personnel costs to afford the next generation of weapons in the acquisition pipeline.
For example, the Air Force may cut up to 40,000 people — including civilian employees, contractors in staff positions and active duty personnel — to pay for the F-22 tactical aircraft and other weapons being developed.
The Navy, to the contrary, has taken a strategic approach to correctly shaping its force. Navy leaders years ago perceived that changing national security requirements and the introduction of new technologies would enable them to carefully reduce manpower. That is vital, because personnel costs consume approximately 60 cents of every Navy dollar, and the expense of health care, retirement and housing continues to rise.
The Navy’s policy is to recruit and retain the best of the nation’s youth and spend whatever it takes to train and enable them to be productive members of an outstanding fighting force. The service also is determined to eliminate manpower that is no longer needed.
Thus, the Navy in 2003 began reducing its personnel, and by 2007 will have cut its ranks by at least 36,935 people, 9.7 percent of the active-duty force, conserving billions of dollars and eliminating personnel slots that are a legacy of the past. Reductions in the civilian work force will add to those savings.
The results of manning experiments aboard the destroyer USS Milius and the cruiser USS Mobile Bay indicate that revolutionary changes are possible. For example, a destroyer that now requires about 300 sailors could be operated by a little more than half that number. Future ships, such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the DD(X) destroyer, will have crews far smaller than today’s vessels of comparable size.
Those who remain in the Navy will have more responsibility and enjoy richer professional lives. Smaller crews mean each sailor is a vital element of a ship’s success. Many will evolve into hybrid sailors, able to carry out the duties now performed by two or three shipboard specialists.
In a two-year experiment aboard the destroyer USS Decatur, 19 of the ship’s 23 divisions will be run by chiefs rather than junior officers.
And the Navy is taking a skeptical look at the concept of shore leave. At present, after a sea tour, sailors often move to jobs ashore that are unrelated to their specialties. Their skills atrophy and motivation declines.
The goal of retooling shore duty is to give sailors time ashore with their families but assign them to jobs that keep their skills sharp. One possibility is to assign sailors on shore duty to back up the crews preparing their ships for a sea tour. Some of the jobs now done by sailors ashore could be assigned to civilians or contractors.
These cuts are not the work of a hasty budget ax, but carefully measured reductions to shape a fighting force that is smaller and more flexible, yet better attuned to naval requirements of the 21st century.
Semper Fidelis.
I want to hear from you about the Navy League. Contact me at jpanneton@navyleague.org or by mail at 2300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22201-3308.
