INTERVIEW: "To Provide for the Nation's Defense"

Interview With Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England

Editor in Chief James D. Hessman and Senior Editor Gordon I. Peterson interviewed Secretary England on 7 September for this issue of Sea Power.

Gordon R. England was sworn in as the 72nd secretary of the Navy on 24 May following an impressive executive leadership and engineering career in several major U.S. defense and aerospace corporations. He served as executive vice president of General Dynamics Corporation from 1997 until 2001. England began his career with Honeywell Corporation working as an engineer on the Gemini Space Program before joining General Dynamics in 1966 as an avionics design engineer. He also worked as a program manager with Litton Industries on the Navy's E-2C Hawkeye early warning aircraft. A native of Baltimore, England was graduated from the University of Maryland with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering. He also earned a master's degree in business administration from Texas Christian University.

Sea Power: Mr. Secretary, you recently met with the chief of naval operations and the commandant of the Marine Corps at an "off-site" session in North Carolina to discuss your future work together. What can you tell our readers about the purpose and outcome of that meeting?

ENGLAND: The off-site we had at Camp Lejeune in August was primarily for team building. Our specific purpose was to team together to find ways to make our naval service more efficient and effective. Effectiveness follows efficiency. From my experience, I believe that the very best commercial companies are the most efficient companies. If you're very efficient, you can incorporate technology more quickly, you have the money to do R&D [research and development], you can develop new products, and you can bring those products to the market faster. We would like to have all of those attributes in our naval service. Our discussions centered on ways that the Navy and Marine Corps could be more efficient, because in being more efficient we also will be more effective.

How can the Navy and Marine Corps operate more effectively in the future?

ENGLAND: We already work very well together at the operational level when we go to sea. We can work better in planning and budgeting our modernization programs as we decide what to buy, what we can afford to fund, and how many to buy. If we could cooperate as well here in the Pentagon as our men and women do at sea there would be a significant improvement.

President Bush has proposed to increase the defense budget significantly during his first year in office as part of his campaign promise to rebuild the military. There have been no significant funding increases for Navy shipbuilding, though, and the fleet is falling to its smallest size since the Great Depression. Do you see relief coming in the outyears of the Defense Department's long-range budget plan?

ENGLAND: The FY [fiscal year] 2002 budget amendment was a dramatic increase for the Department of Defense [DOD]--the first large increase we've had in a long time. So the president and Secretary Rumsfeld [Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld] have been very, very helpful with the '02 budget amendment.

However, most of that budget amendment was used for a pay increase for our men and women in uniform, for health care programs, and for quality of service. We wanted to improve infrastructure, housing, quality of life, and quality of work. Much of the defense spending increase went to help those critical areas. There were small increases in some procurement accounts, but not many.

As you said, we did not have sufficient funds available to affect our shipbuilding accounts significantly. It is a problem we need to address, but we will not know the optimum size of the fleet until we finish the QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review] and the DOD shipbuilding study. At that point we will know the steady-state number of ships we will need to prevent the fleet from falling to an unacceptably small size.

When will the shipbuilding study be finished?

ENGLAND: The shipbuilding study should be finished at about the same time as the QDR ends. DOD is required to forward the results of the QDR to Congress by the end of September.

One of your predecessors, Jim Webb [former Secretary of the Navy James H. Webb Jr.] said that the Navy needs a fleet of about 400 ships. Other experts place the number at about 360 minimum to meet all of the CINCs' [commanders in chief] warfighting requirements. In your view, is the size of the fleet likely to increase, decrease, or remain the same in the foreseeable future?

ENGLAND: This is a pure guess on my part, because as we meet [late August] we have not completed the QDR or the shipbuilding study. My guess is that we will stay about where we are today. I do not see any significant increase in the number of ships in the fleet, but I also don't see a significant decrease. Until we have more definitive study results available, my best estimate is that in the foreseeable future we will have a fleet sized roughly in the ballpark of where we are today.

The same question applies to naval aviation. You were successful in adding a number of F/A-18s [strike-fighter aircraft] to the FY 2002 budget, but the total mix of aircraft is still well short of the Navy's need for 180 to 210 aircraft per year. Do you plan to accelerate the pace of aircraft modernization and recapitalization?

ENGLAND: Actually, naval air--Navy and Marine Corps--requires more attention than our ships. The average age of our ships is about 15 years and, with a 30-year life projected, that's about where we want to be. Our Navy aircraft, however, are on average about 18 years old. Aircraft don't have the same service life as ships, and they require much more maintenance as they age. Our airplane accounts need a great deal of attention. This is a major issue. We did increase the buy of the F-18Es and Fs [Super Hornets] in '02 from 42 to 48 a year. The total number of airplanes we will buy is down, however, because we did not buy the JPATS [Joint Primary Aircraft Training System]. We decided to stay with our current trainer aircraft, or we would have had more airplanes in the budget. We are still well short of our objective, and that's going to be a very difficult problem to solve. We need to lower the average age of our airplanes. That means we either need to increase our procurement or we need to retire older airplanes.

Do you have a separate study underway on naval aviation to parallel DOD's shipbuilding study?

ENGLAND: No, we do not. We understand our airplane situation very well.

The Marine Corps has similar problems with its aging aircraft, and the MV-22 Osprey is very important to the future of Marine air. Are you satisfied that the Marine Corps has taken the steps needed to correct the Osprey's problems?

ENGLAND: Yes, I'm satisfied that the Marine Corps is on the right course. I went to New River [Marine Corps Air Station, New River, N.C.] during my first week on the job. I wanted to talk to the people working on the aircraft there, see the airplane, and observe the problems firsthand. I have also met with the executive leadership of Bell and Boeing, and with the executive leadership of the Marines, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of Defense.

We also have had a number of studies completed on the MV-22, including one at NASA Ames [Ames Research Center] that, in my view, reached a very positive finding.

We still have airplane testing to accomplish. We are anxious to get the airplanes into the air to finish the flight-test program. That will provide a significant number of important data points for us. But, on the basis of my personal analysis and involvement, I am comfortable that the program is ready to move forward.

One of the tough problems waiting in your in-basket when you arrived was Vieques. You have directed that all training end there in 2003. But key members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have indicated that they will not support termination of the training on Vieques unless an equal or superior location for training exists and is available for use. The Center for Naval Analyses [CNA] is studying this issue for you. How do you see it unfolding?

ENGLAND: Whatever law Congress passes, we will first and foremost obey the law. However, my expectation is that we will have an alternate way and/or an alternate place to do the training that we now do on Vieques. In my judgment, we will have other more effective ways to do the training. My expectation is that we will have some preliminary answers to the CNA study this fall, and we will meet the deadline of May 2003. We currently must conduct a referendum in November, and it seems pretty certain--based on the last vote on the island--we will lose that referendum. So we will be leaving Vieques by 2003 unless the Congress passes a different law.

The port-security hearings chaired by Senator Hollings [Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.)] highlight a new national-security concern--one that the Coast Guard has faced for a number of years. Will the Navy be working with the Coast Guard more closely in the future to ensure better overall security in the nation's ports and harbors?

ENGLAND: We are working with the Coast Guard today, and that cooperation will continue. We are now spending quite a bit of money in the force-protection area. Part of the FY '02 budget increase was for force protection, including harbor protection. Force protection is basically a fully funded program now, and we will continue to work with the Coast Guard and other agencies in that area.

Do you have any other examples where there may be closer cooperation?

ENGLAND: Some areas might include search-and-rescue, counterdrug, and port-security operations, but we already have a number of successful cooperative endeavors in place. The Coast Guard also needs to modernize and recapitalize its ships and aircraft, and we are working with them in that area. Our Naval Sea Systems Command, for example, is working with the Coast Guard on their Deepwater project. It is important for the Navy and Coast Guard to stay very, very closely aligned.

There has been much closer integration of the Naval Reserve with the active force in recent years. Do you see this trend continuing--or possibly expanding?

ENGLAND: It will certainly continue, and it could expand. They already do all of our Navy strategic airlift. I don't know if the role of the Naval Reserve will significantly expand beyond where it is today. It will depend on the QDR and what the budget implications will be for our future role in defense strategy. Certainly, the Naval Reserve is a vital and integral part of our total force today, and I do not expect that situation to change.

The Naval Reserve also has significant recapitalization requirements for its aircraft and ships, correct?

ENGLAND: Yes, it does. As a matter of fact, there are significant costs associated with the Naval Reserve, especially when they travel considerable distances to serve. That's one of the issues we are looking at.

There has been much talk about "leaping a generation of technology" to rebuild the military. This sounds good, but no one has said exactly what it means--or how much it will cost and what the risk will be. History shows that most, if not all, major technological breakthroughs come incrementally. What are your thoughts as they relate to the Navy's ongoing transformation?

ENGLAND: Well, you don't realize most technological breakthroughs have happened until well after they have happened! You can look back historically and say the atomic bomb was a technological breakthrough. Submarines, of course, were developed over a long period of time, as were tanks and airplanes. Even our cruise missiles were developed over a long period of time. The nuclear-powered submarine was a technological breakthrough, but it also was to some extent an evolutionary development. I think most technological breakthroughs are recognized as such only when you look back in time.

I think the most important thing we can do to stimulate the development of technological breakthroughs is to try to get more of U.S. industry and brainpower to work with the military services. Today we tend to exclude much of the technology under development in the United States because there is a perception in DOD that "it's not invented here"--within or by our military services. As long as we have this perception we will exclude much of the brainpower of the United States. We will be at a disadvantage because everyone else in the world can access or use the commercial technology that's available in the marketplace. If we don't find a way to do that more effectively--and do it faster--we will be at a competitive disadvantage. Our defense business practices are the biggest impediments to technological innovation. That's the issue.

Given your background in industry and your understanding of the problems with the defense-acquisition process, do you anticipate that one of the ways you will use your limited time will be to interface more with private industry?

ENGLAND: Understanding the problems is one thing, but being able to fix them here in the DOD is a different matter, right? I understand the problems, but fixing them is largely a bureaucratic issue about how we buy and fund things. It gets into our whole funding cycle. We identify requirements, we get money put in the POM [program objective memorandum], we budget for them, they go to the Congress--which may or may not keep them in--and money is available the following year. When you run a program this way, there is a long time lag before we can actually incorporate the technology in our weapon systems.

We must look at the business practices here in the DOD and, I believe, rather dramatically reform the way we do business. I don't think we will ever make DOD like a commercial enterprise, but if we can improve the system by 50 percent, it will be a giant step forward.

How do you stimulate an environment in which industry "pushes" new systems and improved capabilities to those in the Pentagon defining military requirements?

ENGLAND: I think it's primarily through Jay Cohen [Chief of Naval Research Rear Adm. Jay M. Cohen] and his people in the R&D arena. We would like to use Navy funds for things that may otherwise get no attention. It's very important that we take our scarce funding and limit it to those things that otherwise would not be developed for the military. We would like to rely on the marketplace to provide us the rest of the technology and new ideas we need.

Can you give a few examples of what you described as DOD being "largely out of step with modern American management?"

ENGLAND: Part of it is what we just talked about--the extreme amounts of time it takes to incorporate technology into our products and the time to develop a weapon system. Some industries have a strategic plan that projects out one year. They come out with new products every six months. Well, in a year, of course, we're still formulating a budget. We're obviously not going to be able to compete with those time lines!

Also, much of our logistics system is still pretty much a "just in case" rather than "just in time" system. We need war reserves, but we don't need all of the parts pipelines that we have today. Our entire support infrastructure needs to be modernized. Our procurement process is largely driven by requirements. It is a "pull" system and not much of a "push" system.

We need a holistic answer to this problem. I do not believe you can just change one or two things and change the system. We need to take down the walls around the DOD--the five-sided walls that create a separate business environment. That separate business environment has been constructed by rules, regulations, FARs [federal acquisition regulations], and DARs [defense acquisition regulations]--which have grown all these many years. It makes it very hard for companies to get over, under, or around our walls. Until we provide some breaches in those walls--by doing away with the complex DOD business environment we live in--it will be very hard to reform the system.

Many administrations have attempted to reform DOD acquisition. The Clinton administration, after all, made a concerted effort to reduce cycle times, to improve program management, to acquire COTS [commercial-off-the-shelf] technology, and to revise DOD acquisition regulations. How do you plan to address this challenge?

ENGLAND: The problem is more complicated than just DOD regulations. It really entails three problems: DOD rules and regulations, congressionally mandated requirements, and the way we conduct business within the Department of Navy.

Plus OMB [Office of Management and Budget]!

ENGLAND: Plus OMB. So there are really four aspects of the problem, and they are all interrelated. Unless you work on all four, I don't believe you can affect the system. John Young [Assistant Secretary of the Navy John J. Young] is very aware of this problem, and we have people working on it. We have a Business Improvement Council working within the Department of Defense. However, it does bother me that a lot of well-meaning and very capable people have worked on this problem for a number of years, and the problem still exists. I'm hopeful we may have more success this time. The president wants to improve the system, the secretary of defense wants to improve the system, the three service secretaries want to improve the system, and I believe that personnel in the Department of Navy and our operating forces also want to improve the system!

We are getting down to hard choices. More effective and efficient procurement and acquisition processes will free up money for other things we can buy--for things we must buy. It's not clear to me how successful we will all be. If history is a guide, this is going to be a very difficult problem to fix.

In a related area, should the Department of the Navy and DOD take special action to strengthen the defense industrial base?

ENGLAND: The first thing we need to do is to tear down these walls that I've discussed. We should simplify the way we do business in DOD, and we should have a much more commercial-like environment where we shoulder the responsibility with the contractors. That is the first thing we need to do.

Secondly, we need to decide what we are buying and try to buy things in economic quantities--and at some stable multiyear rate rather than quantities that go up and down each year. We need some stability so the industrial base can plan and invest accordingly.

Do you think you can get Congress to agree on that?

ENGLAND: I don't know. One thing we may want to do is provide more incremental or advance procurement funding. We could lock in the rate, almost akin to a multiyear buy. Those programs are very important. The disadvantage with this approach is that it locks in the rate for the government. Congress and the administration would have to agree first that we want to do it and we can do it. But I believe it would be good business practice.

You have described people--men and women in uniform, their families, and Department of Navy civilian employees--as your highest priority. What thoughts do you have on improving their quality of service and some of the intangibles associated with serving in the Navy and Marine Corps today?

ENGLAND: People are indeed our highest priority. I've commented in a number of forums that we produce products for our military people like aircraft carriers, ships, or airplanes. Those products have no value, no asset value, to the nation--until we put highly trained and capable people on board. Then they have immense value to the nation--far beyond what we paid for them. So people are indeed our most critical and important asset, and we need to invest in them first.

We need to improve their quality of service. The CNO [Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark] has talked about that a lot, and I agree with him. So has Jim Jones [Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James L. Jones]. We need to improve the quality of life and the quality of work for our people. And, of course, people join our military not just for those reasons, but because they are patriotic and want to serve our country. Our people will continue to be the mainstay of the United States military.

Your predecessor, Mr. Danzig [former Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig], said that it is hard to translate much of what is considered gospel--people are our top priority, for example--into practical improvements in the way Sailors and Marines live, work, and fight. The Capital Investment for Labor [program], for example, enabled Sailors to work and train smarter by contracting out much of the routine but time-consuming ship-repair work. Do you anticipate those initiatives will continue?

ENGLAND: Yes, we will continue those initiatives. We are going to look across the entire Navy and Marine Corps for what needs to be done. Our shore infrastructure is being replaced at a rate of about 190 years. Obviously, we need to bring that number down. The commercial rate is about 65 years! We have a long way to go, but the budget in '02 reduced our modernization and repair backlog somewhat. We are hopeful of reducing it some more In '03. As we continue to improve our infrastructure, our workforce will be more productive, and it will also be more efficient and effective.

When you complete your term of office, what is the legacy that you would like to leave for the naval service and the nation?

ENGLAND: I would like to leave the Department of the Navy on a solid economic footing. We have not been in that position for many years. That solid economic footing means that our ships and aircraft are not, on average, aging too rapidly every year, that our shore infrastructure is being modernized at a reasonable rate, and that we run a modern enterprise with the best and most efficient business practices. I would like to have a balanced force in which we are fully funding all its elements adequately--personnel, support, infrastructure, modernization, recapitalization. I would like all those buckets to be full--or at least be on a positive trend line. That is where I would like to be when I leave office.

I do not believe that we, as citizens of the United States, have an inherent right to the freedoms, liberties, and economic prosperity that we as a nation are privileged to enjoy. These blessings were earned by the people of many generations dating back to the earliest days of our republic. Past generations of Americans earned and bequeathed to us the liberty we have today. It is important for today's generation to understand that future generations will enjoy the fruits of freedom only if we do our part to earn and protect them.

We as a nation cannot let our military deteriorate. We owe it to future generations to provide for the nation's defense so that we may continue to help maintain stability, peace, and the economic prosperity of our nation. Our economic prosperity is closely linked to the way our nation's military contributes to international stability around the world. It is important for our nation to realize that and to understand the importance of funding and supporting our military program properly.

In closing, is there anything else that you would like to say to the Navy League and other readers of Sea Power?

ENGLAND: I want to say thanks to the Navy League for everything you do for our men and women in uniform. It was my pleasure and distinct honor to join the Navy League recently as a life member. That puts me in good company!

One of the things I have learned since I assumed office is that as the secretary of the Navy I own the bully pulpit. Nobody in Washington has the total authority and responsibility to do anything--not even the president of the United States! Everyone is limited in what they can do. But what I can do is to get my message out. That is why Sea Power and the Navy League are so important. They provide a means for me to get my message out. If you get your message out enough and people understand it, you can begin to influence events. Using the bully pulpit, you can transmit and amplify your messages literally throughout the country and around the world. I look forward to working closely with you during the days ahead.