Senior Editor Gordon I. Peterson interviewed Secretary of the Navy
Richard Danzig for this issue of Sea Power.
Mr.
Secretary, on November 16th one year will have elapsed since you assumed
office. How do you assess the overall state of the Navy and Marine Corps
today?
DANZIG: I am
moved between a sense of congratulation and a sense of concern about the
Navy and Marine Corps. My sense of congratulation reflects their
extraordinary ability to accomplish their mission--the way in which the
Navy and the Marine Corps are always there when the nation calls--and
the way, during the past year, we so dramatically performed our mission
in such an impeccable way. Also, I'm very happy with the progress we
have made during the past year--the great improvements in pay, the
rollback of Redux [the reduced-retirement system], the administration's
addition of more than $100 billion to the military budget over the next
five years, and the translation of that into more [personnel] end
strength, more spare parts, more maintenance, and more shipbuilding.
These are very significant improvements.
My sense of
concern reflects the case that we are still underfunding significant
things. I worry about our infrastructure, our real property maintenance,
and the things for which we did not get additional [budget] plus-ups.
This shows in the way we are operating today. I worry that people are
still working too hard. The pace of operations is very great, and I
would like to see more robust investments in our capabilities. We have
phenomenal potential in things like DD-21 [the 21st-century land-attack
destroyer program], LPD-17 [San Antonio-class amphibious transport
dock], and theater ballistic missile defense. We need more resources to
bring them on line faster.
You said the
Navy-Marine Corps team was always there when the nation called--what
stands out in your mind as that team's most significant achievement
during 1999?
DANZIG: One
very striking phenomenon is that we are using naval power now to
influence events in landlocked countries. Over the last year, the naval
response to the [terrorist] attacks on our embassies in Africa was a
missile raid aimed at camps in Afghanistan. Stop and reflect on what
this means. It was the first time in history that naval forces were
called upon to deal with a landlocked country. This suggests something
of the power that we can bring to bear on these kinds of situations.
Kosovo has no
seaports. The initial major instrument of attack in that theater was the
Navy battle group and, in the end, Marines off the ARG [amphibious ready
group] were brought to bear as the first on scene. The accomplishments
of 1999 underscore that we are dealing with a different kind of
world--one in which naval power reaches much further than its
traditional domain as an instrument everywhere in the world.
Are you
seeing any returns on your efforts to improve the way Sailors and
Marines work, live, and fight?
DANZIG: Oh,
yes--big time. Navy Times ran an article recently describing how
we are using civilians to repaint ships. A chief boatswain's mate was
quoted to the effect that he felt like he had died and gone to heaven!
It is partly by doing that kind of work that way that we replace scarce
Sailor manpower with civilian manpower. This frees up Sailors to do
things that they want to do--to be Sailors and to use their professional
skills. It also means that we can get some of that work done better and
in a more enduring way by using civilians.
Beyond that
effort, we are making very substantial innovations with things like
Smart Ship and the "Smart Work Program" [see box]. They are
enabling Sailors to accomplish their missions with much less extra labor
and that, in turn, brings them to a position where they are able to do
more mentoring or more professional development. That is a big step
forward. Over the next month or so we will implement a program aimed at
our enlisted people that will give Sailors credit towards an A.A.
[associate of arts] or B.A. [bachelor of arts] college degree for their
training in the Navy.
It seems
that the challenge, however, is to strike the right balance. In some
cases--damage control, for example--the size of the crew is important.
DANZIG: One of
the things that I have tried to say is that I am not in this for the
purpose of eliminating people. I am in this for the purpose of trying to
fill our empty billets with people--freeing up our labor so that we can
fill empty billets and so that Sailors are not working so hard. I
specifically gave direction that we are not looking to cut end strength
[i.e., the Navy's personnel strength at the end of each fiscal year]. To
the contrary, we have increased it over the last year. My aim in recent
months was to reach the point by 1 October where we come in over
end strength. Last year we were substantially under end strength, and
that's not where I want to go. In the POM [program objective
memorandum] process I've explained to the Secretary of Defense why I
don't want to draw down the Navy as per the old plans. I want to sustain
and marginally increase the strength of the Navy.
Shipboard
habitability is an important quality-of-life consideration for Sailors,
and NAVSEA's Admiral Nanos [Vice Adm. George P. Nanos Jr., commander,
Naval Sea Systems Command] is leading the charge to make improvements.
What are your interests in this area?
DANZIG: They
are strong. In the long term the biggest thing we have going is
redesigning our ships. DD-21 gives us the potential for that. If we can
dramatically reduce crew size one of the big advantages, from my
standpoint, is we can dramatically increase habitability--to the point
where we can get staterooms for enlisted Sailors. That's a goal.
We don't need
to leave this to the long term. DD-21 will be a decade before it
actually reaches the fleet. I want to do things more immediately. The
"sit-up rack" [a new bunk design that allows a Sailor to sit
up in the berth] is a good example of an improvement in that context.
Many factors influence quality of life for Sailors--like e-mail and the
food-preparation system--and we're trying to press all of these kinds of
things forward as a way to improve conditions aboard ship.
In your
first letter to Sailors and Marines last year you stated that they were
being worn too thin--they were often trying to do too many things with
insufficient support. Has your assessment changed during the past year?
DANZIG: I think
things have gotten better--but not enough to satisfy me. One of the main
causes of this is the number of empty billets at sea. There were 18,000
empty billets at sea when I came to office, and it was a big priority
for me to reduce them. The number of empty billets at sea is now around
11,000, so we have cut about 40 percent out of that problem. I want to
cut another 40 percent over the next year--fill another 7,000 billets to
reduce the number to a more acceptable level of 3,000 to 4,000 empty
billets. That will make a big difference. Then I want to bring it
to zero.
Look at the
manning levels for deploying [aircraft carrier] battle groups--they are
significantly up. They were in the 87 to 88 percent range when I took
office, and now they are in the 91 to 92 percent range. That makes a
real difference, and that is a concrete measure of our progress.
A second
consideration is something the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jay
L. Johnson] had initiated before I came into office--reductions to the
interdeployment training cycle. This is a really good idea, and
he has worked that very successfully to reduce the workload on Sailors.
Third, to the degree that we are achieving innovations in automation, we
will reduce more of the Sailor's workload. I believe we are getting
there.
The Marines
have led all of the armed forces in meeting their recruiting and
retention goals for many months. Has the manpower picture improved for
the Navy?
DANZIG: I laid
down a marker last November. We were 7,000 short in Navy recruiting last
year. That's a dramatic shortfall. We have met our recruiting goals every
month this year, and we will meet our recruiting goals for the year.
Most important, we will not be short in end strength for either the Navy
or Marine Corps.
A lot of credit
for the recruiting success in the Navy belongs with Admiral Barb McGann
[Rear Adm. Barbara E. McGann, commander, Navy Recruiting Command] and
all of her people, as well as Admiral Oliver [Vice Adm. Daniel T.
Oliver, chief of naval personnel]. Similarly, these are very significant
achievements for General Parks [Maj. Gen. Garry L. Parks, commanding
general, Marine Corps Recruiting Command] and General Klimp [Lt. Gen
Jack W. Klimp, deputy chief of staff for manpower and reserve affairs,
Headquarters Marine Corps]. The Navy and Marine Corps are the only
services that met their recruiting goals this year. We need to hold on
to that!
Has the
Navy's uniformed leadership responded to your call to restore some of
the fun of going to sea?
DANZIG: Yes.
Another very good thing that the CNO did was to press the notion of
extending more authority to the commanding officer. This creates a lot
more leeway and a lot more reward for them in their job--and a lot more
leeway for their subordinates. I know that the Marine Corps commandant,
Jim Jones [Gen. James L. Jones Jr.], has a similar emphasis in the
Marine Corps.
More broadly,
we really strain to make sure that liberty time is more quality time.
When security requirements are apparent in port, we ask what the costs
are in terms of quality of life for Sailors and Marines. We have made a
particular effort to make sure that ships get good port calls in
Australia on the way out of the Persian Gulf, for example.
Another
important emphasis for me during all of last year was to eliminate the
"zero defect" mentality. I think it sends a very important
signal of supportiveness to people. It says that you can make mistakes,
but you are going to be judged on the basis of the overall quality of
what you do in the Navy and Marine Corps--not simply on the basis of a
single error.
One pundit
described your suggestion that the Navy needed to consider allowing
women to serve on submarines as tantamount to dropping a depth charge on
the silent service. Do you agree?
DANZIG: Well, I
think a depth charge is destructive, and what I have been trying to do
with respect to this issue is the opposite--to be constructive. I don't
think that raising the topic is destructive. I think we need to talk
openly and honestly with ourselves about issues--issues like zero
defects, issues like our future with the Tailhook Association, issues
like the implications of pregnancy for Sailors, and issues like the
appropriate role of women in the submarine force. These issues shouldn't
be taboo.
What I was
saying to the submarine force is that they need to talk about this issue
and not treat it as an issue that they don't need to address--as if it
will be swept under the rug. I don't view that approach as a depth
charge; I view it as the opposite--which is to bring something up to the
surface that has previously been under the deck. I hope that this
approach will be constructive over the long term.
Women finished
first, second, fourth, sixth, and ninth out of the top 10 graduates at
the Naval Academy this year. I think we need to ask ourselves if we want
to exclude that portion of our talent and labor force from the warfare
communities in the Navy. The answer to that may be that the practical
realities are so strong that we want to do so. We can live with that
answer--if that's what we conclude. Maybe the answer is
otherwise. We need to work it through.
What is the
road ahead for the Navy's relationship with the Tailhook Association?
DANZIG: I will
sit down with the people I asked to attend that association's convention
in August [the assistant secretary of the Navy for manpower and reserve
affairs; the commanding general, Marine Corps Combat Development
Command; and the commander of Naval Air Forces, U.S. Pacific Fleet] to
get a detailed sense of their report. Then I anticipate talking to the
leaders of the Tailhook Association, to the CNO, and to the commandant
about what the right stance is. I would like to reach some clarity about
our relationship with the association in plenty of time to enable them
to plan their next convention with some understanding about just how
much recognition they will receive from the Navy. I think the
Association definitely would like to be responsive to the Navy's
concerns. As to just how much they have chosen to respond, I need first
to talk to those people whom I asked to attend the convention.
Turning to
force structure, are you confident that the Navy will be funded
sufficiently to sustain a fleet of 300 ships in the outyears?
DANZIG: I don't
think anybody is ever fully confident about funding in the outyears. The
world changes; circumstances change. They may change in either
direction. The nation may decide to invest more in the military if the
international situation changes but, on the other hand, you may find
that prices rise and resources are cut. It is an issue that deserves
constant vigilance. What I think we achieved through the presidential
plus-up was a good leg up on that job, and I think we have to remain
very attentive to try to carry it forward.
Do you share
Admiral Johnson's concern that the QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review]
force structure of 305 ships will be insufficient for the future? Some
observers now advocate a fleet of 400 or more ships.
DANZIG: My
sense is that what the optimal size of the fleet should be is a real
issue. Obviously, from our standpoint, more is better. We believe that
the national reward for increasing the number of ships is significant.
Having said that, I would say that I don't place the greatest emphasis
on the number of our ships. I place it on their capabilities. The LPD-17
program, for example, provides us with 12 new ships that will replace
three dozen old ships. If what I really cared most about is counting
platforms, I would keep the older ships and not build any new ones. With
LPD-17, I think everybody would agree that we would rather have the 12
than the 36. Above all, I'm putting the most emphasis on the issue of
capability.
The area where
numbers are particularly sound--and the area where there will be a
significant debate during the year ahead--is where cuts were projected
by the QDR, particularly for attack submarines. There is a fair amount
of study with respect to what the optimum number should be. In this case
[attack submarines], I think it needs to be looked at again.
At a certain
point, however, a ship's capability--even an increased capability--is
not a substitute for numbers when there are high-priority taskings from
unified commanders going unfilled and the Navy is gapping its carrier
presence in high-risk geographic regions. Numbers do count, don't
they?
DANZIG: I agree
with that. And I think that's the point the CNO is making. My only point
is that we should not become so obsessed with numbers that we lose track
of capability. I think we are all talking about the two sides of a
single coin, and how to strike the balance for the right numbers is an
issue.
Do you see
future scenarios playing out where more capable surface-action groups
armed with long-range land-attack weapons and UAVs [unmanned aerial
vehicles] fill the role played by the carrier battle group in the past?
DANZIG: Well,
TLAM [Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile] shooters, for example, don't
necessarily deploy only in the context of carrier battle groups. There
is a lot of potential there. I believe that more capability will lead to
more numbers--because the nation buys more [capability] when it buys a
DDG-51 [Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer] than it got in the
attack power of a Spruance-class destroyer.
When we get to
DD-21, we will buy still more capability. The question for me is what do
we deliver for the nation? Both the CNO and I, and a number of other
people, are saying that we deliver a terrific amount--therefore, there
should be even more substantial investments in sea power.
The maritime
strategy has been in the news recently with some press reports saying
the Navy is revising "Forward ... from the Sea" for the
21st century. Would you care to comment?
DANZIG: We are
undertaking a continuous look at our doctrine and our strategy. It has
led us to conclude that we are basically in the right place with "...
From the Sea" and "Forward ... from the Sea."
The challenge for us is can we, over the next few years, go further--to
the operational implications of that strategy--to translate it into
particular conclusions about our weapons systems, our platforms, our
sensors, or our methods of operational deployments? The services [Navy
and Marine Corps] and I have been working to try to articulate what
those operational implications would be. My hope is that we will develop
a series of very particular propositions that we can all agree to and
implement this fall.
Is there
anything I have not asked you that you would like to say?
DANZIG: I would
just make a general point that some service secretaries think that they
are valuable to the degree that they preach some radical proposition.
The propositions that I'm preaching are not radical--they are like the
gospel for us. The trick is for us to translate things from abstractions
into very concrete action so that we make a better world. What are those
propositions? There are basically four.
The first is
that people really are our most important asset. How do we
translate that? If people are our most important asset, why do we give
them less than optimal habitability? Why do we have gapped billets? Why
are we not meeting our end-strength goals? What can we do for them by
way of educational programs like the A.A. program we discussed earlier?
Translating the general to the specific is the challenge. Above all, it
is easy to subscribe to the rhetoric; the challenge is to convert it
into reality.
When you talk,
for example, about NAVSEA's very commendable work in translating that
into reality--civilian painting crews--that for me is really reassuring.
The question is: Can we move the organization to so buy into living what
is preached that we are, in fact, transforming the lives of Sailors and
Marines? That is how I judge us, first and foremost.
Second, you
mentioned "... From the Sea." How do we translate the
basic concept that we are no longer exclusively concerned with the blue
water world when our task or primary challenge is to influence events
ashore? What does that mean, for example, for our personnel system? One
of the conclusions that I draw is that we should be much more concerned
about developing FAO [foreign-area officer specialists] programs. What
does it mean for our weapons system, our sensors, UAVs, and the like?
The third
proposition is that the Navy and Marine Corps can achieve more synergy
between them. We say "the Navy and Marine Corps team" all the
time. What does that translate into? I'm raising questions like,
"Why do I have a Marine Aviation Campaign Plan and a Navy Aviation
Plan instead of a Department of the Navy Aviation Plan?" Where are
my potentials for cross assignments? Can I get our ARGs and carrier
battle groups to collaborate more effectively? There are a hundred and
one practical questions if you buy the theory. We all buy the
theory--it's gospel--but we need to translate that rhetoric into
reality.
Fourth and
finally, we say all the time that we are in an Information Age. We need
to accept the new technology and implement its transformative
character--make it transform the way we do business. That's a very good
proposition; now, how do we do it? We have terrific leadership from a
number of people in the Navy. But what do we have to do concretely? For
example, we are moving forward with a Navy and Marine Corps Intranet. We
are building an enterprise-research network. What are we doing in terms
of our organization? I am encouraging N6 [Space Information
Warfare/Command and Control Directorate] and C4I [command, control,
communications, computers, and intelligence] to move closer together.
My four basic
propositions are not radical; they are gospel truths for us. What I am
doing every day is to say to the organization, "You have to live it
and be imaginative about how you live it." When the organization is
working well, it is coming up with ideas that I don't have about how to
live the gospel in a much richer kind of way. To my mind, these four
propositions are the precepts we need to live by.
By way of
closing, is there is anything you wish to say directly to the readers of
Sea Power and the members of the Navy League?
DANZIG: Keep on
reading Sea Power and keep on being members of the Navy League!
|
