GovernmentExecutive.com

Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughead Tuesday underscored the importance of building a future fleet of ships capable of conducting a wide array of operations around the globe. Speaking at the Navy League's Sea-Air-Space conference, Roughead said a mix of capabilities is crucial to the Navy's ability to deter enemies, project power and, when necessary, control the seas. "There's no one-trick pony that does it all," Roughead said. "Balance is key."

The Navy is in the middle of an ambitious and costly plan to build a 313-ship fleet of modern aircraft carriers, destroyers, cruisers and other vessels. That effort has come under increased scrutiny on Capitol Hill, where key lawmakers have questioned whether the Navy's blueprint for its future force is affordable and have suggested scaling back some of its programs. Roughead did not directly address congressional concerns, but he did acknowledge that the Navy must keep costs under control and resist efforts to "gold plate" ships.

"If we seek extraordinary technical overmatch, it will come at the price of capacity," Roughead said. "We have to be mindful of affordability and that means appetite suppression."

During his remarks, Roughead highlighted success in many areas of his shipbuilding portfolio, including cutting costs on the service's Virginia-class submarines, nuclear-powered vessels the Navy hopes to buy for $2 billion apiece. Submarines, Roughead said, are "not Cold War relics" and will become increasingly important as other countries step up production of high-tech boats over the next several years.

Roughead noted that his key focus now is surface combatants, including the DDG-1000 destroyer and the troubled Littoral Combat Ship program. Last year, the Navy canceled construction on the third and fourth LCS because of cost overruns and schedule delays on the first two ships. But Roughead, who said the first LCS will go to sea next month, stressed that the modular ships will give the Navy "tremendous flexibility" in future missions.

The four-star admiral also addressed a projected shortfall in the Navy's fleet of strike fighters, which Navy officials have said will peak at 69 aircraft in 2017 and continue until the service finishes procurement of the Joint Strike Fighter in 2025.

The Marine Corps is expected to face a similar shortage in its fighter fleet. Roughead said he plans to address the fighter issue as he works on the fiscal 2010 budget proposal. Aircraft carriers, he said, are central to the Navy's ability to project power around the world. "But they are nothing without" the fighters, he added.

The Navy has attributed its shortfall to heavy usage of its F/A-18 Hornets and procurement schedules for the JSF, a program that has been dogged by delays and rising costs.

COMMENTS

• The Navy is scrapping vessels that are less than 20 years old, and still have years of usable life in them. If affordablility is an issue, wouldn't it be less costly to keep what we have, instead of developing new classes of vessels with a much higher price tag, to do the same job our existing vessels can? Our current fleet can be upgraded as needed, without the need for extensive R&D on new designs to meet future threats that haven't materialized yet. When new ships are needed, they can be constructed from existing designs, with appropriate upgrades. When it comes to materiel and personnel, our Navy is the best in the world, and can remain so, without busting the budget with new and unneeded assets. Just Saying Posted April 24, 2008 3:28 PM
• If the Navy want to save money, hold civilian managers accountable and fire the ones that are incompetent. SIP/VERAs targeting individuals instead of positions, followed by reorganizing right back to the same size and structure makes no sense at all. Do not allow managers to pre-arrange deals to receive full retirement and full pay as a re-employed annuitants when not justified or allowable under current law. End the corruption. These are my opinions. You'd be surprised at the data from which I derived these opinion. Dan Diviney Posted March 20, 2008 3:44 PM
• If the Navy wants to save money, I agree with the comments previously posted. But, I would also recommend scrapping NMIc. The NMIC system has cost the Government so much money over the years that we could have bought sveral carriers AND stocked tham with the JSF. NMCI is the EDSEL of the IT world. EDS should be ashamed of themselves for foisting such a horrible network, and the Government should be ashamed for buying it. NMCI is a prime example of what's wrong with Contracting in general throughout the government. NMCI is what happens when bean counters are making the decisions instead of technical experts. Steve Posted March 20, 2008 7:11 AM