We're Designing Ourselves to Lose

 

Of course we lost you nitwits. We've designed a palace of glass as our our fortress;

In a fake battle for Taiwan, U.S. forces lost network access almost immediately. Hyten has issued four directives to help change that.

An aggressive red team that had been studying the United States for the last 20 years just ran rings around us. They knew exactly what we're going to do before we did it,” Hyten told an audience Monday at the launch of the Emerging Technologies Institute, an effort by the National Defense Industrial Association industry group to speed military modernization.   

The Pentagon would not provide the name of the wargame, which was classified, but a defense official said one of the scenarios revolved around a battle for Taiwan. One key lesson: gathering ships, aircraft, and other forces to concentrate and reinforce each other’s combat power also made them sitting ducks. 

“We always aggregate to fight, and aggregate to survive. But in today’s world, with hypersonic missiles, with significant long-range fires coming at us from all domains, if you're aggregated and everybody knows where you are, you're vulnerable,” Hyten said.  

I'm sorry, but in spite of all the warnings provided about building an exquisite Tiffany force and shoveling billions in to critical peacetime capabilities that in war immediately are converted in to critical vulnerabilities with zero benefit and uncounted risk ... we are shocked?

Study for 20 years? Bullshit, you can see our vulnerabilities in open source in 20 minutes. 

If we had a culture that allowed aggressive critique as opposed to obsequious agreement, we wouldn't be here. We let the military industrial complex sell of a bill of peacetime-only concepts about networks, real time video, invulnerable satellites, the whole transformational offsetting grabassery that no intelligent person expected to survive any near peer adversary.

No one here at least.

Again; if your entire warfighting CONOPS rests on the chalk-brittle supports of networks, GPS and satellite VOX/DATA, then at war I will blind you, confuse you, target you and kill you. We've been pointing this out here for a decade and a half, as have a legion of others.

We willfully ignored all the hard lessons of a challenged electro-magnetic spectrum. We've raised generations of "thought leaders" who decided it was not profitable to remember that if you leak you die ... instead we flood the air with proof of our location, and cannot fight without giving the enemy all they need to destroy us.

We need new elites. We need new processes. We need a new culture.

The fact that this is actually news, and people are acting as if this is a surprise - that alone should tell you how deeply corrupt and incompetent we have allowed our military to become.

Yes, I'm blogging tired and pissed off. You should be tired and pissed off too. Tired of being lied to, and pissed off at what has been done to the greatest military power the world has seen by a generation of ill-focused, poorly selected, perversely incentivized leaders. Then when they can't hide it anymore, they expect you to give the system a pass.

Bullshit.

Just look at the state of it all; we have a CONOPS that two fundamentals of warfare teamed with two laughably intellectually prolapsed pipe dreams.

Earlier this month, Hyten released four directives to the services: one each for contested logistics; joint fires; Joint All-Domain Command and Control, or JADC2; and information advantage. On Monday, he revealed new details about these “functional battles.”

This is just painful. 

Contested logistics. Creating new ways to deliver fuel and supplies to front lines. U.S. Transportation Command and the Air Force are working on using rockets and a space trajectory to get large cargo spaceships into and out of battlefields. 

First of all, logistics in warfare has always been contested. Also - how about we invest in airlift, sea lift and land transport what can support and sustain a long war with attrition west of Wake by mid-decade first ... then ... for the love of Pete ... who lets this get proposed .... just look at it again.

...large cargo spaceships into and out of battlefields...

I'm sorry, but go fire yourself. That is along the lines of the worst ideas of the post-Korean War nuclear Army.

Joint fires: “You have to aggregate to mass fires, but it doesn't have to be a physical aggregation,” Hyten said. “It could be a virtual aggregation for multiple domains; acting at the same time under a single command structure allows the fires to come in on anybody. It allows you to disaggregate to survive.” Hyten said the joint fires concept “is aspirational. It is unbelievably difficult to do.” And the military will have to figure out what part will be affordable and practical, he said. 

I'm sorry, but go fire yourself again. We proved over the last two decades we cannot make a simple imperial brushfire work, how we are going to fight and win with this fragile construct? I'll save everyone the trouble - you can't.

In the Terrible 20s budgetary environment with so many pressing needs for things to get ready for the fight, this is almost criminal. This is doubling down on the mistakes that made you lose your stupid wargame to begin with.

JADC2: The Pentagon’s push to connect everything demands always-on, hackerproof networks, Hyten said. “The goal is to be fully connected to a combat cloud that has all information that you can access at any time, anyplace,” so that, like with joint fires, the data doesn’t get exposed or hacked because it’s housed in one centralized location, he said. 

This is what happens when people get high off their own supply. This will never happen. If it does, and you rely on it, you will not be able to fight without it ... as such, you lose.

Information advantage: This element is the sum of the first three, Hyten said: “If we can do the things I just described, the United States and our allies will have an information advantage over anybody that we could possibly face.”

Strategic over-promise and under-deliver. This is strategic Sea Monkeyism. We had a huge information advantage over the Taliban and how did that work out for us. We learn nothing.

The new operating concept comes as the U.S. military reshapes its footprint in the Middle East to better prepare for a fight with China. On Monday, President Joe Biden announced U.S. troops will end their combat role in Iraq by the end of the year; the announcement comes just two months after Biden announced a full withdrawal from Afghanistan.   

If we think the above is what will defeat China, we've already lost the war.

Next slide.

As a military, we have learned absolutely nothing.

Sea Monkey marketing is an unattractive look for a superpower.

We May Need an Intervention for Our Navy-USMC Team

No, no, no ... let's not.

This tweet from The Krulak Center makes me break out in a cold, Bullsh1t Bingo sweat;

#TeamKrulak community, our latest #BruteTalk is live! Check out Maj Robert Spodarek’s SAW Future War project on “Mosaic Naval Force Operating Concept: Regaining US Naval Force Competitive Advantage:” @MarineCorpsU @MCUFoundationhttps://t.co/wwHuHj9I1b pic.twitter.com/A38ZKrFtEb

— The Krulak Center (@TheKrulakCenter) July 28, 2020

Just look at it!

Mosaic? Child please.

h/t Jack.

No Army, The Character of War Has Not Changed

There is so much wrong here in the 9th circle of PPT hell, I don't know where to start.

I don't think we would get too deep in to this "almost as intellectually useless as a quad-chart" bit of Staff vomit though; I'd stop the briefer right at the upper left hand corner.

In a bemused tone seasoned with no small bit of sarcasm and irritation;

"Excuse me, but could you please explain how war being, "lethal, contested and having complex operations." is a change from the character of the last few thousand of years of conflict?"

Oh, and  ...

BINGO!

Hat tip @JenJudson

The Beginning of De-Buzzwordification of Pentagonese?

He is only one Service Chief, and we are only talking words, but words mean things. It’s a start. 

To work effectively, you need to communicate clearly, with confidence, and in a manner that is well understood by both the target audience and more importantly – to those who underwrite your project.

Words can also be misused. They can be used to obscure, confuse, inflate importance or de-emphasize importance. When you throw in the overuse of acronyms, the problem just compounds.

You can reach a point that some presentations, articles, and comments include so many of the buzzwords and acronyms popular at that moment – usually floating in a soup of obsequious signaling – that the impression isn’t so much that the speaker or author knows what he is talking about, but simply that he wants you to know he knows what the latest fad is. 

Everything is about the fad, all is impacted by the fad, and we love the fad so much – that we fail to realize that instead of providing insight and clarity, we are just selling Pet Rocks.

In light of that, I welcome CNO Richardson’s ditching of A2/AD;

On Monday, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said he and other Navy brass are going to stop using the acronym "A2/AD" -- short for anti-access area denial, to describe maritime threats and challenges.

The term has become too broad and too ambiguous, he said, an insider shorthand that describes a range of nuanced and very different problems. In place of A2/AD, Navy leaders will not get a different catch-all term to use, but rather will focus on describing the specifics of the challenge at hand.

"We have to resist the temptation to oversimplify this conversation," Richardson said. "I'm afraid I'm just not going to propose replacing one acronym with another. [Although] no matter what I say, we will eventually get to an acronym."

A few more remarks on the topic;

“To ensure clarity in our thinking and precision… We’ll no longer use the term A2/AD as a stand-alone acronym that can mean all things to all people or anything to anyone – we have to be better than that,” he said.

“Since different theaters present unique challenges, ‘one size fits all’ term to describe the mission and the challenge creates confusion, not clarity. Instead, we will talk in specifics about our strategies and capabilities relative to those of our potential adversaries, within the specific context of geography, concepts, and technologies.”

I understand where a lot of this starts. On the good side, people are looking for a simple shorthand to explain a challenge without going in to details. I don’t think it works out that way at the end of the day most of the time. 

For those who know the business, it just builds cynicism by those on the receiving end that those in power are historically ignorant at best, most likely just being patronizing, or at worst shilling for and repeating the spin coming from the defense industry’s latest marketing program.

It can at times turn in to a wonk version of a rap battle. Classic case, General Neller, USMC states,

…marines must wage a “four-block war (in) six domains…”

Those in the fraternity know what he means, mostly, but why iterate a previous buzzword “three-block war” and add more stuff to it? How did C2 become C3I become C4I become C4ISR? How many Marines are now going to force "four-block war in six domains" in their work?

Buzzwords and acronyms often become an end to themselves. Instead of talking about missions, roles and responsibilities, we feel the need to create an esoteric vocabulary that is often a barrier to discussing the unchanging fundamentals of this business; what are your critical vulnerabilities, critical capabilities, etc etc.

I’d like to hear more from the CNO on this topic. By his example, he could greatly elevate how we talk about our challenges and as a result bring about better solutions.

At the end of his article, the always subtly cheeky Sam put in a nice reminder of this rather systemic problem;

Early last year, the Office of the Secretary of Defense changed the name of the controversial Air Sea Battle Office – the group tasked with countering the A2/AD threat on a larger Pentagon level – to the Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC pronounced: Jam, Gee-Cee) and folded it into the Pentagon’s joint staff.

Clear?

Diversity Thursday

So, on DivThu, if the "... head of diversity, inclusion and women’s policy for the U.S. Navy (who BTW is a CAPT (sel) and needs to update her linkedin profile) ..." has an article at WaPo titled; To keep up with 21st century threats, the military needs to modernize its hiring, should we Fisk it?

Why yes, we should.

But, first things first.

Unless something has changed recently such that the USN has not updated its innerwebs, there is no such thing as the "head of diversity, inclusion and women’s policy." There is OPNAV N134 that in theory is the Navy Office of Diversity and Inclusion - but their websites, as linked on their facebook page (that hasn't been touched since July) are all dead ends, and their official Navy.mil site hasn't been touched since April of 2013 and tells nothing of leadership - nor does their Navy.com site that still has Admiral Harris as a 3-star. Their NPC site looks all of 1996, and their twitter account (both of them) are dead.

Perhaps she is running the Office of Women's Policy (OPNAV N134W) (no, I didn't make that 4-digit N-code up) But again, they are very poor about identifying who is in a leadership position only giving three LT's named Erin, Heidi, and Tawney (not very diverse) as staff members, and their brief is from March of 2013 without much mention of who is running the circus either.

Here's an idea, before our good O-6 to be starts coming up with such bang-up ideas about the future, perhaps she should first get her present day house in order. Yes, that is petty, but in 2014, one can't help oneself. 

Now that we have established how great the Diversity Bullies have their social media in order to the point they can pimp articles to WaPo, let's go.

By Renee J. Squier September 23 at 9:34 PM
The writer is head of diversity, inclusion and women’s policy for the U.S. Navy. The views expressed here are her own.

Cool. This writer thinks anyone who is a HR officer on active duty can express her own views, then so can he. Using the starting point that as a professional group, on balance the self-licking, Cultural Marxist, sectarian, non-value added Navy adjunct to the diversity industry do little more than sow derision in the ranks, promote their own self interest, and in general through the performance of their duties are prejudicial to good order and discipline - then we should not let them suffer the soft bigotry of low expectations. We should offer our constructive and not-so-constructive review of their ideas.

She didn't get to O-6 for nut'n, I'm sure she's fine with it. Nothing personal - I am sure we would get along swimmingly, but Squier's ideas .... well. Let's see what cuts the WaPo mustard.

If the United States were attacked again, the way it was at Pearl Harbor or on Sept. 11, would you step forward to serve in the military? If you’ve climbed any distance up the career ladder, the answer is probably no, because the military hires people almost exclusively at entry level, and signing up could severely diminish your pay and status.

Wow. Well, I served 21 years on active duty, so I get a check in that block. After both those attacks - especially Pearl Harbor - hundreds of thousands of people in their teens, twenties, thirties, forties, and more were directly commissioned for their skill sets - and enlisted if they met the physical requirements. Even more served as civilians. After 911, as needed, so did more people leave their lives behind to serve. "Pay and Status" were not their concern. I'm not sure what she is going for in this paragraph, but it sure gives some insight in to what this HR professional thinks about people's motivations ... and it is wide of the mark and ahistorical.

But what does that mean for the defense of our nation? 

The world is changing rapidly, with technology at the forefront. It once was possible to hire military personnel young and teach them to be experts in a single skill over a 20- to 30-year career. But today this approach isolates the military from society, limiting its expertise with cutting-edge technology and reducing the diversity of its thinking.

The strawmen cometh. That could have been written at any decade in living memory and beyond. I don't know of a single enlisted person or officer who spent "20-to-30 years" on a single skill. Shipmate .... you may have spent from what I see the last six years plus just doing HR - but in the Fleet, you are lucky if you do the same thing for one tour, much less a career.

Technological change was much greater from 1910 to 1950 than it has been from 1974 to 2014. It is simply temporal copernican narcissism to think that "all is new." As for "diversity of its thinking" - wouldn't a first step perhaps be to move away from the STEM bias ... but that is a different topic for a different day. Want to give people a few years for dedicated study at civilian institution or extended fellowships at civilian corporations? Yea, that is good ... but Squier isn't quite asking for that as I can tell.

Plus, in the past, people were our main source of power projection and had to be physically present at the battlefield in a fight. But this, too, has changed. Now we use missiles and drones to fight from a distance when possible. The need for skills beyond physical prowess has multiplied.

I'm sorry. The ICBM has been with us since, when, 1959? Drones have been in use for even longer. No transformational crisis there.

Oh, "physical prowess" .... mmmm .... a little motivational leg showing here. We shall keep an eye on that as we go further ....

The breakneck advance of technology is producing commensurate change in the threats we face. How can we keep up? The answer is to be just as innovative with our human resources strategy as we are with our weapons and tactics. We need new ways to recruit the best talent to defend our nation. The key is to modernize our core concept of an all-volunteer force to include lateral hiring.

"Breakneck?" Child please. There is that "transformational" don't-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste-if-we-don't-have-a-crisis-let's-play-pretend that has grown so shopworn.

From Libya to ISIS/L/Islamic State to Ukraine to the Taiwan Straights ... even throwing in cyber (just an extension of electromagnetic warfare) - just how have the threats changed?

Answer; they haven't. They only seem unusual if you have not been paying attention or only have a historical perspective the length of your conscience life.

Now we have her "it," the term "lateral hiring." Nice - not quite ready for bu11sh1t bingo, but we'll put in on the side of the page just in case.

When the all-volunteer force was formed in the 1970s, its structure reflected the common career arcs of the day, where many workers served a single employer their entire careers. Now, workers change jobs every few years, updating and improving their skills to stay current. The military hasn’t kept pace.

I will agree that we need to update our personnel system - something we spent an hour talking to VADM Moran about on Midrats - but again - our Sailors are changing jobs every few years as well ... so are our officers. OK, Staff types, ahem, may feel stuck on groundhog day, but line officers? Job stability, well ... that's cute. In the middle 10-yrs of my career, I had four distinctly different job responsibilities over five tours - three of which were sea tours. That's normal.

Suppose you could enlist at a rank reflecting your management experience or mastery of a valuable, high-level skill? And for a limited number of years? Would that make you more likely to answer the call to serve in an emergency? For large numbers of patriotic Americans, I think it would.

Sure, I can imagine it ... because I've seen it with some, ahem, Staff positions. I have also seen this ... wait for it ... BY TAPPING IN TO THE FRACKING RESERVES FOR RECALL TO ACTIVE DUTY.

For the love of Pete ... could it be any clearer? But, I'm getting distracted by the shiny light on the wall ... back to the topic.

I would like an example exactly who in WWII or in the post 911 world we could not bring in to the fight? Examples please; UIC and BSC would be nice, but I'll take NECC or designators if possible. This general statement is just so much fried air.

There are many advantages to this approach. Although boot camp or officer candidate school would still be required to acclimate enlistees to the unique culture of the military, lateral hiring would significantly reduce the time needed to “create” effective leaders. 

(1) Officers are not enlistees. (2) I don't see how lateral hiring would have anything to do about "creating" effective leaders. Positional authority is not the same as being an effective leader.

It would also ease budgetary pressures by enabling the United States to maintain a smaller standing military, since it would be much easier to rapidly increase numbers across all ranks in a crisis. There would still be career military members, but they would be fewer and less likely to have served continuously. Instead, they would move more freely between the military and private industry.

OK, once again we are talking ABOUT THE FRACKING RESERVES. Renee, you are hurting my head.

The biggest impediment would be cultural. Some will say that lateral hiring would dilute the quality and prestige of the services, or that competition with “outsiders” for promotions would be unfair to those working their way up the ranks. 

Way too many generalities. Again, it depends on the specifics of the job. If you are a cardiologist who is less than a decade out of med school as a LCDR and the head of cardiology from Harvard Medical School came in at age 55 as a CAPT - I don't think you'd have an issue.

If on the other hand, you are a LCDR F-18 pilot with 3,000 hrs and a tour as a FRS instructor and then a 737 pilot is coming in to be your CO after just getting his safe-to-solo flight ... then sure ... there might be issues ... especially when that 737 pilot took a command slot away from a newly minted pilot with 4,000 hours and multiple combat tours.

How about a "lateral hiring" in to a SEAL team? Make a UFC champion a Chief and put him on a team ahead of others who have been on teams for 15 years?

Yes, I know - that is all rather silly, but I am only illustrating absurdity by being absurd. That is not what Squier is talking about.

But the imperative to maintain technological dominance begs for cross-discipline, integrated careers. Every company in the world does lateral hiring, and their employees accept new leaders as a matter of course. It may be difficult to give up the traditional military career ladder, but there is much more to be gained by seeking greater diversity in skills, experience and ideas.

Again ... define "diversity" please ... the Navy, especially those in the diversity commissariat like Squier, have muddied that name a bit. 

My career was very cross-discipline - heck I had jobs that were coded for a completely different designator - and in another case, a higher rank from another service. And again ... my experience is not unusual. Then again ... I was an unrestricted line officer. YMMV.

As for the substance of the rest of the above paragraph, sound great, and we have that IN THE FRACKING RESERVES.

I do not think that Squier really addressed the topic she wanted to address. She talked around it and played a little dog whistle shadow puppet with it ... but really. That can't be it. 

I was hoping for something more along the lines of what we have discussed multiple times on Midrats, but alas ... I am left disappointed. 

Amid Tears of Shame ... I Find Hope

As I mentioned to a small cadre last week, this really should not see the light of day.

Whatever we do, we should not let Marine Corps officers read this ... as we would never hear the end of it.

Now, what kind of Salamanderesque attitude is that? I must be getting weak.

No, back to Vince Lombardi Salamander. Sunlight is the best medicine; things shouldn't be off limits just because it might create discomfort for some.

So ... navylive.dodlive.mil has been such a treasure trove of for the snark inclined as of late; it would be sad to let such glowing gems of leadership not to be gibbetted to the masses as examples of what not to do. We simply must do better.

I'll let you get their names from the link, but here is what we got for answers from the question; "How Do Junior Officers Inspire Innovation?"

BEHOLD!

A junior officer, or JO as we call them, are your typical new kids on the block. Even a seasoned JO has something to learn and discover about his or her leadership style. ... The willingness to try something new and think outside the box is a junior officer’s key to inspiring innovation. The impact this has on a Sailor, fellow officer, and/or entire crew can have lasting effects. Their ideas can spread throughout commands simply by word of mouth. Innovation and new ideas from a JO can be a breath of fresh air. A curious JO, who is constantly learning, will always try to think of something new.
...Working on the deck plates with Sailors on a daily basis is the greatest responsibility of a junior officer. Our position demands that we guide Sailors to their optimal potential, personally and professionally. Because we are on the deck plates, we see the flaws that “trickle down through the ranks.” While we are a Navy rooted in tradition, our finest resource is the diversity in which we are comprised.
...The role of the junior officer in the Surface Fleet has evolved over the years. The junior officers have become more of a bridge between officers and enlisted,...
...comparing what I do on Freedom to a junior officer’s role on a traditional CRUDES ship is like comparing apples and oranges.

On my cruiser, you wouldn’t find a single junior officer (including myself) helping to clean, move boxes from the pier to the ship, take down lifelines for a gunnery exercise, or even clean their own plate and flatware.
...When I help my Boatswain’s Mates move shackles from anchor windlass or my Operational Specialists write messages, not only am I helping accomplish a task to further the mission of the ship, I’m simultaneously building rapport and a stronger working relationship with my Sailors.

For the love of all that is holy, I need a drink.

Wait ... wait ... there is hope, and hope has a name.

There is one JO in this cluster that deserves to be mentioned by name. By name, as he gets a Salamander BZ and should give all hope that yes, our Navy still makes them right.

Very well played Lieutenant ... very well played.

I give you the Salamander JO of the Month; LT Austin Henne, USN, Main Propulsion Assistant on USS Freedom (LCS-1).

His answer made my week.

I recently attended a LCS PMS summit headed by Rear Adm. Gale  The conference was focused on establishing clear informational objectives required prior to making a decision on the balance between LCS contractor preventative maintenance vs. ISEA based preventative maintenance.  I was extremely impressed by the individuals representing SURFOR, NAVSEA, Lockheed Martin, NAVSES, LCS Squadron 1, and various entities.

While they expressed insight into their specialized fields, I quickly realized I was the only individual in the room who was currently serving on a LCS.  When given the chance to speak, I made every effort to tell the story of the blue shirts on the deck plates who strive valiantly every single day to work hand-in-hand with contractors to ensure that LCS is a viable fleet asset to perform sustained operations at sea.  However, the number of hours that ship force was spending on contractor maintenance was going largely undocumented. In short, the following week a request was made to ship force to document the man hours that ship force spent on contractor maintenance either tagging equipment out, operating machinery, or escorting personnel in secure spaces.  I am very satisfied to know that the enormous effort that LCS Sailors are making are being more accurately documented.

Boom. It is all right there; 
- Put the entire LCS cabal on report, they are a detached and abstractly focused group. In spite of the fact that LCS has been displacing water for years, they only have one serving person at the summit. All those very senior, very experienced, and very important people in one room .... and only one 1st-hand report among them. Gobsmacking.
- Blowing off the squishy question and instead giving an answer to the question you wish were asked.
- Speaking truth to power that their metrics and pretty PPT are garbage as maintenance hours are not reported correctly. The worse fears that those of us have had since the start of LCS's manning CONOPS are right there; contractor maintenance is not meeting the needs of the Fleet, and as a result, already overworked Sailors are having to do the work for them. By doing so, you effected positive change that will help HIS Sailors and HIS Navy.
- Speaking for HIS Sailors because they cannot speak for themselves. Putting himself out there for HIS Sailors, because that is what an officer does. Focused on the ability of HIS Sailors to do their assigned duties in support of HIS ship in the face of a support structure that is failing them. Ship, Shipmate, and then Self.  

LT Henne; if you did this on purpose, BZ. If not, then even more of a BZ as you have the instincts of the best that we ask of our junior officers. Your peers that came first in the article should make sure and scroll down the page and ponder your entry.

Benchmark.

Establishing the Unpronounceable

No - this is not the DuffleBlog. You can't even say it sober.

Read it all here if you must ...

---

OPNAV NOTICE 5400

From: Chief of Naval Operations

Subj: ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMANDER, NAVY EXPEDITIONARY COMBAT COMMAND PACIFIC; MODIFICATION OF COMMANDER, FIRST NAVAL CONSTRUCTION DIVISION PACIFIC; RENAMING OF COMMANDER, FIRST NAVAL CONSTRUCTION DIVISION/NAVAL CONSTRUCTION FORCES COMMAND; MODIFICATION OF COMMANDER, COASTAL RIVERINE GROUP ONE; AND MODIFICATION OF COMMANDER, EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL GROUP ONE

Ref: (a) OPNAVINST 5400.44A(b) OPNAVNOTE 5400 Ser DNS-33/12U102020 of 01 Mar 2012(Canc: Mar 2013)

1. Purpose. To approve establishment of Commander, Navy Expeditionary Combat Command Pacific (COMNAVEXPDCMBTCOMPAC), modification of Commander, First Naval Construction Division Pacific (FIRST NCD PACIFIC), renaming of Commander, First Naval Construction Division/Naval Construction Forces Command (COMFIRSTNCD/COMNAVCONFORCOM), and modification of Commander, Coastal Riverine Group One (CORIVGRU ONE) and Commander, Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group One (COMEODGRU ONE) per reference (a).

---

Hat tip Chris Cavas.

Triple Dip for Fun and Profit

I had to check the commas twice. How many seagoing billets can you fund with this?

Nice work if you can get it.

Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean, Va. (N00189-12-D-0024), and CACI-CMS, Chantilly, Va. (N00189-12-D- 0025), are each being awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts with cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price pricing provisions. The contract shall provide leadership teams, providing expertise in change management, barrier identification and removal, and key enterprise performance metrics. The contractor will focus efforts on applying the key tenets of a structured, process-focused, metrics-driven enterprise approach to determine required output, identify and remove barriers, develop and analyze measures of performance, and manage the cultural changes necessary to reach enterprise objectives. Booz Allen Hamilton is being awarded $22,748,505 and CACI-CMS is being awarded $23,440,323. Both contracts contain four one-year options periods, which, if exercised, will bring the contract ceiling amount value for Booz Allen Hamilton to $119,291,843 and for CACI-CMS to $121,446,377. Work will be performed at various sites inside the continental United States to include Patuxent River, Md.; San Diego, Calif.; Norfolk, Va.; and Washington, D.C. The contractor shall perform this work primarily at government sites with recommendations for alternative sites offered for consideration at the task order level. It is estimated that the work will be performed on-site at government sites (86 percent) and off-site at contractor sites (14 percent). Work is expected to be completed June 19, 2013. Funding in the amount of $25,000 for the minimum guarantee, will be divided equally between both contracts, from the Operations and Maintenance, Navy fund, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, Sept. 30, 2012. The contract was competitively procured. The requirement was issued under full and open competition and solicited through the Government-wide Points of Entry, Navy Electronic Commerce On-line and Federal Business Opportunities websites. Four offers were received. The Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk, Va., is the contracting activity.

Remind me what all our senior officers with advanced degrees are for again?

Hat tip Mike.

Somebody ... please translate this for me ...

I'm not drinking my breakfast ... yet ... but I've read this twice and all I can think of is a need to say, "BINGO!"

Booz Allen Hamilton, Norfolk, Va., is being awarded a not-to-exceed $20,000,000 modification to previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price pricing provisions contract (N00189-08-D-0022) to increase funded amount. The total contract value inclusive of all modifications is estimated at $184,103,663. The contract will provide leadership teams, providing expertise in change management, barrier identification and removal, and key enterprise performance metrics. The contractor will focus efforts on applying the key tenets of a structured, process-focused, metrics-driven enterprise approach to determine required output, identify and remove barriers, develop and analyze measures of performance, and manage the cultural changes necessary to reach enterprise objectives. It is the primary role of the contractor to work with naval personnel, active, reserve, civilian, and other government contractors, to accomplish the goals of the enterprise. Work will performed on-site at government sites (72 percent) and off-site contractors sites (28 percent). Work will be completed by Sept. 30, 2012. Funding will be operations and maintenance, Navy provided by the individual Fleet Readiness Enterprises and will be placed on individual task orders. Contract funds in the amount of $20,000,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The requirement was issued on a sole-source basis utilizing other than full and open competition procedures. NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center, Norfolk, Va., is the contracting activity (N00189-08-D-0022).

I See Your Train Wreck and Raise You a Pathetic

We've talked about it here, and we talked to our buddy Phil about it on Midrats - and Phil hits on it again.

Just when you thought it was safe to take a knee and run out the clock on 2011 in the hopes that the new year would be better — it ain’t.

Sandra Erwin of National Defense magazine penned a deeply pessimistic look ahead Wednesday that concluded the Pentagon’s 2012 could make 2011 look like a box social by comparison. The Building will continue to cover its eyes and plug its ears about the truth of the big crunch; the services’ food fights will only intensify; strategy types’ lazy groupthink will persist; and cost and schedule problems are only going to worsen on the big programs.

We've been talking about it for years - any economic historian could tell you it was coming - and we haven't even hit the Terrible 20s yet.

The problem is deep, ugly, and institutional. It will only change with the right leadership; first in suits - then in uniform. There are people who can do what needs to be done - but they don't have the top cover bureaucratically and politically to do it.

We don't that that right combination of professional and intellectual courage at the front right now. As a result, things will be much worse before they get better.

You'll know change when you see it - when leaders who have clearer and more active priorities than the socio-political fads of Diversity and green energy come to the front.

Sandra sees it along with another Midrats alumni, Daniel Gouré.

The Pentagon Will Continue to Live in Denial About the Approaching Fiscal Train Wreck
Yes, a budget train wreck is a shopworn cliché inside the Beltway. It dates back to 1995, when the Center for Strategic and International Studies published, “Averting the Defense Train Wreck in the New Millennium.” One of the authors, industry analyst Daniel Gouré, admits that the Pentagon has so far avoided fiscal disaster. The post 9/11 spending surge prevented the Defense Department from fixing its weapons cost-growth problem and only exacerbated an imbalance between tooth and tail. But with the nation in dire financial straits and its leaders incapable of addressing the debt crisis, “We know the train wreck is inevitable,” says Gouré. “We choose not to think about it because it’s not here right now.”

The trends that the CSIS report brought to light in 1995 have not changed, he says. “Nobody wants to address cost growth in major systems.” At the time, the message was that the Defense Department needed to make strategic choices of whether to modernize its aging equipment or reduce its work force. The same dilemma exists, and it’s only been made worse by the huge increases in the cost of military personnel.

Regardless of the election outcome, Gouré predicts, whoever takes over has to come to grips with the reality that the current defense apparatus is unaffordable.

New Buzzwords Will Masquerade Old Thinking
Pentagon strategists and think tanks have a history of becoming infatuated with “concepts,” which also can be described as the Pentagon’s worldview captured in three-letter acronyms. The decade of the 1990s was all about NCW (network centric warfare) which morphed into RMA (revolution in military affairs). Then came EBO (effects-based operations), coupled with CBR (capabilities based requirements) or TBR (threat based requirements).

Changes in buzzwords didn’t really bring about innovative thinking, however, says Frank Hoffman, military analyst at the National Defense University. “We suffer from strategic amnesia,” he says, “and continue to repeat [mistakes of] the past.”

Part of the problem is that we don't study our own history; recent or far. Combine that with a culture that does not reward aggressive debate - and you drift until you run aground.

There are signs of the problem at the core of our military structures all over the place if you want to see them. They are I&W of a deep fault a the core of the system. That is where the pathetic comes in.

DFAS is unable to reconcile the cash activity recorded in the Navy’s general ledger accounting systems to that recorded in DCAS. DFAS officials stated they acquired the Business Activity Monitoring (BAM) tool to perform this reconciliation; however, after 4 years of effort and $29 million, the BAM tool does not yet provide the information needed to identify and resolve the underlying causes of differences between DCAS and Navy general ledger systems. As of April 2011, there were more than $22 billion unmatched disbursements and collections affecting more than 10,000 lines of accounting. DOD IG officials stated they were performing substantive testing to confirm the balance of the Marine Corps FBWT as part of their audit of the Marine Corps’s Fiscal Year 2011 Statement of Budgetary Resources. This testing did not include internal control and did not provide assurance on the effectiveness of the Marine Corps’ FBWT reconciliation process. Navy, Marine Corps, and DFAS-CL officials agreed existing FBWT policies and procedures are inadequate. DFAS-CL and Navy officials stated the base realignment and closure changes 2006–2008 resulted in loss of experienced DFAS-CL personnel and that remaining staff have not received needed training. The Navy is developing a plan of action and milestones (POAM) to address weaknesses in audit readiness.
...
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in October that the Pentagon is preparing to be audit-ready by 2014. The Senate passed an amendment in the defense authorization bill from Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) that would have required the 2014 Pentagon audit, but the amendment was stripped out of the final legislation.

Excuses. Acceptance of a systemic incompetence that if practiced in the civilian sector would land people in jail.

So - when do we turn? No time soon I am afraid. It will take crisis that will require bold action - or a civilian leadership who can break the cycle that has us where we are.

In the meantime - good people will do their best to serve their nation - a nation bereft of the right people in the right place at the right time - thrashing away in a quagmire of our own creation.

Sunday Funnies

What did Santa bring you?


Hat tip InkSpots via Andrew.

Programmatic Potpourri!

A friend of the blog sent along the following very serious but also very funny excerpt from a Acquisition Program document.

People wonder where I got the idea for the subtitle of this blog from ....

Sometimes you have to wonder if we just hit the "Enter" button in a random word generator to create this stuff - or just pick a scattering of FITREP bullets; same thing.

People write, read, and make policy based on this every day. It explains a lot.

BEHOLD!

"Integrate force projection, employment and sustainment in order to eliminate unnecessary redundancies, reduce friction, stimulate synergy, and enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of operations."

Someone Please diagram that sentence for me.

Hat tip J.

Diversity Thursday

Really, the intellectual damage the Diversity Cult has inflicted on the Navy is beyond parody. You can win Bu11sh1t Bingo in the first two paragraphs along. The Onion could not do better. It is almost as bad as this blog's mission statement at the top of the page.

Wow. Just wow. What a demonstration of obsequious, soul-selling, ass-smacking as is rarely seen outside of a Maoist Self-Criticism Seminar.

R301006ZJUL
UNCLAS//
N05354//
ALNAVRESFOR 004/10
SUBJ/CHIEF OF NAVY RESERVE DIVERSITY STRATEGIC VISION//
REF/A/MSG/CNO/031958Z MAR 2008//
AMPN/REF A IS THE CNO DIVERSITY POLICY GUIDANCE NAVADMIN 059/08//

RMKS/1. THIS ALNAVRESFOR ANNOUNCES OUR NAVY RESERVE DIVERSITY STRATEGIC
VISION ISSUED 21 MAY 2010.

2. THROUGHOUT OUR FORCE AND ACROSS OUR COUNTRY AND THE GLOBE OUR RESERVE FORCE EMPHASIZES THE CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE OF DEVELOPING AND EXECUTING A ROBUST DIVERSITY PROGRAM TO SUPPORT THE NAVY TOTAL FORCE OF THE FUTURE. PER REF A, CONTINUING TO PROACTIVELY STRESS ORGANIZATIONAL DIVERSITY REMAINS A TOP PRIORITY THROUGHOUT OUR NAVY AND IS A KEY ENABLER FOR OUR SUCCESS AS A GLOBAL FORCE FOR GOOD. ATTRACTING, RECRUITING, TRAINING AND RETAINING A DIVERSE, VERSATILE NAVY WORKFORCE IS CRITICAL TO ACHIEVING OUR CHIEF OF
NAVAL OPERATION'S VISION AND GOAL FOR OUR NAVY TO EMBRACE THE DIVERSITY AND CAPTURE THE TALENT OF AMERICA. TO SHOW HOW THE NAVY RESERVE FITS INTO THE CNO NAVY TOTAL FORCE DIVERSITY STRATEGY, OUR 2010 DIVERSITY STRATEGIC VISION IS IN ITS ENTIRETY BELOW.

3. THE NAVY RESERVE, AS A KEY COMPONENT IN THE NAVY TOTAL FORCE IS COMMITTED TO ATTRACTING AND RETAINING DIVERSE MEN AND WOMEN WHO REFLECT THE FACE OF OUR NATION. EQUALLY IMPORTANT IS OUR COMMITMENT TO ACHIEVE BY 2037 THE CNO'S VISION OF A FLAG WARDROOM THAT MORE CLOSELY REFLECTS THE DIVERSITY OF THE NATION. DIVERSITY IS A STRATEGIC IMPERATIVE VITAL TO THE FUTURE OF THE NAVY RESERVE. IT IS MORE THAN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, RACE, GENDER, OR RELIGION. BY EMBRACING DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION, WE RECOGNIZE THAT EACH MEMBER BRINGS DIFFERENT SKILLS, TALENTS, AND EXPERIENCES THAT WILL CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT OF EXCELLENCE. DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT AND IDEAS CAPTURES THE VAST TALENT VITAL TO MISSION SUCCESS AND WILL MAKE OUR NAVY STRONGER. WITH LOCATIONS IN ALL 50 STATES, AND THE TERRITORIES OF GUAM AND PUERTO RICO, THE NAVY RESERVE IS UNIQUELY POSITIONED TO SUPPORT RECRUITING AND RETENTION EFFORTS. WE ARE ABLE TO FACILITATE ENGAGEMENTS WITH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BY LEVERAGING OUR FOOTPRINT ACROSS THE NATION. THIS ENABLES US TO COMMUNICATE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES TO THOSE WHO DESIRE TO SERVE THEIR COUNTRY, ON EITHER A FULL OR PART-TIME BASIS. ADDITIONALLY, THE RESERVE COMPONENT PROVIDES STAY NAVY OPTIONS TO HELP RETAIN OPERATIONALLY RELEVANT AND FULLY TRAINED SAILORS. SEAMLESS TRANSITIONS BETWEEN ACTIVE AND RESERVE COMPONENTS OFFER LONG TERM, FLEXIBLE NAVY CAREER OPPORTUNITIES TO ALL SAILORS WHILE ENABLING THE NAVY TO MEET MISSION REQUIREMENTS IN A MORE COST EFFECTIVE MANNER. BY FOCUSING ON LEADERSHIP, OUTREACH, MENTORING, AND LIFE/WORK INITIATIVES, THE NAVY RESERVE WILL HELP ATTRACT AND RETAIN A DIVERSE WORKFORCE AND SHAPE THE FUTURE OF THE NAVY. WE WILL CONTINUE TO PROMOTE CONTINUUM OF SERVICE SOLUTIONS TO ATTRACT THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST WHILE FOSTERING AN ENVIRONMENT OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL ACROSS ALL RANKS, RATES AND COMMUNITITIES.

4. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE NAVY DIVERSITY PROGRAM, VISIT THE NAVY DIVERSITY WEBSITE AT HTTP://WWW.NPC.NAVY.MIL/COMMANDSUPPORT/DIVERSITY AND THE NAVY RESERVE DIVERSITY WEBSITE AT HTTPS://PRIVATE.NAVYRESERVE.NAVY.MIL/3447B/N01/DIVERSITY.

5. MY POINTS OF CONTACT ARE: CNRF: LCDR LASHANDRA [REDACTED], COMM: (757) 322-[REDACTED], EMAIL: LASHANDRA.[REDACTED](AT)NAVY.MIL OR CNRFC: PSC DIONN [REDACTED], COMM: (757)322-[REDACTED], EMAIL: DIONN.[REDACTED](AT)NAVY.MIL.

6. RELEASED BY VADM D. J. DEBBINK, COMMANDER, NAVY RESERVE FORCE//
BT
#1952

I feel embarrassed for everyone involved. I hope you sleep well. Yep, everyone wants to be VADM to have their name to Commissariat stuff like this. Icky.

NWU parade of fail

OK, they look nice ... but ... the logic train is just pathetic.

We wish to decrease the Seabag; so we increase it.

We wish to save Sailors money; so we require many and more expensive items for them to purchase.

We want to simplify - so we complicate.

Chew on this.

"The NWU Type II/III approval is a culmination of a four-year effort comprising all of the expeditionary stakeholders, ensuring we capture the true operational requirements our Sailors' need to succeed on the battlefield," said Master Chief Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician Robert McCue, NWU Type II/III Conformance Test Monitor. "They provide unmatched capabilities to the warfighter enabling tactical advantage and enhancing mission success thus saving lives."

The NWU Type II (desert) uniform will be worn by Navy Special Warfare (NSW) operators and Sailors assigned to NSW units or units which directly support NSW operations. The NWU Type III (woodland) uniform will be the standard camouflage uniform for all personnel, to be worn in non-desert environments, including most stateside areas. The only difference between the two uniforms is the camouflage pattern.

The NWU Type III will replace the existing tri-colored woodland camouflage utility uniform, will be the standard camouflage uniform worn in CONUS, and can be worn while deployed as prescribed by combatant commanders. Occasion for wear of the NWU Type III will be the same as the current woodland camouflage utility uniform per NAVADMIN 188/09.

Nice to see the Master Chief likes to play Bu11sh1t Bingo too ... and if you are a Sailor in the desert and not NSW related ....

You know - you could have just gone with multi-cam and saved everyone the trouble - but that would be too simple and cost effective.

One of our Sailors summed it up in an email well.

I thought the whole plan with this sea bag change was to reduce the size of my seabag. I mean if I have to have 15 different NWU styles based on where I am stationed, then really what was the point?

"Well wife, these NWU's are for when I am on at a sea going command, but not at sea; these are for when I am ashore, but not in CONUS; These are for when I am IA to OCONUS but still in NATO Europe; these are IA but in HOA TOA; these are for IA in the 'Stan; these are for sea going and deployed on a ship; and finally these were for that last staff tour I did where the O-9 couldn't make up his mind what he wanted to wear. Oh and that is my flight deck gear for just in case. So that means you just can't bring any of your clothes cause we are now over our limit for household goods just in my uniforms."

Or was it just trying to be all "hopey changey" while thinking of the children? I would kill to be back in the standard bell bottom dungrees.

All this in more time than it took to fight the Second World War.

Just griping from the sidelines? Perhaps. Demonstrating a perfect example of the slow, inefficient, and ineffective bureaucracy that we have? Yes.

---

For some side fun - who wants to take the time to demonstrate the NWU's failures already from the above pic?

I'll start. Note the wear difference and fading (ship's laundry hasn't changed, I see) ... there is more - have fun in comments.

On a serious note - let me put on my white vest - in case no one knows .... in a flash fire, velcro burns like the plastic it is. I don't think NWU are NOMEX .....

Glad to see coveralls are going down fighting though.

LCS-1 deploys on a wave of self-parody ...

Let's look back at what the CNO had to say about deploying LCS early.

"Deploying LCS now is a big step forward in getting this ship where it needs to be – operating in the increasingly important littoral regions," said Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations. "We must deliver this critical capability to the warfighter now."

...and as I suspected - where is this "increasingly important littoral region" that the LCS will deliver its transformational ability to the "warfighter now?"

The littoral combat ship Freedom nosed away from the quay wall here Tuesday to begin a deployment that will take it on patrols for smugglers in the Caribbean and then, at last, to its homeport of San Diego.

Beautiful. Counter Narcotics.

The CNO painted himself in a happy-talk corner, and that is unfortunate. A man in his position should not so easily fall into lingo-laden hype. Sad.

But wait, there's more.

“I want to recognize the hard work it took to get the ship to this point,” said Rear Adm. Vic Guillory, commander of 4th Fleet, who talked briefly with reporters on the pier before the Freedom’s crew took up lines.

Guillory addressed the crew in the ship’s hangar — or “airborne mission zone,” in LCS parlance
...
In addition to its core crew of 40 sailors, Freedom is carrying a detachment from Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 22, the Sea Knights; a module crew for its partial surface warfare package; and two Visit, Board Search and Seizure teams, including sailors from Navy Expeditionary Combat Command and a Coast Guard law enforcement detachment. Altogether, Garner said there were about 90 people on board for the sail-away from Mayport.

From two syllables to five syllables. How transformational.

...and it is only a tailored, partial mission package.

We have been doing CN for how many decades? Where can LCS do the CN mission that we cannot now? Etc, etc. OPS NORMAL for this program though - razzle-dazzle with hype; consume unfathomable amounts of cash; and underperform.

Hey, I am glad they are going to send her out to see how things go - they just should not have sold it the way they did. It is transparently hype in the extreme and cheapens everyone.

I wish CO and crew well. It's a good time of the year for the Caribbean.

LCS: tomorrow's Medium Endurance Cutter today.

As a side-bar - if you want some non-consultant speak from a 4-star: click here.

---

UPDATE: Sigh.

The Surface Community has once again made naval history! At 0956 EST yesterday morning, USS Freedom (LCS-1) took in all lines and got underway from Mayport to begin her maiden deployment-more than 2 years ahead of schedule. This is a moment that all Surface Warriors should feel a tremendous amount of pride, as it was a community-wide effort that made this happen. With FREEDOM now on deployment and INDEPENDENCE working hard on the early stages of trials and certification, now more than ever we must realize and celebrate the fact that LCS is our future. We have and will continue to learn many important force-wide lessons from the early stages of the LCS program. These lessons will help us become smarter and more prepared to man, train, equip and operate all of our ships into the future.

Please take the time to discuss this historic milestone with your Sailors so that they too understand the significance of the LCS program and what it means for our Surface Navy. I have attached a few photos and a link to video shot from the pier to help you spread the word and celebrate this momentous occasion. Thanks for all you do each day to make our Surface Force the greatest the world has ever known.

VADM Curtis
All Ahead Full!

Leadership is not spin. -1.

An unfortunate choice of words

Never before has such a ship caused so many smart people to say the most silly things.

From The Barbary Wars, to the Chesapeake Flotilla to the original reason the LCS went from concept to construction - think of what you need to fight in the "Littoral" where you will face the RPG-7 and the 23mm on the back of the truck, to the ASCM fired from someone's front yard, think about what is needed in a warship built for combat in the littorals. What word comes to mind? Is "elegant" even in the top 50?

From Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, 01/15;

UNDERSECRETARY SAYS LCS IS CENTERPIECE OF FLEXIBLE NAVY: The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is an elegant small battle network combatant, according to Robert Work, undersecretary of the U.S. Navy, who said he is convinced the ship will also lead the way technologically in international navies. “If you think of the surface fleet today, think of it as a series of boxes,” said Work, a former analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment (CSBA) and former Marine.

Ummmmmm ..... no. I will not. Boxes are for accountants and logisticians.

The Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) and LCS are small boxes with modular payload bays, he said. “You can put whatever you need on them.”

Sure you can, in very small quantities for a very small set of missions. And it all depends on what you define as "whatever you need."

If you find yourself, like the Canadians did in AFG, in desperate need of heavy armor (that their defense bureaucracy stated earlier were no longer needed in the "modern, transformational military") - then no; you cannot get "whatever you need." LCS and JHSV both have their uses - but they cannot and should not do all. When you start to sell a platform like a snake-oil cures-all, it might be time to back away a bit.

Larger vessels in the fleet also boast a similar level of flexibility, Work said. “The Navy has committed itself to a battle networking philosophy that’s immensely adaptable. Everyone will follow the U.S. Navy.”

Bob, bars have committed themselves to serving alcohol - it is all true. I'm not sure where you are going here as this has been true for a couple of centuries - in a fashion - and who is "everyone" and what does it have to do with the subject at hand? If we are already flexible - then why is the flexibility of LCS and JHSV "leading the way" - or are they just another tool to expand in the smaller tonnage range an established flexibility concept? Sure, not as sexy - but sure seems more accurate.

He dismissed the idea that irregular and hybrid warfare require a change in the fleet. “You can put any type of module you need on our ships,” he said. “They are immensely flexible.”

The last four words I can agree with - as it has always been true in our Navy.

The LCS in particular, he noted, has the capability to host a multitude of module types. “We can put what we want on the LCS,” Work said. But he does not see the need to spend money on every option right now. “We need to test it [first]. We need to understand what it can bring to the battle network.”

Ummmmm, no we can't - we can't put any module we want or need on our LCS Fleet that we plan on building. We are not buying enough Mission Modules to have a truly flexible LCS Fleet as it was sold .... and wait - what was that quote again?

“We need to test it [first]. We need to understand what it can bring to the battle network.”

That is true - but how does that match with this again?

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is an elegant small battle network combatant, ...

Might be. The PPT vignette says if could be. We hope it is. A few $billion more and we should be. I think it is. We paid enough - it better be.

Ick.

Tough job Bob - I wish you luck in making it happen.

But - let's parse the phrase that kept bounc'n around my nogg'n a bit.

... elegant small battle network combatant...

Where have I heard that before? Ah, ha! Here it is!

Optimized for those fully networked COE applications, FCS BC will operate both horizontally and vertically across the unit of action. The BC service-based architecture will be structured to execute a myriad of threads, with each stringing together small services from the BC tactical mission space containers. These small, elegant, highly optimized and very focused services will do the multitudes of tactical tasks that the UA will have to execute in performing its missions.

A small bit from the Bu11sh1t Bingo parade that was the Army's Future Combat System back in 2005. How did that work out for them?

The acquisition decision memorandum (ADM) released today cancels the Future Combat Systems Brigade Combat Team (FCS BCT) program and in its place directs the Army to transition to a modernization plan consisting of a number of separate but integrated acquisition programs to meet the secretary’s objectives. Those integrated programs include one to spin out the initial increment of the FCS program to seven infantry brigades in the near term and additional programs for information and communications networks, unmanned ground and air vehicles and sensors, and an integration effort aimed at follow-on spinouts to all Army brigades. The ADM also terminates the manned ground vehicle portion of the previous FCS program and directs an assessment with the Marine Corps of joint capability gaps for ground combat vehicles. The assessment will inform new requirements for Army ground combat vehicle modernization, leading to the launch of a new acquisition program in 2010.

Good luck with LCS and all that in NE Asian waters in FEB - much less in the coming storm that will be the Navy shipbuilding budget.

When buzzwords become alive ..

I have a great idea. We should get rid of all VF (wait ... we did that ... make that VFA) squadrons. No, not the people and aircraft - but the name.

You see, in 21st Century, does the name "Fighter Attack Squadron" really capture what they do?

Of course not. You see, they must achieve air supremacy so, let's call them "Air Supremacy Squadrons." They should now be called "ASS." Get rid of "VAQ" and call them "Electromagnetic Effects Cohorts" or "EEC." VP can become "Maritime Awareness Associates" or "MAA."

We should get rid of Commander Naval Air Forces, and collect all those things involving aircraft the "Naval Air Corps."

New patches, t-shirts, nametags, stationary, and MSMs for everyone!

Why not - it makes as much sense as this "Bu11sh1t B1ngo" phrase being codified in OPNAVINST 5300.12 into another bubble of bureaucratic bramble and bloat.

What is the half-life of that pick from the phrase-of-the-month anyway? Yes, I understand the idea .... but so did Eisenhower.

I'm sorry - welding together the Spooks, weathermen, and computer/comm geeks together just dilutes each area.

I know, again, that I am in the minority here. But ..... it smells the same as welding together MIW and ASW. False economy.

CNO's 2010 Guidance

Two words: lost opportunity.

If you have not done your homework - then click here, read it then come back.

Before we plow in, let's look at the message traffic.

R 021754Z SEP 09
FM CNO WASHINGTON DC
TO AL NAVADMIN
NAVADMIN
INFO CNO WASHINGTON DC
BT
UNCLAS
PLEASE PASS TO ALL OFFICE CODES:
FM CNO WASHINGTON DC//N00//
TO NAVADMIN
UNCLAS //N05000//
NAVADMIN 255/09
MSGID/GENADMIN/CNO WASHINGTON DC/N00/SEP// SUBJ/CNO GUIDANCE FOR 2010// GENTEXT/REMARKS/1. I HAVE RELEASED MY GUIDANCE FOR 2010 AND POSTED IT ONLINE AT WWW.NAVY.MIL.
2. MY 2010 CNO GUIDANCE REAFFIRMS MY FOCUS AREAS AND 18 INTENTIONS, WHICH I ARTICULATED IN MY PREVIOUS GUIDANCE. IT ALSO HIGHLIGHTS SOME OF OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS OVER THE PAST YEAR IN EXECUTING THE MARITIME STRATEGY. WE WILL BUILD UPON THIS PROGRESS AND SEEK NEW OPPORTUNITIES IN THE YEAR AHEAD.
3. MY 2010 GUIDANCE CONSIDERS THE STRATEGIC, OPERATIONAL, AND FISCAL CHALLENGES WE FACE TODAY AND IN THE FUTURE. TO FURTHER REFINE OUR COURSE, THIS YEAR'S GUIDANCE PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FOCUS FOR MY 18 INTENTIONS AND IDENTIFIES 5 INTENTIONS ON WHICH I WILL PLACE PARTICULAR EMPHASIS:
A. CONTINUE TO BE THE DOMINANT, READY NAVAL FORCE ACROSS ALL MARITIME MISSIONS B. BUILD A NAVY WITH APPROPRIATE FORCE STRUCTURE AND STRATEGIC LAYDOWN C. ACHIEVE DECISION SUPERIORITY D. ALIGN THE REQUIREMENTS, RESOURCES AND ACQUISITION PROCESSES E. EVOLVE AND ESTABLISH INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS 4. READ MY GUIDANCE CLOSELY AND USE IT TO INFORM YOUR ACTIONS AND COMMUNICATION.
5. WE ARE ON THE RIGHT COURSE TO SEIZE THE MANY OPPORTUNITIES AHEAD. YOUR IMPRESSIVE WORK AFLOAT AND ASHORE MAKES ALL OF US PROUD AND IS KEY AS WE TAKE OUR NAVY INTO THE FUTURE AT THIS IMPORTANT TIME IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR DEDICATED SERVICE AND FOR THE STEADFAST SUPPORT OF YOUR FAMILIES.
6. RELEASED BY ADMIRAL G. ROUGHEAD, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS.//
BT
#0001

NNNN

Now some general comments. First things first - it is way too long. At 15 pages it is at least twice the length is should be. The format is part of the problem.

Because of the format, it reads like what it probably was - a "block responsibility" work of different authors glued together at the end with an intro and conclusion thrown in for good measure. As a result, it is irritatingly repetitived. Not only within "blocks," but between them as well. Some ideas and topics are repeated three to four times. A secondary problem - and I feel the pain of the final editor - is the logical result of having too many people in the chop chain - basic editing problems that get lost in the "move this to here and then back again" nature that MS Word allows.

Just one example of the type; PPBE is defined on page 12 but is used first on page 9. The SME specific acronym overload is too high for such a document as well. Way to wonkish unless you have spent most of your career assigned to the Potomac Flotilla. The end result is that even for a wonkish squid like myself, interest in going further sinks like a stone after about page 4.

Yes, I know I sound critical - but I wanted better. I wanted better because now more than ever the Fleet hungers for clear, precise, jargon-free Direction and Guidance from its Commander. We really need to think like we are sending something manually on HF TTY. Keep that mindset, and we would all be better.

I worked for a great Admiral that had a habit of handing things back to you saying, "Cut it in half." Sigh, where is that attitude when you need it most?

Enough of the general, let's go to the specific from my POV.

First paragraph starts out strong with pulling out some of the useful bits from the Maritime Strategy. It follows up with a shout-out to those parts of the Navy participating in the Long War, and follows up with core at-sea mission areas. At this point, I was very happy about what might follow. Very strong opening.

The second paragraph starts to wander a bit. Did you notice the,

"...stretched in our ability to meet additional operational demands. Our budget is pressurized..."

... bit? I believe that these are the "challenges" referred to later in,

... we are well prepared to meet (the challenges) and transform them into opportunities ...

Excuse me? I don't care who you are - you cannot transform a tight budget in the face of an overused capital base into opportunities unless you plan on setting the conditions to sell a massive downsizing and restructuring at lower but more efficient output level. That is just happy-talk.

Oh, and how in Neptune's name can a budget be "pressurized?" Like a space suit? An A/C system? A bike tire? Ungh. Horrible Potomac Flotilla phrase. Kill it now before it can reproduce.

This is when things started getting wobbly as the above followed another solid review of the CNO's Focus Areas. Next is a nice emphasis of his "Top 5 Intentions." Five is a good number for Commander's Intent - 18 is too many. It would be better to stick with the Top 5 and turn the other 13 into 2010 Key Indicators of Progress. But this ain't my show....

The next section goes through Building the Future Force. We show a little leg from the smart-set with this bit,

... improve our capability and capacity to meet increasing Combatant Commander demands for integrated air and missile defense and open ocean anti-submarine warfare.

Hey! Phiby like! I don't seem so crazy anymore with an eye to the Long Game ....

However - I soon felt like I just had a Midwatch boloney sandwich, you know - the ones where the boloney is getting green but you can't tell in red lighting - with the following.

... conducted the "Leveraging the Undersea Environment" wargame...

That is the worst wargame name for FY09.

Things turn up again with this long waited move,

We moved Navy Expeditionary Combat Command operations into our base budget.

Took almost as long as it took to defeat Germany in WWII - but I'll take it.

Moving to page 4, I snickered at this mention,

We created navyformoms.com as a virtual community for parents and other key influencers to communicate with each other.

Snerk. Better late than never to come out, I guess.

At the bottom is a good example of a "what" that avoids the "so what." It is the "so what" that we need- as I don't see a Fleet size mention anywhere.

Our FY10 budget better aligned our program with the path our maritime Strategy has set; however, we are progressing at an adjusted pace.

That needs to be fleshed out. I'll call it now - by the end of FY10 we will have a new, lower "minimum Fleet size."

Sometimes we try too hard to bang that MBA square peg in the round hole of the military.

We will seek out and embrace "Game Changers" .... at the left end of the kill chain.

Ummm, ok. Claim your MSM at the desk after you get your plaque.

How many ways can you say "Strategic Homeporting?" I hope this is a new one, because I will take "strategic laydown" if that means we can mitigate the "Christmas Eve at the pier" scenario.

We are moving towards a strategic laydown of our forces that will ensure effective operations in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.

I also think that "man-made disaster" is the new "global replace" phrase for "terrorist attack." Good Salamander-approved thinking though.

We have a "where is the accountability" moment on page 7,

We will restore discipline and rigor in our requirements...

Great. First apologize for all the hate mail sent to me over the last half-decade by those who said we did not have a "discipline and rigor" problem - and send Sid and Byron a gift card at the NEX for the grief they got as well. Second, who was in charge when we were "undisciplined and lacked rigor" and will they be held accountable? Do you, as CNO, accept any responsibility for it? If so, why and for what reason did you/we lose the bubble? That is important to know so we don't make the same mistakes in the future - and that others are comfortable talking about the mistakes they have made in their career.

By the end of page 7, things just drag, repeat, and made me grumpy. A few examples:
- Page 9: Bu11sh1t Bingo phrase of the day, "Tone of the Force."
- Page 10:

"We will continue to focus on diversity accessions and retentions, focusing outreach efforts on key influences in diversie communities to ensure the face of the nation is reflected in our Navy."

Normal font, good: bolded font, racist thinking unworthy of our Navy.

How silly and tired that is getting. Do you want those who do the recruiting for your favorite football team to "...ensure the face of the nation is reflected in our Team."?

Of course not - you want the best you can possibly get from the best. It is that simple. If a coach in 2009 went out with the attitude to have his team strictly reflect the DNA of the USA he would rightfully be fired on the spot.

Enough of that shameful habit of our Navy - I want to end on a strong, happy note - the last paragraph.

We are privileged to serve in the United States Navy at this time in history. Seek out and create the opportunities that will sustain our maritime dominance today and in the future.

That we can all nod our head to. NB: throughout our history those who have sought out new ideas and concepts have run into great head winds.

Turn into the wind.