With the standing up of U.S. Fleet Forces Command, Navy fleets on both coasts will be able to draw on a single organization to achieve standard training, tactics, and procedures, and to operate seamlessly around the world.
When Admiral Vern Clark became Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) in July 2000, he informed the fleet of his top five priorities: manpower; current readiness; future readiness; quality of service; and Navy-wide alignment. In regard to alignment, the CNO wanted to ensure that Navy organizations, systems, and processes were focused on delivering warfighting readiness. He quickly aligned the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OpNav) staff by establishing a Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs (N7) and moving the warfare sponsors into the new organization. N4's title was changed from Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Logistics, to Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Fleet Readiness and Logistics, and he was designated as the advocate for fleet readiness requirements.
Admiral Clark then established a three-phased approach to fleet alignment: place type commanders in a lead-follow relationship, establish Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic Fleet, as the fleet requirements voice, and, finally, stand up U.S. Fleet Forces Command.
U.S. Fleet Forces Command
U.S. Fleet Forces Command became a reality on 1 October 2001. When that occurred, I assumed concurrent responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet (CinCLantFlt), and Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command (CFFC). As CinCLantFlt, I have operational control and administrative responsibility for the Atlantic Fleet and serve as the Navy component commander for the Commander-in-Chief. Joint Forces Command. As Commander.
Fleet Forces Command, I am responsible for coordinating, establishing, and implementing integrated requirements and policies for manning, equipping, and training Atlantic and Pacific Fleet units during the interdeployment training cycle (IDTC). As explained in the CNO's message announcing this change, the result of this new organization is a highly unified fleet that, although deploying from different coasts, draws on a shared and streamlined organization to complete the same training; executes common tactics, techniques, and procedures; and operates seamlessly around the world.
My goal as Commander, Fleet Forces Command, is to coordinate and integrate policies and requirements to achieve standard fleetwide practices on both coasts. To this end, there will be routine and even more detailed staff coordination between the three four-star fleet commanders and their staffs to ensure that Fleet Forces Command is fully cognizant of operational demands and that our "product"—trained and ready forces completing IDTC—will meet the needs of our warfighting commanders.
At the OpNav level, when the CNO wants a "fleet" input on issues pertaining to requirements and policy affecting manning, training, and equipping, Fleet Forces Command will represent the needs of the entire fleet. When there is a CNO Executive Board or Navy Requirements Oversight Council meeting, either my deputy or I will represent the fleet. CFFC also will play an active role as advocate for fleet requirements during the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System cycle.
Third Fleet, which is responsible for West Coast IDTC training, has been placed under the administrative control of CFFC for issues pertaining to the development and implementation of IDTC requirements and policies. There already exists close coordination between Second and Third Fleets and their training organizations; this new organization will bring us even closer together. All the fleet type commanders now are under the administrative control of CFFC for the purpose of establishing and implementing policies and requirements for IDTC manning, equipping, and training. They are our principal advisors on warfare community issues. And finally, Naval Warfare Development Command will report to CFFC as its immediate superior in command for purposes of warfare innovation, concept development, fleet and joint experimentation, and the synchronization and dissemination of doctrine.
Fleet Type Commanders
Until last fall, the six type commanders (one from each warfare community on each coast) had been separate-but-equal participants in their warfare community deliberations. This contributed to differences in standards, policies, and current fiscal year execution in the same community on opposite coasts. To align each community more efficiently, Admiral Clark assigned a three-star as the lead type commander in each warfare area and made his counterpart on the opposite coast a two-star. The lead type commanders are Commander, Naval Surface Force, Pacific; Commander, Submarine Force, Atlantic; and Commander, Naval Air Force, Pacific. As of I October 2001, they have been assigned concurrent duties as "fleet type commanders," referred to as Commander, Naval Surface Forces (ComNavSurFor), Commander, Naval Submarine Forces (ComNavSubFor), and Commander, Naval Air Forces (ComNavAirFor).
The fleet type commanders are the principal advisors to CFFC on community issues, modernization requirements, training initiatives, and operational concept development within their warfare areas. They are the leaders in their warfare areas, similar to the chief executive officers of major corporations. Continuing the business analogy, the lead and follow type commanders are the chief operating officers in their geographic areas, responsible to their respective Navy component commanders. The fleet type commanders are responsible to CFFC for ensuring their programs are in consonance with CFFC policy and support the deployment of trained, ready, and equipped forces.
As part of their responsibilities, the fleet type commanders will engage with and provide community priorities to their OpNav sponsors. They also will advise CFFC on their respective sponsor program proposals as part of his fleet input to the CNO. In addition, to support the seamless deployment of combat-ready forces, fleet type commanders will strive for uniform operational procedures, maintenance, training, and policies for execution of programs (e.g., flying hour program) on both coasts. The goal is to be as common as possible and unique only when required.
We will empower the fleet type commanders in their role as community leaders and depend on them and their staffs to provide guidance and input to CFFC on all issues within their purview. Over time, they will develop an inhouse capability to rigorously analyze type commander issues. CFFC comments and input to OpNav can be powerful, but only if supported by data from the fleet type commanders; strongly held opinions, without supporting analyses, are of little value.
Other Issues
- Unified Fleet Requirements. In February 2001, Admiral James Ellis, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe, Admiral Thomas Fargo, Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet, and I signed a memorandum of understanding establishing CinCLantFlt's role in presenting unified fleet requirements to the OpNav staff. The establishment of U.S. Fleet Forces Command complements this role by empowering fleet type commanders and establishing strong relationships among them, the U.S.-based numbered fleet commanders, and U.S. Fleet Forces Command. In essence, U.S. Fleet Forces Command will have a strong, direct link to the warfighting communities and those directly responsible for training and certifying our deploying forces. Supported by frequent interaction with all the fleets, the framework is now in place for a powerful, credible, and relevant fleet requirements voice in all matters pertaining to our Navy.
- Interaction with Fleets and Type Commanders. Each fleet commander (Atlantic Fleet, Pacific Fleet, Naval Forces Europe, Naval Forces Central Command, and Naval Forces Southern Command) retains his operational, fiscal, and readiness responsibilities, both for assigned forces and as the Navy component commander to the regional unified commander-in-chief. CFFC standardizes policy and training between the fleets, and aggregates and integrates requirements to provide a single, unified input to OpNav. Each type commander is responsible to his respective fleet commander for the training and readiness of assigned forces.
- Unified Command Plan Implications. Commander-in-chief combatant command relationships under the unified command plan are unchanged. Existing fleet commanders retain operational command of assigned forces, while CFFC plays an administrative role in policy formulation and fleet requirements presentation to OpNav. No operational Navy forces are assigned to CFFC.
The establishment of U.S. Fleet Forces Command is an important step in realizing the CNO's goals of a stronger fleet voice in the Pentagon and a more combat-capable Navy, ready to sail in harm's way. CFFC will facilitate coordination of high-level policies between fleets, will keep OpNav informed of the fleet's top priorities, and will be the primary point of contact for requirements integration and liaison with OpNav. CFFC will be a strong advocate for near-term readiness issues and will provide a more powerful fleet voice in OpNav decision making. While the role and function of U.S. Fleet Forces Command probably will be transparent to the operating forces, the command will play a major role in their organizing, training, and equipping.
Admiral Natter is Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, and Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command.