The swirl of events and factors that define the present day—from emerging potential adversaries overseas to ongoing financial strife and economic downsizing on the home front—are creating all sorts of problems for the U.S. military. But those myriad challenges can also provide the keys to revising how the Navy and Marine Corps will train and fight in the future. Teaming up this month in a first for Proceedings, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert and Commandant of the Marine Corps General James F. Amos share their vision for our nation’s naval forces. The way forward will require adaptability, flexibility, and avoiding the urge to “push back on the trends we encounter, but instead to leverage the opportunities they present.” They remind us that sea control and power projection constitute a team sport, and that team must be “smoothly integrated and easily adaptable to new situations.” The good news is that the Navy and Marine Corps have been here before and know what must be done. Just as the General Board developed and tested concepts between the world wars, today the Naval Board will guide the intellectual effort to develop new warfighting techniques. As defense spending decreases and our focus shifts away from Afghanistan, the Navy-Marine Corps team will be asked to play a greater role in deterrence, crisis response, and maritime security. They’ll need to be ready.
Being ready is one of the pillars of the Navy’s submarine community. Commander, Naval Submarine Forces Vice Admiral Michael J. Connor explains that we presently operate from a position of strength in undersea warfare, and he provides an overview of what initiatives are being taken to ensure the United States maintains its readiness and supremacy in that domain. Among the areas of concentration are the people of the force, who he says form “the backbone of our undersea weapon system.” He also takes a look at the workhorse platforms being fielded by the subsurface fleet and the growing reliance on autonomous unmanned undersea vehicles. Finally, he acknowledges that for the submarine force, “no partnership will be more important” than the one with the mine-warfare and mine-countermeasures community, for obvious reasons.
Retired Navy Captain Peter Scala, Dr. John C. Stapleton, Josh Smith, and retired Master Chief Petty Officer Don Noyes report what should be welcome news to many a submariner. Navy engineers have launched a push to make submarine fleet combat systems more user-friendly. At the top, they are reaching out to Silicon Valley information technology companies such as Microsoft, Apple, and Google to learn more about the innovations they put into tablets and smartphones. At the same time, they are asking junior officers and middle-level petty officers who stand watches in submarine control rooms for suggestions on what they could use to make their jobs easier. The result has been a series of new concepts—from go-anywhere electronic tablets to all-in-one periscope-and-sonar display consoles that promise to make significant changes in the way submarines operate.
But some question the need for continued undersea deterrence patrols. There are those who believe the whole Nuclear Triad to be a Cold War-era anachronism whose time has passed. The Triad—strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and ballistic-missile submarines—is woven so tightly into our national-defense fabric that it’s hard to imagine ever being without it. Retired Navy Captain William F. Hoeft Jr. argues that strategic deterrence is even more valuable now, as nuclear weapons continue to multiply and play a role in global power balances. Key to that deterrent, of course, is the stalwart fleet of ballistic-missile submarines on constant vigil and ever-ready to provide America with a vital second-strike capability. Our need for that capability is not only undiminished, but amplified today.
Navy Reserve Lieutenant Commander (and former submariner) Tom Spahn would no doubt agree. He notes that while the once-proud Soviet nuclear-submarine fleet may be a thing of the past, a new breed of Soviet sub designs—both nuclear and diesel-electric—is changing the tenor of international relations. How much of a threat does this revived Russian sub proliferation pose? When it comes coupled with aggressive rhetoric, a modicum of wariness seems in order. Maybe that old Nuclear Triad isn’t such a dusty idea after all!
Paul Merzlak, Editor-in-Chief