Admiral Ekelund, it is good to be with you.
First, I would like to say for the Board of Control, new members and re-elected members, that we appreciate your confidence.
As the re-elected President, 1 find it somewhat easy to accept since I ran unopposed on the ballot. But I have noticed in following the count each year that there are always several hundred who don't vote for the presidential candidate. I worry about that!
I can assure you that this Board is dedicated to serving you, and that we are going to do the very best we can this coming year to make the Institute and its publications even better.
As I flew out here today, I reflected upon the past three years and the opportunities to meet with you at these annual Institute get-togethers. I was warmly satisfied in the knowledge that I have presided at Naval Institute annual meetings at the Naval War College, the U. S. Naval Academy, and now here at the Naval Postgraduate School. At all three of these great institutions one can perceive the tremendous quality that is resident in each. Of course, here at the Postgraduate School it is not just the Navy, but the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, and the other services which benefit. It’s good to be here and to have that feeling.
As I flew out today, I also reflected on what has transpired for the Institute and for our profession during these last three years. As you read the annual report, I believe you will agree there has been a steady improvement in the quality of the Naval Institute's programs and publications. In a tremendous effort this past year, 2,300 more members were acquired, a 23% greater production of books was achieved, and we enjoyed the highest year ever in advertising income. Our staff members, through their innovation and hard work, have earned the credit for much of this success. I join all our members in expressing to them the full measure of our appreciation.
During these past three years, I have watched our Navy change as well. It has been a very satisfying change as we have improved our professional confidence, our stature, and our pride in what we are doing. But they have also been three years in which I think the task has become tougher because, the world has become a much less hospitable place. There is more uncertainty, more tension now than three years ago, and one cannot predict that the remaining years in this decade will be any easier. I certainly do not.
We have watched a number of uncertainties abound that we did not predict, and I would suggest that the decade of the Eighties will give rise to many additional uncertainties. We have seen the U. S. Navy take on a greater load in support of our national policies. This has placed much stress and strain upon our ships, our aircraft, our people, and our support establishment. You have heard me say time and again that we are stretched thin, that we are pushing the Navy as hard as I can imagine it being pushed in peacetime. I don’t say that as a matter of complaint; I say it as a matter of pride, because that’s why we have a Navy—to serve our country-—and we are doing that exceptionally well, in my judgment. But, at the same time, we observe the problem intensifying—the problem being the Soviet Navy’s increased capability and strength, which we must be prepared to contest.
So it has been a changing three years, most of it for the good of our Navy and our country. And there has been the compounding toughness of it all, but I stand here now with a growing optimism about our naval services, a growing optimism about our capabilities to do well what we are being asked to do by our countrymen. There are many reasons for my optimism; let me touch on three of them.
One has to do with the new strategic insight that the policymakers of our country have begun to enjoy in the last couple of years. The second is the very apparent fact that the new administration, the people of the United States, and the Congress of the United States are now truly supporting the military services, thus making service in the military an honorable thing to do today. The third reason I am optimistic has to do with the improved professional attitudes that abound in all the military services, most certainly in the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard.
Let me express a few thoughts on each of those.
With respect to new strategic concepts and new strategic thinking, two major developments of the last few years come to mind, developments which have caused a major shift in the geostrategic center of gravity in the world. One of these is the Sino- Soviet split leading to the Sino- American normalization. The progress of normalization to date has been important, but there is so much more yet to be addressed, and it all bears on our interests and the stability of the world.
The second significant development has to do with the political liability that has overtaken the entire world m the last couple of years with respect to our dependence upon the resources in the Middle East. All of us are aware of this dilemma.
We may be witnessing yet a third epoch-making event right now, namely, the developing instability flowing from the economic and political breakup taking place in Poland.
How these changes have influenced our strategic thinking is very significant, because we have found ourselves shifting in the last few years from a regionally oriented strategy to a global strategy. All of you know that 1 have been emphasizing for the past three years the global nature of our Navy's responsibilities and the global nature of our country’s responsibilities as the leader of the Free World—and, believe me, the United States is that leader. We must not, we cannot evade these global responsibilities. It has been so difficult in the past decade or so for our people to face up to these global responsibilities of being the Free World’s leader, and I commend the U. S. Navy and its thinkers who have written in the Institute’s Proceedings and worked for the Navy Department in trying to bring about the change in focus from a NATO-only or NATO-first strategy to a balanced global strategy. Now, because the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, because the American hostages were taken in Iran, and because of the increasing instability in the Middle East, our NATO allies, Japan, and many other countries realize that our responsibilities and our interests ate, in fact, global. I am quite optimistic about what this change portends for our policymakers.
The second reason that I stress my optimism has to do with the new administration which has come on board with this understanding as part of its policy—a global perspective. Our new leaders don’t have to learn about global interests; they already understand them. They are already reflecting them in the way in which we take on our responsibilities. We hear our new President saying that We are going to reassert ourselves around the world; we are going to re-establish our self-respect and the reaped others have for us; and we are going to rebuild our Navy. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy have come on board and said very clearly that we are going to regain maritime supremacy. That’s good news! This means that we are going to face up squarely to this strategy-force mismatch that has been Wound for more than 15 years, and we are going to do something positive about it. It will cost the taxpayers a great deal of money to do this, and we are going to have to use that money wisely. At this point 1 don’t believe that we should fret about whether we have a 600-ship Navy or a 700-ship Navy or whatever number—the point is that we are moving in the right direction now. The important issue is the pace of that improvement.
I sincerely applaud our three prize essayists today and what they had to say, because they are telling you and our leadership in Washington what kind of naval force we ought to have—an offensive one, a flexible one, one that is certainly a lot larger, so that we can meet our responsibilities better. Dr. George, in particular, put his finger right on target in recommending bringing back old battleships and old aircraft carriers. We’ve got to get on with building up this Navy fast, and, as we know, new construction takes so long.
Lastly, I am very optimistic about the steady improvement in the professional nature of our business, the competence that we have, the pride we share, and the confidence that is omnipresent today. One can see it throughout the fleet, aboard ships, in squadrons, and in the shore establishment. Our people have confidence in themselves and in what they are doing. Our officer corps, in particular, is getting not only more technically and tactically competent, but our officers are using what they have learned on a day-to-day basis. If you were to go to the Indian Ocean right now, you would see the thoroughly professional way in which they are performing. We are becoming better war fighters, in a naval sense, and that builds our pride in ourselves and makes us more optimistic about what we can accomplish in the future. All of this is made possible, of course, by the improving quality of our leadership.
In the past few years, I have seen similar positive changes in our professional training performance. Today, we are doing a much better job in our boot camps and in our other training commands. We are sending to the fleet young Navymen and women who are better trained than their predecessors. Next year they will be even better. The clear message to officers and to senior petty officers today should be that a tour of duty in the training command is a career-enhancing tour. The up-front training of our people is one of the most important things we can do to improve our total professional capability. We have neglected it for decades. We have now turned that around. We are now producing a better product.
Our leadership management education is in full bloom. Virtually all lies and above are going through the Leadership, Management, Education, and Training Program on their way to sea duty. By the end of this year, all E-5S and above will be involved. We are becoming better leaders because we want to be better and because we are working at it.
A very encouraging development is that our legal system has become far more responsive to command, which gives the commanding officer more confidence in his ability to take the necessary actions to lead properly and effectively. The correctional centers are returning to the fleet revitalized people who now have the right word.
In the Naval Reserve, readiness has improved dramatically in the last year or two. Although we know we have a long way yet to go, we are moving in the right direction at a smart pace.
With reference to training in tactics, there are excellent facilities, procedures, and instructional techniques now in place in both fleets. In addition, the Naval War College has a new strategy center, teaching a new strategy course, and this now completes the structure of career tactical training which will take a naval officer from ensign to admiral and provide him every possible opportunity to become a great tactician and a keen strategist. Our goal is to make our hands-on tacticians the best in the world.
Finally, there is that growing sense of pride and professionalism that is out there in our great Navy today—everywhere. We are proving to ourselves and to many others that military service is different. It’s not just another job—it’s different. It is not only different, it is better. That is why we are proud of who we are and what we are doing.
I would like to close with a complimentary word to our Board of Control. Last year I challenged the Board and myself to do a better job in presenting to you, through the Proceedings, more emphasis on the positive things that the Navy is doing. This was not to suggest that we shouldn’t continue to be critical of ourselves when criticism will help us improve. My review of the selection of articles over the last year tells me that this Board has done an impressive job for you and for the naval services—and 1 commend them for that. This has been an important part of building a positive attitude about what we are doing, of developing an optimistic outlook for the future.
I believe that anyone serving today in the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, the Air Force, or the Army should feel that he or she is part of an organization on the move—headed in the right direction.
Today I feel very comfortable about the U. S. Navy. Let’s face it. We’re outnumbered only three to one. We’ve got ’em!
Thank you. Now, may I have your questions?
Member: In regards to the ELF [extremely low frequency] communications systems, what is the Navy’s position on why we are not furthering the production of that which could have possibly prevented the incident with the George Washington?
Admiral Hayward: You have asked two questions. I’ll answer both. The President of the United States has made a recommendation to Congress that we should activate the extremely low frequency communications system in the State of Wisconsin, which is presently in a caretaker status, and operate it in a very modest way while further research and development are accomplished. The Congress will respond, using funds that are in the 1982 budget, and from that we will take our direction. My recommendation, as you know, was to leave this system in a caretaker status. This was simply a budgeting recommendation based on a trade-off consideration. At a cost of half-a-billion dollars, I felt I could better spend the money on other vital communication techniques.
With respect to the second part of your question, pertaining to the George Washington's incident, we could have had a 100% perfect ELF system working, and it would not have prevented the collision. The article which you probably read—which I read—was 100% innuendo.
Member: What is the Navy’s position about the closing down, or the possible closing down of the Ferris public health facility?
Admiral Hayward: Well, the Navy does not have a responsibility for public health facilities. We are trying to keep our Navy hospitals and our dispensaries open, and we are doing better this year than last. We’ll do even better next year. And we are also trying to make the CHAMPUS [Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services] system work right.
Member: There are several public health services, one in Seattle, that they are talking about closing. And some of these public health services are used by retirees who do not have military health facilities available. Admiral Hayward: I understand, but, unfortunately, the Department of Defense has no control over those services. We try to compensate, however, by making the CHAMPUS system work better.
Member: We’ve heard a lot about a 600-, 650-, or 700-ship Navy. What particular personnel initiatives do you see as vital in order to man those 600 or 700 ships?
Admiral Hayward: Very often-asked questions today in Washington are “How do you think you are going to man even today’s Navy?” or, “If you reactivate a battleship or a carrier, how will you man them when you’re already hurting as much as you are?” The answer is, if we are going to take on the challenge of being a strong nation and if we are going to take on the policies of this new administration, the country has to get behind the men in uniform. I think the country is beginning to get behind us. The members of Congress are going to back us because they know that military people need help and we can’t have effective armed forces without the necessary numbers and quality of people. They are going to back us with compensation initiatives which still have to be met. If those things are done and if we run the Navy right, we are not going to have any problem manning up a Navy of 600 or 700 or 800 ships.
Since the Congress got on board last year, took up the cudgel for the military, passed the military pay raise in October, and improved the sea pay and the submarine pay in January, our retention of first, second, and third term people has improved significantly. But that improvement is not enough yet to permit us to relax; not enough to allow us to grow a large Navy rapidly. We have to keep working with the Congress and the administration to make certain that the proposed 5.3% pay raise in July goes through, to see to it that there is a cost-of-living adjustment in October, and to urge that the G.I. Bill be improved in a very realistic way. There are five or six other smaller areas in which we must have improvement. I am very optimistic that we will get this improvement. The Congress is now with us, and, of course, so is the administration.
We will be able to man a larger Navy.
Member: Admiral Hayward, you stated that you believe in global responsibilities with regard to the Navy. In view of such national or world problems as those with the world population, strategic minerals, etc., in global terms, do you, in your position on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, foresee a redefining of the term “national security?” And, if so, do you foresee any new missions for the Navy?
Admiral Hayward: I have not given any thought to such a redefinition of the term "national security.” It doesn’t strike me as being necessary. The issue of the expanding interests of the Free World nations, particularly of the United States, is one that is frequently and actively discussed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. For example, our interests in Africa and South America are much greater today than they were just ten years ago, and we should be responding to events there in a much more positive manner. The Joint Chiefs have made a number of recommendations over the last couple of years, and we will continue to push every administration very hard to develop what we think should be a more positive approach toward working with the Third World Nations of Africa and with our friends in South America than we have followed in the last several decades. We believe a more positive approach would be in the best interests of this country's security. It’s certainly in our best interests in fulfilling our responsibilities as the leader of the Free World. I don’t view this as a redefining of what national security means to us. It’s simply a more positive approach in other areas of the globe where we’ve had some very weak policies in the past.
Member: Admiral, how do you view the changing of traditional freedom of the sea considerations with the pending Law of the Sea Treaty currently being discussed at the United Nations, and what role do you see for the U. S. Navy with regard to that Treaty?
Admiral Hayward: Well, as you know, the new administration asked that no final decisions be made at the present meeting of the Law of the Sea negotiators because this administration felt that it had not had ample time in which to review all the past agreements as well as the ones that still have to be negotiated. That has been the guidance to our representatives at the present Law of the Sea negotiating meetings. The present meeting is about to conclude without arriving at a final treaty. The next set of meetings will probably take place within the next several months. In the meantime, the new administration is conducting a thorough review, and the Navy is directly involved in that. We are involved through the Joint Chiefs of Staff because the other services, particularly the Air Force, have an interest. The Navy will play a very active role in these reviews and analyses. Deep seabed mining, for example, will receive very careful and thorough attention. We shall remain very much involved in this process.
Member: Admiral Hayward, in light of the requirements in the future, in the growth of the Navy, what do you see as the need for women on board our ships?
Admiral Hayward: Today, we have about 37,000 women in the Navy; about 5,000 officers, 32,000 enlisted. About 1,000 women are on board ships. We will be growing to somewhere around 45,000 women in the Navy during the next three years or so, and a commensurate number of those will go to ships. The performance of women ashore and afloat has been superb, in everybody’s judgment. They contribute in almost all skill areas, and the pace at which we recruit women is controlled very carefully by the upward mobility opportunities for them that must be protected. We learned that lesson the hard way back in the early Seventies when we brought too many on board too fast and found them stagnating in their particular ratings. Promotional opportunities weren’t available to them, and we drove a lot out of the Navy through dissatisfaction. We are not doing that this time around.
We also have to protect the male counterparts in these ratings to make certain that a fair and reasonable sea/ shore rotation is not disturbed and that their promotion opportunities are equal. We are doing it very intelligently, I believe, and it’s working very well. I’m not aware of any particular problems with it. Thus, I give the women in the Navy a very big plus. I’ve described to you the program that we have in mind for a Navy that is roughly 550 ships. To the degree that we grow higher than that, I am certain that we will increase the number of women afloat commensurately.
As you know, we have no women on board combatant ships. I don’t expect that they will be so assigned during my watch, because the law doesn’t permit it, and I don’t believe the Congress will be approaching that issue very aggressively.
Member: Admiral, what is the capability of the Navy to construct an expanded fleet as compared to using civilian construction?
Admiral Hayward: We’ve taken a good look at the industrial capacity to build ships. There is no way we can ask for so many ships that our country can’t build all of them. There’s plenty of capacity out there.
In fact, many of the shipbuilders in this country are hurting for work, so it’s not a problem of industrial capacity from the shipbuilding side. There is, however, a unique issue related to nuclear construction in that if we were to have authorized the kind of program that I would like to see, building toward a 15 battle group Navy, and if we were to use nuclear power in a good number of those ships, an issue could be made that we ought to open up another yard since we have only two shipyards today that build nuclear-powered ships, Newport News in Virginia and Electric Boat in Connecticut. We are examining a number of options as to whether that should be a U. S. Navy public yard or a private yard. Either way, there are enough yards available so that there should be no constraint on anybody in the decision process to hold back production because industrial capacity is not there. It is there. Member: Admiral Hayward, we at the University of California, Berkeley, NROTC unit suffer a 50 to 65% attrition over the two-year freshman- sophomore period, and we have conducted a survey of the freshmen and sophomores as to why they are leaving. A lot of those people who leave are very fine men who should stay. A lot of them look at the incentives offered to active duty officers as too long range, too far down the pike for them, and they regard the benefits of ROTC as not sufficient. Is there any good news as to increased incentives for the Naval Reserve midshipmen? Admiral Hayward: Please hold on to that mike and tell me what you think we ought to do.
Member: I'm glad you asked me that, Admiral. In our survey we asked what is the most important thing to a college student. The answer: money! We have projected roughly a 50% reduction in attrition through an increase of 100% of the minimal $100 a month subsistence allowance for the juniors, to increase from $100 to $200, as an incentive for people to sign their papers when they reach advanced standing.
Admiral Hayward: I see at least one Professor of Naval Science here today. There may be more. I would suggest that they ought to study that question and make a determination as to what recommendations ought to come up to me through the Chief of Naval Personnel. We can address what options ought to be taken into account. It is my impression, perhaps a false one, that the attrition rate in ROTC is not related to the compensation. There are a lot of other things that cause midshipmen to drop out of the program. If that’s wrong, please make a case for it with your Professor of Naval Science, and we’ll deal with it. We do not want to lose good people; that’s for certain!