It’s also important to look at the other advances that we’re making in weapons systems. A significant amount of investment is going into the electromagnetic rail-gun. There are real advantages to being able to take the propulsion stack off the round which reduces the cost of an engagement. We just have to work the technology with respect to what we would use to project from the electromagnetic rail gun. Our execution of anti-ship cruise-missile defense, or offensive ASUW, or land attack, is only limited in the development of the technology for rail-gun projectiles.

 

Are all three of the Zumwalt-class coming to San Diego?

Yes. The plan right now is for all three of those DDG 1000s to be home-ported in San Diego.

 

You were just up in Monterey at the Naval Postgraduate School. Did you have an opportunity to speak to the people at the Littoral Operations Center up there?

I did, briefly, but not to the level that I wanted to. I think that the Naval Postgraduate School is a crown jewel, and it’s important we leverage the intellectual capital at NPS, but also at the Littoral Operations Center that was stood up in Defense Analysis. We can leverage the intellectual capital our surface warfare officers bring, but also that of our partners and allies from around the world who enrich our understanding of operations in the littorals.

 

What can you share with us about our amphibious ships?

Just pick up any newspaper. The Navy-Marine Corps team, and the 2,200 Marines that we’re going to put in an amphibious readiness group, the F-35Bs that are coming, the MV-22 Ospreys that are on board those ships, altogether provides a tremendous amount of flexibility to our leadership at the combatant commander level or at the presidential level. It provides us a lot of options. The surface forces need to ensure we are delivering that operational availability to our Marine brothers and sisters, so when the Navy-Marine Corps team get tasked to execute a mission, we are ready to go. The operational availability of the ships, the training of the men and women on our ships, the manning of them – that’s squarely, squarely in my wheelhouse.

 

Are they fundamentally different from the surface combatants?

The short answer is no. The difference is that the “combat system” we’re loading on the amphibs is the United States Marine Corps. There’s some self-defense, but the reality of it is we have to bring the readiness cycle of the Marine Corps into the readiness cycle of our amphibious ships. We need to ensure we marry those up properly in order to deploy the Marine Corps capability at the right time, with the right ships. I spent some time studying the readiness cycle of the Marine Corps, and it’s different on the amphibious ships we deploy out of San Diego, as opposed to the amphibious ships we have forward-deployed in Sasebo. But the team the Navy and the Marine Corps brings, and the options and the flexibility to our combatant commanders or to the president, CANNOT be overstated. I’m keenly focused on that to ensure we can deliver that operational availability.

 

Anything else you want to say that I didn’t ask you?

I truly love being SURFOR!

Courtesy of Surface SITREP.  Republished with the permission of the Surface Navy Association (www.navysna.org).