Navy must clearly communicate value of sea power

Staff Columnist

I received this tweet by Bryan McGrath on Twitter from my Son, Sean, a former Naval Officer and Nuclear Submariner.  I quote Sean’s comment as an introduction,

“Sad that we have to do this but most of our fellow citizens only have a hazy vague idea why the Navy exists and why it might be important to maintain such a Navy.

I do recall being taught these fundamentals in my first NROTC class!  So it is not like the lesson plan would be hard to develop

The Terrible Twenties are about to be upon us and as far as shipbuilding is concerned we have already made the decisions we will have to live with for the first half of the 2020’s. I hope that they were good decisions. — Sean”


The Critical Year Ahead: Some Unsolicited Advice for Navy Leadership

By Bryan McGrath

“As 2016 draws to a close, Navy Leadership is in possession of a great deal of Blue-ribbon thinking about fleet architecture and force structure, the result of Congressional direction contained in the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and elsewhere.  Specifically, the Rand Corporation has submitted a study of the future of Aircraft carriers, and three separate  organizations (The Mitre Corporation, the Navy Staff (N81), and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) have submitted views of appropriate future fleet architectures.  The Navy is currently analyzing these products to determine the extent to which they might shape future plans and programs, as they work to ‘answer the mail’ from the Congress. This is a time of great intellectual ferment in the Navy, fueled by the Chief of Naval Operations’ (ADM John Richardson) quiet emphasis on the re-emergence of great power competition and the need to be prepared to wage it.  It is unclear how the Congressionally mandated studies will influence Navy plans going forward, but the Navy should be prepared to engage in a methodical and focused  communications campaign to build public recognition of the challenges ahead seems obvious.

Here are some suggestions to help frame that effort.


Great Power Competition is Central

The degree to which the Navy focuses its narrative on lesser threats is the degree to which its force structure will be optimized to meet them.  While the Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) are employed in current operations against ISIS and other associated terrorist groups, this is a useful by-product of being prepared for great power competition  and not the raison d’etre for that power.


The U.S.Navy exists to ensure Freedom of the Seas

Freedom of the seas is the irreducible minimum condition for world trade, the vast majority of which moves by sea.  The Navy must be capable of ensuring that our economic interests are not damaged by a rising power’s desire to impose a regional dominance over resources and markets.  Over a quarter of this nation’s annual gross domestic product (GDP) is directly associated with seaborne trade, and ensuring that such trade continues unmolested is essential to our prosperity.


Partner with the Marine Corps

The American public must be better informed as to the importance of robust American Seapower to the  nation’s security and prosperity. Within the Department of the Navy resides the world’s most powerful Navy, the world’s most feared middleweight land force, and the world’s most mobile and lethal air arm.  The efficiency and effectiveness of forward deployed naval power in the guise of an integrated war deterring/waging force from the sea should be touted as an asymmetric advantage that enables the U.S. – uniquely among nations – to exploit the simple fact that the world is mostly water, and most of that water is not claimed as territorial seas.

Do Not Negotiate with Yourself  

The Navy is vastly under-resourced for what the nation currently asks it to do, let alone for the rigors of growing great power dynamics.  When the Navy goes forward with its plan, it should couch it in the language of requirements.  State what the force is designed to do, where it is designed to do it, against whom is it arrayed, and the likely operational objectives of those potential adversaries.  Make the case that the fleet architecture and its dependent force structure is the requirement to achieve these ends, and state the resulting requirement unequivocally.

It is the job of the Congress to balance those requirements against other important needs, and Navy planners should get out of the business of shaping their force around and anticipated level of funding.


Put the Admirals to Work

The Navy has hundreds of Admirals – active and reserve – on the payroll.  They reached the positions they occupy on the basis of professional competence and leadership, and there are few better to explain the importance of American Seapower to a general public grown detached from its centrality.

The world is changing around the Navy, and the demands placed on it require it to think differently about how it is organized, trained, equipped, and postured.  If it is to make progress in meeting those demands, it must also communicate its requirements with clarity.  Such is the burden of the world’s most powerful and consequential Navy.”

Bryan McGrath is the Assistant Director of the Hudson Institute Center for American Seapower.  In this capacity, he served as part of the CSBA fleet architecture study team mentioned above.

Our thanks to Commander McGrath.

Enter your email below to receive occasional Longboat Key breaking news eblasts and updates.

Tags: , ,

Longboat Key News

Leave a Reply