Carrier (1999)

by Clancy, Tom - Nf

  That does not mean that we have solved all of our challenges. Full utilization of CTAPS [the joint theater air planning tool] and distribution of the ATO [Air Tasking Order] is still giving us problems, but by and large, we’re on board in the joint arena. I might add that we’re proud to be part of it, because that’s the way that we’re going to be fighting in the future as a nation.

  Tom Clancy: One of the most interesting joint training exercises that has been run recently is Operation Tandem Thrust, down in Australia. Can you tell us about it?

  Admiral Johnson: You have to remember that we have a “special” relationship with Australia, one that has been critical to both countries in this century. Tandem Thrust is just another classic example of that relationship. We just came back from Operation Tandem Thrust. It was huge, involving over 22,000 U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force personnel. We accomplished our objectives and I think everybody learned a great deal.

  When you are running a large military exercise, one of the biggest considerations is the matter of finding new range spaces for the joint forces to exercise and train in. If you talk with Chuck Krulak, he’ll tell you about his interest in using some of the range facilities in Australia. They are beautiful! And the Royal Australian Navy and the rest of their forces are just superb to work with. They are wonderful allies. Australia is an amazing country—just eighteen million people on a land mass the size of the continental United States. You see that when you fly over the place. You just fly for hours and hours and see nothing but open space.

  Tom Clancy: Talk a little more about modernization if you will. Every couple of generations, there seems to be a CNO who, because of timing and circumstances, defines the U.S. Navy for a period of decades. Elmo Zumwalt filled that role in the 1970’s, since so much of what the Navy uses today was defined, designed, or built during his tenure. You seem to be in a similar situation today in the 1990’s. Given this notion, what kinds of things do you want this Navy to do?

  Admiral Johnson: I think that what we’re trying to cast for tomorrow and the future is to be able to say five, ten, twenty, even twenty-five years from now, that this Navy is really relevant. We need to know that the Navy is giving the country a presence force that can still respond across the full spectrum of crises or requirements that the country asks them to respond to. We don’t even know for sure what kinds of crises we’ll be facing in that distant future. But the decisions we make today will have a direct impact on our readiness tomorrow.

  In general terms, we know exactly where we’re going. The new equipment we’re building and the new shaping of the force that we are currently going through are very important to us, as is the way we push ourselves into the next century. It’s very exciting, though somewhat daunting, to be in this job at a time when the infrastructure is under development to this degree, but I think we’re building a marvelous future for the Navy. In my opinion, the future Navy will still be anchored in the carrier battle group with its air wing, in the amphibious ready group and the embarked Marine Expeditionary Unit. These are the two core assets that the sea services give to the country. I want that to be clearly conveyed as we move forward into the next century.

  Tom Clancy: Let’s talk a little more about that issue of “forward presence.” Several years ago when we interviewed General Krulak [the current Commandant of the Marine Corps], he described it as: “A native in a canoe is able to reach out and touch the gray-painted hull of an American warship in his territory.” How does that match up with your vision for American presence in the 21st century?

  Admiral Johnson: The strength of our forward presence is exactly that. The recent Quadrennial Defense Review provided for a strategic vision that carried with it the three elements or phases of military power that our nation requires. These are shaping, responding, and preparing. We’ve talked a lot in this interview about responding and preparing. So let’s take a little time to talk about shaping the world’s military situation.

  That’s what we do every day. That’s why we have 350 ships afloat in the world’s oceans right now. That’s the guy in the canoe who touches the side of our gray-hulled ships. We believe that’s a tremendously powerful mission, both for our Navy and the country, because of what it means to the rest of the world. You know, even if that man in the canoe can’t touch our ship, but can only see it and watch it come and go as it pleases, then that sends a message of great strength to him and to all the other people who see what we can do. Because we’re out there, the world is changed every day.

  Tom Clancy: Let’s talk a little about the material side of the Navy these days. All the ships, aircraft, and other things that were bought during the Reagan Administration are now almost fifteen years old. Military spending has been significantly reduced in recent years. Are you having problems modernizing and reconstituting the Navy for the 21 st century?

  Admiral Johnson: I would not categorize the Navy’s needs at this stage as problems. I think of them as opportunities, and I would say that the future looks promising. I’m just sorry that I’m not going to be a JO [junior officer] to take advantage of all the things we’re going to be getting in the future.

  If you look at the programs that we’ve got on the boards for the next decade, it’s a long list. There are the DDG-51-class Aegis destroyers, which we are continuing to build at a rate of between three and four a year. We’re getting those ships at between $800 and $900 million a copy, depending upon whose numbers you use, which is quite a bargain. I know that sounds like a lot of money for a tin can [the traditional nickname for destroyers], but it’s a pretty impressive tin can!

  After the Aegis, the next class of surface combatant will be the Surface Combatant-21 [SC-21], which we’re just coming to clarity on right now. The first phase of that program will give us what we call a “land attack” destroyer or “DD-21.” Downstream from that will probably be a group of those ships that will begin to replace the early units of the Aegis fleet.

  We can be sure of one thing—SC—21 is going to have to be much more affordable than the DDG-51’s. That’s the bottom-line challenge in all this. That’s why we’re invested in something called “Smart Ship” [the USS Yorktown [CG-48], which is being outfitted]. We want to see what we can learn about making these ships not only less expensive to buy, but to operate and maintain as well.

  But they’ll never be cheap. You have to remember that Navy combatants are not cruise ships. They need to have combat capability all the time. How you make the different trade-offs for crew size, displacement, engineering plants, weapons, sensors, and other things is very, very important. One day, lives may depend on how well we make our decisions now.

  Tom Clancy: What other new classes of warships do you have on the horizon? I know that the first of the new-generation ships will be the San Antonio-class [LPD-17] amphibious ships, which are under construction right now.

  Admiral Johnson: The San Antonio-class [LPD-17] amphibious ship replaces four different classes of older ships in just one hull. It’s an important ship to me, as well as to Chuck Krulak [the Commandant of the Marine Corps]. As you know, the ARG [Amphibious Ready Group] of the 21st century is going to be a three-ship force. There will be a big deck aviation/amphibious ship like a Tarawa [LHA-1] or Wasp [LHD-1], one of the Whidbey Island [LSD-41] or Harpers Ferry-class [LSD-49] dock ships, and a San Antonio. That San Antonio-class ship is going to be the inshore fighter, which will launch the new AAAV amphibious tractors, as well as air-cushioned landing craft and helicopters.

  The design and mix of the ARG and these new ships will give us the ability to fight both in the littorals and in the “blue water” of the open oceans. It’s going to be an awesome platform. That ship is coming along well, as well as CVN-77, which we see as a transition carrier to take us to some technological developments on our way to the next generation of carrier, the CVX.

  Tom Clancy: Tell us some more about the CVN-77, if you would.

  Admiral Johnson: Some of the improvements we contempla
te for it are not unlike what we’re doing with the Aegis cruiser Yorktown, which we’re adding a number of different automation systems to for things like assistance on the bridge, damage control monitoring, and a fiber-optic local area network [LAN] backbone. These improvements are designed to reduce the manning of the Aegis platforms, if it proves practical. We want to see what technology can do for us as a practical matter on future combatants. Once we’ve been to school on that, then we will do the same kinds of things with CVN-77.

  We think technological improvements will help us a lot on the road to our future carrier designs, especially with regards to things like size, shape, and manning, which are some of the critical design factors that determine the costs of new ships. So the plan right now is that CVN-77 will indeed be a transition ship to take us to CVX. We feel that it is the right thing to do. We’re going to make it just different enough through a “Smart Ship/Smart Buy” concept. What we’re trying to do is to leverage technology to do things differently and with fewer people, and let technology make the Naval platforms of the next century even smarter and better than the ones we have right now.

  Tom Clancy: If you were going to sit here today and describe what CVX will become, what would be your vision of that carrier when it arrives sometime in the 21st century?

  Admiral Johnson: Let me do this based upon my own experience. I started on the Orisknay [CV-34, a modernized World War II-era Essex-class (CV-9/SCB-27C) carrier], and I’ve flown on and off of everything from the Midway [CVA-41] to a number of the Nimitz-class [CVN-68] nuclear carriers. I would tell you that what I want CVX to provide is the same kind of flexibility as you can get out of a Nimitz-class carrier. I also want it to be able to deliver many of the same kinds of services and benefits that we already get from carriers right now. I especially want it to be able to move around the same way.

  This ship has implications from the strategic level all the way down to tactical implications—like whether I can crank up enough wind over the deck to be able to land an aircraft with the flaps stuck in the “up” position. So we need tremendous flexibility out of this platform, including areas like berthing, data networks, sensors, and tactical systems.

  The CVX will also need to be an “open architecture” ship, so that we can “net” it into the new kinds of “network centric” battle forces that we want to build in the 21st century. We will want to have distributed sensor and firepower capabilities spread throughout the battle group in ways that allow us to have situational awareness on every platform, both ships and aircraft, and not just the carrier. The carrier is still going to be the core ship of the CVBG. Therefore, it will still need to have flexibility on the flight deck, in the systems that it carries, and in habitability, to ensure a decent quality of life for the crew that will man it. I believe that the Navy in the 21st century will continue to be a forward-deployed force, and given that reality, this ship is a blank sheet of paper in every way.

  Tom Clancy: Does that mean that you see every feature of the CVX as being open for new ideas?

  Admiral Johnson: As far as I’m concerned, yes. Propulsion, sensors, catapult systems—they are all open to new and innovative ideas, should they be offered or presented. Now, when we talk about a CVX-type carrier, we’re talking about a ship that will arrive at a time where the dominant aircraft it will carry will be the new Joint Strike Fighter [JSF], the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and something we call the Common Support Aircraft [CSA]. So this ship will have to be optimized to our vision for operating those future aircraft, none of which are operational today.

  Tom Clancy: I’ve heard some of the people involved in the design and development of CVX call this the first non-Navy or “CinC‘s” [regional commander in chief’s] carrier. Given your own use of carriers during Haiti in 1994, would you concur with this view?

  Admiral Johnson: We’re saying the same thing. As I mentioned earlier, we’re looking for open architecture and connectivity to be able to deal with operations ashore, as well as the Joint Task Force [JTF] commanders in the field, and to handle whatever other circumstances may arise. When you’re trying to shape the battlespace and respond to emerging situations, then a battle group commander is going to have to be responsible for a full spectrum of crises. Whether it’s a little bitty event or the biggest situation, a commander needs a carrier that can respond on the spot. That’s what we need to embed in the CVX design.

  It will be very exciting to see the kinds of things that we’ll be coming out with in areas like catapult and arresting gear technology, combat systems upgrades, and other new systems. We’ll be looking at the proper air wing aircraft mix, including V/STOL [vertical/short takeoff and landing] or STOL [short takeoff and landing] kinds of airplanes, for this new platform. Everything is wide open right now.

  Tom Clancy: While I know that your first passion is naval aviation and carriers, I also know that you are passionate about modernizing the submarine force as well. Tell us, if you would, a little about Seawolf b[SSN-21] and the New Attack Submarine [NSSN] programs?

  Admiral Johnson: I recently took a ride on Seawolf, and it is awesome. The best submarine that has ever been built in the world, period. The Seawolf is truly, truly a magnificent submarine—and remember, I’m a fighter pilot saying this! I took some submariners with me on the Seawolf, and watched their reactions, listened to their comments, and made my own observations. All of that convinced me that this is an awesome platform. I can’t wait to get it into the fleet, as well as the two others that come behind it.

  After the Seawolf, we move into NSSN, where we’re going to use a special teaming arrangement between General Dynamics Electric Boat Division and Newport News Shipbuilding. The idea is to try and get the cost down so we can afford to buy them in the numbers that we’ll be needing to replace the Los Angeles-class [SSN-688] boats when they retire.

  Tom Clancy: Let’s talk about aircraft procurement. It’s been a really tough decade for the Navy with regards to new aircraft procurement. There hasn’t been a single new tactical aircraft for the sea services in more than two decades. Are you comfortable with the current Navy aircraft development and procurement strategy?

  Admiral Johnson: Yes. We’ve made some workable plans to upgrade our aircraft. Though I must point out that if you were to look at a graphic depiction of the last twenty years, it would tell you that we’re coming out of something that looks like a bathtub with regards to new aircraft deliveries. I know that we need to buy new airplanes, the plans are in place to begin to acquire them, and I think that we have the platforms and programs that can deliver in a way that makes sense for Naval aviation.

  The current plan covers the V-22 Osprey for the Marines, the strike fighters we’ve already talked about, T-45 trainers for our undergraduate training programs, and H-60 airframes for ASW and fleet replenishment. I know that sounds like a lot of aircraft, but we’re working our way out of a period when we were lucky to buy more than just a couple of airplanes a year.

  Tom Clancy: Since money is going to be the determining factor in making these procurement plans into reality, one wonders how well the Congress is receiving your message about the value of naval aviation. Just how well are you getting that message across?

  Admiral Johnson: You’d have to ask them how well we’re doing. But from my perspective, when I go talk or testify to Congress, I see a lot of support.

  Tom Clancy: If you don’t mind, let’s run down those aircraft programs one at a time and get a comment on each from you.

  Admiral Johnson: F/A-18E/F Super Hornet—From my standpoint, this is a model program. The aircraft is meeting or exceeding every milestone and specification that we’ve put out there. It’s a wonderful airplane. I’ve flown it, and though it’s bigger than the F/A-18C/D Hornet, it flies “smaller.” I say this publicly and I mean it. This plane is the corner-stone of our future Navy air wing. Over the next two decades, they will first replace our fleet of F-14 Tomcats, and eventually our older F/A- 18’s. By the end of the next decade, we will h
ave three squadrons [with twelve aircraft per squadron] of these aboard every carrier.

  Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)—This bird will eventually replace the newest of our F/A-18C Hornets and Marine AV-8B Harrier IIs, which we are buying right now. Initially, each carrier air wing [CVW] will have a single squadron of JSFs, with fourteen aircraft per squadron. When CVX-78 arrives, this will give it a total of 36 F/A-18E/Fs and 14 JSFs. We expect the concept demonstration and fly-off between Lockheed Martin and Boeing to happen in 2001.

  V-22 Osprey—Even though this is technically a Marine Corps airplane with Marine Corps painted on the side if it, it’s part of our budget, and a part of the Navy/Marine Corps forward-presence force. So it’s as important to us as it is to Chuck Krulak. Whether it has a role in the U.S. Navy, I’m frankly not smart enough to answer that at this time. If I had to give you an answer, I’d probably have to say yes. Right now, though, those V-22 derivatives are not what I’m focusing on. That’s only because the total focus of our effort for V-22 must be to get them into service to replace those H-46’s that are older than the men and women who are flying them.