---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Navy on the World Wide Web A service of the Navy Office of Information, Washington DC The United States Navy web site is found on the Internet at http://www.navy.mil ---------------------------------------------------------------- Q&A with Adm. Michael G. Mullen 2006 CNO's Guidance Release Media Roundtable Pentagon, Washington, DC 13 October 2005 Admiral Mullen: I guess it's my nickel initially. I appreciate that on our birthday that you would come and spend a little time. I've been here I guess upwards of a little over two months, going on three, and it's been a pretty exciting time, at least from my perspective. I feel really blessed to be in the job, fortunate enough to have had some prior experience I guess in Washington and in the tours here, so I'm not uncomfortable, I guess, coming back to Washington. I wasn't gone that long, for those of you that know me. And I feel privileged to be able to lead the Navy. I think Vern Clark did a remarkable job in his five years as CNO, and as I'm fond of pointing out to a lot of people, from about '96 until very recently I had a lot of tours with Vernon Clark. So I was in many ways trained by him and appreciated greatly his leadership, and he left the Navy at the CNO level. He left the Navy in terrific shape and I feel blessed to be able to take the baton, if you will, at this particular point in time. One of the subjects I assume today will be the Guidance, which will come out to the Navy tomorrow. I made a conscious decision to shift it to fiscal year, to just kind of align what drives our calendar more than anything else around here and throughout the Navy in general, and that's why it's being released now. I was anxious to take a fix when I came in, ensure that I had my feet on the ground and then get the Guidance out so that the Navy understands where I'm headed, where I want to take the Navy, what's important, what the priorities are, and what we will emphasize. It really speaks to -- some of you know this. I've been out to several visits to the fleet. I find the fleet, the Sailors, their eyes are sparkling, their faces shine, they're eager to do the job, they've been executing the job. It's particularly important right now in some of the initiatives that are spoken to in this Guidance to make sure we lean forward in the Global War on Terror. So some of the initiatives that we are taking will speak to that. The questions I get from the Sailors are questions that lead me to indicate while there are always challenges, that we're in pretty good shape. They are interested in some cases future missions. They're interested in -- they have a great interest in Task Force Uniform, they have a great interest in education and training. They are in a couple of cases, I got questions on the Naval Aviation Enterprise area from a couple of E6s. We've worked hard over the last several years to improve our productivity and the E6s standing up and asking me those kinds of questions indicate that that piece of what we're doing in Naval Aviation Enterprise in terms of efficiencies and effectiveness is starting to penetrate down through the chain of command. I speak to them about their families and family readiness. It's a big deal. And it will be a priority for me. So the interchange has been good and I come away from those sessions very, very positive in terms of their focus and the quality of people that we have. Back to, sort of the priorities and the Guidance here, and I've spoken to them in my confirmation hearing initially, in my initial messages to the Navy as well as in the Guidance and they remain the idea that the three priorities would be to sustain the readiness that we have and work, quite frankly, to make sure that the resources that generate that readiness are applied at the right time in the cycle. Secondly, is to build the future Navy. Probably of all the challenges that I have, that's the baton that is the biggest, if you will, that Vern Clark passed to me. I need to do that. Four ships in the '06 budget on the Hill, is as low as we've been, and I'm not anxious to stay there. But it's not just about numbers of ships, it's about capabilities, it's about capabilities for the Joint Force, and it's about capabilities that can match up well to the future with respect to the Global War on Terror, as well as to the high end capabilities that may or may not be required; certainly the high end capabilities that will help us deter, which is my preference rather than fight a war, but if need be fight a war if that's required. So building that fleet for the future is really key for me. The third piece is to get the strategy for our people right for the 21st Century. To develop career paths, to have the right kind of competency-based, skilled, develop skills, educate, train, have the right workforce, total force workforce for the future -- officer, enlisted, civilian. And by extension, a contractor force which marries up to us in a way that we're all headed in the same direction. That's going to take a considerable amount of effort as well. We've been working for the last year or so to try to get the strategy for that right. I'll pick it up, fine tune that strategy, and then we'll work to execute that kind of total force strategy over the next two or three years. I don't talk about us, and the Navy of the future without talking about jointness, which is really critical. You'll see a list of principles here, one of which is jointness. That is certainly in the joint force, but it's really a message of extension into the interagency and the coalitions and the partner building and the sharing, into operating together and working together in the very complex world in the future. I don't talk about people without talking about, not just about their careers and their families but about diversity and taking significant steps while I'm the leader of the Navy in the area of diversity because I believe we have to have people from and for every part of our Navy. We've done well; we can do better in my view. I emphasize -- I will always emphasize -- leadership. I think some of the most difficult problems that we have can be solved through good leadership, and in some cases solved only through good leadership. In my expectations, if you accept the premise that these are the best people I've ever dealt with, and as I'm fond of saying I've been in the Navy since 19 blah, blah, blah. You know, I came in, in 1964 and it goes back a long way, so I've seen the ups and the downs. These truly are the best people we've ever had in the United States Navy and I believe that's true for all the services, but I can speak very specifically to the Navy. I think it's an obligation on my part and there is great potential to build the right force for the future with respect to the people. We can buy all the ships and all the airplanes and all the submarines and all the technology in the world. It isn't going to work if we don't get the people side right, and I believe in that very strongly. And they must be well led. There are other principles there, clearly, and we can talk to those as we go through the questions and the answers. Clearly as I come into town I'm on the -- BRAC was in full bloom, if you will, when I showed up in July. It will be law here next month, and we will execute in accordance with the law. So my time has been spent both shaping this initial message, dealing with BRAC, and I'm clearly the leader of a service very much in the throes of the Quadrennial Defense Review and all that meets at this particular point in time. And clearly, marrying that up with the '07 budget, which goes to the Hill and to which I'll testify next spring, is very much on my mind as well. So the Guidance specifically is designed to look to what we're going to do in '06. And you will see taskings in there and my expectation is those taskings will come back to the leadership. Leads will be required to develop plans and we will look very heavily at execution in what we're doing. So I'm glad to be here. I really am excited about the job and consider it a great privilege to be here. Voice: We're going to open it up for questions. I think you've been briefed, everything's obviously on the record. Two questions please each so we can make -- I know we got kind of a late start so we're going to kind of hold you to that. If there is time at the end we'll be happy to follow up. Admiral, I'd remind you you've got Bob Hamilton and Dave DeCamp on the phone. Admiral Mullen: I'll start with you guys since you're in remote. David, why don't you go ahead? Question: Admiral, this is Bob Hamilton. You made some comments about the [desired effects] planning. Admiral Mullen: Yeah. Question: I was wondering; you had set an August 31 deadline for your study of shipbuilding. What have we seen from that and when do you think you'll be throwing up your fleet numbers and your fleet mix? Admiral Mullen: I guess I would try to capture the essence of that in my last comments about the QDR. There's been an awful lot of work done internal to the Navy. We've done a lot of analysis. But as I come in the QDR is ongoing. I've got to work my way through the QDR with this force structure and force capabilities, the outcome of which will be a number. I'm not prepared to talk in detail about that today just because of where we are in the process. But clearly the latest that it would come out would obviously be with the submission of the President's budget when that goes over for '07. So that's kind of where we are right now. I'm actually comfortable with the analysis. I think we've got a pretty good handle on the requirements and the capabilities. There's been an awful lot of hard work go into it and it's been very much a collaborative effort to address that particular issue and I owe that answer to the public, I owe it to the Hill, I owe it to the industry and, most important, I owe it to the Navy because that's the Navy we're going to have to fight with. Question: With regard to BRAC, obviously the Navy had a plan in place to move forward without Groton. How much are your plans going to have to change? What do you envision Groton's role in the force is going to be in the coming years? Will it change? Admiral Mullen: I clearly, when I came here, and that was the proposed position of the department, I very much supported that position. That said, when it becomes law I march off just like anybody else. We keep Groton. Assuming it becomes law, that happens. It's a very important base and we will do the absolute best we can by Groton and all bases that we have in the future. Question: Admiral, this is Dave DeCamp. Given the issues over the East Coast Master Jet basing, where are you, and what kind of details do you expect to get in the study for the future location of that base? Admiral Mullen: We're probably about midway through. I expect a report to come to me in mid-November, or about that timeframe, mid-November to late December. And Senator Warner has rightfully asked me if we make this investment in the State of Virginia will the Navy stay? I owe him an answer to that question. This study is going to go through a very detailed review of the requirements of where Oceana is, of what an ideal base would look like, and of what Cecil would look like. So comparing that in detail will be where I will -- based on that I'll make my recommendation up the chain of command at that particular point in time and in fact be able to, I feel, answer Senator Warner's question. Question: In regard to the carrier fleet force, there's been a lot of talk about obviously decommissioning the JFK. Have you fixed on a number? Is 11 the number that we're looking at for the fleet size now? The carriers? Admiral Mullen: Right. The requirement is 12. I am comfortable mitigating the risk to 11, so I think that's where we end up. That said, Kennedy is still an active carrier. I'm sure you know that Congress has passed a law that requires us to retain Kennedy until 180 days after the QDR submission at least. And my expectation is obviously to watch what happens on the Hill with respect to that. That said, I am comfortable from the warfighting standpoint, from the operational standpoint and from the risk standpoint with 11 carriers. That's the position I've taken. Question: You mentioned that the guidance would be rooted in the framework of Sea Power 21, you'd be building on Sea Power 21, but it's been more than three years since CNO Clark at the Naval War College unveiled Sea Power 21 up in Newport, Rhode Island. Have you thought about this as far as sea basing, forward deployed, crew swapping, streamlined maintenance, and jointness using other services? Or is Sea Power 21 do you think still germane, still operative? Admiral Mullen: I think Sea Power 21 is still germane and operative. I have spoken publicly in a couple of speeches, one at NDU and one at the Naval War College. I think equally germane is sea power for a maritime nation, which is what I believe the United States of America is. And sea power for the 21st Century is very important as well. And what that means for the future, the kind of forward presence, forward rotational, surge capable, running the full spectrum of missions, whether it's major combat operations through peacekeeping or humanitarian assistance and disaster relief which we saw the United States Navy play a significant role in, both in Indonesia and in the Katrina and Rita relief efforts. So I think it's a combination of this higher level discussion about sea power and what it means in the 21st Century with the very strong tenets of Sea Power 21, which I participated in when Admiral Clark first rolled it out and to which I still subscribe. While it was there three years ago, that was two years into his time as CNO, so my view of this right now is clearly I'm very strongly supportive of Sea Power 21. I want to talk about sea power at a higher level because I think that's a discussion that needs to take place, and it was one that resonated significantly with 72 countries that were represented in Newport, Rhode Island at the International Sea Power Symposium a couple of weeks ago. Then a year or two from now see if or where I should adjust. Question: Another point on which CNO Clark was quite strong, was he couldn't wait to see the LCS in the water. My thought was do you see this as an extremely important addition that the Navy requires for the littoral warfare in the -- Admiral Mullen: I'm right with him on that. You can't get LCS in the water fast enough. We're planning on populating the fleet with a fairly significant number of them as rapidly as possible and they are extremely relevant for the kinds of operations that we will see in the future in the littoral in particular. I'm excited about where the program is, I'm excited about where the module development is. There's a lot of energy and support for it so we need to get it out there as quickly as we can. Question: You discuss in your Guidance contributing to a stable industrial base. Certainly there's been push and pull here because the industrial base has said they need firm numbers from the Navy, the flip side being that the cost of ships seems to continually rise. What kinds of things are you looking at to help stabilize the industrial base? Admiral Mullen: What I intend to do with the blessing of my leadership is roll out a plan that I am able to stick to year to year. And when I say that I don't mean every single each, but generally the shape of it, the number of it, the capabilities that are there. What I am anxious to do is present some level of stability to the industry, and it's my belief that once we get them to some level of stability they are charged with cost reduction. But if I change my plan year to year, which has happened too often, it's very difficult for them to be able to plan. So getting a number, getting one that they can depend on, developing capabilities we need, doing it consistently will be a significant step forward in my belief to stabilizing the shipbuilding world. Question: You talked about working with the Marine Corps, increasing the value of naval contributions to the Joint Force. I wonder if within that there has been discussion of a naval ground combat force. Admiral Mullen: The commitment, and it's in the principles in the Guidance, the commitment that this is a Navy/Marine Corps team, which is a relationship that I treasure as a national treasure. General Hagee and I met each other on June 30, 1964 when we walked into the Naval Academy together. He's a classmate of mine. I have known him my whole life. We have a very strong relationship. I've spent an extraordinary amount of time with him since I've been back and we are committed to go shoulder to shoulder on the major issues. I think your question is about the naval combat battalion. General Hagee tells me everywhere he goes, he gets asked by his Marines what we're up to on that. It is a concept only at this point in time. It's part of what I believe is the engagement capability this country needs in the future, and I really mean theater security cooperation kind of engagement, not combat engagement. The early thoughts on this are that it's designed to complement the Marine capability, not replace it, and we are in the early stages. So in that regard I don't think -- I know General Hagee is not, although he's asked me about it, that the Marine Corps need be overly concerned about the Navy displacing Marine Corps mission. That is not the intent. Question: Admiral, your Guidance talks a lot about jointness and earlier this week at the American Enterprise Institute your counterpart in the Air Force, General Moseley, mentioned that he thinks there's going to be a growing need for joint programs because the money available for those programs is shrinking due to the hurricane recovery efforts, ongoing military operations and so on. I was wondering if you agree with that assessment, including General Moseley's suggestion that one of those areas where there could be increased jointness is in the intelligence gathering aircraft area. Admiral Mullen: Clearly I think where we can create joint programs we should. And I'll make an assumption about you understand the acquisition cycle here well, and sometimes the difficulty in joint programs is no more complex than one service started a program a number of years ago, the next service started it seven or eight years later, then we both replace them at the same. Joining those up can be a real challenge and that's one of the kinds of difficulties we face in major programs like aircraft programs. But again, somebody I work with closely here both as the Vice Chief and even since we both took over as Chiefs, Buzz Moseley, and we are committed to the joint solution here as much as we possibly can be. To speak to a specific program right now, I just haven't gotten into many programs per se, but the joint piece is critical. I think joint programs. The same kind of issues come up, though, we need to contain the costs of all these programs because the rising costs will do us all in -- singly and jointly. Question: Your guidance also mentions the need for rapid prototyping of ASW and I was wondering if you could talk about what is sort of driving the need for that. Admiral Mullen: The quietness of the threat is driving the need for that. The proliferation of the threat throughout the world and the need for -- the ASW area, undersea warfare is very, very tough. We receded from that in great part after the Wall came down in the '90s; we clearly are reemerging. It is a priority for us and developing technologies that will make the water a lot easier to operate in, from surveillance to detection and kill, is really what I'm talking about with respect to that. It's a combined effort. It will take technologies in the air, on the water and under the water. It will take remote ones; it will take unmanned ones; it will take manned ones; all of which we need to rapidly prototype, to see where we are with them to solve this problem. Technologically it is a very, very demanding and stressing environment. Question: Admiral, I want to take you back to the question of the East Coast Master Jet Base. I bet that's a big surprise to you. [Laughter]. As you compare Oceana to an ideal for a Master Jet Base, and Cecil Field to an ideal, how much are you driven here by the cost of creating a Master Jet Base which is something you haven't budgeted for at all. And is there a predisposition to either take Oceana or take Cecil and a Master Jet Base is really not a viable option? Admiral Mullen: This is a huge issue that as a leader I feel responsible I get right. The factors that you bring up -- certainly cost is one and it's not insignificant. You obviously were here for the debate on Oceana, and depending on what number you talk about it's between $1 billion to $2 billion. Those resources, should I have to pay those, are the same resources I'd be using to build a future Navy. So, certainly it's a consideration. There is, however, no predisposition for an answer in this, Dale. I have got to see the data, and I've got to lay it out as I described it. And both Senator Warner and Governor Warner understand this. And we think we can do it in a timely way to answer the requirements downstream. Question: As a follow-up, let me ask you just a general question about BRAC. The two biggest cost savers that the Navy recommended, Portsmouth and New London, at least cost savers on paper, were shot down by the BRAC Commission. Given what the department goes through to prepare these recommendations, and what the communities go through to respond to them, in hindsight, and the small amount of money that you're now going to save, in hindsight is it worth the process? Should we be doing this again? Or should we be looking for other ways to save money on infrastructure? Admiral Mullen: I've been a supporter of the BRAC process for some time. I think the challenges that are resident in BRAC are reflective of how difficult it is to gain these efficiencies and specifically, how difficult it is to close a base. I accept that challenge. These decisions shouldn't be made easily. It shouldn't be a major process. These are major investments, not just resource investments; community investments -- lots of jobs. So on the Pentagon side we go through what we go through; the independent Commission then makes its recommendations to the President. They're all separate and independent entities, and I applaud that. And I applaud the process that was put in place by Congress to do this. I don't have any other brilliant ideas on how we would do this except your point about New London and Portsmouth in terms of savings, those are savings we will not accrue now, so we will have to go elsewhere to invest for the future. We were going into this BRAC 20-25 percent in excess capacity. To the degree we have that capacity, I can't -- as one Service Chief, and I know my peers would say the same -- I can't keep investing in that overhead. Question: Admiral I want to try and draw you out a little bit on your close friendship with Commandant Hagee and ask you about this bullet point here where you talk about developing an annual plan within the Navy/Marine Corps Board that identifies major USN/USMC issues. Admiral Mullen: Right. Question: What have the two of you talked about a little bit in some of those major issues? What are you guys going to be wrestling with over the next fiscal year? Admiral Mullen: Right now the issues closest to us are those issues embedded in the QDR. And for us it is the force structure piece that I described, and it is how many ships of what kind that we are dealing with, and we haven't totally solved that yet. But the Navy/Marine Corps Board that is there is a mechanism led by the two Vice Chiefs represented obviously with both services to take on the toughest issues that face us and get to something that meets a requirement, is timely, and is affordable for the future. So -- Question: -- ships, what else? Admiral Mullen: Ships, airplanes. Ships -- specifically, what kind of ships for the future? How many of them? How we're going to fight in the future. The same kind of questions for airplanes. And then it's a ship- related issue, but also the pre-positioned forces for the future and conceptually how we're going to use them. These are, again, very important, critical issues that we need to get right, and that we debate, discuss, come out with a solution; and we march together shoulder to shoulder on. Question: And it may be related to this, but you also talk about developing a TACAIR Helicopter/UAV Master Plan. Does that mean that you're dissatisfied with the way these communities are evolving and integrating, especially with the TACAIR integration plan? What are some of your thoughts on how well that's working and what do you mean by the Helicopter/UAV Master Plan? Admiral Mullen: You catch me where I am right now on TACAIR integration, and I was very involved in it when we did it three years ago. So it's important for me to be updated on it and be current on it, where we are, what we said we were going to do and what are we doing? So that's -- And what does the future look like X number of years later? So that's on TACAIR. I have recently been in an operational job in Europe. The number one asset, the asset people wanted the most outside strategic lift in that theater, was helicopters. I have seen 17 helicopters sitting on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln in Indonesia. I have seen 19 helicopters sitting on the deck of the USS Truman in Katrina in an AOR, in a Joint Operations Area that had upwards of 350 to 400 helicopters, and I want to make sure we are positioned right with respect to helicopters in the future, and that would be the U.S. Navy specifically. I have no -- Question: Any integration plan like a helicopter integration plan? Admiral Mullen: That certainly would be a point of discussion. What I want to look at in all this is what's the capability we need to have in the future with respect to that? I also believe and have for some time that the UAV world is critical to us. In every warfare area, persistence, persistence, persistence, to get it out there whether it's over the oil platforms in the Persian Gulf right now, which we're providing security for, or whether it's over the beach to support forces ashore, and many of them are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan, or whether it's in the Taiwan Straits to create a persistent view of what's going on there. So the UAV Master Plan is going to be an important one for me from small to big. What's our investment strategy, how does that roll into what we need for the future? Question: In your opening comments you mentioned that you think good leadership can solve the most difficult problems the Navy has. You spent a lot of time out in the fleet recently. When you get down on the deck plates and you're talking to Sailors, can you give us an honest assessment of what are the most difficult problems the Navy faces at that level and how good leadership can change those problems? Admiral Mullen: I think probably the most significant challenge we have there or among the most significant would be back to those two E-6s that stood up and asked me the question about AIRSPEED, which is the productivity program for Naval Aviation, and making sure every Sailor understands that every dollar is precious and execution of that is key. Funding the mission, funding readiness, funding the execution we've observed most recently just closely here in Katrina is a priority for me -- getting that right. And getting the education and the training to do that. Expanding what we've done in Naval Aviation to the rest of the enterprise, and there are efforts to do this on the surface side and the submarine side and, in fact, in many other places. But that's sort of the poster for me right now on productivity, effectiveness and efficiency, and I would like to expand that to the entire enterprise over the four years that I'm there. So that's a huge challenge; it's a huge communications challenge. What the Sailors tell me is most on their mind is can you get Sea Warrior right? They like NKO, knowledge skills and abilities. They like where we're headed with respect to this. It gives them a chance to participate. They can kind of see what skills they have to develop, whether it's educational or training, whatever it might be, but right now I am -- and I'm limited at sea to, I have bandwidth limitations which does not allow them to spend the kind of time efficiently up on the net to make that work. That's step one for me in this people strategy for the 21st Century, is to start and to engage in that area, in that area in particular. You will see a couple of taskers in there that talk specifically about Sea Warrior. I get that feedback from them regularly. Question: You talk a lot about family and the importance of family. How do you balance the Sailor's need to keep a family together and happy with some of these changes that are coming up as far as changes potentially in op tempo and the Fleet Response Plan and the demand for the Navy to be forward deployed? Admiral Mullen: I have, I think it's in every single one. If it isn't it's only lacking one, because I have been told that the rumor's out there that the uncertainty and the increased op tempo and all of that is a bother. So I try to take that off the table by them with bringing it up early in my comments. Say, when we get to Q&A would you ask me about this if it is of a concern to you. My spouse does the same thing in spouse meetings. I always get into a question and answer period and they're usually pretty lively. I can't generate a question. So it does not come routinely in that regard. And one of the things I talk about is, it's a very uncertain world. Whether it's a natural disaster or a significant incident tied to the Global War on Terror. Certainty, predictability are very bad characteristics, very bad strategies in war. And so we're not going to be as predictable as we used to be. We're not going to be heel to toe. We're going to change some of that. That said, we will create -- I believe -- windows of certainty, windows of predictability where people can plan their lives. But to the first point I made, and I'm not saying I don't have a problem, I just have not been able to pull it in because I haven't gotten that question. Now you print this, I may get it in spades -- that's fine. Because if I've got a problem like that I really want to know it and I want to do something about it. But I just haven't seen it and I'm looking for it. Question: You spoke about creating stability in shipbuilding programs and giving the industrial base enough to -- Admiral Mullen: Reduce costs. Build good ships and reduce costs. Question: -- and reduce costs. Admiral Mullen: Right. Question: Obviously, what we're building here is ship programs. The Navy's DD(X) is a program that is very much in trouble right now and pretty much most people think it's 50/50 as to where it will be built, especially in serious production. There are other programs that are looming. [CVN-21] is coming up in '08 and '09 for major funding. Sea basing is going to eat up an enormous amount of money, JSF and its programs and its various interactions are being debated right now. Do you think the Navy is on solid ground in these issues, these programs? In convincing Congress, the public, outside the Department of Navy, of the necessity of spending enormous amounts of money for so much gain? You're demonstrating that this is better, we'll be able to do this, but Congress clearly in the sense of DD(X) is by no means convinced that that's worth the cost of this, and you'll have similar issues with CVN-21, with Sea Base, with JSF and that is key, of course, to creating a stable industrial base. Do you think the Navy's on firm ground in iterating the need and the justification for the vastly increased costs of these new programs? Admiral Mullen: I could spend a long time answering that question. I take issue with a couple of things. One is that sea basing is defined as a group of ships. I think you're talking about MPF. Question: Well from the industrial point of view. Admiral Mullen: That's not the definition of sea-base or sea basing. Every ship you mention is a part of the sea base. It's my view that that discussion evolved in the time that I was gone to -- discussion about specific programs, and that became the sea-base. The MPF Future is not the sea-base. It should be some day part of it. But what you saw in Indonesia, that's a different sea base. What you see in the [Arabian] Gulf right now is a different sea base. What you saw in Katrina is a different sea base. The hundreds of ships lined up around, from Turkey all the way to the Gulf before OEF. That's another view of the sea base. And I think this is really an important point to make. The sea base is made up of lots of different capabilities. Secondly, I take issue and could debate with you for some time about DD(X) being in a lot of trouble. Let's see what happens on the Hill before we come to that conclusion, if you will. That doesn't mean there hasn't been a healthy discussion about it. It doesn't mean there haven't been naysayers, but I have paid close attention to Admiral Clark's final testimony on the Hill. The warfighting requirements piece of that is very strong. What it buys us in the future. John Young's statement that a DDG from the '90s inflated to right now is a $2.7 billion ship. And understand, these systems do cost a lot of money. And replacing capability, which we need to do. For instance DDGs, I don't need more DDGs. I'm building 62 of them now. If I build more DDGs I'm going to be building old technology which bridges me right to another critical factor in DD(X). The multiple technologies that DD(X) is going to bring on line, not just for destroyers, not just for surface combatants, but for every aspect of shipbuilding in the future. Ten years ago we had no R&D investment in surface ships -- very little. The same is true for carriers. The part of our Navy that did that exceptionally well was submarines, where we did have a very strong R&D base. We now have a strong R&D base, and it's very easy to forget that the cost of the first ship clearly carries that R&D bill up to now. So I'm very supportive of the program. It meets important warfighting requirements. It will revolutionize us in many ways in the future and again, I'm obviously anxious to see how it comes out on the Hill. Clearly there are naysayers, but I have spoken to many strong supporters. Question: I notice that you've added a color code to the Navy's mission area. You've added green to the traditional blue and brown. A definition of a couple of the terms you use in this thing -- expeditionary combat command; and globally networked force Maritime Component Commanders. These are terms that you have in your Guidance. Are they just different names for existing capabilities, or are they something new? Admiral Mullen: We have the global network, the Joint Force Maritime Component Commanders is a concept that we have recently put in place to essentially link the component commanders from the United States Navy around the world. So they currently, in their old hats, their Navy hats, they're the fleet commanders. But really this takes them by designation, not that they weren't doing this, but this really designates them in the joint sense, and we will use them that way. So in that sense -- and key to that is also linking them and sharing in between. So there's some old stuff there, obviously they're the fleet commanders, but there's some new stuff as well in terms of making sure that they're positioned correctly in the joint sense. And working in the joint arena. As far as the Expeditionary Combat Battalion -- Question: No, you had a specific term -- Admiral Mullen: Combat command, right. Question: Which sounds like it's broader than battalion. Admiral Mullen: It is. Right, sorry. The combat command is something that we will look at putting in place in the near future to cover a broad spectrum of capabilities, some of which we see out there now. Clearly we are looking to, from a concept standpoint, developing the riverine force and the green water force. Those forces would come in under that. We have contributed significantly in the EOD world, in the explosives world since OEF started and continue to do that today. Having the EOD capability embedded there, having the maritime security detachments who are currently on the oil platforms in the Gulf embedded in there is another capability. Other security forces that we have. So what we've got is, we've grown a bunch of capability and the idea is that this is a capability which now needs some command structure over which it will develop, it will take advantage of the synergies, it will develop the capabilities as we go down the road, so that's really what's it's focused on. Question: Is that going to be a flag command or -- Admiral Mullen: It is going to be a flag command. My initial expectations are to dual-hat one of Admiral Nathman's officers who's on his staff as the commander here in the very near future, and then obviously relieve him at a time later on down the road. Question: On your cooperation with the Marine Corps, you talked about building Foreign Area Officers and cultural training, that sort of thing. The Marine Corps has a similar program that they're working on. Any attempt to coordinate these two programs? Admiral Mullen: If I can coordinate it, if I can copy it, if I can make it work together -- I have no intention of originating something that's already working if I can make that work. I think that Foreign Area Officer piece, the language piece, the cultural piece, is a very important part of the theater security engagement for many years to come, and I think the Navy and the Marine Corps, naval forces play a big role in that in the future as well. Question: You spoke very eloquently about the need for support for an urgency of LCS and DD(X). Do you share that enthusiasm when the discussion moves to CVN-21 versus, and the capability that that design will bring, versus building a repeat CVN-77? Admiral Mullen: Yes. Question: You do. Admiral Mullen: I do. I believe, and as I indicated I've got to put a plan together which is stable enough to make sure that I allow the industrial base to work hard to reduce costs, one. Two is, with both DD(X) and CVN-21, I am committed as I return to Washington to come back and look at the requirements. I'm not going to just press industry to reduce costs. Requirements generate costs. I am going to review requirements, and look to the possibility of cost reduction and investment tied to requirements modification. That said, I haven't done that yet, but that's my commitment as well. I don't want to leave you with the impression that $3.3 billion isn't a lot of money. It is a lot of money, but these are capital assets. Back to my discussion about sea power in the 21st Century, I believe it is vital for this maritime nation. We're going to have to invest in it. Where are we going to put it? I think these are terrific investments. Question: Just a quick shipbuilding question. Your predecessor had a lot of interest in finding new ways to pay for ships. Senator Talent talked at the SECNAV's confirmation hearing about establishing some sort of fund that would be an ongoing fund that would be protected from incursions by the Congress so that you'd have a stable shipbuilding source of funds. What's your sense of where we're headed there or ought to be headed? Admiral Mullen: Clearly we need to stabilize the investment as much as possible, and mechanisms to do that are certainly worthy of discussion. I have no mechanism to say let's go do this. I've had considerable discussions with members of Congress on this issue to figure out ways to do this. One of the options is what Senator Talent has brought up. You've heard over the years advanced appropriations. There have been various, different schemes which have been discussed. I think it's important that strategically we agree we've got to stabilize this. I've got to invest enough up front in it to do that, and then we should look at the best way to keep it stable over time. And Dale, I just don't expect either in the '07 budget which was built mostly in my absence, or even in the '08 one, to totally solve the problem. This is where I come in. I think this is a four-year program for Mullen as CNO to get it stable and in a way that really projects the kind of both stability, my ability to buy the future and preserve the Navy and its capabilities for the country for what I believe we need to have in the future. Question: Sir, we've gone to full rate, authorization for full rate on the V-22 Osprey, and we've come through I guess it's three years, more than three years of tests. It's passed them. But some questions have been raised recently as to whether there still are problems with the aircraft. Are you satisfied that the Osprey is the right aircraft for the Marine Corps? Admiral Mullen: First of all, the Commandant's the one to really speak to that, not me. I've watched that program over the years and I have been impressed with its movement from very challenging times to a successful operational evaluation. Any additional problems after that, I'm just not current on. And certainly based on everything I've seen it's what the Marine Corps needs, it's what we've invested in and we ought to move forward. Question: Can you share your views on the Joint Strike Fighter program and how you think that's going? Do you think that's going to stay a three service, three variant program? Admiral Mullen: The Navy needs it. I need the range, I need the stealth. It's a very important program to me. Clearly each service chief has over time spoken very strongly about it. I just haven't gotten back into the program. I mentioned earlier, I haven't gotten into program briefs per se, in any kind of number. And you're asking me to speculate how it's going to do, and I don't do speculation really well at all. But I will say from the Navy's perspective it's a program that I feel strongly we've got to have for the future. Question: We live on speculation here in Washington, I don't know. [Laughter]. Admiral Mullen: I know that. I don't have to answer speculation. Thanks. (END) CNO - ROUNDTABLE - 10/13/05 PROFESSIONAL WORD PROCESSING & TRANSCRIBING (801) 942-7044 PROFESSIONAL WORD PROCESSING & TRANSCRIBING (801) 942-7044