Quotes from the CNO

Admiral Jeremy Michael Boorda

The following are quotes from the late Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jeremy M. "Mike" Boorda during various interviews and appearances.


It's pretty clear to me that as we get smaller, in fact as each of our services get smaller, we are going to need to be more efficient. That means we have to know what our requirements are and the military services must work together better so that we don't duplicate each other unnecessarily. We also have to buy things smarter. As our industries downsize, they are not making as much for defense. They need to be sure that they can make what we need. And we need to be sure that what we need makes sense -- both in its complexity and it's ability to use what's available in the civilian society. All of that argues for acquisition reform.

It's time to end the long requirements lists that are so detailed that no one can meet them at reasonable cost. It's also time to trust industry and work together with them as partners to produce what we need for the country. That way we will have better weapons systems, the kinds of weapons systems we need, and we'll get them at reduced costs.

That's not real easy to do. An awful lot of people have worked very hard to produce a system, a process, that reduces risks, and that produces systems that are exactly, precisely what we designate. As we now review all of that, people who work in acquisition must be more flexible as we get better at doing things with less money, while still keeping the quality up; In fact, improving the quality if we can.

One of the real good things that I think we have done as Joint Chiefs and Service Chiefs is to sign up for the JROC (Joint Requirements Oversight Committee) initiative. We are now very careful to ensure we think about jointness when we specify a requirement, instead of just the needs of one service. For example, if the Navy buys an airplane, we want to be sure that it is compatible, as much as it can be, with the Air Force requirements and any Marine Corps requirements. That way we can have airplanes with similar spare parts, similar maintenance, which in many cases will be the same for as much as 80% of what's on board.

That kind of acquisition reform means that we're going to have to work together because we have to specify what we need but not in such detail that good people, in both government and industry, don't have the flexibility to produce at reasonable costs.

Acquisition reform is going to be done. It means changing the way you think about things. It means changing the way we do things, but in the end it means a better military -- quicker, cheaper, and the ability to get our job done in a better way than we've ever done it before.


I am an advocate of the supported CINC -- in our case that was USCINCEUR -- receiving the forces that he believes he needs, provided they can be provided. He might ask for more than exists or more than can be done based on how often you can deploy and for how long. You might end up in a dialogue. I am in favor of that dialogue where the supported CINC says, "This is what I need," and the supporting CINC says, "Okay," or, "I can't provide that because," with a follow-on dialogue about the because, "And I can give you this instead, which will be almost as good."

As long as that dialogue takes place, I don't have any trouble at all with adaptive force planning. It is when that dialogue doesn't take place and the supported CINC is not truly supported that I have a problem.


You know, we've been doing air defense suppression for the air force for a long time. When you start talking to the people who actually fly airplanes, when you start talking to people who actually drive ships, you begin to see these service differences melt away. The operators already know--or are learning--how to work together to get the job done. Sooner or later, we'll find it out in Washington too. We're coming along though. We're actually educating ourselves. We are becoming more joint every day. The operators are ahead of us and that is probably good.

AKULA / IMPROVED SSN 2/22/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY House National Security Committee Testimony, 1996 Defense budget

With respect to Seawolf, I know you understand the financial business-based arguments. The operational argument goes like this: The Russians today have six submarines at sea that are quieter than the 688-Is, our best submarine. It makes sense for us to have a Seawolf-quiet submarine out there. We can't afford to keep up with the Russians right now, but we should be building ships that are quieter than theirs. This is the first time since we put Nautilus to sea that they have had submarines at sea quieter than ours. As you know, quieting is everything in submarine warfare.


Navy disciplinary rates are coming down, and we want to continue that trend. One of the really important things to come out of the Good Order and Discipline standdown was the recognition and discussion about the direct relationship between alcohol abuse and many kinds of personal problems. It was clear that this relationship was recognized by seniors and juniors since it is a problem that affects all ranks and rates.

The new Right Spirit Program is not an anti-drinking program. It's about drinking reasonably and responsibly, if you drink at all, and looking out for each other and yourself. It's also about training and educating people, especially people showing the first signs of a problem that could lead to trouble. It is about combat readiness. In the end, we need our people to stay with us and continue to do a good job. This is really all about shipmates looking out for shipmates.


I don't have a lot of trouble putting Army helos on aircraft carriers in a limited mission like this one.

It's important to keep in mind that the low threat environment did not merit the use of tactical aircraft, which had to be cleared from the decks to make room for the Army helicopters.

There was also no threat of air or missile attack, submarines, or other ships. I think it was a pretty good use of what's available. What we are really talking about here is transport.


This is an idea -- a concept, and maybe a technology demonstration.

What we thought about with this ship is that it would be a magazine to carry a lot of weapons -- carry them in a relatively safe way -- as safe and secure and survivable as possible within the cost realities that we face . We have a lot of ordnance that could be delivered from this platform in response to the fire control solution from something or somebody else.

The arsenal ship is the gun barrel, or the airplane, or the missile tube, or the whatever -- that takes the information from somebody else that says "please put your weapon here." The arsenal ship then shoots it. It's not a very sophisticated ship with respect to elaborate fire control systems. It is merely told where the target is -- probably via data links, like CEC -- and it puts the right weapon on the target. The whole idea is that it isn't a specific-weapon ship. Whatever weapon built by the Defense Department that can be launched vertically, can be fired off of the ship.

I'd like the number of people needed to operate this ship to be as small as possible -- maybe a number somewhere in the 20s. There is a lot of technology to be developed for something like this to truly work and be minimally manned. Some of the technology is defensive in nature. In other words, the ship needs to be able take damage and have that damage be controlled by a small number of people which may mean a little different kind of construction. Right now double hull is something we do with tankers -- maybe we want to do a double-hull -- or use automatic fire-fighting equipment. And you'd need engineering equipment that was relatively automatic. Most of the weapons we are talking about don't require maintenance. This isn't a "just go build it tomorrow" kind of idea.

I think semi-submersible is an acceptable idea. When you get into an operating area you probably will want to be able to ballast down and have much less freeboard and in effect much less target area for cruise missiles or some other type of airborne weapon, thereby making your defensive problems somewhat easier.

This isn't just taking a bunch of things off the shelf and doing it, but it's not as difficult as a lot of other technology projects.

If you could build a ship like this with a really small crew you probably wouldn't want to bring the ship back to the U.S. for awhile -- it could be forward deployed and you could swap out crews. That means you need fewer of them and you spend less money.


We're a long ways away from missiles being able to do the kind of thinking in the air and finding the target that a man can do in an airplane. This is certainly a modern equivalent to the battleship. It's not the modern equivalent of an aircraft carrier or a Air Force composite wing. It is an ordinance platform. It delivers ordinance.

I can see this ship working in tandem with an AEGIS cruiser. It will not be autonomous out there. It is getting target information from another source. It simply needs to receive the information and if the target is within it's range -- what we would say is in it's envelope -- then it can shoot it.

People want to call it an arsenal ship and I think the reason is because it carries a lot of weapons like an arsenal, but in fact it's a fire support ship. It's providing fire support to troops ashore, or it will make it possible to get troops ashore. And because ships live a long time the weapons will get better and change as the ship goes throughout it's life -- but it's basic job is to project power ashore and support our troops ashore.


The reason there seems to be so much misinformation about this concept is that it's only a concept right now. But it is a darned good one. I think the idea that we are going to use technology and vertical-launch capability to deliver ordnance as requested and required, in a precise way, is very attractive. This may be something that becomes the new battleship in the future Navy.

For example, we now have a lot of sealift to move ammunition. We should be able to fire some of it right from the ship that brings it over [to the combat zone], particularly when we look at the success of the Tomahawk missile.

We also expect the success of ATACMS [Army tactical missile system] to allow us to shoot right from our ships, as we did from an LSD [dock landing ship] last year when we had a direct hit at 72 miles. That gives us two missiles we can shoot.

I think we also need something else that costs a little bit less. The Boorda rule of weaponry is that occasionally it would be good if the target costs more than the bullet! We need to think about gunfire support and gunnery, and simpler, less expensive rockets, too. That technology is here now.


Firepower is really the reason we had the battleship. We could put 2000 pounds of ordnance on a target with pretty good precision, but we couldn't reach very far inland. With the firepower in-close or deep over land. The arsenal ship ties in arsenal ship, we're talking about having the option to project with our strategy Forward...From the Sea and continues to make the Navy a relevant player in the land battle.


The Arsenal ship concept includes the ability to support combat forces and/or prepare the battlefield very early in a conflict, possibly even before land based airpower could be brought to the region.

This ship will be able to shoot any vertically launched missile in our inventory, including Tomahawk, AATCMS, and others not yet developed.

We are not talking about replacing TACAIR from land or aircraft carriers with the Arsenal ship. We are talking about the ability to be on-station immediately due to the continuous forward deployment pattern we envision and to supplement traditional fire support options for a ground commander and individual units ashore, as well as conducting the more traditional deep strike missions associated with today's Tomahawk missile. As new missiles are developed throughout the long life of the ship we will be able to adopt to their use as well. The goal is early and sustained modern fire support from the sea.


Some people have used the term "combined arms" to describe ASW. I'm not sure it's exactly the right term, but it's the right idea. That's because we have aviation, submarines, and surface ships involved. There is also a large shore element involved, especially for intelligence. And there are two types of missions involved, peacetime and wartime. The peacetime mission is a type of surveillance mission and the wartime mission is either to have enough information to avoid submarines, which is a good tactic, or to locate and destroy them.

We once had ASW master plans. We had master plans for everything. I think we probably need something similar. I don't know if it has to have the same name, but we need a master plan for ASW. It is too complex. It covers too many different parts of the Navy to try to do it solely through programming and budgeting.

The ASW problem gets harder and harder. We're not talking about a static situation. We're talking about newer submarines in greater numbers out in the world, and that are even quieter. We're talking about staying with a tough problem that's getting better all the time.

Mine warfare is a great example. What we did in mine warfare is exactly what we need to do in ASW. We need to get somebody responsible, accountable, and advocating, the that's what we're going to do.

ASW: AKULA 3/7/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Senate Armed Services Committee Testimony, 1996 Defense Budget

At tactical speeds the Akula is quieter than the 688 class and is very difficult for us to detect. Our people are better and that's why we do adequately -- and I would say adequately.

While the threat is not there, the capabilities, and intent can change rapidly. There are six Russian improved Akulas that are a match -- better than a match -- for our 688-I's. There will be 12 of them in the next decade. They will not be a match for the Seawolf, nor will they be a match for the New Attack Submarine.

I am also concerned about proliferation of submarines throughout the world. There are now 43 nations other than the United States that operate submarines. China, as you just said, agreed to buy 10. They'd already agreed to buy four, and they have options on some more, going up to 22. The Iranians are running an exercise as we speak in the Straights of Hormuz with one of their new Kilos, and I am surprised by how well they are doing in operating that submarine. I didn't think that they would be able to maintain it and operate it as well as they apparently are, so I think those are all good reasons to keep a submarine production base in this country and to continue to build.


As the Russians operate their submarines more, and as they sell more Kilo submarines, and more good submarines are being built on license by emerging nations--nations that are not enemies now--we see an increasing number of good, quiet submarines in the world in larger numbers. All of these things tell me that we need to pay more attention to ASW training and systems.

We are paying more attention to ASW without shifting the emphasis off "Forward...From the Sea." That is important for a couple of reasons. The first is that close-to-shore warfare is where the diesel-powered submarine does best. The quiet diesel is becoming a growing concern to us as we continue our "Forward...From the Sea" strategy.

Secondly, much of the ASW technology is information exchange. We must know the area around the battle force or battle group, and keep battle-space dominance in that area. These are all things we have to do to carry out "Forward...From the Sea" littoral warfare. I am comfortable that any emphasis we put on ASW right now is not misplaced.


ASW is a very complex business. It uses aircraft, surface ships, submarines, shore-based systems, meteorology, and intelligence. I would like to have one person I can look to and say: "You are responsible for knowing about ASW. You are accountable for making sure the programs do what they are supposed to do." I don't want to blow this up out of proportion, because I think ASW is doing OK. I'd just like to be better, and I know that the threat is going to continue to get tougher.


I'm in favor of authorizing BAQ for first class petty officers on sea duty. I would like to provide it for all petty officers, but because money is so tight, PO1s will be a good first step. This is one of the proposals we're going to try to work out during the budget process.


If we get the authorization bill this year, we'll have BAQ for E-5's and E-6's who are serving on sea duty. $100.00 per month is a big deal. We're pushing hard to do that, and I think we'll be successful in the next year.

BATTLESHIPS 1/30/95 INTERVIEW Navy Marine Corps News

Striking the battleships was a tough decision, but it was one that reflected reality. It costs money to keep ships in mothballs, ready to be reactivated, and we really didn't see a situation in the foreseeable future where we would reactivate the battleships. It became an issue of it's time for them to become museums and no longer be assets for warfighting.

I'm sorry to say battleships are just too expensive to keep now and I'm hoping that cities will pick them up and make monuments out of them. There is no question that there are cities interested and my guess is that some will be successful.

What we don't have are big caliber guns. We are working on some programs to increase the size of our guns at sea--up to 155 mm caliber, but we're also looking at precision guided munitions so that the smaller rounds count. You put it right where you want to put it. That doesn't give you the penetration power of a 16 inch projectile, but it does give you great accuracy.

We now have a lot of Tomahawks out on the fleet with the vertical launch system so we actually have much more Tomahawk firepower than we had with the battleships.


The future disposition of these important ships will be carefully considered. Prospective communities who are interested in making a battleship a museum ship must provide proof that they have the resources and support to maintain these ships in a condition befitting a commissioned ship of the U.S. Navy.

I feel that these ships should be maintained for everyone to enjoy, both as memorials and to help inform the public about the important contributions our Navy has made to our nation's vital interests. I am fully committed that none of these historic battleships will be sold to foreign governments or scrapped while I am CNO.


The bomber, especially in its future configurations with precision-guided munitions, brings a large carrying capability. It flies relatively few sorties, but it can fly a long way. That's why you want it--for its long reach. And when it does fly a sortie, it drops a lot of ordnance--all in the same place. These are vastly different capabilities.

The bomber doesn't provide close air support; the aircraft carrier tactical aircraft can. So can air force land-based tactical air. I really think some people are making specious comparisons between things that just don't match up very well.

To be quite honest about it, I think we need bombers. I'm not an anti-bomber proponent. I am a proponent for a strong national defense with all the many capabilities this nation should have.

BOSNIA 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wire Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

The Balkans are complex. You don't have one warring faction. You don't even have the three everybody talks about all the time -- Serbs, Croats, and the Bosnian Muslims. You really have many more than that. You have minorities and ethnic groups within these groups. You have areas that have split off, you have irregular forces. It's hard to think about what would be a regular force in this area that is mostly irregular. You also have sponsor states adding to the confusion and adding even more irregular forces.

The war in Bosnia will end in a diplomatic way. People are going to stop fighting because they've been beaten, or they've achieved all they can achieve, or because they've decided that what they think they might achieve is no longer worth the price it will cost them. That's the way every war ends, eventually.

We need to have policies and decision making that leads to a diplomatic solution. It must be a diplomatic solution that we think is acceptable from our point of view.

We eased into Bosnia, and I don't mean that in a bad way. I mean it as a fact. The reason we eased in was because the UN resolutions eased in. The resolutions started out as monitoring sanctions. Then they grew into enforcement, but there were restrictions as to how we could enforce. Then finally, we got near-blanket enforcement authority. The resolutions grew in stridency and severity as the conflict got worse. That's what the UN should be expected to do. I think it was a natural evolution.

BOTTOM-UP REVIEW (BUR) 10/1/94 INTERVIEW Sea Power Magazine

One of the things we all know for sure right now is that the forces we have are being stretched. If you believe the BUR requirements, it means that as a superpower this nation must be ready to act in two separated parts of the world at the same time.

That's really the key ... all else flows from this. But when you look at our forces today, you say: "These people are stressed; they are out there working hard"; it is not business as usual. The answer is not to cut force levels any further. The real answer is either spend your money differently or get more money. If we are not going to get more money, then we are going to have to look at spending it differently. And to some that means cutting new programs. If you cut too many new programs, then you are simply putting off the problem.

I believe we should be careful not to wish away the requirement that a superpower must be able to act in two widely separated parts of the world at the same time. We had a potential for involvement in Korea, while our forces were involved with Haiti, Cuba, Rwanda, Somalia, and Yugoslavia. I think we should be barely comfortable if we can do two major operations at once. We need adequately sized forces and we need a reasonable modernization program.


Letter to Senate Armed Services Committee I believe the Bottom-Up Review numbers are about right for us, and that they will meet the requirements of the Unified CINCs in forward presence and warfighting into the 21st century.

BRAC '95 7/5/94 INTERVIEW Defense Week

BRACs cost money. Most things don't close for free. The Navy in many respects is a big business. If you think about BRAC in a business sense, you have to think about how long it takes you before this expenditure produces 'profits.' In the Navy's case, it's not profits but less expenditures....

There is good recognition that you simply cannot run an infrastructure that is bigger than you need without spending money on infrastructure that should be used on war fighting capability.

BRAC / BASE CLOSINGS 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Major Daily Newspapers

We have more infrastructure that we need to shed. We need the BRAC process. We're going to work hard to identify excess capacity and see how we can get it down further. If you relate it to a family budget or a business budget, it's pretty clear how it all works. We have fixed costs and we have a relatively fixed income. If we were a business you'd say we're worried about the ability to produce our product. Our product is readiness. We're worried about near term readiness. In a fixed income environment, you've got to make the fixed costs smaller or you can't spend money on what you need to do today or investments for the future.

I don't have a target. Somebody here might have a dollar value in their mind, but I don't. I want to be a good steward of the taxpayers' money and I want to spend it on things that I really need to spend it on.


Not only don't I have any trouble with that--I like it,. We have too much infrastructure in the military. The trouble has always been how to close it in a smart way.


He was a great leader who loved his Navy and the people in it. VADM Bulkeley's many years of peacetime service, especially his duty as the President of the Board of Inspection and Survey, touched nearly every person who went to sea during more than two decades. For a ship to have passed a "John Bulkeley" inspection with high marks was truly the pinnacle of excellence at sea.


When he stood up on the podium on the day we christened USS Arleigh Burke, he said, "this ship was meant to fight. Your better know how." Those were the words that came out of his mouth. Well, he knew how to fight and he also knew what people would need to be able to fight appropriately and win. So he combined those two things and gave us a great Navy.

He had two speeds -- "Stop" and "As fast as you can go." And his Sailors loved him for that.

CARRIERS 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

I think we have convincingly displayed the need for 11 active carriers. Plus we found a way to use one of our carriers as a reserve carrier with a surge capability.

That doesn't mean 12 carriers steaming out around the world all the time. That means that one might be in overhaul, and one might be training, and one might be doing something else. But that's the number we believe we need.

There are people who think other numbers are necessary. There are people who think 15 would be a lot better. . I happen to think 42 would be great! -- I just made that up, by the way -- it's an affordability issue for the country. I think 11 + 1 is what we need for our security not only now but in the future as well. Carriers, like everything else, get old and need to be replaced. In this case, we'd like to replace a fossil fuel carrier with one of our new carriers -- a better, more efficient class of carrier -- that can "live" for another 50 years.

It goes back to the earlier question, with 11+1 carriers, we won't be able to be every place all the time. I think it would be better for the U.S. to be in the Mediterranean all the time, but 11+1 doesn't do that, and military people are in the business of taking prudent risks. Taking risks is what we do. . With 42 carriers I wouldn't have any trouble at all. They'd be everywhere all the time. But with 11+1, we're going to have gaps, so we have to manage those necessary gaps and reduce the risk as best we can.


We really need twelve aircraft carriers in our Navy; they are a complete package of aviation capabilities. We need aircraft carriers for presence in the world, crisis response and control, and when all else fails, for force if it's the answer chosen by the President . With America due to retire in style after her current deployment off Bosnia and in the Persian Gulf, Stennis will be part of our Navy's great tradition and a big part of the Navy's great future.


An aircraft carrier brings a full range of aviation capabilities - an entire wing of capability and more: early warning, electronic warfare, strike, fighter, tanker, antisubmarine warfare, antisurface warfare, and so on. It's all in the package. (the air force would call it a composite wing.) And that package is available to the naval commander -- or the joint task force commander -- in almost every war-fighting instance, today. That's what an aircraft carrier brings. The carrier is a very flexible platform with tactical air on it. It brings the complete package I just described. The carrier doesn't require host-nation support and it can strike again and again and again.


I don't think there is a good carrier argument to say that if you have carriers you don't need bombers, and I don't think there is a good bomber argument to say that if you have bombers you don't need carriers. I think they do different things, very different things.


I share that excitement with many people, including Secretary of Defense Perry who visited the Eisenhower Battle Group for a CEC demonstration shortly before they deployed. He came back immensely impressed. And these technologies are just the tip of the iceberg.


CEC doesn't change warfare; it changes the way we think about the use of platforms in warfare. Warfare is still about shooting down enemy targets. CEC gives us new options in the way we do that. It is not an evolution, but it is a major step on a scale which rivals the development of radar.

CHAIN OF COMMAND 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

I want to write to officers who are in command and senior enlisted who have people working for them, rather than send everything to everybody all the time. It needs to get the command "spin." That's important. I have a consistent message I want to get out to the Navy. I'm going to use every means to do that. At the same time, I want to get the important, "What I expect you to do" messages out through the chain of command, because I intend to hold the chain of command responsible and accountable for what their people do.


Change is with us. Change in what we do, how we do it, and sometimes it's even where we do it. It's inevitable that there will be change in how we procure our equipment for the future.

The only message I'd like to give industry is that we're not afraid to adopt new ideas or new ways of doing business, or to seek the authority to reach out just a little bit further than we have in the past.

It will be a lot better if we figure that out together, as the customer and the supplier.

CHINA / SPRATLYS 3/7/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee Defense Authorization Hearing

Ownership of the Spratlys has been contentious for as long as I can remember. I think the interesting thing about the Spratlys is that we're no longer in the Philippines -- a fact -- and that the Chinese are moving out that far from their own shores. My worry about the Spratlys is not some great naval engagement or fight, it's more what it indicates. It's an indicator of China moving out.

I think China -- and what their future plans are -- is something that we all need to watch, not only because of the fact that they're as large as they are and they're a nuclear power, but also because they can cause reactions in the region that begin to affect us, our allies and our trading partners. And so I think -- this is my own personal opinion -- that the main event could well be in Asia in our lifetime, could well be China now.


It has been quite some time since we took a complete look at issues of command tour lengths, command opportunity and which commands should be designated for what ranks and communities. The annual reviews have tended to make small changes to the established lists and that is fine for most years but, as our Navy is getting close to stabilizing in size and types of commands, it is a good time to do a complete scrub and make sure we have it just right. The Chief of Naval Personnel will direct this review and report the findings to me. I have no preconceived ideas about the outcome. What I have directed is a complete, thorough review that will lead to whatever changes (many or very few) are appropriate.

COMMUNICATION / NAVY TELEVISION 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

Communicating with people is important. I think if you communicate in only one way, you probably are doomed to not get your message out. I plan to communicate with Navy people every way I can. Since television is now real important, I will be on a special television show we have every week for a while.


Good news has little value if those most impacted don't know about it. We must continue the good efforts I've noted before to get info to our people in as many different ways as possible.


"Communications up and down the chain of command is important. But don't shoot the messenger or you won't know the problems you have to work and don't sit in the office and wait for the info to come to you....it may not."

COMMUNICATIONS/LEADERSHIP 11/30/95 SPEECH Navy Command Leadership Course, Newport, RI

Whenever I talk to people who are going into command, I tell them about the importance of communications, communications, and communications. Communication with your people inside the lifelines is the most important thing you can do as a leader.


Everything done by Navy people can and should be tied to our core values. The individual efforts of Navy people, how we do our jobs and how we deal with each other, relate directly to our tenets of honor, commitment and courage. They are the guideposts for each of us, on and off duty, at work and at home. Once learned, they are held within us and stay with us for life. They are, in every way, the foundation for our career of service -- service to our nation, our shipmates, our family, and even to ourselves.

CROSSDECKING 10/1/94 INTERVIEW Sea Power Magazine

Crossdecking right now is not excessive, but that doesn't mean that we don't have to watch it. It's one of the first symptoms that we will see if we have a personnel readiness problem. I have received reports from the fleet CINCs [Commanders in Chief] and to date the numbers are small.

It is the signal I need to watch for. We are downsizing, and it is hard to get the right mix of people in each rating and specialty. We do not want to get in crossdecking trouble because retention trouble follows, and then petty officer shortfalls are the result. We have been down that road before.


Forward deployments will remain the essential element of our operations. Our presence takes on added importance as the number of U.S. overseas military shore locations diminish. To be where we are needed when we are needed, we must be forward before the call goes out.

Being forward provides another very important benefit to our Navy and nation. It allows us to train with our friends and allies so that when we need to do a real-world mission, we can organize quickly and work together smoothly.


There has been some talk about reducing forward presence by making deployments shorter than six months and staying ready but in home ports instead. I want to be very clear that we are not planning to do that. While we are committed to deployments lasting no longer than six months and to the perstempo and optempo goals, I see forward presence as a key portion of Navy's contribution.

The value of our being forward deployed is well documented in the original "From the Sea" and our update, "Forward....From the Sea. We intend to continue with that strategy. Our best customers, the forward geographic Unified CINCS, remain convinced that having forward deployed naval forces are essential to mission accomplishment in routine times and in crises. In fact, they would have more if we could provide it.

Recent operations such as vigilant warrior in CENTCOM have proven the value of our ARG's, CVBG's and SSN's being forward. SECNAV and I just took a brief by the OSD staff that had that as one of the lessons learned.

DEPLOYMENTS / PERSTEMPO 2/22/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY House National Security Committee on 1996 Defense Authorization

I think it's probably not realistic to think about a Navy where people don't deploy. Navies go to sea. Navies are forward deployed. That's what they do.

It is important not to do that too much. It's important not to do that too often and it is very important to take care of families when you are home or when they are home and you are gone.

Housing is critically important to us. Medical care is critically important to us. Decent pay and decent benefits are essential for us. It is what makes the sacrifice of deployment bearable.

People are quite proud of what they do on deployment, as I know you well know. This is not an unbearable burden and we shouldn't make it unbearable.


You have to know where you are before you know where you are going. To look at a military problem--and we are talking about real tactics with which to fight--and come up with innovative solutions is what good military leaders do. For example, if you are going to attack land targets in an area, there are tactics, force packages, and information networks to think about. Doctrine provides the commander with the standard for doing so. If you then choose to deviate from that standard, and you probably always will deviate some, you do so understanding what it means when you deviate.

Innovation is great and we must have it. We just need to be sure we have a solid basis for that innovation. It is called doctrine.

When I leave here, we will have a strong doctrine and a strong organization where innovative war fighters can deviate from a standard based on an analysis of a mission.


It is not unusual to see EA-6B's flying in support of Air Force aircraft.

Just recently, the Marines sent a squadron of EA-6B's to Sigonella to support operations over Bosnia, and they weren't just supporting Air Force aircraft. EA-6B's from carriers recently assumed this mission. During a portion of the time, when the carrier was elsewhere, the EA-6B's have accomplished this mission by flying from land-based fields in the area. In addition, they were supporting Navy aircraft and also the aircraft of many nations who were contributing to operation deny flight or doing humanitarian work in the region.


Sailors can look for an advancement system and an evaluation system that doesn't make them head-to-head competitors but encourages even more teamwork and to be better than the standards -- to be something special. That's why I want to change the evaluation system.


As I have traveled around the Navy and talked to Navy people, it became clear to me that concerns about our current evaluation system for officers and enlisted are well founded. The current system is fair, and works, but it can be improved, if we do it right.

Inflation of marks and comments are a growing concern. Our current system does an excellent job of identifying the very top performers and those with significant problems. We need a better way to differentiate among those in the middle.

I also found the current individual ranking system where people are compared to peers in the workplace to be working against our core values of teamwork and quality improvement. I believe it will be better to evaluate people against a well understood standard than against individuals with whom they happened to be assigned.

Any new system that we approve will be as fair as it can possibly be. And any changes we approve will be for the better and not just for the sake of change.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 5/25/95 SPEECH National Image Organization Awards Banquet

Equal Opportunity is more than not discriminating against another person. It is more than avoiding treating a person differently because they are not exactly like you. It is more than not harassing someone or breaking the rules. Equal Opportunity means equal access to all the things that lead to success.

I see Equal Opportunity as a critical readiness issue for the military services. Because we know -- we sense in our hearts -- that ... as a team, we are better when we all perform at our best.

FLEET REORGANIZATION/FORCE STRUCTURE 2/22/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY House National Security Committee on 1996 Defense Authorization

That is the reason why we, in the Navy, are going to restructure our fleet this year, to keep some of those smaller ships and use them to take the pressure off the bigger, more sophisticated ones. We will change the way we train slightly, so that we don't train everybody for everything. Instead, we can conserve some of their time at sea and train them for what we think they're going to do, with a margin for safety, in case they have to do more.

I think we can keep the Navy ready. However, I am not as comfortable about the future, the further out you get, as I am about right now.

FORCE STRUCTURE 11/1/94 INTERVIEW Surface Warfare Magazine

We have cut commitments about as far as I think we can cut them. Until recently we had two aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean all the time, and it wasn't very long ago that we had two carriers in the Indian Ocean as well. The issue for us is that we have pretty much cut our force as far as we can in view of what the nation requires us to do around the world.

While cutting commitments we have built more flexibility into our schedules. We deploy smaller battle groups and amphibious ready groups. There are times when we have no carriers in the Mediterranean and times when there isn't one in the Indian Ocean. So we've been about as flexible as we can be while still doing what our Navy is required to do. That's why we need to look at the numbers of ships, submarines and airplanes we have to perform our mission and be sure we get that right. That's exactly why we're looking at the force structure.

FORCE STRUCTURE 3/7/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Senate Armed Services Committee Defense Authorization Hearing

My own personal opinion is that we should stay at 346 ships; that's the Bottom-Up Review number. And there really is a reason for that number. Being the BUR number gives it some validity, but it also is achievable. It's achievable because while we have decommissioned most of the steam ships and are decommissioning submarines at the rate we can, based on our capacity to decommission them. We still have some frigates, FFGs, with a lot of life left that we were going to decommission and give to other nations or put in mothballs. By saving 15 of those, and one other ship, we get to the 346 number without having to go through a new increased procurement plan.

FORCE STRUCTURE/PERSTEMPO 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

If we get too small today, and the requirements keep coming for a Navy to meet emerging world tasks or to be present, we end up deploying too much. If we work people too hard, we wear out both our people and our equipment, and then we end up with exactly what we didn't want: a Navy that can't do what it's supposed to do.

FORWARD...FROM THE SEA 11/1/94 INTERVIEW Surface Warfare Magazine

Forward...From the Sea is not a new strategy, but rather an evolution of...From the Sea. When we wrote ...From the Sea three years ago, we knew we had to remain a Navy that was capable of controlling the seas because most of the world's commerce--and in time of crisis, warfighting materials -- move by sea. We also knew that in the new security situation, caused by the breakup of the Soviet Union, it was much more likely that we were going to fight near land and over land.

Absolutely none of that has disappeared in Forward...From the Sea. While we didn't just repeat all the words, that basic underpinning of our strategy is as valid today as it was three years ago. The difference is that our experiences in several crises since publication of ...From the Sea showed us that we needed to stress "being forward" as a greater part of our strategy. For the Navy and Marine Corps team to do what it must do for the nation -- to guarantee security, to influence events, to deter and control crises, or if necessary, to be the first forces on scene to take the initial actions when there is a crisis -- we must be forward.


Forward-presence is the essence of our business. Our Navy's mission during peacetime is to be forward, working and operating with our allies, like NATO, and with potential allies. Most importantly, being forward means we are ready to respond to or deter crisis as in our most recent experience with Iraq in the Persian Gulf.


I think there are all kinds of forward presence. We know what our job is and what we're supposed to do and we know how we fit in the joint world.

Let's talk about combat forward presence. We're out in the world where we need to be to either be in the place where the crisis requires our presence, or we can get there in a time that is acceptable to the Unified CINC who will receive the forces. We've either got the combat power there or are able to get there in the time the Unified CINC will require it.


In this post-Cold war era, forward deployed naval forces have a pre-eminent role in deterring, controlling, and enhancing regional stability. Naval forces must remain "able" and "ready".

FORWARD PRESENCE VS. SURGE 4/04/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY National Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee

Naval forces, FORWARD.....FROM THE SEA, are on station and ready, in a fully joint and combined manner, to lead and participate in unilateral, bilateral and fully combined operations whenever and wherever this Nation requires them. Because we are FORWARD our Nation can call upon these ships, aircraft and personnel without the need for surge from the United States and without the need for permission to base them on foreign soil. Rapid response, significant force, visible presence - these are all important contributions of naval forces, Navy and Marines, positioned forward.

FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION 11/17/94 SPEECH Heritage Foundation Address

The high seas have no nationality and we may pass as we choose; the sea is the best avenue for U.S. strategic mobility; naval forces are not subject to the political whims of foreign governments; carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups provide visible, flexible and credible combat power; and above all, we must retain the ability to influence events overseas.


These 15 ships will keep our battleforce ships at or very near the BUR total of 346 ships. They help us avoid a situation where we try to meet requirements through a negative PERSTEMPO for our people. And they certainly improve our overall readiness as we do not have to over deploy the ships we have.

It does NOT mean that we are falling off the need for recapitalization. We must continue to build enough new ships to maintain our future force. The need to recapitalize and modernize remains the keystone of our future plan.


House NSC on FY96 Defense budget I wanted to keep the FFGs so that I could ease the personnel tempo and the tempo on the equipment sufficiently to avoid those op tempo "breaks" that we all know will lead to a hollow force. I think we can do that.

Coincidentally, keeping 15 more FFG's happens to get us back to the Bottom-Up Review number. Somebody did their math pretty well when they did the Bottom-Up Review. We had decided to go down to 330 ships for budget reasons (versus the BUR number of 346 ships). I think that probably wasn't a good decision, and I'm working to reverse that. That's why we're keeping the FFGs.


Homesteading is one of the competing needs we balance when we are looking at quality of life factors, combat readiness and mission accomplishment.

We'd like to have people serve longer tours in one area. We know that people who are in a job longer gain additional experience in that job, become better leaders in that job, and improve combat readiness -- or improve the support of combat units.

We also want to spend money on things that improve the quality of life for Navy people. High PCS costs make it hard to do that since it is money that could be spent on QOL items if it's not spent on PCS moves. PCS moves can also disrupt the family income from working spouses where a second income is very important, cause children to change schools, and make home purchases much harder.

For all of these reasons, longer tours and follow-on tours in the same place can make a very positive difference to our people and our Navy. Stability is a good thing for our people and our Navy when it can be provided and still result in all the important billets, in all locations, being filled. We are going to work even harder than before to permit longer area tours when we can do it in a smart way.

HOUSING MILCON 2/22/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY House National Security Committee on 1996 Defense Authorization

We really need support on our MILCON budget for housing for people. We badly need that. We don't have a lot of money there but we put more money there and I guess maybe we even put it at risk when we did that, but we must take care of our people, and two of the places where it's most important right now is Hawaii and Naples, Italy.

IMPACT AID 2/22/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY House National Security Committee on 1996 Defense Authorization

I think it's obvious that housing, decent medical care, education for your kids, and a few other things, are the basics of life. If education got worse for our people's children, if there was a great deal of resentment that could be felt by the military families living there, if there was a financial burden to the family themselves because the government now wasn't willing to bear it, all of those things would of course reduce morale.

INFORMATION WARFARE 10/24/95 SPEECH Navy Information Warfare Command Ceremony

Information warfare is about warfighting -- making sure that people who go fight have the very best chance to get their mission done, win that fight, and come home safely. Today information warfare is assuming a very important role in warfighting.

As we rely, more and more, on detailed information, we need to protect it. As the enemy relies more and more on detailed information -- available to him in many more ways than ever before -- we have opportunities to make his life miserable.

There is now more information out there to be skewed, manipulated and changed. We can now confuse an enemy more than we could before because he increasingly relies upon electronic information.

The opportunity for this command (Navy Information Warfare Command) to make a difference in the outcome of the battle is greater than ever before.

INNOVATION 10/1/94 INTERVIEW Sea Power Magazine

Innovation is great and we must have it. We just need to be sure we have a solid basis for that innovation. It is called doctrine.

INTELLIGENCE 2/27/95 SPEECH Joint Military Intelligence College

It is important to understand the distinction between information and intelligence. Information is an assimilation of data that has been gathered, but not fully correlated, analyzed, or interpreted. Intelligence, on the other hand, is the transformation of information into knowledge and insight.

JOINT WARFARE 10/1/94 INTERVIEW Sea Power Magazine

I believe that joint warfare, or joint crisis response, is exactly the way to go. That doesn't mean that everything has to be joint every minute. It does not mean that we should ignore individual service capabilities and competencies. It means that you should not hesitate to put together the best force you can for the task, and sometimes that might be a single-service force.

It doesn't do to just put "joint" in every sentence. Talking about it is interesting; doing it is something else. I support holding exercises that include not only the U.S. services, but also those from different countries. We are smart to train like we are going to fight, and large-scale conflicts will not be single-service or even single-nation fights. We need joint and combined doctrine and we need to train with it.

JPATS 6/26/95 MESSAGE/CORRESPONDENCE CNO Message to Navy Commanders

Beech was selected to produce the JPATS primary trainer for both Navy and Air Force because it is a solid, basically off the shelf, procurement that will put our new aviators in a modern aircraft. The result will be a significant reduction in training time, making the transition to more complex aircraft in the advanced phase of flight training easier for our students. With JPATS and the T-45 we'll have first rate training aircraft in our inventory and we are doing it at a reasonable cost. Flying the same aircraft for primary flight training will also open up new potential for cooperation and coordination with the Air Force.

JPATS / JOINT PILOT TRAINING 2/22/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY House National Security Committee on 1996 Defense Authorization

I think that when we look at our aircraft inventory for training, what we have bought and are buying, we are able to go with the plan the Air Force has -- or even a slightly later plan -- and still have sufficient aircraft. The urgency of JPATS for the Navy is not there. However, the need is, in fact, there and we will agree with the Air Force plan for buying the aircraft.

With respect to the joint training, General McPeak and I, before he retired, and since then General Fogelman and I, have agreed on a pretty aggressive plan to take some economies by having us train some officers and pilots for them in both navigation and electronic warfare. The Air Force is doing the same with pilots for us; we do cross training. We have officers in each of their training squadrons now and I think you will see more of that.

We kind of finished our agreements last fall and now we will see how it's working this year. This has been a time to stop, take a deep breath, and execute what we have already agreed to. I think we are doing pretty well together. I am proud of the efforts so far.


One of the real good things that I think we have done as Joint Chiefs and Service Chiefs is to sign up for the JROC (Joint Requirements Oversight Committee) initiative. We are now very careful to ensure we think about jointness when we specify a requirement, instead of just in terms of one service. For example, if the Navy buys an airplane, we want to be sure that it is compatible, as much as it can be, with the Air Force requirements and any Marine Corps requirements. That way we can have similar spare parts, similar maintenance, and airplanes, which in many cases, will be the same, for as much as 80% of what's on board.

That kind of acquisition reform means that we're going to have to work together because we have to specify what we need but not in such detail that good people, in both government and industry, don't have the flexibility to produce it at reasonable costs.

Acquisition reform is going to be done. It means changing the way you think about things. It means changing the way we do things, but in the end it means a better military -- quicker, cheaper, and the ability to get our job done in a better way than we've ever done it before.


Senior Chief George Everding took it as a personal affront when one of his people got into trouble. He was the kind of guy who looked and said, "Where did I fail that person?" Instead of, "Why did that person fail?"

The punishment system will work but what I'd really like to do is have "me" understand why I shouldn't do that, so it never becomes an issue. It's all about leadership.


When I was a young Sailor, I had an LPO(First Class Petty Officer) who knew everything important there was to know about me; who monitored my performance on a day-to-day basis; who would have been able to know when I was headed in the wrong direction; and understood it was his job to not let that happen. As I got more senior, that person became a Chief Petty Officer...I always knew who that person was, and he knew who he was.

Let me be blunt:

I couldn't have been a skinhead without my leader knowing it;

I couldn't have been contemplating AWOL without my leader knowing it;

I couldn't have been thinking about suicide without my leader knowing it;

I couldn't have been less than prepared for the next advancement exam without my leader knowing it;

I couldn't have had a drug problem without my leader knowing it; and so on.

I believe they were also the kind of leaders who wouldn't just know, but would also act. That is what we need to get back...not just for the majority, but for every one of the people in our Navy.

Leadership 8/1/94 SPEECH USNA Change of Command

Carrying out the multitude of administrative tasks that fall to the leader is a chore that never ends. A problem solved, a decision made, leads one only to the next problem to be dealt with, the next decision to be made. It is a never ending series of tasks, each of which must be completed, each of which must be done well. The leader can never rest on his laurels for the next challenge is just hours, sometimes moments away.

LEADERSHIP -- FACTS AND PERCEPTION 11/30/95 SPEECH Navy Command Leadership Course, Newport, RI

The word perception should not be in a leader's lexicon. You should be focused on problems and solutions. Facts are everything, and you should act on facts.

LEADERSHIP -- FORM AND SUBSTANCE 11/30/95 SPEECH Navy Command Leadership Course, Newport, RI

When things go wrong, commanders sometimes think about form over substance. Don't look at form nearly as much as substance when trying to solve a problem. Keep substance and form separate.

LEAP / TBMD 2/22/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY House National Security Committee on 1996 Defense Authorization

We know that theater ballistic missiles are proliferating around the world and going to countries that we worry about. If they follow the normal evolution of weapons systems, they will become more accurate, have longer range and more lethal warheads.

Strategic lift, both airlift and sealift, is necessary to deploy U.S. forces forward in times of crisis. We must have some capability for theater ballistic missile defense from the sea, from the DDGs that we are buying and the cruisers that we already bought.

If you don't, how are you going to get a lodgement or an airfield ashore to bring in Army troops and the Patriot batteries, and the THAD and the Corsam and all the other things that we are going to need? How do you protect those forces from theater ballistic missiles until the shore based batteries are in place and operational?


Prepositioning is proving to be an awfully good thing to do. It works, and we will continue to use these ships well.


We need to keep together. We are truly embarked on this together. As the fiscal situation gets tighter, as the technological push and pull -- and it is both of those -- it pushes you because others are getting new technology, and it pulls you because you want to do the best you can do -- as those two forces make us more complex and more advanced in the way we do things, it gets more and more important that industry and the military work in partnership.

By that I mean each doing the best that it can do. In our case, it means defining requirements in ways that don't add cost unnecessarily and in industries' case meeting those requirements in a way that is not gold plating. We need to do it in a way that is in real cooperation, producing products we can use at prices we can afford to pay. It's not going to be acceptable to produce wonderful things that we don't have money to buy.


Focus on mission accomplishment is essential but when it is done to the exclusion of all the things that must go right to contribute to that end, the command is doomed to fail eventually. CO's have to set priorities and, quite often, they are the only ones who can know where the limited command attention time they have can best be applied.


The Navy proves everyday that you can make mistakes and you can come back. Look at the number of officers who are promoted, not the first time around, but the second time around. You can make a mistake and you can come back. It depends on the severity of the mistake and what your job is.

There are certain kinds of mistakes you can't make and can't come back. There are others that you can. I'm not sure you can define that in advance.

One of the reasons I wanted to have the standdown -- and again, it was in advance of the Admiral Macke situation Ernie was asking about -- was to help people avoid making mistakes in the first place.

MODERNIZATION 4/27/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee

In striving for balance among force structure, readiness and modernization our building programs are not as robust as they have been in the past. We have reluctantly slowed modernization. But given the funds available, I believe we have made the right choices.


People are working very hard. Although it's always popular to say we're trying to do more with less, in fact we are doing less with less. We have a Navy today with fewer ships and fewer people. Sometimes we're able to keep it all in balance, and sometimes you don't. When you see systemic requirements that you're working at a certain level, you've got to be sure your forces are a match for it. I think that's about where we are today. I don't think we can just cut, cut, cut any more and expect to get savings that way, and still do what's going to be required from us. We've got to find smarter ways to do things.

NATO 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

If coalition warfare and alliance warfare really are the way of the future -- and I think everybody agrees that they are -- no one nation wants to go it alone. We must have training, procedures and standards that you have practiced over the years. NATO brings each of these to the table.

If you'll stop and think back to the Gulf War, although we brought into our coalition some nations that were not members of NATO, we all used NATO procedures -- even down to the codes. It's the way of the present, not just the future.

Finally, NATO can bring pressure to bear, if the nations in NATO choose to do so. Crisis management as well as crisis response becomes possible. It is a potent force. I think we've proved that.


I'm very pleased by the DoD decision to not raise the 50-cent/month deduction from our enlisted people for the Armed Forces Retirement Homes. When we're taking money out of Sailors pay for something, the Sailors need to know that we have explored every other possibility. And you need to be sure it's necessary. In this case, we're not sure it's necessary. I'm glad we were able to make that case.

I think the Naval Home and the Soldiers and Airmen Home need to be put on a solid financial basis and that needs to be done by the management created when the homes were taken away from the military departments. I talked to the people who run these homes, their Board of Directors, and they are going to look real hard at how they can submit a balanced budget without taking any more money away from Sailors.


Navy families are an important part of the Navy-Marine Corps team. In fact, Navy families represent the very reason it is important for our service members to continue to serve and to make the sacrifices necessary to ensure our safety and security in a troubled and uncertain world. Our way of life, our very freedom, is rooted in the family and in family values.

Service in the Navy, as a service member or family member, is not an easy task. The stability so many Americans take for granted is not available to us. We move often, our children attend many different schools, our pay and benefits depend in large measure on the actions of others in the Administration and in Congress. We endure frequent separations as the ships and squadrons must go forward to do their important jobs.

It is essential that we provide for our families for, if we do not, we cannot expect the very best to stay with us. So for human concerns and reasons and for readiness as well, we simply must provide a good quality of life for everyone.

NAVY LEAGUE 4/22/95 STATEMENT Message to Navy League of the United States

We have a wonderful Navy and our Sailors proved it again this past year. Off Korea, in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, in the waters near and the skies over Bosnia, steaming and flying in the Western Pacific near North Korea, in the operations relating to Haiti and Cuba and a thousand other, less noticed ways, they did it all and they did it with professionalism and style.

Our Navy League continues to play a vitally important role, perhaps more vital than ever during this time of limited resources. With your support we will provide these great Sailors with the ships, aircraft, equipment, quality of life and all the other ingredients of combat readiness coupled with a proper life for them and their families. You care about our Navy and, more importantly, about our Navy people and you turn that caring into positive action to make a difference.


This nation needs to build submarines. We all acknowledged that an SSN-24 doesn't make sense to us and that we need to get on with something new.

That 'something new' needs be smaller [than the SSN-21], a lot cheaper and on time. We don't want to make it more expensive by losing the capability to build them and trying to regenerate it later. That's why we're trying to get it going in a reasonable time frame.

OFFICER MANNING 3/12/96 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY SASC opening statement for FY97 budget

A six percent permanent grade increase in DOD Office Personnel Management Act restrictions at the O-4, O-5, and O-6 levels would further help us shape the force. These restrictions were in place prior to the downsizing and the establishment of increased joint field grade requirements mandated by the Goldwater-Nichols Act. This relief is necessary to compensate for those increased joint requirements, to assist in correcting a current Nurse Corps grade structure imbalance, and to help maintain promotion opportunities at acceptable levels set by the Congress for the Unrestricted Line. Grade table relief will permit flexible use of ceilings to manage promotion rates.


Pay is a major quality of life issue. Secretary Perry, Secretary Dalton, General Shalikashvilli, and Admiral Bill Owens -- and each of the Service Chiefs -- we all agree that this department should ask every time for the maximum pay raise authorized by law and that's what we've been doing. The maximum pay raise authorized by law is still a half of a percent below the ECI (Employment Cost Index). Someday that needs to be fixed. If you let that go on long enough it will effect retention, so we have to watch pay. The good news for sailors is we've asked for the maximum amount afforded by law.

PEOPLE 12/1/94 INTERVIEW All Hands Magazine

Our Navy and nation have a technological advantage over anyone we might happen to fight. But our real advantage is our people. The dedication, abilities and knowledge of our people are key to our readiness. That's why we spend so much time and effort on training and retention. Having Sailors who know how to do their jobs well is the difference between our Navy and other nations who could become potential enemies. We have the best Sailors in the world.

PEOPLE / BENEFITS 3/7/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Senate Armed Services Committee Defense Authorization Hearing

Our people are doing a great job. They are working harder and harder in this new security environment, and as they do so, we need to take care of them. And that means good medical care, no discussions about changes to their retirement, the benefits that they need and decent housing.

PERSTEMPO 4/27/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Readiness Subcommittee of the SASC

A key quality of life and resulting readiness factor is the amount of time our personnel spend away from home. We have done a good job of holding the line on the length of forward deployments for our sea-duty personnel to six months. As our Navy gets smaller we have had to work harder to hold on to this limit but I am happy to report that we have been successful.

That is, however, only part of the story. We must also provide sufficient time at home between six-month deployments in order to permit the necessary maintenance and training without overtaxing our people and our ships and aircraft. It would do little good to limit deployments to six months if we simply deployed again in such a short time that our people were never home and our systems could not be maintained. To put the challenge of high Naval PERSTEMPO rates into perspective, last month on a typical day (14 March) 133,000 DoD personnel were forward-deployed away from home. Of these 98,000 were Sailors or Marines (84,000 Sailors).

PERSTEMPO 3/7/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Senate Armed Services Committee Defense Authorization Hearing

We have to worry about the tempo that we operate those forces and the amount of time we keep our people away from home. They produce a product the nation needs, but they can't produce it at too great a sacrifice, and if we ask for too great a sacrifice, we pay for it in equipment that doesn't work and people that don't stay.


Today, the total number of days that ships are underway in the year is less than in the Cold War, but the problem for us, of course is that we've come down in size even as the requirements have come down. We kind of hit the bottom on requirements while the number of ships kept coming down. For the individual ship or individual Sailor, the time away from home in 1994 was greater than in the Cold War. We were spending less money as a nation, we had fewer ships under way, but we had a greater percentage of the smaller number under way.

We must do something about that. We can't let that continue.


I am a strong believer in OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO standards and limiting deployment lengths to six months or less. Six-month deployments and reasonable PERSTEMPO are not just humanitarian or social concerns, they're also readiness concerns. We simply can't deploy people too often or too long, or our most important ingredient to sustained readiness, our best Sailors, won't stay in the Navy.

A routine deployment in the US Navy will remain six months. The only time deployments may be longer will be in a situation that is so clear, like Desert Storm, where all of us can see and understand the reason for a longer deployment.

What does concern me is what we do between deployments with our current tempo of operations in the "local" area. Many things contribute to local ops, including drug interdiction operations, required underway training (unit and battle group) and inspections.


Our Navy-Marine Corps team was busy this past year. Not that that is anything new -- you have come to expect that of us. During 1995, we maintained an average of more than one hundred ships forward-deployed (that's 27% of all our ships), conducting contingency operations, presence missions, training, and multi-national operations with sixty-nine nations. These combat-ready, forward-deployed forces participated in a broad range of military operations, working jointly with our sister services, friends and allies in ocean areas as diverse as the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, the Pacific Rim, Baltic Sea, the littorals of South America and the Adriatic.


The importance of physical fitness in our Navy is obvious. We want to stress fitness through exercise and to use reasonable standards that are clearly defined.

I wanted a program that reflects commitment to Navy people and to mission accomplishment. The program update implemented in July 1994 was intended to enhance our program, encourage compliance, and provide for enforcement (when necessary) in a manner that everyone understands.

I wanted to put the emphasis on having people exercise in a good way and live healthier lives, without being punitive. There were a lot of questions about our measuring standards. I decided that I had heard enough concern about it and that it was driving the discussion. I wanted, instead, to drive the discussion over to exercising, eating right, and being healthy. The desired result is healthy, fit people who give 100% in the Navy. Our job is to ensure that they can do their job. Being healthy and fit means they can do it better.


When you do a long range plan like we are now working, one of the keys is that you don't fall in love with it so much that you don't keep revising it. I don't think it's ever finished. As you learn more, as you know more, you keep revising your plan. And instead of 2020 it becomes 2021, 2022 and so on. Maybe you only do it every couple of years, but you don't let it become stagnate because this world we live in isn't stagnate.


The government's not going to stop spending S&T and R&D money. The government needs to spend S&T and R&D money. And for those products where we are the only customer -- especially those that are very expensive -- we're going to have to participate in the development. Take an airplane, a new kind of ship, or a nuclear power plant. That's going to be a partnership.

But there are many dual use technologies where more risk and more assumption of the development needs to be taken by industry.

We have less money now and we can't develop every single thing using our own money. This is a partnership. Industry, the acquisition side of the government, and the requirement side (my part of it) have to work together to find the right answer for each particular procurement.

When you are financially unable to do everything you think you must do, you have to start figuring out how to get the job done within your fiscal resources.

QUALITY OF LIFE 12/1/95 INTERVIEW All Hands Magazine

Pay, housing, and medical care are very important. For example, I think it's time for us to seriously consider adopting VHA and BAQ for unmarried E-6's on sea duty. It's going to take a law change to do that, but it's something that must be considered.

We're putting more money into housing improvements than we ever have in the past and the Neighborhoods of Excellence Program is making improvements in housing areas and BEQs already. More needs to be done. But quality of life is more than these things. It's also being treated fairly on the job, having good leadership and top-notch equipment.

We have a lot of work to do to reach the level I believe Navy men and women deserve, but I think we're making progress.

READINESS 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Major Daily Newspapers

We need a Navy that is big enough to do what it's going to do, but not so big that we don't have some money left over to invest in the future. And we have to invest that money wisely.

I've got to balance today's readiness with future readiness. We must have an R&D and acquisition program that makes sense so we don't get too small and too old out there in the future.

READINESS 4/04/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY National Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee

Readiness is a extremely fragile commodity. It depends upon having adequate numbers of properly trained personnel. It depends upon having adequate numbers of capable ships and aircraft. And, of course, it depends upon keeping those ships and aircraft operable by conducting needed maintenance and having the required spare parts to repair emergent equipment failures.

READINESS 4/27/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee

We consider today's Readiness as a "must fund" issue.

Readiness is, as you know, and extremely fragile commodity. It depends upon having adequate numbers of properly trained personnel. It depends upon having adequate numbers of capable ships and aircraft. And, of course, it depends upon keeping those ships and aircraft operable by conducting needed maintenance and having the required spare parts to repair emergent equipment failures.

While overall I believe our readiness is sufficient today, there are storm signals in the air that in some individual areas we have stretched too far. For example, some of our aviation squadrons are stretched thin and we are working on necessary adjustments in personnel and training to improve their readiness to the right level.


Mid-term and long term readiness depends, of course, upon keeping the future force capable through introduction of new technology and introduction of new ships and aircraft.

While our focus has been on near-term readiness, we recognize that if we do not modernize at a higher rate we ultimately place future readiness at risk. In the past several years we have reduced ship procurement rates by 72% and aircraft procurements by 70%. That downward rate in procurement cannot continue.

A Navy that is too small and lacks the technological edge that will be necessary to fight and win in the future should not be the result of our necessary concentration on near-term readiness.


The bottom line is that one way to live with a reduced budget is to procure less and you can do that for a little while when you have a modern Navy, or modern force -- it's no different than a business. If you don't put some money into recapitalization eventually it will become obsolete and things will begin to phase out of the inventory because they don't work well anymore. They just get old, or can't keep up with the job they are supposed to do and eventually they not only become obsolete but they will become too small. You can't rely on not recapitalizing for very long.

We need a procurement budget that keeps us properly refreshed and capable. We don't want to become obsolete because in this business becoming obsolete means you lose. In the business we're in, which is the nation's business, you can't afford to lose. Some reduced procurement for awhile is an acceptable way to deal with small budgets but you have to think about what it means for the future.


This is a real concern of mine. Our naval forces are relatively modern, and equipped -- for the most part -- with newer systems. But as we continue to take down force structure -- older, less capable platforms and systems -- we must ensure that there is adequate and stable funding for our recapitalization plan, so that we don't carry forward a lot of bills each year. It is a complicated picture. I know that. And it will require substantial effort to keep it on track. I recognize that too. But with your support, I remain confident we can continue to provide our nation and our Navy people with the best tools to meet the security challenges that lie ahead.


Our recruiting has been tough. We have had a little resurgence this year. Recruiters are sending all the people into the Navy that we need, at the quality we need. In fact, the Navy leads the military this year -- but it's tough and it's something that we need to watch closely.

REDUNDANCY 11/17/94 SPEECH Heritage Foundation Address

I firmly believe that some redundancy is good. Forward-deployed forces are always the first to answer the call, so we must have capabilities of our own and then be able to transition them into a joint team. For example, it is very important that we have airplanes that can fly off carriers and operate from expeditionary airfields, that can help shape the battlefield at long distances, help achieve battlespace dominance and that can provide close air support as we project forces ashore. The Army and Air Force have similar requirements for aircraft.

We don't see these air squadrons and wings as unnecessarily redundant. Some redundancy adds operational flexibility, creates opportunities for the National Command Authorities and fosters the development of integrated, joint doctrine. When the heavy forces arrive and we are really in a big fight, it doesn't matter whose name is on the side of the aircraft. The JFACC (Joint Force Air Component Commander) uses all these assets on the joint battlefield.


One of the things I like least is organizational change or reorganizations. People tend to get all wound up in the reorganization and it takes them away from meaningful work.


I think most of the time reorganizations are just rearrangements of things. They don't get much better. They just get different. Not every reorganization would fit that mold, but I think a lot of people would agree that some of them are like that. They just change things. They don't always make it better, they make it different. And they take a lot of the energy and intellectual capital while you're fooling with it to try to get it right. I'm generally not looking for reorganization when we need to make a change.


We are going to have to manage our R&D money better. We have kept a pretty robust program. But dollars have to be spent as wisely as possible as budgets get smaller. That sounds so obvious, but sometimes it is hard to do. It can be particularly hard in R&D where every attempt cannot be expected to yield a payoff. You still need to look at each program and ask: "Am I satisfied we are putting enough money in an area where there is a potential payoff?"

The temptation is to get yourself so focused on near-term readiness that it is all you do. In that case, "x" years down the road, someone is going to be asking: ; "How come all these other navies and countries are able to do things we can't?"

RESERVES 9/18/95 MESSAGE/CORRESPONDENCE Message to Navy Commanders

Total force is no longer a shorthand term to mean Reserves. In the Navy it truly means a single force, some of which is in the active component and some in the reserve component. That is simply good business. We are now in a situation where the active force alone is no longer large enough or has all the capabilities needed to get the day-to-day missions of the Navy accomplished. It takes all of each component, active and reserve, to get the work done.

RETENTION 4/04/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY National Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee

Readiness, today's readiness and that of the future, depends upon people. We have wonderful men and women in our Navy and I couldn't be prouder of them. They are smart, well trained and motivated. They have joined and stayed with us through the downsizing. However, if we don't treat them properly, if we don't provide them the quality of life they deserve, they will not stay with us over the long term.


Retention that matters is not going to be done by the Chief of Naval Operations. It's going to be accomplished by division officers, division chiefs, and leading chief petty officers who enjoy what they are doing. The job has sacrifices, there's no question about that; you have to create an environment where the pluses outweigh the minuses because there will always be minuses. You make the real difference on the deckplates.

We can have the best housing, good pay, good medical care, benefits, etc., but if Sailors hate what they're doing and don't want to come in to work every day, why in the world would they stay with us?


When I go aboard a ship and somebody is showing me their equipment and they say this is the "ship's" radar, or this is "the captain's" radar, or this is "Lt. Johnson's" space, I get one kind of a message from that. When I walk aboard another ship and a young Sailor comes to me and says "this is mine," I see that pride, and I get a very different message. I look around and see that the leaders feel the same way about what this person's saying. I know something is very right here. I see a lot more right than I see wrong. I'm seeing more and more of that in the Navy, and I think that is the way you affect retention.


I think it's a very bad precedent to set, to change people's retirement retroactively. To the best of my knowledge, that has never been done before. And to be quite honest, it's not fair. We're talking about people who have served 15 or more years, and have every right to believe that there was a contract with them about their retirement.


But there are many dual use technologies where more risk and more assumption of the development needs to be taken by industry.

ROLES AND MISSIONS 11/17/94 SPEECH Heritage Foundation Address

Fifty years from now we may still be operating under the roles and missions and responsibilities defined by Dr. White's commission. We have to get it right, not just for today's short-term objectives, but more importantly, for the long haul.

One point I stressed with the commission is that there is a timeless element in our role as America's forward presence force. We have an enduring vision of what we naval forces--and by that I mean the Navy and Marine Corps--do and how that contributes.

Fifty years from now we may well be looking at documents that are written in the next year or two just as we look at the Key West documents written in the late '40s. This is a new era of security. It's still evolving, but it may be like this for quite a while, so we better get it right.


I stayed in the Navy because I love going to sea. I hope everybody is experiencing that. If you're fortunate enough to be at the stage in your career where you still get to go to sea, relish it. Enjoy it and have fun. Realize that you are a part of a long line of people who have gone down to the sea in ships, and it's a special thing to do.

SEAMAN TO ADMIRAL 12/1/94 INTERVIEW All Hands Magazine

The Secretary of the Navy and I introduced the "Seaman to Admiral Program" to give young Navy people who, for whatever reason, didn't get a more traditional shot (college, NROTC, Naval Academy) at being a naval officer, an opportunity to become an unrestricted line officer. I wanted to look inside the Navy's enlisted force and say, "If you want to try to become an unrestricted line officer, you have a chance."

The numbers of selectees will be small, because I want this to be a very selective program. We'll manage the initial couple of years of the careers of selectees in a non-traditional way. These sailors are not going to get selected and go straight to college. They're going to get right to work as an officer. They'll get the basic officer training and then become unrestricted line officers, just as if they graduated from the Naval Academy, NROTC or OCS. After they've earned their warfare qualification, then we'll send them to college. We've got 50 openings a year and almost 1300 Sailors applied for the first selection process.


I am very pleased with the results of the Seaman to Admiral selection process this year. Over 1,000 well qualified men and women qualified and competed for selection. The Board President reported to me that it was a pleasure to review the records of so many outstanding Navy people. There is no doubt that the 50 selectees have what it takes to do a fantastic job as officers in our Navy.

There are many great attributes of our Nation. One, of course, is that there is opportunity for those who work hard to achieve their goals. The Seaman to Admiral Program is a very real manifestation of this.


I really hope that people who applied this year and will be eligible next year don't get discouraged. It took me two times. It's a good experience to go through this. The next board will be different people so they may be looking at records slightly differently. I'm an example of a guy who applied twice and got picked the second time.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

I think there is no doubt that when people value people as contributors, as team members, as part of the Navy family, the chance for people being demeaned through sexual harassment or worse, sexual crime, gets smaller. It doesn't go to zero. It doesn't go to zero where you work, and it doesn't go to zero where I work. That's why we need to deal with cases quickly, effectively and fairly. But it does get better when people are accepted as equal partners in the work place.

Our work place is tougher, because our work place is, for a lot of people, also the place where they live. We need to be especially careful to be sure people understand what's expected and what their role is. I think that will improve as women go aboard ships, and as women do more things in our Navy.


Sexual harassment cases are difficult. They are handled better, except for the very involved ones, when they are handled as rapidly as possible. If the person really was harassed, it is difficult for them. If the person who was accused really didn't do it, it is difficult for them. And these cases are just better dealt with, including proceeding to the right and just conclusion, as early as possible. We wanted to encourage that, and we have. My feedback from the fleet is that it is working.

Sexual harassment will come up. It comes up in civilian life, and it will come up in the military from time to time. You'd like to say: "I will have no sexual harassment problems in the Navy." But to say that would be naive. You would like to be able to say that's the way it will be because of leadership efforts by the full spectrum of leaders, from the deck plates to the fleet commander to Washington.

Zero sexual harassment is never a guaranteed outcome. It's what we're shooting for, but we know we're not going to get it. We try to educate to get to zero, but when you don't get to zero, and an incident occurs, then you must deal with it in an appropriate way. We are building a system, a way of thinking about these things and dealing with them that will ensure that cases are dealt with fairly and quickly.


Right now, the Navy is in pretty good shape. We are getting modern equipment delivered. That defers the problem for awhile. The problem for us starts about the year 2001 or 2002, when we need to start replacing some of the ships that are reaching block obsolescence, such as the LPDs and Spruance-class destroyers. We will need to buy another aircraft carrier in order to stay at 12. We are going to need to procure the ships and the aircraft we have planned, or we won't have a ready Navy -- we would have a Navy that is too small and too old.


We want to get more efficient and more effective at the same time. That is why we decided to have the smart ship, USS YORKTOWN. The reason for doing that was so that we could look for efficiencies and better ways of doing things. We want to try them out on a real ship where they needed to be tried out, especially those cases where solutions aren't intuitively so obvious you just want to do them. If they work, then we reduce the manpower ahead of workload and then end up with more workload being done by fewer people -- it's not fair to the people and it doesn't generate combat readiness. It generates unreadiness.

I want the smart ship to try things that need to be tried and tested. And if they work, install them, whether they are ideas, hardware or software, and then reduce the people -- not first.

What am I looking for with the smart ship? I'd like to have fewer people on ships and still do the job just as well. I'd also like to have an improving or continuous quality improvement in what we do. Some things will just be better and not save people. Other things may save people. There may be a category of things we can do that saves people AND do it better. We'll be looking at those investments and what it means.

STRATEGIC SEALIFT 11/17/94 SPEECH Heritage Foundation Address

Strategic sealift is important. In the end sealift is one of the most necessary enabling functions naval forces provide for large-scale projection of U.S. combat power, something most recently witnessed in Operation Desert Shield. What most people don't know is that several military capabilities are required to protect strategic sealift. These capabilities include air support, shallow water anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare and theater ballistic missile defense.


The new SSG Fellows have been selected and notified. Retired Admiral Jim Hogg will become the director of the SSG in August. They will be looking at innovation in Naval warfare in what, I trust, will be an innovative way. The charter for this year's SSG is to work, under Jim's guidance, to review the potential for warfighting gains in the decades ahead based on postulated, as well as proven, technological change. The methodology the SSG will use will become clearer as the SSG Fellows report to Newport and begin their work.


This is truly trying to think of new concepts, new ways to use technology that we don't have today. I would not feel this was a success if they produced studies, or the requirement for studies. That's not what we're looking for here. If that were the case we would simply go out and say we need a better communication system in the year umpty-fratz, and then you'd find the communication system people and they would go work on it. This isn't like that at all. I would like this to flow into real work, real development, and real fielding of things. Otherwise we've not spent our time well.


Soon the Toledo will begin practicing for its mission of deploying and meeting the new and varied threats of our post-cold war era. She combines the awesome firepower of her vertically launched tomahawk cruise missiles with the endurance and stealth of a nuclear powered submarine. This combination provides an unparalleled ability to deter aggression in all regions of the globe. Her other many capabilities include surveillance, special warfare operations, and covert harbor mining to name just a few. Further, she does this with maximum flexibility and with a minimum commitment of resources and people providing this nation with an awesome deterrent.

At a time when many of our nation's land forces are redeploying to the continental united states from their garrisons overseas, naval forces are rapidly becoming the primary military component on the nation's forward presence strategy.


The F/A-18E/F, which is a much improved F/A-18, is about 80 percent totally new. Although I can't tell you the specifics in an unclassified publication, I can say it is much, much harder to see on radar than its predecessor. It has much better carrying capacity and longer range. It has the latest technology in the cockpit. The first Super Hornet was delivered on time and on cost. It's also 1000 pounds underweight, which is very good for an airplane at this stage of development. Being underweight gives us room to make changes.

This aircraft has a lot of carrying capability, and it also is capable of refueling other airplanes of the same type. That gives us a tanker -- and a fighter. It can serve as a self-tanker and a tanker for the fighters. It can carry bombs and all the precision-guided weapons that we have and are going to develop in the near future. This aircraft will come off the assembly line capable of using them. And it is a good fighter, all at the same time.

SUPER HORNET (F/A-18E/F) 3/12/96 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY SASC opening statement for FY97 budget

Unquestionably, it will be the backbone of naval aviation strike warfare. Several years ago, we decided to build upon the marvelous success of the F/A-18 and make it better. I'm pleased to report that the new and improved F/A-18E/F flew for the first time this past November and that the program is on schedule and within cost. This year's budget request includes low rate production funding for the first 12 of these aircraft. The E/F will have greater range, carry a more flexible payload, and have room for improved avionics that will increase its ability to conduct night strikes, close air strikes, close air support, fighter escort, air interdiction and fleet air defense. Eventually, the Super Hornet will constitute the majority of strike fighter assets on aircraft carriers and complement the Joint Strike Fighter.

SURFACE COMBATANT (SC 21) 11/1/94 INTERVIEW Surface Warfare Magazine

It might ultimately make good sense for the SC 21 design to be further evolution of Arleigh Burke, just as Arleigh Burke was an evolution of Ticonderoga, but I don't want to preclude the idea that this design might be something totally different.

We are at a very early phase in the design process. We don't want to limit our options or restrict new ideas. Right now my hope for SC 21 is that we continue the efforts of many very smart, inventive and experienced surface warriors, and others, who are looking at exactly what we want this ship to do. We need to think a lot more about that before we start to draw the plans.


I think firepower is the first thing I want to see in the next generation surface combatant. I think we've learned that. The kind of ships we are building today, the ARLEIGH BURKE class and the AEGIS cruisers before it, the submarines we are now building, they are all ships that are able to take the fight to an enemy.

They allowed us to tell Saddam Hussein, "If you go to Kuwait, we'll go to Baghdad," with our Tomahawk missiles and our F/A-18s and other Navy aircraft.

The next generation warship is going to require a big offensive punch to continue that emphasis. We are not just defending ourselves. We will take the fight to the other guy.

I'm also looking for a ship that is less manpower intensive. I think that automation should allow us to reduce our dependence on people to do everything. Then we can have people to do the things that only people can do. I'm looking for a good degree of automation without taking people out of the loop.

Finally, I'm looking for something that we can afford to build. We cannot price ourselves out of the market. We must be careful to design a good ship that we can afford to run, and that we can also afford to purchase.

This is hard work. We're looking at many designs and concepts. We're not ready to do it yet. In the meantime we're building a really good ship in the ARLEIGH BURKE class. It's a great ship, and we'll keep producing them for quite a while longer.


This consolidation helps offset the cost of five proposed Navy F/A-18 squadrons which were eliminated by budget cuts, thus avoiding approximately $700 million in procurement costs and $300 million per year in operating expenses.

This agreement allows both Navy and Marine Corps F/A-18 squadrons to be scheduled to satisfy either Navy carrier air wing or Marine Corps deployment commitments.

TAILHOOK 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

It would be a big mistake for me to say I want to put Tailhook behind us because there are a lot of lessons to be learned from it. If we don't learn them, we're doomed to repeat them. I'm not going to put Tailhook behind us that way. But when cases go to trial, and they are finished after so many investigations, we need to learn the lessons and get on with making things better. That's where I'm going to focus my time because that's where I can make a difference.

TECHNOLOGY / PEOPLE 10/1/94 INTERVIEW Sea Power Magazine

Our strength has always been technology and people, but in just the opposite order. Good, smart, motivated people who are well-trained will take the technological edge and make it even better.

TECHNOLOGY / TBMD 11/1/94 INTERVIEW Surface Warfare Magazine

Our technological developments are moving right along, and they must be. We can't lose sight of what is happening in the rest of world with the proliferation of high-tech weapons and we will continue to depend upon our technology to stay ahead of the threats.

Theater ballistic missiles will only get more accurate over time. They will only go further and become harder to see. For all these reasons, our enthusiasm should be tempered with the understanding that we must continue to depend upon our advancing technology to keep ahead of this growing threat.


We believe the Navy has a primary role in theater ballistic missile defense. This capability would give us a mobile and versatile defensive umbrella to protect sea-based and land forces as we project power ashore. What we bring to the table is the fact that we already have the lift capability for these missiles, and the launchers and weapon control systems are already built and paid for.

Admittedly, other systems used by follow-on forces are important. But, without a naval TBMD capability, the conduct of a joint littoral campaign becomes increasingly difficult, will require more resources and will cost more in terms of sea and airlift, Navy ships, Army, Air Force and Marine supplies, and most importantly, American lives. Navy TBMD has the additional advantage of being independent of strategic lift. This is significant when you consider how many people clamor for heavy lift as a crisis comes into being.


The technology of theater ballistic missiles will only move in one direction: toward longer ranges, greater accuracy, and more lethality. That's how weapons evolve. As a nation we must be able to shoot down these things.

I don't think it is too parochial to say that I believe that Navy has a potential capability that the nation needs. We've already bought the launcher system. It's in the aegis-equipped cruisers and the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which are vertical launch capable and will be able to fire the missile that can shoot down scuds or their follow-ons.

Our ships can do that without a need for foreign permission to bring our systems ashore. That's very important. And we're well along in our ability to do this.

I believe we also need land-based systems for this mission. We don't want to put all our eggs in one basket, and we may even need an air-based system such as a boost-phase intercept. We need this capability urgently, and we should be trying every avenue to get it.

Sealift and airlift need ports and airfields so the army and air force units can get land-based systems into theater. It may mean marine forces going ashore first to establish the lodgements we need. Since we expect these scuds (or follow-on) to be very accurate, we need a way to shoot them down while our land-based systems are getting in place.

If we're going to rely on sealift and airlift to deliver our people, then we'd better have a way to handle this missile threat while we're still at sea--at least at the beginning of the fight. It's time for us to get on with our system, and we're doing that.

TOMAHAWK 11/1/94 INTERVIEW Surface Warfare Magazine

The number of Tomahawk ships in an area and what types of missiles they carry are questions that usually get asked right away in any crisis or mission planning, and the people who ask them understand the full meaning of the answer.

Tomahawk is a weapons system whose day has come. If you look at what we've been doing lately -- Iraq is a great case in point -- you can better understand the prominent role it plays. Tomahawk, however, is only part of our overall power projection capability. It doesn't replace manned aircraft flying off the carrier. The entire Navy package is an important part of what makes the United States the world's only true superpower.

Surface warriors ought to be proud that we are now contributing to the offensive power of the Navy in ways that we didn't ten years ago. Nobody can say an Aegis cruiser or destroyer just defends itself and the ships close to it. Our ships can reach out and touch an enemy in ways that are very real.

TQL 7/3/95 MESSAGE/CORRESPONDENCE CNO Message to Navy Commanders

I am convinced that we are headed in the right direction with TQL. Instead of long messages from me talking about support for this program, what you are seeing is continuing training, folding in TQL training and education into other leadership curricula, and a steady evolution of TQL in the way we do business. When TQL becomes the way we do our work, the way we think about improving our processes, the way leaders accomplish leadership tasks, the method by which we get the best from our people by empowering them to think, plan, do, monitor and correct their work, then TQL will truly be successful in our Navy. It will not survive as a "special" program. It will thrive as an integral part of everything we do.

I want each of you to continue to support TQL by encouraging training, by providing quality training and by making it a routine part of business and leadership. For example, TQL will be a part of every leadership course developed under the new Navy leadership courses. The long term transition to a TQL mentality in our Navy requires your support, active participation and -- probably most important -- recognition by each of you when it produces quality results. We are on the right course. Help keep us there.

TQL 11/30/95 SPEECH Navy Command Leadership Course, Newport, RI

I believe in TQL enough that I wanted it put into a leadership course -- a real leadership course, like this one.

TRICARE 3/21/95 SPEECH CNO address to SECNAV's Committee on Retired Personnel

I'm firmly committed to ensuring that there is no reduction or degradation in the current level of health care benefits afforded to retirees and their families. Because of downsizing and base closures, DOD and the services are transitioning to managed care concepts in our medical system.

The Tricare program is a "triple option", managed care program, which includes nominal enrollment and user fees for non-active duty beneficiaries. Out-of-pocket medical costs will be reduced for the majority of our beneficiaries. The three options of the program are called: Tricare Prime, Tricare Extra, and Tricare Standard.


You have a job to do here. Many people think that this is a place where you learn to get a degree and have professional competence. Others think that this is a place that you go to have military professional competence. I think that these are both true. This is a place where you come to grow. But grow is the operative word. You aren't a finished product yet. And how you turn out is all important.

You do more for leadership in the fleet than you can ever know. The average young man and woman who goes through another commissioning program doesn't have the kind of opportunity that you have right now. When you leave here with one big stripe, you will be a scene setter, a tone setter, a pace setter wherever you go and people who have not had the advantage of what you've been exposed to will know less than you do. We need you, you are important to us and this institution is important to me.


They were probably better heavy weather Sailors than anyone I know. They understood what it was like to go into really rough seas, in a pretty small ship and get the job done. Of course their commendation was long over-due.

The lesson I learned, and that I hope most people would learn, is that it couldn't happen now. What happened to the crew of USS MASON was another type of segregation, but it was also was an opportunity in those days. Today it would be seen as something that was wrong. I also think it shows the progress that we have made since we are all people on the same team now. We are no longer trying to do things like we had to do in World War II when we didn't quite understand.


We are all about fighting and winning. And we're all about taking care of each other when we do. Taking care of each other on the ship, ashore, and the Navy taking care of your families and you, that's what we're all about.

Everything else comes after that unless it contributes.

It has to make the Navy better able to fight and win. It has to be something that is truly better for the people and help them do what I just said, and have a better career while doing it.


Warfighting is what we do. We are professional warriors. I think for us, as warriors, we must remember what it is we are all about. The questions I want our people to think about are "What are we all about?" and "What is most important?"

Our contribution to the nation is fighting and winning at sea and from the sea. Everything we do has must contribute to that. That's why we worry about quality of life. Close attention to quality-of-life issues will ensure good people will stay with us, and their families will feel good about being part of the Navy family.

Everything we do is intended to produce combat readiness and combat units that can fight and win. We have to keep that foremost in our mind.

WOMEN AT SEA 5/9/95 INTERVIEW Navy/Marine Corps News

We're moving along according to our schedule. Women are responding. We are having no trouble getting women recruits and getting women to understand that being in the Navy now means going to sea. It means doing what Sailors do -- get underway, fly airplanes, deploy, and do tough jobs overseas as well. It hasn't been a problem for us to get people who want to come into the Navy and do exactly that.

Within the Navy, deployments are now taking place in a Navy-team way, with women as fully contributing members of combatants, air wings, and squadrons flying airplanes -- throughout the Navy.

I wouldn't tell the people in the Navy or anyone else that this is without problems. Any major change requires that we adapt, and as we see issues come up, we deal with them in a straight forward and smart way. As we are doing this integration, and we are well along the way now, we're finding out that the problems that we are experiencing are problems that we can deal with. They are problems that good people working together can solve. I think we are in great shape for this point in the process. Reports from ships returning from deployment are that people, all people in the Navy, truly do contribute the best they can and that crews do integrate well, once we just get them to change.

WOMEN IN COMBAT 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

The only question now is how quickly we can do it, and do it correctly. We want to go as quickly as we can, consistent with getting it right the first time.


NRA Junior Officer Symposium The idea of what the ship is doing -- whether it's going to be in combat or not -- is not an issue. The Congress made that not an issue with the law they passed, and I agree with the law they passed. If I didn't agree with the law they passed, I wouldn't be here. I don't mean that I agree with they law passed just so I could be here. I believe that we are doing the right thing.


I do not foresee men and women bunking together, sleeping side-by-side on ships. Not only don't I foresee that, that will not happen on ships while I'm CNO. Ships are a very close environment. It's difficult enough living on ships, and people deserve their privacy. We give them precious little privacy anyway and we will not violate that by mixing sexes.

WOMEN IN SUBMARINES 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

We're looking at submarines and submarine missions. When you require someone to live inside of a tube and have to consider privacy needs over long periods, it may be difficult. We've looked at that. We're going to look at it again. We're going to look at it hard.

WOMEN IN SUBMARINES (NSSN) 9/15/95 SPEECH Navy Reserve Junior Officer Symposium

The New Attack Submarine is about the size of the 688 or smaller inside because it's going to have a lot of equipment, and it's going to have a big torpedo room, but that's about it. I'm committed to putting -- and I think I've made that clear by what I've done, not just what I've said -- women on all the ships where we can provide privacy for them that they deserve and that the men deserve. I don't believe that on a submarine we can provide that kind of privacy unless we design a submarine that is very different than the small, tactical package I want inside. So until we can do that, I'm not going to.

Now women's opportunities to be in Navy Nuclear Power, just about anything they want, are not being impeded. We now have more billets for women than we have women who volunteer. Equal opportunity is equal -- right? I'm looking at the ladies here, and they are all nodding yes. That's what equal opportunity means. You get an equal opportunity to do the good stuff and the hard stuff. But they have to come into the Navy first before we can volunteer them. So right now, we have more opportunity than we have people, and that's good. By the way, Nuclear Power is wide open right now. All you have to do is meet the goal.

WOMEN (PREGNANCY) 10/1/94 INTERVIEW Sea Power Magazine

Women in the Navy don't get pregnant in larger percentages than their same-age counterparts in the population at large. However, pregnancy can be disruptive to readiness on a unit getting ready to deploy tomorrow.

We need to think about it as a health issue. As we get more and more women at sea, we need to be very, very sure that we have the right kind of health care, and we don't put them unnecessarily at risk. All of these considerations need to be looked at. We have a good policy right now and every change we make should be an improvement -- not just a change.

Reviewed: 31 July 2009