Inside The Navy
October 7, 2002
Pg. 1

Navy Says It's Capable Of Waging Concurrent Wars On Al Qaeda, Iraq

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA -- The readiness of the Navy's fleet is high enough to continue the campaign against al Qaeda while concurrently launching a new war against another enemy such as Iraq, top Navy officials asserted last week.

Following a speech here Oct. 3, Navy Secretary Gordon England told Inside the Navy he believes the fleet is ready enough to handle both the war on terrorism and any other large-scale war that might be launched. Asked whether he was concerned the fleet might be stretched too thin by such commitments, England said, "No, I'm not.

"The Navy is ready to do whatever the president asks us to do. We're ready to do whatever we're called upon to do," England said. "The Navy is in terrific shape right now."

At the conference, sponsored by the U.S. Naval Institute, ITN asked three Navy panelists what new readiness concerns the fleet might face if the U.S. initiates a new war of some kind while simultaneously maintaining the war on al Qaeda.

Whether the war on terrorism expands to Iraq or elsewhere, the Navy must ensure it has adequate spare parts, needed missiles, better manning and improved maintenance on ships, said Chief Gunner's Mate Allen McLean, of the destroyer Stethem (DDG-63).

The other two panelists, both three-star admirals, said the Navy's unusually high readiness has prepared the fleet to concurrently deploy a significant number of its 12 large-deck nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Neither admiral discussed Iraq specifically.

"For the first time in a number of years we have the capability to surge a significant portion of our force," said Vice Adm. Charles Moore, deputy chief of naval operations for fleet readiness and logistics. "I won't get into the details of that, because that becomes classified." Similarly, Vice Adm. Albert Konetzni, deputy commander-in-chief of Atlantic Fleet, said the Navy has "surge" that it lacked several years ago.

"We built a system that wouldn't allow us to have 12 [carriers] ready to go. But, by gosh, we're in pretty good shape right now. We just won't tell you the number," said Konetzni, eliciting laughter from the audience.

Funding "plus ups" the Navy has received since Sept. 11, 2001, have improved Navy readiness, he said.

Going to war with Iraq, however, could cost the nation billions more, according to the Congressional Budget Office. CBO recently estimated deploying forces to Iraq could cost between $9 billion and $13 billion. Fighting a war would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion a month, though it is unclear how long such a war would last, CBO concluded. After hostilities end, the costs to return U.S. forces to their home bases could range between $5 billion and $7 billion. Further, the incremental cost of an occupation following war could be $1 billion to $4 billion a month, CBO concluded.

"Some who advocate military action against Iraq, however, assert that air strikes will do the job quickly and decisively, and that the operation will be complete in 72 hours," Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a speech Sept. 27. "But there is again no persuasive evidence that air strikes alone over the course of several days will incapacitate Saddam and destroy his weapons of mass destruction."

Among other reservations about rushing to war with Iraq, Kennedy is concerned fighting al Qaeda and Iraq concurrently will overtax the U.S. military.

"If we embark upon a premature or unilateral military campaign against Iraq, or a campaign only with Britain, our forces will have to serve in even greater numbers, for longer periods, and with graver risks," said Kennedy. "Our force strength will be stretched even thinner."

But Moore said the Navy is able to "operate in the world that we're living in today, with the commitments we have right now." And, he said, the Navy is reporting to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that, "we are ready for whatever it is that they have in mind for us, when that decision is made, if it is made." The Navy, Moore said, is responding to guidance Bush issued in his Sept. 20, 2001 remarks to Congress, when the president turned to the service chiefs and said, "Be ready."

Moore briefly mentioned two readiness concerns: having enough munitions and ensuring the EA-6B Prowler jamming aircraft is ready enough. During the Afghanistan war on the Taliban and al Qaeda, the Navy ran low on precision-guided munitions and had to borrow weapons from the Air Force, which officials say should not have happened.

Though the Navy's latest six-year budget plan proposal would continue to buy precision-guided munitions, the service is not planning to buy Joint Direct Attack Munitions and laser-guided bombs at rates as fast as the Pentagon's Defense Planning Guidance requires (ITN, Sept. 9, p1). It remains to be seen how, if at all, the Navy's proposal to OSD might evolve in the next few months.

Prowlers jam enemy radars, giving U.S. aircraft cover from enemy antiaircraft systems. For years the Pentagon has noted aging Prowlers are "low density, high demand" platforms, meaning they are in short supply despite the critical role they play in U.S. military air campaigns.

Earlier in the panel discussion, Moore said the Office of the Secretary of Defense is pressing the services to spend more maintaining Prowlers. Moore mentioned an Oct. 2 meeting he attended at the Pentagon, where a briefing was being prepared for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz on reliability enhancements in aircraft.

"And the one they are very concerned about is the EA-6B Prowler," said Moore. "The deputy secretary of defense is holding our feet to the fire to make investments in the EA-6B, both the engine and the airframe, to guarantee that we'll have this airplane flown in the future." The Navy has proposed creating a variant of its new F/A-18E/F Super Hornet to perform the Prowler mission.

"And I raised my hand and said, 'You ought to consider the ultimate reliability enhancement for this airplane -- and that's to buy a new airplane,'" Moore told the audience.

In a brief interview following the discussion, Moore told ITN he regretted mentioning the meeting. "This is a standard practice, it's not a big deal," he said. The group session was led by an OSD official who reviewed the services' low density, high demand platforms and talked about readiness, he said. No decisions were made at the meeting, he said.

"We will eventually brief the DEPSECDEF," said Moore. "He's trying to help us," the admiral continued, noting OSD may give the services more money for readiness and reliability improvements.

Moore also downplayed his earlier statements indicating there are concerns about Prowlers.

"I said weapons and the Prowler were our concerns. The Prowler is really much less of an issue," Moore said. "There's not many issues. The Prowler is fine. It's an old airplane, it's been around for a long time, it's critical to the joint force, so we're paying a lot of attention to it." Moore said the Navy is "investing heavily" in the Prowler and seeing "big improvements in its readiness."

Moore said his point was that buying new aircraft, as opposed to maintaining old ones, would boost readiness.

-- Christopher J. Castelli