THE NAVY IN THE 21ST CENTURY, PART I VADM MICHAEL G. MULLEN is currently as- signed as Commander, Second Fleet. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1968 and from Destroyer School in 1971. He obtained a master’s degree in operations research in 1985 and attended the Harvard Business School’s Ad- vanced Management Program in 1991. VADM Mullen’s first assign- ment was aboard USS Collett, followed by duty aboard USS Blandy. In 1973 he assumed command of USS Noxubee and later served as Chief En- gineer aboard USS Fox. He was also Executive Officer aboard USS Sterett before tak- ing over as Commanding Of- ficer of USS Goldsborough. From 1992–1994, he served as Commanding Officer of USS Yorktown, and in August 1996, he served as Commander, Cruiser-Destroyer Group Two (George Washington Battle Group). His duties ashore have included Executive Assistant to the Commandant, USNA (1975–1978); Director, Division Officer Course, Surface Warfare Officer’s School (1987); Staff Assistant for Navy Programs, OSD (1989–1991); Director, Surface Officer Distribution Division/Surface Captain Detailer, Bureau of Naval Personnel (1994–1995); Head, Surface Warfare Plans/Programs/Requirements Division and later Deputy Director, Surface Warfare Division of the Office of the CNO (1995–1996); and Director, Surface Warfare Division (May 1998–Sep 2000). VADM Mullen spoke at the Millennial Challenges Colloquium series on 14 April 2000. The text of “The Navy in the 21st Century, Part I: Surface Warfare” follows. JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 22, NUMBER 1 (2001) 7 M. G. MULLEN 8 JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 22, NUMBER 1 (2001) THE NAVY IN THE 21ST CENTURY, PART I The Navy in the 21st Century, Part I: Surface Warfare VADM Michael G. Mullen I am delighted to see so many friendly and supportive faces here at APL. If you remember nothing else from this morning, please remember how appreciative I am of all you do. I have the good fortune in this job to travel widely, and one of the most important parts of my responsibilities is being able to interact (although not as much as I’d like) with the people who are in the trenches, who really make things happen. I first had the pleasure of working with APL in 1984 when I wound my way into the Air Defense Department here working on a thesis on the Aegis weapon system, which I knew little about. APL immediately brought me in and helped me a great deal on operations research. That was a very positive experience, and it remains one for which I am still grateful. Some of you have been here for more than a couple of years, and some of you are relatively new. I want you to know how important this Laboratory is in our business. We would be in dire straits if we didn’t have the kind of support across the board that we’ve gotten from APL for many years. Please don’t underestimate the work that you do because it has made a huge difference, and I believe it will continue to make a huge difference for Surface Warfare, the Navy, and the nation for many years to come. I’d like to cover where I see the Navy going in Surface Warfare from a broad perspective, as well as address specific systems and some challenges that we face. I will be followed by RADM Rempt (see the companion article, this issue), who will focus a bit more on the combat systems side, which is the heart of what we do for a living. THE SURFACE NAVY IN THE 21ST CENTURY We developed a vision statement over the last several years (see insert). It’s actually a significant course change for us. It emphasizes the offensive side and a balance among dominating in the littoral battlespace with ships, systems, and people and in two other emerging mission areas: Land Attack and Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (TBMD). The Laboratory has spent a great deal of time on the Air Defense side, and TBMD is really an extension of that. We also have a lot of interest from the Marine Corps and the Army in providing long-term, precision, fire-support land-attack weapons and artillery support, so developments in those areas are extremely important and a great challenge for us. JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 22, NUMBER 1 (2001) 9 M. G. MULLEN The Surface Navy will be an offensive maritime force. From a foundation of maritime dominance, we will ensure entry into the 21st century Joint battlespace through the twin missions of land attack and theater air dominance. The Surface Navy will be interoperable with Joint forces in net-centric C4ISR (com- mand, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnais- sance) and provide maritime force protection, precision strike, and sea-based artillery, and Theater Air and Ballistic Missile Defense to the air, land, and sea elements of the Joint task force. —Navy Surface Warfare Mission Statement It is also very important to consider what Navy Corps—can do. I believe this will be a maritime century, forces can do from a global perspective. This issue at least for the next 30–50 years, even more so than the came into focus when I was fortunate enough to com- last, because of where we seem to be headed from a mand the George Washington Battle Group (one of global perspective. So the developments to support our three) in the Gulf. As it got down to crunch time, vision statement are vitally important. what struck me was the nature of support from our allies in that region. Because of the political tensions that existed, I wondered if we would be able to use THE JOINT BATTLE FORCE their bases to support a strike. That support seemed to The Navy contributes many assets to the 21st cen- grow more and more tenuous. This clearly is not an tury Joint battlespace (Fig. 1): maritime dominance; issue for naval forces. theater air dominance; land attack; assured access As democracy continues to take root in some coun- (not just getting there, but staying there); and the tries that we’ve tried to impact, I think we’ll see more ability to take the Air Defense “bubble,” which has pressure to have U.S. forces on our own shore. But while historically existed over our ships at sea, and project other services retract, there will probably be more and it out over the forces at shore, whether they’re Ma- more pressure for naval forces to be going in the other rines or Army forces or our allies. I also don’t believe direction. If that doesn’t happen, I worry about the that in the future we will participate in many oper- naval forces that are the touchstones in many countries, ations that are not Joint or combined with our allies. and I worry that we will lose touch around the world. When the UK showed up in the Gulf with their So maintaining a global perspective is important and fits carrier and support forces, it wasn’t a matter of match- right in to what the Navy—as well as the Marine ing up how much one carrier could do versus another, Figure 1. The 21st century Joint battlespace. 10 JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 22, NUMBER 1 (2001) THE NAVY IN THE 21ST CENTURY, PART I it was a matter of having the political support of an wherever we are. It’s sometimes very difficult to describe ally that was physically there that lifted our spirits and characterize, but a navy and its forces can bring a much more than I realized it would. Until then, I felt wonderfully stabilizing influence. like we were very much alone. We will be evolving Naval power is also essential since most nations’ more toward coalition types of operations. economies depend on the sea for trade. And the in- Our allies often ask me how they are going to operate creasing world instability dictates a need for forward with us and how they’re going to stay up with us. I deployment and engagement. It also foreshadows respond by telling them that we won’t be slowing down declining access to overseas bases. Typically I don’t so that they can catch up. It is a real challenge, given have to ask anybody’s permission to go anywhere. I their budgets to develop systems. So how are we going can go because of the freedom of the seas, and that’s to be interoperative with those forces, i.e., connect understood. This clearly is a warfighting capability. systems and do it from a systems engineering stand- It’s not one I want to use, but I have got to have it point? This is a real challenge for the Navy as we move as a deterrent and be able to handle a crisis if one out smartly and other countries don’t follow. Being in occurs. That is a very big challenge, given the numbers touch with what other navies are developing is also very of ships that we have and the requirements that exist. important, and I give RADM Rempt a lot of credit for We call it a “Vietnam pace” right now. We built a lot the bases he has touched around the world. His efforts of ships in the 1980s and we’re still building them, have created interest in the types of systems we’re but we are wearing them out at an incredible pace evolving, which we will be able to operate together and because we’re pushing them so hard.