Roughead Pushes for Littoral Combat Ship
(NSI News Source Info) September 25, 2008: The U.S. Navy's top officer maintained his support for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program even as Congress appeared to be scuttling yet another of the long-delayed ships.
"I want to be able to build out the class as quickly as I can," Adm. Gary Roughead, the U.S. Navy's chief of naval operations (CNO), said Sept. 24. "I remain as committed as ever to LCS."
House and Senate appropriators agreed to rescind the money granted last year for a third LCS ship and switch the money to help pay for two more ships in the 2009 budget. The first LCS has been delivered to the Navy and the second ship is due next year, but no further littoral ships are on order.
"We just need to get that program going," Roughead said. "More ships is a good thing."
Roughead's comments came after a National Press Club breakfast in Washington hosted by Government Executive magazine. Responding to questions from moderators and an audience of about 200, Roughead voiced his support for the LCS program.
"I'm committed to those ships," he declared.
The CNO shed some light on his decision to ask permission to "truncate" the DDG 1000 advanced destroyer program from seven to three ships and continue to build DDG 51-class Aegis destroyers.
"DDG 1000 is a ship that had its genesis in the early 1990s," he said, "and I think all of us would agree the world has changed since the early 1990s. We've seen proliferation of threats that did not exist before."
The threats, Roughead said, include ballistic missiles - "I believe it will be a weapon of intimidation and blackmail" - and anti-ship missiles, particularly in the hands of groups such as Hezbollah, which fired such a weapon in July 2006 and hit an Israeli warship off Lebanon.
Anti-air capability also is a key factor in the DDG 1000 decision.
"Our ability to control the seas," he said, "really calls for us to go in and provide area air defense. And as I looked at DDG 1000, it did not give us that capability."
Roughead did not fault the destroyer program's management or shipbuilders Northrop Grumman or General Dynamics.
"The DDG 1000 program is a well-run program," he said.
In testimony to Congress in late July, Navy officials explained that the DDG 51 destroyers with the Aegis combat system were needed to combat the enemy missile threat, which the Navy sees as getting worse.
"There is proliferation that takes place from country to country," Roughead said. "There is little question in my mind the missiles Hezbollah is acquiring are coming out of Iran. Proliferation is the way of the future."
Asked if he was confident the Navy could defeat such missiles, Roughead said, "I'm very comfortable with our ability to provide the defense we need."
Roughead also discussed the increased military and naval capability of Russia, China and Iran. Russia in particular has been a recent concern, after its short mini-invasion of Georgia and dispatch of bomber aircraft and a naval squadron to visit Venezuela.
"What you're seeing ... is a navy getting its sea legs back and not operating just around the northern reaches of its country," he said.
Roughead, a former commander of the Pacific and Atlantic fleets, recalled meetings with Russian naval leaders in 2007.
"A year ago," he said, "it was clear to me the petroleum money was flowing, the Navy was getting going again, the leadership was looking back to the Soviet days as their heyday. The stirrings of wanting to be out and about were there. We're now seeing that. And I believe in coming years, you're going to see the Russian Navy out and about."
Of the Chinese - whose development of targetable anti-ship ballistic missiles is thought to be the immediate impetus of the DDG 1000 switch - he noted that country's growth in naval capability.
"The indications and alignment of their fleet structure and base structure is really beginning to put their Navy more in the traditional role ... that ensures the flow of commerce on the sea lanes - a Navy that has an ambition that wants to extend its operational reach and influence things," Roughead said. "They are viewing their Navy much the same way we do."
As to Iran's ability to challenge the U.S. Navy's presence in the Persian Gulf, Roughead noted the Iranians "see the gulf as their gulf, and they have put in place some naval capabilities that can be problematic. Do I have confidence in our ability to assure the flow [of oil] in the sea lanes? I do. I have confidence there."
Roughead also pointed to the increasing importance of Guam, one of the westernmost of U.S. territorial possessions.
"Guam will become important from a standpoint of providing a place from which to operate in the western Pacific," the CNO said. "We're looking at the design of [Apra] harbor and the ability to put a carrier in there from time to time - not to base a carrier there, but to stop in and recharge and get back out on the line again."
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Roughead Pushes for Littoral Combat Ship
Roughead Pushes for Littoral Combat Ship
(NSI News Source Info) September 25, 2008: The U.S. Navy's top officer maintained his support for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program even as Congress appeared to be scuttling yet another of the long-delayed ships.
"I want to be able to build out the class as quickly as I can," Adm. Gary Roughead, the U.S. Navy's chief of naval operations (CNO), said Sept. 24. "I remain as committed as ever to LCS."
House and Senate appropriators agreed to rescind the money granted last year for a third LCS ship and switch the money to help pay for two more ships in the 2009 budget. The first LCS has been delivered to the Navy and the second ship is due next year, but no further littoral ships are on order.
"We just need to get that program going," Roughead said. "More ships is a good thing."
Roughead's comments came after a National Press Club breakfast in Washington hosted by Government Executive magazine. Responding to questions from moderators and an audience of about 200, Roughead voiced his support for the LCS program.
"I'm committed to those ships," he declared.
The CNO shed some light on his decision to ask permission to "truncate" the DDG 1000 advanced destroyer program from seven to three ships and continue to build DDG 51-class Aegis destroyers.
"DDG 1000 is a ship that had its genesis in the early 1990s," he said, "and I think all of us would agree the world has changed since the early 1990s. We've seen proliferation of threats that did not exist before."
The threats, Roughead said, include ballistic missiles - "I believe it will be a weapon of intimidation and blackmail" - and anti-ship missiles, particularly in the hands of groups such as Hezbollah, which fired such a weapon in July 2006 and hit an Israeli warship off Lebanon.
Anti-air capability also is a key factor in the DDG 1000 decision.
"Our ability to control the seas," he said, "really calls for us to go in and provide area air defense. And as I looked at DDG 1000, it did not give us that capability."
Roughead did not fault the destroyer program's management or shipbuilders Northrop Grumman or General Dynamics.
"The DDG 1000 program is a well-run program," he said.
In testimony to Congress in late July, Navy officials explained that the DDG 51 destroyers with the Aegis combat system were needed to combat the enemy missile threat, which the Navy sees as getting worse.
"There is proliferation that takes place from country to country," Roughead said. "There is little question in my mind the missiles Hezbollah is acquiring are coming out of Iran. Proliferation is the way of the future."
Asked if he was confident the Navy could defeat such missiles, Roughead said, "I'm very comfortable with our ability to provide the defense we need."
Roughead also discussed the increased military and naval capability of Russia, China and Iran. Russia in particular has been a recent concern, after its short mini-invasion of Georgia and dispatch of bomber aircraft and a naval squadron to visit Venezuela.
"What you're seeing ... is a navy getting its sea legs back and not operating just around the northern reaches of its country," he said.
Roughead, a former commander of the Pacific and Atlantic fleets, recalled meetings with Russian naval leaders in 2007.
"A year ago," he said, "it was clear to me the petroleum money was flowing, the Navy was getting going again, the leadership was looking back to the Soviet days as their heyday. The stirrings of wanting to be out and about were there. We're now seeing that. And I believe in coming years, you're going to see the Russian Navy out and about."
Of the Chinese - whose development of targetable anti-ship ballistic missiles is thought to be the immediate impetus of the DDG 1000 switch - he noted that country's growth in naval capability.
"The indications and alignment of their fleet structure and base structure is really beginning to put their Navy more in the traditional role ... that ensures the flow of commerce on the sea lanes - a Navy that has an ambition that wants to extend its operational reach and influence things," Roughead said. "They are viewing their Navy much the same way we do."
As to Iran's ability to challenge the U.S. Navy's presence in the Persian Gulf, Roughead noted the Iranians "see the gulf as their gulf, and they have put in place some naval capabilities that can be problematic. Do I have confidence in our ability to assure the flow [of oil] in the sea lanes? I do. I have confidence there."
Roughead also pointed to the increasing importance of Guam, one of the westernmost of U.S. territorial possessions.
"Guam will become important from a standpoint of providing a place from which to operate in the western Pacific," the CNO said. "We're looking at the design of [Apra] harbor and the ability to put a carrier in there from time to time - not to base a carrier there, but to stop in and recharge and get back out on the line again."
No comments:
Post a Comment