ASNE Day 2000 Awards Luncheon Address

VAdm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN

Luncheon Address Friday, May 18,2000 VAdm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher,Jr., USN Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Resources, War$are, Requirements and Assessments, N 8

native of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a graduate of the US. Naval Academy (Class of ‘a), Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher has served in a broad range of operational, command and staff billets.

Operational tours include Division Officer on U S Wmfl (CVS18), and U S Henry B. Wilson @DG7), a second tour on the U S Henry B. Wilson as Department Head, and Executive Officer of U S Benjamin Stoddert @DG 22). Areas of expertise include antisubmarine warfare, anti-air warfare, and naval surface f i e support, with expertise gained during a number of deploy- ments to the Western Pacific and Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War.

Vice Admiral Lautenbacher’s command experience includes tours as Commanding Officer of U S Hewitt @D-966), where he participated in oper- ations in the Western Pacific, Indian Ocean and North Arabian Sea, and as Commander, Naval Station, Norfolk the Navy‘s largest naval station. Whiie in command of Cruiser-Destroyer Group Five, he deployed to Saudi Arabia with additional duties as Commander, US. Naval Forces Central Command Riyadh, during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Functioning as the deputy Naval Component Commander, he was in charge of daily opera- tional planning for Navy participation in the air war and was the naval repre sentative to the Commander in Chief, Central Command. Most recently, VAdm. Lautenbacher was Commander, Third Fleet, where he introduced integrated, joint and combined W i n g concepts to the Pacific Fleet, p re pared the Third Fleet to function as the core of a sea-based Joint Task Force and developed the sea-based Battle Laboratory Initiative.

Staff duties include significant education and assignments in resource analy- sis and management. A proven subspecialist in Operations Analysis, VAdm. Lautenbacher attended Harvard University receiving M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Applied Mathematics. He was selected as a Navy Federal Executive Fellow and served at the Brookings Institute. Experience includes tours as a systems analyst with both the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Systems Analysis) and the Chief of Naval Operations Staff, and again on the Chief of Naval Operations Staff as the chief developer of the Navy Program Objectives Memorandum.

As a Flag Officer he served as Deputy Chief of Staff for Management/ Inspector General on the staff of Commander in Chief, US. Pacific Fleet. He served as Director of Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment 0-8) on the Joint Staff, where he contributed to the development of the Base Force and Bottom Up Review. He served as Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Fiinancial Management); and Director, Office of Program Appraisal on the Staff of the Secretary of the Navy. His current

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL SEPTEMBER 2000 31

Luncheon Address

assignment is Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Resources, Warfare Requirements and Assessments).

Other staff assignments include Assistant for Strategy with the CNO Executive Panel; Flag Lieutenant to the Commander in Chief, US. Naval Forces Europe; and Personal Aide to the VCNO.

Vice Admiral Lautenbacher has been awarded the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Distinguished Service Medal (two awards), the Legion of Merit (four awards), the Meritorious Service Medal (three awards), the Navy Commendation Medal, the Navy Achievement Medal with Combat “V,” the Navy Unit Commendation, the Meritorious Unit Commendation (two awards), and the Combat Action Ribbon.

Vice Admiral Lautenbacher aimed his address at the challenges being faced by the operational Navy and, by extension, the nation’s naval engineering community. He cited the unprecedented pace of improvements in computer processing power and information technol- ogy in general. He noted the uncertain threats facing the military, the increasing demand to satisfy social needs, widespread instability and unrest, and globaliza- tion overreaching every aspect of our national infra- structure. He stated that, “. . . the bottom line of this environment we’re facing is that we have limited resources. We have a very severe recruiting and reten- tion challenge, we have an aging force structure, and we have to fulfill a large set of requirements in what is a volatile and uncertain world. Now basically when you come down to what we have to do here, it’s very simple. We have to figure out the requirements for the future, how we’re going to do it in the future, and we have to do it with the knowledge and the resources that we have today. I consider quite a challenge.”

Vice Admiral Lautenbacher then addressed four chal- lenges identified by the Secretary of the Navy. He said, “The f i s t challenge he talked about was interoperabil- ity.. . . The systems we have built in the past have been built in individual stovepipes. They have been mar- velous systems. The requirements were conceived in a stovepipe. They were engineered in a stovepipe. They were built and fabricated, and, in many cases, operated in a stovepipe system, and supported in a stovepipe sys- tem. For a long time that was okay, but no longer.” As examples he cited the AEGIS and Cooperative Engagement Concept (CEC) , which though individu- ally fine products, fail to talk together either across a battle group or withii a single ship. He said that we have additional issues such as the single integrated air picture, the need for a common operating picture, and

the need for a common tactical picture. He said, “. . . this was just the beginning of where we need to go if we’re going to have true interoperability. That means we have two integrated multiple systems across multiple platforms, and that is not just the Navy‘s challenge, it is the challenge for joint forces, and then at the next level of complexity, combined or multi-national forces.. . . It’s a critical challenge and we need to work on it through- out our entire organization.”

He continued, “Now, I don’t want to lay this one on the doorstep of the engineers, and then walk away and say this is your problem. It belongs to all of us quite frankly. It will take the whole organization working together. We need to begin with building the requisite operational architectures that can be translated into the proper engineering specifications, not only at the program level, but at the system of systems level. We need your help in doing that. Internal to the Navy, we’ve begun that journey with the introduction in the last two years of a process we call IWAs or integrated warfare archi- tectures. These are designed to cover and encompass end-toend capabilities we need in the Navy and to pro- duce the type of system specifications we need to pro- duce equipment that is going to solve this interoperabil- ity issue. But we can’t do it with just the requirements alone. We need your help as well so we can base our decisions on timely and efficient solutions.”

Vice Admiral Lautenbacher succinctly characterized the second challenge as the question of maintainability. He said, “Now, from a war fighter‘s perspective, the sys- tems we have today must be available continuously, and they have to respond instantly.” He said this was partic- ularly important in the littoral area where responses must be immediate and multidimensional. He said, ‘This is a greater challenge than we’ve had before. There is no room for equipment today that cannot be maintained very easily or economically. We need sys- tems that can be maintained with limited access to the stocks and parts we are used to today, and also with on- scene assistance external to the battle force. In other words, I want you to approach-to attack-the dreaded zero tech-rep goal. When we deploy we need to do it with sailors. They are working the equipment, on-line, ready all the time.”

The third challenge he cited was that of fulfilling per- sonnel requirements. He said this area ties into main- tainability as well as affordability. He declared that the increasing complexity of systems causes a commensu- rate complexity in operation and maintenance beyond the capacity of the sailors we expect to have in our force. He said, “It is becoming more and more difficult

30 SEPTEMBER 2000 NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL

luncheon Address

to recruit and retain our personnel. You’ve seen many discussions in the paper. You’ve heard the Secretary talk about it whenever he has the opportunity. Now, what you have to understand is that you’re involved with this. The recruiting and trainiig goals that we’re trying to meet today are largely in place because of the requirements you design into our equipment. So, it begins with the equipment we have.. . . We’re trying to get people to maintain that equipment. We all have to realize that we’re not going to have a force in the future with an endless supply of computer and data techni- cians, electronic technicians, and high priced talent. That supply is not going to be there for us.”

He said, “. . . the force of the future wiU most likely be composed of more first term young men and women, and with fewer people of today’s longevity and trainiig.” He noted that even the frontend cost of recruiting has doubled in the past two years. gone from $6,000 to $9,000, a fifty percent increase in the last two years roughly; however, he said, “...we are making the goals. Folks are coming in and they are good quality folks. I believe with the message we have, we can bring those folks in. National service is a marvelous way for young people to start in this world, and at that level we are really very competitive with civilian industry. I thiik we will be able to maintain good quality folks in the mili- tary. The key issue is retention. Not only is it becoming more and more expensive to retain people, but I really believe we need to hedge against the day when it may not be cost effective to try to maintain today’s personnel force structure.” VAdm. Lautenbacher said this will require us to find new ways of building and maintaining our systems. He said, ‘We need you to build complex, high tech precision warfare systems designed to be operated with the levels of proficiency found in entry- level positions, essentially. You’ve got to figure out how to do that. I thiik there are ways to do that.”

“Now, the fourth challenge,” he said, “and this is one near and dear to my heart that the Secretary men- tioned, is affordability. S i c e everything that needs a funding line ends up on my doorstep, I will tell you that every funding line that walks across my doorstep is higher than the funding line that was in that same place last year.. . the point is, we have to make very difficult choices when the prices of everything we have go up. Now, should we sacrifice readiness to build the systems of the future? Can we take a holiday and reduce our force structure? Can we afford to neglect further our aging infrastructure? Can we afford to defer the neces- sary investments in development and recapitalization to meet the threats of the future? The answer is no. We can’t do any of those things. So, what can we do? The

answer to that question is clearly up to you. It is in this room. Just look at the ways we spend money in the Navy right now. There are sort-of three big ways we do this. We buy equipment, and I want to include in there the R&D costs; we maintain it, it’s the life cycle cost of maintenance; then we spend a large portion on people.” He continued, “Now, we’ve talked a little about each of the three ways we spend money and where the chal- lenge lies, and we have to reduce costs quite frankly in each one of those areas. It’s not enough to decide that I’m going to build a cheaper system. You’re going to have to figure out how to have fewer people and how to maintain it better as well. So, it’s a full court press. Now, the Navy has a marvelous plan for the force structure and capability of the future, but to be quite honest, if the funding stays at current levels we can’t pay for it. With a fixed top line, there simply is not enough money to go around the program that we have today, and the pro- gram that we think is right for this nation.” He placed the responsibility for solving these problems squarely in the hands of the naval engineering community. He cited work already done as evidence of the capability of naval engineering to respond to the crisis. To name just a few he cited the reduction in operating costs and crew size in the DD-21 design, the open architectures for CVN-77 and CVNX, and the economies of Acoustic Rapid COTS Insertion for SSNs.

He said, ‘The ways in which engineering organizations like NAVSEA, NAVAIR, and SPAWAR are leveraging technology to reduce operator workload or increase quality of life conditions aboard our ships are com- mendable. This is of particular interest to our Secretary. The organization here today, the American Society of Naval Engineers, has members who are at the forefront of all of these efforts to improve the quality of life, and to improve the quality of work conditions. Items like investigating new coating systems, use of composite materials, eliminating topside corrosion, providing sys- tems that reduce manning in all parts of the sh ipsuch as the smart ship engineering projects that are going on-other ideas include testing and implementing ideas that range from new technology tank level indicators, new ventilation systems, piping systems, and materials. It runs the whole range of HM&E and combat systems to information technology. You have embraced a num- ber of ways to improve how we do business, and that‘s critically important. Many of the efforts we have made have been spearheaded by the Undersecretary and the revolution of business affairs. We have been quick to look with your help at ways to adopt successful indus- try-wide practices to improve our efficiency. Those efforts are vital to meeting the affordability challenge,

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL SEPTEMBER 2000 39

Luncheon Address

and I urge you to help us with those, both in industry and internal to the Navy.”

shown that we can do it in the future. The engineers of the Navy have given us the most capable and effective Naval force the world has ever witnessed. On behalf of all of us who man those ships and aircraft, I thank you very much for the hard work you’ve done to give us that force.,, *

“So, in summary,” he said, “ the Secretary’s four chal- lenges are your challenges. Interoperabfity, maintain- ability, personnel, and affordability. I am confident that we can meet these challenges with the type of talent we have in this room. Your performance in the past has

40 SEPTEMBER 2000 NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL