Moderator: This is the Chief of Naval Operations, member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral John Richardson. You can look up his bio.

Transcription

1 Admiral John Richardson, CNO Defense One - Debrief Live January 17, 2017 Moderator: This is the Chief of Naval Operations, member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral John Richardson. You can look up his bio. What s the favorite part of your bio, besides this job? Admiral Richardson: The favorite part is I think maybe the last part where I talk about just how much of a privilege it s been to be part of some teams that have done some good work. Moderator: A friend of mine once said at some point your life you re not going to realize it, but you ve already had the best job you re ever going to have. So maybe this is it. We ll try to keep it going for you. The context we re in, the Admiral said he wanted to talk about the strategic context we re in globally, and set that up a little bit. It s also inauguration week. That s the biggest thing in town. You can see all the scaffolding all over the place, what s happening. President-Elect Donald Trump is coming in and he s coming in with a whole lot of promises and a whole lot of pledges, some of which are contradicting themselves in what the military is going to do or be looking forward. There s a lot of uncertainty -- that s the common word we ve heard for many years. There s a lot of apprehension, I think. And there s a lot of questions about what s going to happen next. So you re laying some of what you d like to see happen next for the Navy. So set us off, before you start talking about the Navy, about what you notice among the force, among the families, about how the election affected them, that crazy campaign years we had, the moment we re at now, and looking forward. Admiral Richardson: Maybe if I could start by just backing up a little bit if you don t mind. This January marks sort of the one-year anniversary of the release of a design for maintaining maritime superiority, sort of the operational guidance for the Navy that we adopted last January. And in that we talk about what we saw as an inflection point in the strategic environment in a couple of different ways. 1

2 One overarching theme which I think is undeniable, no matter who is running the country, is that we re back to a return to a competitive environment. Right? So particularly in the maritime context. We have since the fall of the Wall, end of the Cold War, pretty much been uncontested at sea and that era is coming to an end. Right? In very important parts of the world there s a legitimate contest. Moderator: South China Sea -- Admiral Richardson: South China Sea, the Mediterranean, the Gulf has always been pretty contested just because of the geography there. Moderator: Is the Med contested? Admiral Richardson: You just had the Kuznetsov make her appearance in the Mediterranean for the first time and do an operational deployment. So in those areas I would say that that dynamic has changed. So we re back in competition, which implies competitors and I think that the 4+1 construct of the competitors is a good one. But there s also this -- Audience: We can t hear you. Admiral Richardson: All right, I ll speak from the diaphragm here. [Laughter]. Get my opera voice going here. So this idea of not, this return to competition, the idea not only of competitors and the 4+1 construct is I think a solid one, but also the nature of the competition, and particularly about competing in time. Right? So since the last time we were really in a competitive environment the rules have changed and the pace has changed dramatically, so that things are happening much quicker. If you think about sort of this inflection point that we ve got to manage now, in a non-competitive environment you ve got, time is not as urgent a variable but now that we re competing we ve got to make sure that we compete not only in capability, not only in capacity, but we also have to compete in time. 2

3 So we re seeing that that construct has held during the past year. You sort of put out a document and then it s your thesis, if you will, and you re constantly checking it against actual experience, and we find that that still holds. We ve done a number of studies through last summer to figure out what type of Navy we need to confront that reality. It is a Navy that, we ve got a number of studies. We did our internal studies, we had a number of external studies. All of those studies, to use a fixed type of analogy. All those lines of bearing cross through a locus which talks about more capacity. A Navy that in its size in the mid 300 s of number of platforms, ships; that has to continue to develop capability; but there is I think a very appropriate and increasing awareness about the readiness of that force to do its job. So it s not just capacity. It s not just capability. There s also this readiness, the ability to go and execute our mission. You ve got to appreciate all three of those things if you want a Navy that provides options on a relevant and timely basis for any incoming administration. So I think that there s a great optimism in the force. We ve had a chance to characterize this environment. We ve done some studies to think about the Navy needed to manage in that environment. And we re now ready to execute on that vision. Moderator: So start to give us some examples of why you need the numbers, about what the readiness problems are. I hear both sides looking at Navy number and size. Some say look, things have changed a little in the last couple of years, but South China Sea, one Russian ship. These are not major changes that should require a much larger Navy. The other side says look, all along we ve had strategic guidance from the previous administration that requires global presence, the pace that you re talking about, and we can t do it. We don t have enough carriers, we don t have enough people, there are too many ships that are in dock or not maintained enough. So explain to people the reality. How, for example, either ISIS operations or patrols out in Asia, what is it that -- Admiral Richardson: It s kind of all of the above, right? So we re a global nation. We have global interests around, in all of those areas that you mentioned. And in each of those areas, since the last time we really assessed the size of the Navy in 2012, the stakes and the challenges have gone up in every one of those areas. 3

4 So if you just rewind the clock to 2012 and appreciate that environment, there were no artificial items in the South China Sea. The People s Liberation Army/Navy was much smaller and less capable than it is right now. The Russians were not even in that calculus. Right? Now that they re back at sea and presenting challenges, they have to be rolled into that calculation. One thing that was persistent and present there was this fight against violent extremism, and that has been a persistent demand signal on all of the Joint Force for some time, including the Navy, and so sort of formally accepting that and that it will probably be so going into the future, that we account for that demand signal rather than sort of taking it out of hide of our rotational forces. All that led to a Navy that came in capacity from about 308 ships up to the 355 that we see going. So it really is the cumulative effect of all of those things against the responsibility to remain a global power, protect America from attack, and promote our strategic interests around the globe. Moderator: So is this about today or the near future or the far future? Admiral Richardson: All of the above. Moderator: Do you have the right-sized Navy for today? Admiral Richardson: We are under stress right now to meet our requirements, so this is what starts to put, I guess, a dent on our readiness. The operational -- Moderator: What does it mean you re under stress right now? Explain. Admiral Richardson: Well, the operational tempo really hasn t stopped, right? There is this persistent demand by the combatant commanders for naval forces. If you just take the raw numbers, we re able to meet about half of those demands, and so we stretch the Navy pretty thin to try and get back out. We re still -- Moderator: The Navy s only meeting half of the demands of the COCOMs? 4

5 Admiral Richardson: Yeah. And I think I probably speak for a good deal of the Joint Force, in terms of you just take the raw combatant commander demands. So there s this adjudication that goes on to go off and prioritize where we re going to send our capability. General Dunford and the Joint Chiefs have been taking a very strategic approach in terms of how to best posture the force around the globe. The Secretary of Defense has been a complete participant in that process so that we optimize the capability that we have. Even as we look forward to modernizing and acquiring the capabilities that we need for the future. Moderator: Is this a product of global events just happening faster than expected? Or is it a product of politics in Washington? The current, soon to be previous administration, not giving what was requested? How did you get to this point? Admiral Richardson: I think that you have a situation where there were some assumptions made, right? And then you always have to go back and check those assumptions. So the assumptions with respect to the security environment becoming more tame, if you will. Well, those haven t pertained. The assumptions about the financial environment, the components of that. You have to just go back and check those assumptions. I wouldn t fault anybody for anything. It s just a matter of checking reality against the assumptions and then you ve got to make some adjustments, and that s how I would characterize this. Moderator: So prioritize these things. Start with the strategic environment, then we can talk about solutions for it. But like you said, it s around the world right now, but is it being more aggressive in confronting the South China Sea? Is it having the persistent -- Admiral Richardson: I think -- Moderator: -- to do ISIS -- Admiral Richardson: I think that our most urgent challenge is really to increase the agility to respond. Moderator: How do you do that? Admiral Richardson: Well, it matters across everything that we do. Right? So you start in acquisition. We ve just got to be able to acquire things faster to compete in time. So this is 5

6 going to be a major goal of confronting the challenges in this competition in time. We ve had a number of meetings with the department, a number of meetings with industry. Everybody I think is ready. And time relates to risk, right? If capability arrives later than it should, so you incur risk there. More time generally equals more money. So things that take longer to deliver cost more because time is not free. So our ability to compete in time in acquisition is very very important. Then if you think about the ability to respond operationally, things just are much more complex now, right? Even if you go back to that 2012, or certainly if you go back to when we were competing before, certainly there s sort of the time factor, the coordination factor of physical naval forces -- ships, aircraft, submarines. But now we re also coordinating in electromagnetic spectrum, we re coordinating in cyber, we re coordinating in space. You can start to see the levels of complexity all of which have to be synchronized in time. And if you just think about cyber, space, electromagnetic, those things happen literally at the speed of light, right? So the pace of operations goes up dramatically. The minds of our commanders, the ability of our forces to respond to that as a system, an entire fleet system, has to go up as well. Moderator: Your answer is about the process to respond to crisis points, it s not about picking, you know, do we need to prioritize Asia over the Middle East or talk of the pivot. The last couple of years a lot of these constructs have gone by the wayside. AirLand, Space, and now [HAED] is supposed to be gone, and -- Admiral Richardson: Right. Moderator: Is the pivot gone? Does it matter anymore? Admiral Richardson: Yeah, I think that the pivot matters. And it s one of these things. Whether we choose to rebalance to the Pacific or not, the global economy is rebalancing to the Pacific. And if we have interests there that are related to our continued prosperity as a nation, we ve got to respond to that. So it s just a true political reality, right? I think we re just recognizing that when we talk about that. But every time we think about rebalancing to the Pacific, of course you ve got challenges in the Mediterranean, you ve got 6

7 challenges in North Africa, you ve got challenges in the Middle East. This is the nature of being a global power. So we ve got to be very balance as we approach that. Moderator: Let s stay in the Pacific then. What s the answer to the islands in the South China Sea? There s the criticism of policy leaders you re working for, was the Obama administration let it happen by not responding in some way militarily? Admiral Richardson: Hold on. We re having technical issues here. (Pause) Moderator: I apologize for that. So we re talking about Asia and the South China Sea. The short question is what do you want to do about it? Admiral Richardson: I think we have to continue to be present there, so we ve had a persistent presence there throughout, and that will continue. Moderator: It didn t stop them though? It didn t stop the Chinese. Admiral Richardson: Okay, but that s certainly part of the answer. And then there is a, it s not just a bilateral thing. There s a regional security element to the answer. So working with our partners and allies in the whole spectrum of maritime security there I think is going to be a very important part of the way forward. Then we ll just have to see what the incoming administration, what their approach is with respect to the policy angle on this. But our job is to make sure that we provide, as I said, options for our leadership to have. Moderator: Trump has said we re going to do something about it. That wouldn t have happened under my watch. He s been very blustery about, his comments imply more confrontation between the United States naval vessels and China. Have those comments on the campaign trail caused -- what has been the effect of -- Admiral Richardson: We ve been -- Moderator: -- leaders or your sailors out there. 7

8 Admiral Richardson: The sailors are ready to go, right? They are, as always, ready. So one thing that we have maintained throughout is that those sailors who are forward deployed on station, they are trained to handle the very high end of conflict. So even as we have, we ve shepherded our approach to readiness, we have never sent a team out there that is not ready to handle those high end challenges. So that will be the approach. Moderator: Is the expectation that ships are going to start [bumping] in the night? That the United States is somehow going to force the Chinese off those islands, reverse some trends, stop future plans for building? Admiral Richardson: I think all of those things are yet to be determined. Moderator: How does that affect your big plans? If things are status quo in the Pacific versus more patrols, some type of increased defense to prevent the Chinese from having more of like even more of the islands, using them more, keeping the sea lanes open. How do you plan for one versus the other right now? Or is everyone just kind of in a holding pattern waiting for the new administration? Admiral Richardson: Well, we re looking at the spectrum of options. I think we re ready to move down whatever line the leadership wants to take. Moderator: Take the same question back to the Middle East with ISIS. So not having enough carriers to stay on station all the time. Is it a real concern or is it just a political concern here to be used as a talking point to advocate for more carriers? Admiral Richardson: This is a question that s appreciated by the Joint Force. Certainly a carrier air wing and the strike group brings a lot of capability when it comes to moving that campaign forward, conducting strikes. It brings an awful lot with respect to maritime security and a broader context there in the Middle East. And so we ll continue to prioritize presence there. But again, we ve got to balance that. Then there is a Joint Force approach to this, right? These are the types of dialogues that we have. As one capability leaves, 8

9 you can mitigate that by flowing in another capability, and that way you sustain the campaign. Moderator: Right. This came up in the recent months as relations with Turkey have become rockier, and will Incirlik still be available for the air campaign over Iraq and Syria? And if it s not then you need to rely somewhat more on naval assets to -- Admiral Richardson: Well that s one benefit of naval power is that we re not reliant on basing and that sort of thing. Again, there s this timely relevant option, dimension. So to be timely and relevant you ve got to be present with the right capabilities and that s what we strive to do. And we work within the constraints to try and optimize that over time and space as best we can. Moderator: How have all the operations affected the strain, you mentioned strain on the people of the Navy, on your force. Are you right-sized -- [Technical problems]. Moderator: The question is what s the stress on the force. And is the answer, is one of the answers, a larger force? Is that what you re going to be seeking? Admiral Richardson: Yes. Certainly part of the answer -- as I ve described it and I ve used this in testimony, is really there s kind of three dimensions in terms of relieving stress on the force. One is the operational tempo as I described. It s been high for the last 15 years. It really hasn t come down any, right? So what you find -- I mean it s come down some. We re not doing 10 month deployments, anymore, but they re 7 months and we re still sort of digging out from that 10-month deployment period of time. And what that does is it certainly puts a lot of stress on our people, which by the way, is another very competitive space for us right now, is on people. We can maybe come back to that. It puts a stress on materiel. As ships and aircraft are flown longer and harder than they were designed to fly, right? So we ve got an awful lot of aircraft that are reaching the end of their designed flying hours earlier because they ve been flown pretty hard. We have ships that have been maintenance deferred 9

10 so they could be out there, and so that all kind of comes home to roost and it provides sort of a maintenance demand on the force. The people have to be watched as well. So there s the operational demand that provides a wearing or a tearing down force on the Navy. We re in the 9 th year now of Continuing Resolutions. And so the budget environment to try and repair this. And I think the Navy might be particularly sensitive to adequate and stable funding. Right? That s the thing that we really treasure because then we can allocate risk, we can write contracts, we can buy materiel, we can do all those things that allow us to regain readiness at the best possible value for the taxpayer. So there s the predictability of funding. Then of course there s the adequacy of funding, is it at the right levels with the Budget Control Act? I think everybody would argue it needs to be higher than that. We start the conversation down low and we work our way up sort of by hook or by crook to something that we can get by with. So those three -- the triple whammy is kind of the thing that we re looking to address as we go forward. One way to relieve the materiel and people stress is with a bigger force. You can maintain the same presence with a lower operational rotation rate, right? Because you can have more platforms to send forward. And then we re working very closely with everybody involved to try and get to stable and adequate funding as well. Moderator: How realistic are you that you re going to get stable and -- Admiral Richardson: There s a tremendous amount of optimism. Senator McCain just released a report and they re going to have a big role to play here as always. So we ll see what can be done. Moderator: Are you planning for that? Or are you planning for what we ve had for the last -- Admiral Richardson: You ve got to plan for everything, right? 10

11 Moderator: Right. But it s your wish list for a functioning Congress. Admiral Richardson: If asked how to get to a 355 ship Navy, I have an answer. [Laughter]. Moderator: There you go, Congress, you ve got the request from the CNO. Very good. Talk more about aviation for a minute. You mentioned a lot of aircraft are at their service life. One of the more notable tweets from President-Elect Trump in the last couple of months, or couple of tweets, have been about the F-35 and him saying maybe it s time to look at not just that again, but a comparable Hornet, Super Hornet. Explain to my mother watching at home whether that s possible or not and what the difference is and what the Navy really needs from aviation. Admiral Richardson: Okay. So if you just think about aircraft in terms of capability, the F-35 we describe as a 5 th generation fighter aircraft which means that it is in a different, on a completely different level than the Super Hornet which is what we call a 4 th Generation aircraft. So there s sort of a prompt jump in capability between the Super Hornet and the F-35. You can do some things to the Super Hornet to make it kind of a four-and-a-half generation aircraft, so it can be more relevant against the projected threat for a longer period of time. And I should highlight that the Navy s approach, the carrier air wing, will be comprised of 5 th and 4 th generation fighters sort of into the foreseeable future. So we ve always sort of had a mixed approach to that going forward. So we need the F-35. That is our 5 th generation capability which we need to be competitive, But that will be supplemented by a healthy cadre of advanced Super Hornets as well. Moderator: How disruptive was that, was it helpful or harmful? Admiral Richardson: We ll see. The F-35 certainly has had its trials and we ll see where the industrial base can come with respect to price per aircraft which I think was the real impetus for that transmission Moderator: You think it was more about pricing than about capability or anything else? 11

12 Admiral Richardson: Yeah, that s my sense. We need that capability and we need to get it at the very best price for the taxpayer that we can. We also need that Super Hornet. So that s our strategy going forward. Moderator: Okay. Soon I want to turn to the audience for questions. I know a lot of you are from the naval world and probably have some good in-depth ones. You mentioned people as well, and I know you wanted to talk about a new initiative on Navy leaders. Admiral Richardson: We re constantly looking at our people, right? They are kind of the thing that makes it all work. Our real advantage is in our people. So we have a line of effort in that design for maintaining maritime superiority really focused on people. And we re starting to see delivery on that. I ve put out some guidance with respect to -- we sort of appreciate the Navy team as being, certainly our active and reserve sailors, our civilians play a critical role, and also our families. So we ve put out a framework that talks about our civilian work force, how to develop them. This week we ll issue a framework that talks about how we develop leaders to deal with this environment, this faster paced, more complex environment that we ve been talking about. And also highlights the importance not only of competence, warfighting and operational competence, but also of character in leader development. So we re continuing to do that. We re also, one of the more exciting areas where we re getting at sort of big data approaches is in our people business. So the Chief of Naval Personnel is one of our lead agencies in terms of revolutionizing our information technology so that we can really do some detailed analytics in terms of really how to serve our people best. It s a very competitive space. A very small population of the United States is even eligible for military service and boy, there s an awful lot of people competing for that same population. So we ve got to present a very attractive suite of options to bring people in. It s remarkable that even in this very competitive space where we can t compete in salary, still, people are, our recruiting numbers, we re meeting those goals; our retention goals in most 12

13 areas we re meeting. It says an awful lot about the dedication of this generation and their desire to be part of something bigger than themselves. Moderator: You mentioned the small percentage of the population that can even qualify for service and competitiveness. That s all part of the larger civilian/military divide or gap that we hear so often about. What do you think, what are your biggest concerns right now about that gap and the solutions to bridge it? Admiral Richardson: I think we ve got to, if we re going to be truly representative and do our job in terms of defending America and doing the job that the nation needs us to do, we need to be in a dialogue. We need to make sure that the nation understands what we do for them. Communicate the attractiveness of this as a potential, the military service in general as a career option. And do everything we can. We do Navy Weeks. We try and bring the Navy to communities around the nation so that we do what we can to kind of close that gap down, so that it doesn t become such a divide where people just don t have a sense of military service and what we do. Moderator: What do you think of the nation? Do you think they have a sense that America s at war? Admiral Richardson: It s hard to say. I think it kind of fluctuates depending on where you go. But a case can definitely be made that there s, it s kind of been a distant thing for many people s consciousness. Moderator: What s your answer to that? I ve covered it a lot, I ve written and had lots of conversations with SOCOM, CENTCOM, the administration folks here in town about how do you tell the story of what s largely a secret war, and in many cases needs to be secret, or quiet for lots of reasons, the way the American operators are there. How do you tell that in a way that s responsible, conveying information to the public, gets the right kind of support, but at the same time honors silent warrior ethos, things like that? The balance. Admiral Richardson: I think in terms of the nature of the war that s on us, particularly the violent extremism, there s been a number of very very visible examples of what that can lead to if unchecked. So the challenge is making sure that people know your Navy, your military is engaged and protecting us as much as possible from that. We re doing everything we can to prevent 13

14 that from happening. And we re working with our allies and partners and that. It really is a global challenge. So just making sure that people know hey, we re on that job. Right? We re doing everything we can to keep that away from us is a big part. Then there s the bigger thing, the prosperity angle, right? 80 percent, well, well above 90 percent of global trade travels on the oceans. About 60 percent of U.S. trade comes to us via the sea. So if you can make those relevant examples. Hey, just look around your house, your space. An awful lot of that came via the sea. So there s a need to kind of heighten awareness at that level as well. Moderator: On the protecting part, what s the feedback you re getting form your own elite forces? The ones that are tasked to be trigger pullers, who are out there hunting and killing bad guys and doing the work you just said? Are they stressed, are they -- Admiral Richardson: Yeah, they re, I mean everything that I said about the Navy during this operational tempo probably is magnified even more for our special operators who have been just engaged to the max in terms of progressing this campaign, and remain so today. And so those folks out there are doing, we have about a thousand Navy Special Warfare folks engaged in this fight. Across Northern Africa, into Eastern Africa, throughout the entire theater. So that s an important part of our message as well. Moderator: But I mean are they handling it? Or are you worried about them? Admiral Richardson: I m worried about them. They re right at max. In fact I just met with our leadership in that area recently. While they re holding their own, they re doing terrific terrific work, we always have to be mindful of pushing them too far. Moderator: If they re at their max now, you ve got a President coming in saying, and Mattis and others saying we need to up the war against ISIS. It s going to be on them. Can they do it? Or is it -- Admiral Richardson: We re going to have to do that I think in a sustainable way. I know General Mattis is not interested in breaking the force. I don t think that the incoming President 14

15 is interested in doing that as well. So we ll have to do so in a way that doesn t come at a near term or a long term cost to that force. Moderator: But how? You just said we re at the maximum point right now. Admiral Richardson: Okay, so you increase capacity. All of those things that we talked about in terms of solution. Capacity, capability, readiness. They all apply to that community as well. Moderator: But those take time. To build a larger force, to have more ships, to have more capability versus what you have right now, within the 60-day plan that we re all waiting to hear about. A new plan for ISIS from the generals, admirals. Admiral Richardson: If you want to bring more capability in a particular part of the global campaign, then you just prioritize the capability there, right? You re going to probably see that come from other theaters. Moderator: Let s go to the audience. Questions? Sidney Friedberg from Breaking Defense. Breaking Defense: Should I wait for a mike or are we in shout mode? Moderator: We re in shout mode for now. I ll repeat your question for the camera. Breaking Defense: Sidney Friedberg, Breaking Defense, sir. Moderator: Sidney, it s a pleasure to meet you. [Laughter]. Breaking Defense: We ve never seen each other before. I want to ask about the 355-ship fleet that you have said is the necessary number to meet all the global and wartime demands. That will require a major ramp-up of ships and funding, from the industrial base and Congress, both have to rise to that occasion. We see things like McCain s policy announcement yesterday where he says yes, I m all for it, which is a good thing; but also the Navy needs to develop new ship classes like smaller carriers, a replacement for LCS. Of course you re already committed to a new SSBN. 15

16 A, are new ship classes a good idea on their merits? And B, whether or not they re necessary tactically, is a major ramp-up a bad time to start trying to invent new stuff as opposed to going with the proven designs you already have in production? Admiral Richardson: I think I would answer your question in terms of going back and competing in time, right? I would say that we need to be constantly looking at new approaches, new technologies, maybe even new ship classes. But as we do so, we don t have the luxury to sort of stop. And there is a capacity dimension to this. And so if we re going to do this we ve got to sort of do it in stride, mindful that there is a capacity dimension to this. If we completely stopped I think that would be the worst answer. So how do you compete and modernize, maybe develop a new ship class in stride so that you ve got a feathering, if you will, right? Not a stop, wait and restart, but a dovetailing in of this new class. And it again goes to this idea of time. So I think we have to challenge, and we ve talked to industry about this, all of the assumptions about how long it takes to do things. Even in very traditional lines of business like shipbuilding. We need to really examine the assumptions in terms of how long it takes to design that new ship class, what that new ship class has to embody in terms of its ability to modernize through its life, and then again, how fast can we build those things. All of that needs to be reexamined or we re just not going to be competitive in time, Sidney. So we re working very closely with industry. One anxiety that I ve got is that let s say we get everything we ask for in terms of funding. There will be, I think, a natural manifestation of muscle memory to go back to doing just more of what we know how to do. And that s not going to be sufficient going forward. We ve got to continue to be creative, look for new capabilities, new technologies, incorporate those even under a situation where we might get more resources. So I would say one, Senator McCain s report is another line of bearing that says we need a bigger Navy. We need a small surface combatant fleet that s capable, affordable, and is something that will be in the minds of our competitors. We need to look at this systemically, particularly with respect to aircraft carriers, right? I m still studying the report, but there s kind of a high/low discussion there. So if you think 16

17 about the introduction of the F-35C onto our amphib force, that might be systemically the way to get after this. But overall I think we re in terrific agreement in terms of the need for a bigger and more capable Navy. We re in very detailed dialogue with how to get there. And so I think we re in a good place. Moderator: Chairman McKeon, it s great to see you. So we have the former House Armed Services Chairman who has stayed pretty active and you re hosting your California Dialogue out there still. Admiral Richardson: Which is a terrific event. Moderator: It s become a very important event in drawling all the problems of military leadership. Do you mind giving us some of your thoughts of where things stand right now as the administrations change and you re hearing what the CNO is requesting and priorities going forward. Congressman McKeon: I think he should bet everything he wants, everything he needs. And it is very difficult. We haven t talked about the straits over there and the fast boats and the problems that they re causing. Is that much of a Navy threat that you have to worry about? Moderator: I ll repeat for the microphone. He thinks the CNO should get everything he needs, and asked about the straits. Admiral Richardson: This is another theater where it s a different nature of challenge. So particularly in the Middle East, in the Straits of Hormuz. Boy, I ll tell you, the tyranny of geography just really comes home to roost and you only have to do that straits transit to realize what close quarters you are in. You ve ready about the Iranian harassment and those sorts of things. That has picked up, the amount of that activity. I ll tell you one thing that I m advocating for and I ve been pretty open about this, is sort of opening lines of communication with our counterparts in terms of having that dialogue. So these sorts of activities, to be honest, from a geopolitical standpoint, from a Navy standpoint, our commanders there, I m in very close dialogue with those folks through their operational command. And one of the very first questions I get to is hey, did you ever feel like you were at risk? Did you ever feel like this was getting to be a situation where you 17

18 didn t have the appropriate capabilities or authorities to manage it? And they all say no, right? We ve got this. It s getting sporty. But the risk for miscalculation -- as that does kind of pick up, that activity, the risk for miscalculation goes up. And miscalculation in this global environment, with this information world that can really accelerate things, can easily result in an escalation. And the ability to pick up the phone and call the leader, my counterpart over there, can really help in managing those type of situations. Deescalating and hopefully knocking this type of behavior out. Moderator: You re not able to do that with Iran. Admiral Richardson: No, we can t do that with Iran right now. And we re not able to do that with Russia right now. Two teams that I think it would be helpful to -- Moderator: There s no deconflicting version of - Admiral Richardson: Not really, no. Moderator: How about with the Chinese? Give us the status of all three of -- Admiral Richardson: I ve got a solid line with the Chinese. My counterpart there, we have a, first of all we ve done counterpart visits so that s been very helpful. And not only me, but I usually have Admiral -- Moderator: You were there -- Admiral Richardson: I was there, yeah, just this last year. Like July I think. And we have a regular sort of VTC where we get together and kind of level the bubbles. There s also a responsive element to that. That if we want to talk to each other, we can. And that s just not me, that s also Admiral Harris, Admiral Swift, you know, everybody s got a -- Moderator: But these are all three different things. Thinking of campaign rhetoric and what publics hear about the danger of aggressive China and the seas, and Iran and the straits, and Russia sending ships. These are all very different things. You have working relations or at least communications with the Chinese that have been built up over the last eight years, even 18

19 through the development of those islands. But there s not communication with the Iranians at all, and there s maybe minimal with the Russians and in some cases not at all as well. Admiral Richardson: Right. And so if you think about what that communication has led to with the Chinese, for instance, one of the other visits I made was to the Stennis Strike Group who was in the middle of the South China Sea. They are right there, and they re surrounded by the Chinese Navy, literally, right? And so, but each of those dozens of interactions, the vast majority of those are done professionally. They come up on the radio. The operate in accordance with this code that we have established, and has been adopted by both navies, and is increasingly being adopted, to manage unplanned encounters at sea in a professional manner. So that we can do this as professional mariners, prevent unwanted escalation, or reduce the probability of some kind of a tactical miscalculation that could lead to escalation. So that s been beneficial. Moderator: How do you get to that with the Iranians? Admiral Richardson: Well you ve got to start the dialogue. Moderator: Wait for the State Department or the next administration or -- Admiral Richardson: Well, we ll just sort of see how it develops. I think all of the above, right? Moderator: What s the last attempt from your side from the Americas, to reach out? Has there been any? Admiral Richardson: No, we ve been sort of following the lead of the administration. The JCPOA agreement and those negotiations I think have, might present some opportunities. But that was very focused on that particular issue. PWC: Sir, how confident are you that the industrial base -- Pat McCarthy from PWC. Sorry. How confident are you the industrial base can keep up with the idea that we are now going to build, relatively rapidly, to the 355? As I sort of read the tea leaves, it looks like the industrial base, they ve really come down based upon the financial reality we ve been under for the last many years. And for them to spin back up again is going to be a real push to get there. So I m interested in hearing your views 19

20 Moderator: The question is can the industrial base back any kind of rapid increase of shipbuilding. Admiral Richardson: The short answer is yes. So the industrial base is ready to respond. But your observations are very keen, I think. So we talk a lot about, it s kind of a term of art, minimum sustaining rate. What is the rate of production, which is kind of as low as I can go. And in many areas it has just become the sustaining rate, right? I can t go any lower without really kind of breaking the process. But to be honest, my ability to surge higher isn t real robust either. We ve just sort of leaned those production lines out. So they re ready and they re able. There has been nobody who says I can t do this. But they ve got to bring the people on board. There s going to be a reinvestment which I think is actually terrific news for the nation. I mean those, I m not here primarily to make an economic type of an argument, but it s undeniable that those are real high end jobs. It s got to be done here in America. So there s -- and that goes down not only for sort of the deliverer of those systems, but the entire tier of suppliers that goes down much deeper throughout America that feed those ships and aircraft. So there s kind of the very broad benefit there. Then of course there s infrastructure and everything else that needs to come along with this larger Navy. So you start to see how broad this program is. There s a lot to get done. Industrial partners are ready to do that and we ll do it as briskly as possible. Seapower Magazine: Rick Burgess, Seapower Magazine. The force structure assessment that s just been completed, will that inform the 2018 budget and the FYDP? Or do you have to wait for some sort of budget relief from Congress before you can factor that into your plan? Admiral Richardson: I think it s one of these things where you re always painting the bus as it drives down the road, right? So the answer to your question is yes, it will inform the 18 budget. It already has. We sort of saw how this was shaping up. To what degree, there s a time element here too, right? So the 18 budget has to go in, and that s got to enter its process, and what we don t get in 18 we ll pick up in 19 and we ll start to dovetail. And I kind of see the 18 budget 20

21 as sort of a bridge type of effort and to the point we just made, it s not like we can execute that thing on a dime either. So there will be kind of a ramp up and we ll be working very closely with industry as we do that in the most judicious way. Breaking Defense: Are you thinking of a 17 supplemental? Admiral Richardson: We ll have to see where that goes. I would say that in terms of, kit gets back to execution, Sidney. The most executable dollars are readiness dollars, so in terms of maintenance and people. Those things can, that s the first place we re going to go with 17 supplemental type of funds. Moderator: The Vice CNO last week said if there s going to be new money he d prefer that first the money went to maintenance and readiness -- Admiral Richardson: Exactly. Moderator: -- before buying new things. Admiral Richardson: I thought that -- you re talking about the Surface Navy Association event last week -- Moderator: Yes. Admiral Richardson: -- which the messaging out of that was just so solid. I was really proud of the team there. What the Vice Chief said is exactly right. It s exactly what I m telling -- Moderator: So there you go, Congress. You should go look at the takes from the Surface Warfare -- Admiral Richardson: They were there, yeah. Mr. Feldman: Chick Feldman, 30 years in the Army; 20 years in industry; now I have my own company. My question is -- Admiral Richardson: What does your company do? Mr. Feldman: My company primarily lobbies the Hill and solves problems with industry. But what I m curious about, assuming you re going to have a much larger Navy in the near future, and the OpTempo is not going to go down. As you go to the larger Navy, what are you going to 21

22 focus on to maintain the readiness of the force that you have now and as it grows. Moderator: The question is what s the readiness focus with OpTempo going up, and we re within five minutes, so we ll try to shorten and try and get two more in. Admiral Richardson: I ve hit the highlights of that, right? So we ve got to make sure that we get ships in and out of maintenance on time, and we do all the maintenance that is required. We don t defer that until some later date. So that keeps the materiel part up. It was alluded to about aviation and the readiness challenges there. That s been I think a very open discussion. So as we flow money in, the throughput of our aviation depots is going to be a key part of particularly our legacy Hornets, getting those back on-line. Learning from that experience so that as the Super Hornets come in we ve got that as tuned as we can get, and working very closely with our industrial partners there. The manpower, so part of this readiness thing is that it s easy to talk about buying a particular platform but you ve got to buy everything that s associated with it. And so you ve got to buy the people that are going to crew it, you ve got to buy the life cycle maintenance that s going to sustain it, the infrastructure costs that are going to house that ship when it comes back. So there is this, I think, an emerging awareness of the interconnectedness between, you know, acquisition, modernization and readiness. It all delivers your Navy. So a ship that s next to the pier because it hasn t been maintained and can t go to sea is still a ship that s not out doing the nation s business. Just as if a ship that s not purchased is not going to be out there doing the nation s business in the future. So there s this sort of wholeness approach that we re doing our very best to explain. It s a complicated thing to try and bring all this together into one argument, but we re doing the best we can. Audience: Admiral in this resource-constrained environment we ve been talking about, do you see operational value in incorporating expendable niche mission -- air, surface, underwater, robotic, semi-autonomous systems that complement like ISR targeting, that sort of thing? Admiral Richardson: So the question is, particularly in a resource constrained environment, what might be the role of 22

23 unmanned and autonomous systems, particularly if you can get the unit price down to a level where you might consider that expendable. It s a big part of our way going forward. So as I said, should we get resource relief, and even if we don t, we ve got to continue to be creative about the role of these types of technologies moving forward. So as we think about where we re doubling down in terms of future capabilities, you know, unmanned, both underwater, aviation, and on the surface, that s a big area. Directed energy, that s a big area. So all of these areas where we are moving forward. I ll tell you, artificial intelligence and autonomy, that s a big area. So whether or not we get increased resources, we ve got to continue to keep the pressure on those areas to deliver as fast as possible. Moderator: And everybody read our technology coverage of things like swarming boats and -- Admiral Richardson: Exactly. Right. Moderator: -- things that are already happening now in testing phase. Admiral Richardson: Exactly right. And so the key there is to keep the unit price down. A swarm where everything s super expensive is just an incredibly expensive swarm and unachievable. Audience: This is about the South China Sea. So you are communicating with the Chinese, that is what I heard, right? And you talked about miscalculations that can happen. But what I would like to ask you is, what is your goal? What is our Navy s goal in South China Sea? Can the public know that goal? Or that s kind of something that s beyond us, we cannot know? Admiral Richardson: I will tell you that first of all, that s going to be I think a big question in terms of the new administration coming in and what are their policy aims with respect to the South China Sea and that entire relationship. But I ll tell you from the Navy s standpoint, again, it comes, we want to protect our strategic influence of our partners in that part of the world. An extremely important part of the world, right? 33 percent of the world s trade passes through the South China Sea. It s extremely important to the United 23

24 States to maintain that access through that body of water. It can t be seen as an extension of the territorial Chinese state. It is open waters through which freedom of navigation is very important. So that I think would be kind of our overarching goal right now, to maintain a presence and a posture that would maintain that freedom of navigation through that extremely important body of water. Moderator: You re going to have a busy 2017 it sounds like. Admiral Richardson: It should be. Moderator: Not just the South China Sea, but there on the Hill. Admiral Richardson: We re going to stay off the streets and be hard at work. Moderator: My team is putting together, we do an annual State of Defense package where we try to say here s what s on the horizon for all the services. There are a lot more questions than answers than I ve ever seen in my time covering the military or being here. So in some ways I don t envy you, and in other ways we appreciate what you re doing, and good luck through the year. Thank you for coming, and thanks everyone here for coming to the first Debrief Live. Enjoy your week and enjoy the inauguration. Admiral Richardson: Thanks for the opportunity to do it. It s been terrific having this conversation with you and I think it s a great venue. We are operating with a great team. You know, so my fellow service chiefs they all have challenges in some ways the same, in some ways different, and so I hope that, I ll talk to them about maybe coming to talk to you and getting that rounder perspective, the team approach of all services. That s the thing that s going to win the day. Moderator: We get to have more interviews with you. Admiral Richardson: Right. # # # # 24