Today, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, made the following opening statement on the hearing, "Game Changing Innovations and the Future of Surface Warfare :"
"Today the subcommittee meets to discuss innovations that could 'change the game' for the U.S. Navy’s surface fleet.
Joining us today are two thought leaders in the area of surface warfare.
• Mr. Bryan McGrath, Managing Director, The Ferry Bridge Group; and
• Mr. Jonathan Solomon, Senior Analyst, Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc.
Thank you for being with us today and for all the analysis and writing you have done on this topic.
One month ago, this subcommittee held a hearing on undersea warfare game changers in which our expert witnesses laid out a compelling vision of the future of undersea warfare and the challenges and opportunities that our submarine force will confront in the years ahead. I am hopeful that you gentlemen can do the same for our Navy’s surface fleet in today’s hearing.
The United States Navy’s surface fleet is the most capable and professional such force in existence today. Since the end of the Cold War, that fleet’s command of the seas has gone largely uncontested, but today it is being challenged and undermined on multiple fronts.
Looking around the world, we see strategic competitors fielding anti-access area-denial capabilities that can hold our surface ships at risk and constrain their freedom of maneuver and action. While China and Russia remain the pacing threats in this regard, the proliferation of A2/AD capabilities to the littorals of the Arabian Gulf and even now the Eastern Mediterranean are turning these areas into increasingly non-permissive operating environments.
At the same time, we see in China a rising power that clearly understands the influence of seapower upon history. China is fielding a surface fleet of its own that experts tell us could, by 2030, have an order of battle comparable to our own.
Like the rest of the service and the Department of Defense, the Navy’s surface fleet must adapt to mitigate the challenges and exploit the opportunities that will accompany these changing circumstances. For decades, our surface combatants have been largely relegated to defensive escort duties or tied down performing critically important but unglamorous presence and missile-defense missions. These ships now find themselves 'out-sticked' by adversaries with longer-range and more capable anti-ship missiles, and some analysts have predicted that the proliferation of these and other A2/AD capabilities will result in American surface ships, including carriers, being relegated to the sidelines in future high-intensity conflicts.
That said, things might be looking up for our surface forces. Earlier this year, the Navy unveiled a new concept of 'distributed lethality,' which calls for our surface ships to be up-armed with offensive weapons. While still in its infancy, this new concept could help our surface fleet regain a more substantial role in anti-surface warfare, and force our competitors to deal with new dilemmas.
Meanwhile, a number of combat systems currently under development or already out with the fleet have the potential to empower concepts like this. These include longer-range and more capable anti-ship missiles that could greatly enhance surface combatants’ offensive firepower, as well as high-energy lasers, railguns, new projectiles for traditional guns, and cyber and electronic-warfare systems that could change the way we do air and missile defense.
Taken together, these emerging concepts and capabilities suggest that our surface Navy is entering an era of growing capability and importance.
While I am pleased with the overall direction in which I see the Navy heading, I believe it is incumbent upon this subcommittee to flesh out new concepts like 'distributed lethality' and push the Navy and the Department of Defense to innovate and change the game at a faster rate. To highlight just one example, I remain dissatisfied by the lack of discernable progress toward fielding a long-range anti-ship missile. The fact that we are 'out-sticked' not only by the Chinese, but by the export variant of our own Harpoon missile, is unacceptable.
In closing, I want to note that talk of game-changing concepts and capabilities and broader 'offset strategies' should not distract us from the inescapable realities of naval warfare: that quantity still has a quality all its own, and that for all our advanced technology, an American ship our aircraft can still only be in one place at one time.
That said, I think we should be doing everything in our power to multiply the effectiveness of our scarce naval forces; maintain our qualitative edge; and sustain America’s command of the seas."
