June 15, 2017
Toward an “Open Source” Maritime Force Structure
The U.S. Navy’s updated Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower outlines several key themes and areas of development for the sea services as they continue the transition from the focus on the land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.1 Some are new, a few are traditional, and several provide an interesting perspective on previously gestating concepts. One item of particular interest, and the focus herein, is the call to “expand the practice of employing adaptive force packages, which tailor naval capabilities to specific regional environments.”2 This seems like something that should be fairly intuitive, something that should evolve naturally as the sea services adapt to new and challenging circumstances. However, the argument here is meant to suggest something broader, a more conceptual rethink of how the maritime services, collectively, develop and deploy force structure packages. In short, all three maritime services should work toward the creation of an integrated, open framework for force development and deployment. A framework which replaces the practice of haphazard or incoherent deployment of assets, deployments with little or no connection between platforms deployed and overarching strategic aims. Abandoning a practice that indelicately pushes standardized—one size fits most—force packages into meeting unique operational requirements, and instead develop a system that identifies operational requirements and allows the relevant services (even when acting in concert with partner nations) to more precisely match particular capabilities to unique operational requirements.
An open source framework that incorporates the entire panoply of American maritime assets could radically improve the ability of service and theater commanders to make the most of available resources in responding to the necessities of policy and operational planning. At the same time, such a framework would translate the nuts and bolts of operational planning into a strategy-driven budgetary and policymaking process. Breaking the often-bemoaned cycle of budget planning driving strategy, the two would essentially become mutually reinforcing.
The full report is available online.
Author
-
Nicholas C. Prime
More from CNAS
-
Tariffs & and the Defense Industrial Base with Becca Wasser, plus what’s new in the U.S.-China trade war
Podcast
Geoff and Emily debrief on the latest news in the U.S.-China trade talks. Becca Wasser, senior fellow and deputy director of the CNAS defense program, joins to talk about what...
By Emily Kilcrease, Geoffrey Gertz & Becca Wasser
-
Production Power: The Revitalisation of the U.S. Defence Industrial Base and the Consequences for Europe
Podcast
In episode 15 of Strategy Speaks, Becca Wasser from CNAS speaks with Daniel Fiott about the US defence industrial base and how its revitalisation could affect Europe. The conv...
By Becca Wasser
-
MWI Podcast: The U.S. Defense Industrial Base, from Steel to Software
Podcast
Mobilizing the U.S. defense industrial base. for a future large-scale conflict, however, will look very different than it has in the past. In the information age, data and sof...
By Becca Wasser
-
‘Spider’s Web’ Warning: The U.S. Must Prioritize Drone Defense to Avoid Russia’s Fate
Commentary
This attack is wake-up call for US military: its counter-drone efforts are inadequate and are not keeping pace with the threat....
By Stacie Pettyjohn & Molly Campbell
