News

“The Navy’s idea was much more about, the F-35 has a command and control node that might be part of a strike package that’s mostly F/A-18s rather than F-35s doing a whole strike mission by themselves, which is what the Air Force model might be,” Bryan Clark, naval analyst Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) and former special assistant to past Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert, told USNI News on Friday.

“We’re going to use the F-35 more as an enabler and a strike lead and as a command and control platform than as a fighter platform on its own.”

“Bilden has a wide range of experience that could help in the SECNAV position,” said Bryan Clark, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “He served in the military, was successful in business, and is knowledgeable of and experienced in Asia’s politics and economics. His efforts on the USNA Foundation and NWC Foundation Boards indicate a commitment to the Navy and should have provided him the opportunity to better understand the challenges and opportunities facing today’s naval forces. He has an impressive academic record at Georgetown and Harvard, which should give him a good foundation in international relations and its implications for business and economics.

How does Bilden’s background compare to the nine men who’ve held the office of Navy Secretary since 1980? “I believe he has as much relevant experience for SECNAV as recent SECNAVs when they came into office.” said Bryan Clark, a retired Navy commander and a former aide to the Chief of Naval Operations. “Ray Mabus was a naval officer for one tour, but didn’t have much to do with the Navy and military after that until he became SECNAV. Donald Winter and Gordon England were engineers and defense business executives before entering office. Bilden’s experience and education in international 

Thomas Mahnken, head of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, says both conventional and nuclear forces need to be rebuilt instead of favoring one over the other. The U.S. has historically relied more on strategic nuclear weapons during periods of lower defense spending and spent less on those systems during conventional buildups. But after 15 years of counterinsurgency warfare in the Middle East and recent drawdowns at a time of heightened conflict in Iraq and Syria, both forces need rebuilding, Mahnken says, particularly because Russia and China have gained ground militarily. “We are now in a period characterized by the reality of great‐power competition and the increasing possibility of great‐power conflict,” he says. “The ‘wars of the future’ may no longer lie that far in the future.”

"Trying to bring in cyber expertise through the reserve component is part of it," responded Thomas Mahnken, a former DOD official and current president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "I think more broadly, military...tends to accord rank with seniority with pay, and in the cyber world, certainly in the private industry, those things don't always align."Mahnken said that Congress must think about granting more authorities to the services that would increase the flexibility to attract talented people from the private sector.

The irony is “our drawdown has occurred when we’re at war,” Thomas Mahnken, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said. Now, in high-end warfare and in a time of increased great power competition, he added, “We’ve given [Russia and China] a decade and a half to catch up” and “that includes our nuclear deterrent.” At the same time by not investing in the future, there “are few programs ready right now to accept funds.” He specifically mentioned growing the size of the fleet to at least 350 ships as one of those programs that “cannot be accomplished in four or eight years” and will required sustained investment. Mahnken, in answer to a later question, called for a return to a strategy of being able to fight and win two major regional conflicts at nearly the same time. “We always want to have that margin of security.” During the campaign, President Donald Trump said expanding the size of the fleet and increasing defense spending were among his top national security priorities. While both Russia and China are seeking to become regional hegemons, they are pursuing that goal in different ways. Wood said Russia is using a more militaristic approach — backing separatists in Georgia and eastern Ukraine and seizing Crimea. Beijing’s leaders “see China as a rising power” economically, diplomatically and militarily. China poses “a much greater challenge” than Russia whose economy is hurting, Mahnken added. China’s leaders “believe [disputed territory] already belongs to them” in eastern India, islands near Japan and artificial islands in the South China Sea and Taiwan and believe they can get their way through economic intimidation.