While the Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2014 Budget might be a very descriptive title for this fiscal report by the Navy, it is more widely known as the Navy Budget Highlights Book FY14. For those that find themselves wondering how “Big” Navy works the topics of the Fiscal Year (FY) often drive the major decisions of senior leaders. This nearly $1.4M dollar* FY14 Navy Budget Highlights Book serves to layout, in plain english, the labyrinth known as the Navy Budget process. The FY14 Navy Budget Highlights Book lays out the U.S. Navy’s budget process, the strategic thought behind budget allocations, and the mission requirements driving the funding decisions.
The FY14 Navy Budget Highlights Book sets the context by opening its first section with:
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 President’s Budget (PB) reflects a strategic direction grounded in the reality of the nation’s fiscal challenges. As we transition from today’s conflicts, we must position the Navy-Marine Corps team for the challenges of tomorrow.
Section I – Department of the Navy: Operating in a Fiscally-Driven Frontier
OPERATE EFFECTIVELY in CYBERSPACE and SPACE – The Navy created Fleet Cyber Command/Tenth Fleet to conduct full spectrum operations in and through cyberspace to ensure Navy and Joint/Coalition Freedom of Action. The Navy must organize, train, and resource a credible workforce of cyber professionals and develop forward-leaning, interoperable, and resilient cyberspace capabilities to successfully counter and defeat a determined adversary in cyberspace. The Navy’s ability to operate and maintain secure and reliable networks is critical to every warfare area and all aspects of daily operations. The Naval forces provide unique physical access to global cyberspace that can be operated remotely in coordination with national capabilities and operations. The Department will continue to work with allies and invest in additional capabilities to defend its networks, operational capability, and resiliency.
Department of the Navy Objectives (and resultantly the Section titles)
- Take Care of Our People
- Maintain Warfighter Readiness
- Lead the Nation in Sustainable Energy
- Promote Acquisition Excellence and Integrity
- Dominate in Unmanned Systems
- Drive Innovative Enterprise Transformation
Total Obligation Authority (TOA) for the FY 2014 Department of the Navy baseline
budget is $155.8 billion.
Section II –The Continuing Challenge in the Middle East Security Environment
Major elements of the FY13 budget include:
- Operating Support
- Depot Maintenance
- Naval Aircraft
- Marine Corps Ground Equipment
- Navy Ground Equipment
- Weapons and Ammunition
- Research and Development
Section III –Taking Care of Our People
Active Navy Personnel (FY14 target)
- Officers 53,400
- Enlisted 265,878
- Midshipman 4,322
Education and Training – Today’s Navy is the most modern and technically superior Navy in the world. Our ability to outperform our adversaries on the sea, in the air, below the sea and on land requires a highly educated, trained, skilled, and disciplined force.
Active Marine Corps Personnel (FY14 target)
- Officers 20,570
- Enlisted 161,530
Civilian Personnel (FY14 Full Time Equivalent (FTE))
- Total DoN (USN and USMC Services) 214,406
- Navy 190,373
- Marine Corps 24,033
Emphasis on regaining technical expertise, depth, and business/contracting skills necessary to execute acquisition programs remains a priority within the Department. CYBER growth is commensurate with the demands of National Security priorities.
Section IV – Maintaining Warfighter Readiness in an Era of Reduced Budgets
FY14 Navy Budget Highlights Book describes that the Department will maintain strong, agile and capable military forces. Operational readiness is the catalyst that brings naval power to bear whenever it is needed. Our budget supports requirements for our Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs), Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs), and Marine Expeditionary Forces (MEFs) to execute the National Military Strategy and respond to persistent as well as emerging threats.
In FY 2014 six battle force ships will be delivered: one Nuclear Attack Submarine (SSN), one Surface Combatant Destroyer (DDG), one Amphibious Warfare Assault Ship (LHA), two Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSVs), and one Mobile Landing Platform (MLP).
Sixteen battle force ships will be retired: seven Frigates (FFGs), three Cruisers (CGs), one Nuclear Attack Submarine (SSN), one Amphibious Warfare Transport Dock (LPD), two Amphibious Dock Landing Ships (LSDs), one Mine Countermeasures Ship (MCM), and one Combat Logistics Ship (T-AOE).
Battle Force Ships (FY14 target) – 273
Total Sealift Capacity (FY14 target in millions of square feet) – 14.9
Primary Authorized Aircraft (PAA) – Active (FY14 target) – 3,136 total.
- Navy 2,031
- Marine Corps 1,105
Section V – Investing Toward the Joint Force of 2020
The FY14 Navy Budget Highlights Book describes the shipbuilding budget funds, which are approximately $84.7 billion for 41 ships
across FY 2014 to FY 2018.
Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP)- In response to current threats, the budget requests $132 million for continuing research and development efforts associated with SEWIP, which provides enhance electronic warfare (EW) capabilities to both existing and new ship based combat systems. These capabilities will improve anti-ship missile defense, counter targeting, and counter surveillance activities. SEWIP Block 2 will develop an upgraded antenna, receiver, and combat system interface for the currently installed AN/SLQ-32 EW suite, providing improved detection, accuracy, and mitigation of electronic interference. SEWIP Block 3 will add an electronic attack (EA) capability to the AN/SLQ-32 EW suite, providing an EA transmitter, array, and advanced techniques. These system improvements will ensure the Department keeps pace with the antiship missile threat.
The FY 2014 budget continues to support the goal of transforming the force with unmanned vehicles by investing in a broad range of unmanned platforms in support of Joint Force and Combatant Commander demands for increased ISR capability and capacity. These programs support the warfighter by providing a persistent ISR capability through the continued development, acquisition, and fielding of UAV systems such as the MQ-8 Vertical Take Off and Landing Tactical UAV (VTUAV) and MQ-4 Triton UAS. Additionally, the Department is funding future unmanned development, including the technology demonstration of the Navy Unmanned Combat Aerial System (UCAS) X-47B and the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike system development.
The Standard Missile (SM) program replaces less effective, obsolete inventories with the more capable SM-6 Extended Range Active Missile. The SM-6 high speed/ high altitude missile program started Full Rate Production in FY 2013. The SM-6 and its associated Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter Air (NIFCA-CA) will provide the capability to employ these missiles at their maximum kinematic range. NIFC-CA exploits capabilities inherent in existing systems, optimizes current and emerging technologies in component system upgrades, integrates them together, and performs kill chain tests, forming an interoperable System of Systems to maximize future air defense capabilities. The Department of Navy has focused on its efforts to integrate the “From The Sea” kill chain consisting of the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, CEC, AEGIS, and SM-6 missile. Investments in advanced technology such as the SM-6 and its associated NIFC-CA capabilities will enable the Navy to keep pace with the evolving threat and thereby continue to maintain our conventional warfare edge.
Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System II (APKWS II) provides a relatively inexpensive, small, lightweight, precision guided weapon that is effective against soft and lightly armored targets and which enhances crew survivability with increased standoff range. APKWS II offers precision, maximum kills per aircraft sortie, minimum potential for collateral damage, and increased effectiveness over legacy unguided rockets. The Department will continue with its third year of full rate production in FY 2014.
Networks and C4I Programs:
Described in the FY14 Navy Budget Highlights Book are the major acquisition programs which support the Plan to Achieving Information Dominance are as follows:
The Navy’s Command, Control, Communication, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) programs are the backbone of naval combat capability. In concert with C4I, cyberspace capabilities are critical to achieving DON objectives in every warfighting domain and enterprise business model. The Department of Defense is undergoing a significant transformation in organization, structure, and alignment to enable the full range of operations in cyberspace. The associated cyberspace mission areas of computer network operations and Information Assurance will be enabled by common technologies and must be highly synchronized. DON is reducing information technology (IT) infrastructure cost and cyber vulnerabilities by consolidating Enterprise IT contracts and data centers, as well as improving IT governance.
The Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN) will improve upon the successes of NMCI. A significant distinction is that NGEN will ultimately be predominately government managed and controlled. NGEN management will be more centralized to support the computing demands of the DON enterprise, and fully aligned with and supported by the respective Navy and Marine Corps network operation commands. NGEN will support net-centric operations and position the DON for transition to the Naval Networking Environment (NNE) vision for FY 2016. NGEN forms the foundation for the NNE, and will be interoperable with, and leverage, other DoD-provided Net-Centric Enterprise Services.
The DON awarded the Continuity of Services Contract (CoSC), which began on 1 October 2010, to maintain the existing Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) network services and provide for the necessary transition support for migration to NGEN. FY 2013 marks the planned transition of the CoSC to the NGEN contract. The FY 2014 budget supports the NGEN program.
The Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) program provides Navy ships and submarines with reliable, high speed local area networks at all classification levels. CANES modernizes existing afloat networks and provides the necessary infrastructure for tactical applications, systems and services required for Navy to dominate the Cyber Warfare domain. FY 2014 investment funds are for the Full Deployment contract award to procure 29 units, two units of technical training equipment (TTE), integration, associated costs for pre-installation design and activity drawings, and installation for 26 afloat units and two TTE units. In addition, funds are for Technical Insertion Software development, Developmental Testing and Follow-On Operational Testing & Evaluation on force level platforms in support of Full Deployment Decision in FY 2014.
Navy Multiband Terminal (NMT) is the replacement for existing protected and wideband military SATCOM terminals. The program provides Navy units with the ability to access the next generation of military SATCOM satellites. The system also provides increased capacity, mitigates service denial in a jamming environment and supports execution of the Ballistic Missile Defense mission. The common suite of equipment simplifies logistics support while reducing the footprint of equipment on space constrained ships and submarines. FY 2014 funds will support procurement of 45 units and the installation of 29 units.
The advanced Ultra High Frequency (UHF) Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) development and procurement funding continues in the FY 2014 budget, supporting full operational capability in FY 2017. MUOS will provide the DoD’s UHF satellite communication capability for the 21st century.
Section VI – Revitalizing the Force Ashore
Section VII – Driving Innovative Enterprise Transformation
Do you understand the different “colors” of Department of Defense funds?
Section VIII – Derivation of FY 2013 Estimates
*Preparation of this study/report cost the Department of Defense a total of approximately $1,399,000 for the 2013 Fiscal Year. This includes $71,000 in expenses and $1,328,000 in DoD labor. This means that $71K was expended separately to create this report in conjunction with the financial data created from more than $1.3M in labor costs.
[via Navy Finance]
Incoming search terms:apkws acquisition decision memorandum, APKWS funding zeroed FY14, navy counter adversary isr roadmap see, Navy FY14 Budget Documents, navy IT information technology budget 2014, NIFCA E-2D
Do you understand how the Navy plans to achieve Information Dominance as conveyed in the U.S. Navy’s Information Dominance Roadmap 2013-2028? Do you understand how the Plan to achieve Information Dominance supports the CNO’s Tenets?
The Roadmap highlights the plan to achieve Information Dominance through:
- Assured Command and Control (C2) – will require a more robust, protected, resilient and reliable information infrastructure that undergirds the Navy’s overall information environment and allow uninterrupted worldwide communication between deployed units and forces ashore. Navy’s information infrastructure must be able to maintain essential network and data link services across secured segments of the electromagnetic spectrum in order to transport, share, store, protect and disseminate critical combat information.
- Battlespace Awareness – will require enhanced information content, advanced means to rapidly sense, collect, process, analyze, evaluate and exploit intelligence regarding our adversaries and the operating environment. Our information content will serve as the basis from which nearly all decisions will be made, enabling our forces to more effectively maneuver and coordinate actions that target and engage enemy forces.
- Integrated Fires – will require new capabilities to fully employ integrated information in warfare by expanding the use of advanced electronic warfare and offensive cyber effects to complement existing and planned air, surface and subsurface kinetic weapons within the battlespace. Future information effects will be designed to impact and change adversary behavior, or when necessary, to control, manipulate, deny, degrade or destroy his warfighting capabilities.
The Navy is pursuing improved information-based capabilities, to achieve Information Dominance, that will enable it to prevail in the higher-threat, information-intensive combat environments of the 21st Century. This document outlines challenges anticipated over the next 15 years in the operating and information environments, and highlights long-term opportunities for fully integrating Navy’s information-related activities, resources, processes and capabilities to optimize warfighting effects and maintain decision superiority across the spectrum of warfare. The Navy’s plans to achieve Information Dominance by: 1) assuring command and control (C2) for our deployed forces regardless of the threat environment; 2) enhancing battlespace awareness to shorten the decision cycle inside that of the adversary and to better understand the maritime operating environment; and, 3) fully integrating traditional kinetic and emerging non-kinetic fires to expand warfighting options to both Navy and Joint commanders. To accomplish these plans, today’s current information-based capabilities involving Assured C2, Battlespace Awareness, and Integrated Fires will require continual changes and improvements in a number of diverse areas.
Are you supporting the plan to achieve Information Dominance? Looking for additional IDC and Navy Strategy documents? Check out Navy Cyber Power 2020 which supports the Navy Strategy for Achieving Information Dominance, additional related supporting documents include: the Navy Information Dominance Roadmap, 2013-2028; the Navy IDC Human Capital Strategy, 2012-2017; the Naval Intelligence Strategy, 2013-2020; and, the 2013 Navy Space Strategy. Within this integrated framework, the Navy begins in earnest the process of marshaling its resources, galvanizing the workforce, and aligning Navy’s Information Dominance capabilities to fully enable the Navy’s primary tenet of Warfighting First.
[via TENTH FLEET]
If you have taken the time to read Imminent Domain by Admiral Jonathan Greenert you understand the priority of the Electromagnetic Spectrum (EMS) and Cyberspace Operations set by the Chief of Naval Operations. The U.S. Navy has recently explored numerous options while conducting a Massive Multiplayer Online Wargame Leveraging the Internet (MMOWGLI) on Electromagnetic Maneuver. What wasn’t focused on was the larger ramifications the U.S. Political system has on the options available to the Navy and Department of Defense (DoD).
The White House plan expands access of the EMS for innovation growth and commercial use; the DoD plan has demonstrated increasing reliance on the EMS. While the DoD supports the “national economic and security goals” of the Nation it is facing another “do more, with less” scenario as massive capability growth depends on dwindling allocations of the EMS. As Mr. Lawrence Lessig points out (at about 8:20) individuals in the U.S. Government (USG) have attempted to deregulate portions of the EMS in recent history. Why did the deregulation attempt fail? Lessig conveys that it was due to the massive and self perpetuating ecosystem created by the current day U.S. Political System.
So the causal argument consists of:
- Navy is unable to support the missions assigned by the DoD which are dependent on the EMS; because
- the DoD is not able to provide adequate ability to leverage enough of the EMS for warfighting; because
- the DoD must comply with the Federal Regulations which govern use of the Nation’s EMS; because
- the EMS is still allocated in an antiquated fashion; because
- the USG is no longer capable of affecting positive change to advance National interests; because
- the National interests are determined by politicians elected within the current political system; because
- the political system cannot be reformed by the politicians who respond to the demands of the voting populous; because
- the voting populous is only able to vote for those that the funders fund; because
- the funders fund only those candidates which support their personal interests.
Interesting isn’t it? I believe Mr. Lessig is on to something; Political Reform is my first priority. What do you think? What is your “first priority?”
Incoming search terms:us spectrum
Follow A Cyber Fellow on Twitter!
Just wet my pants a lil... http://t.co/pzgOKWLt6Y