Carrier: A Guided Tour of an Aircraft Carrier

Hand on the Helm: An Interview with Admiral Jay Johnson

During the long history of the U.S. Navy, there have been many inspirational examples of individuals coming out of nowhere at the time of need to lead ships, planes, and fleets on to victory. During the American Civil War, for example, a bearded, bespectacled gnome of an officer named Lieutenant John Worden took a new and untried little ship named the Monitor into battle. When Worden faced the mighty Confederate ironclad ram Virginia at Hampton Roads in 1862, his actions with the Monitor saved the Union frigate Minnesota, the Union blockade fleet, and General George McClellan's army from destruction.[14] More importantly, his inspired use of the little turreted ironclad forever changed the course of naval design technology, and made the wooden ship obsolete forever. There are other examples.

A mere half century ago, the United States Pacific Fleet was nearly destroyed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Within days of the raid that brought the United States into World War II, a gravelly-voiced, leather-faced Texan named Chester Nimitz was picked to lead what was left of the Pacific Fleet against the powerful forces of Imperial Japan. Nimitz's early Naval service (mostly spent quietly in the "pig boats" that the U.S. Navy passed off as submarines in those days) gave no indication that he was the man for the job. Nor did his later career in virtually invisible jobs at obscure (to ordinary folks) places like the Bureau of Navigation add much to that aura. When he was made CINCPAC (Commander in Chief of the Pacific), few Americans outside of his friends in the Navy even knew the man's name. With fleet morale shattered by the events at Pearl Harbor, he hardly seemed an inspiring choice.

That opinion began to change almost immediately, when Nimitz retained many of the staff officers present at Pearl Harbor, rather than cashiering them and bringing in his own people. The men responded with total loyalty, and many were instrumental in the subsequent Allied victory in the Pacific. His action in retaining these officers, even though some commanders would have gotten rid of them for their perceived "responsibility" for the disaster, proved to be the first of an unbroken string of brilliant personnel, planning, and operational decisions. These eventually brought Nimitz to the deck of the USS Missouri (BB-63) in 1945 as the Navy's representative to accept the Japanese surrender.

Though the Navy has been blessed with many fine leaders in its illustrious history, all the successes of the past are meaningless unless it can serve effectively today and in the future. The late 1980s and early 1990s have tested the faith of even the most fervent U.S. Navy supporters. Following what some felt was a mediocre performance during Desert Storm in 1991, the Navy suffered a string of public relations "black eyes" that included the infamous 1991 Tailhook scandal. There was worse to come. In the spring of 1996, after a media frenzy and an intense round of public criticism over both his handling of personnel matters and his own character, the popular Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Admiral Mike Boorda, died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. The suicide of this much-admired sailor cast a pall over the entire fleet; and many in and out of the Navy began to question the quality of Navy leadership. Clearly, it was time for a top-notch leader to step up and take the helm. The man selected to take over as Chief of Naval Operations was actually much closer at hand than some would have thought-in fact, just a few doors away in the office of the Vice Chief of Naval Operations. Admiral Jay Johnson would soon start the Navy back on the road to excellence.

Johnson, a career naval aviator and fighter pilot, has quietly served his country and his Navy for more than three decades. A slim and trim officer who looks years younger than his age, Johnson is a quiet and sometimes shy man. But the quiet demeanor is something of a smoke screen. This man is a "doer," who has chosen to make the hard decisions that will give the U.S. Navy a real future in the 21st century. Johnson is a passionate man, one who cares deeply about his country, his Navy, and the sailors who serve under him. He channels all that emotion into one goal: to build the U.S. Navy into a superb fighting machine, an organization that is once again the envy of military officers everywhere in the world.

Jay L. Johnson came into the world in Great Falls, Montana, on June 5th, 1946. The son of a soldier in the Army Air Corps, he spent the bulk of his youth in West Salem, Wisconsin. Let's let him tell the story of his journey into naval service:

Tom Clancy: Could you please tell us a little about your background and Navy career?

Admiral Johnson: I was born in Montana. My dad was serving there at the time. I didn't stay there long-only about a year. I spent the rest of my youth in Wisconsin, in a little town with a lake near it, not far from the headwaters of the Mississippi River. That's the total exposure to water that I had in my early years.

Tom Clancy: What made you choose the Navy as a career?

Admiral Johnson: I'd been intrigued by the military service academies as I was growing up. I had a distant relative who had gone to West Point, and was thinking about applying there myself. Then I went to a Boy Scout National Jamboree out in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in what is now the Black Forest, just down the road from the Air Force Academy. It was in 1960, I believe, about a year after the Air Force Academy had come into being. As part of our stay, we were invited to a tour there. We also got to see a show by the Thunderbirds [the Air Force precision-flight demonstration team]. As I watched that performance, and looked at that academy, I said to myself, "I can do this!" When I returned home, I decided that I'd apply to the Air Force Academy. Before I did so, I found that I had an option to go to the Naval Academy at Annapolis. I looked into it, found out a bit about carrier aviation, and decided that was what I wanted. I took that opportunity, and here I am.

Tom Clancy: Did you have any particular "defining" experiences while at the Academy?

Admiral Johnson: Well… I got to watch Roger Staubach [the great Naval Academy and Dallas Cowboys star quarterback] play football. On a more serious note, the most striking thing I remember about my time there is how close my company mates and I became. To this day, we're inseparable. A lot of them are still in the Navy today. Admiral Willie Moore, who is the USS Independence [CV-62] battle group commander, was a company mate of mine. My former roommate is the Naval attache to India. Rear Admiral Paul Gaffney, who is the Chief of Naval Research, was also in my company. These are just a few of the people I met at the Academy who are special to me personally.

Tom Clancy: Were there other notable members of the Academy classes while you were there?

Admiral Johnson: Guys like Ollie North and Jim Webb [the former Secretary of the Navy]-and of course Roger Staubach from the class of '65. I have always admired him. Even then, he was a man of great integrity, courage, and superb physical prowess. What I see of Roger today matches exactly what I saw then. It's nice to see a guy who is that solid early in his life, remain so through a highly visible career, retirement, and new career.

Tom Clancy: You graduated during the depths of the Vietnam conflict [1968]. Were you immediately sent out to flight school and into the Replacement Air Group [RAG]?

Admiral Johnson: Well, they did move us through at a nice pace, though I don't remember it being any kind of "rush" job. I went through flight training in pretty much a normal time frame. I got my wings in October of 1969. From there I headed out to San Diego and NAS Miramar to learn to fly the F-8 Crusader.

Tom Clancy: You must have been there with some living legends, men like "Hot Dog" Brown and Jim "Ruff" Ruffelson, right?

Admiral Johnson: Yes, they were there. Being one of the F-8 "MiG Killers" was kind of the unusual for a new guy back then. It was the time when a lot of the guys fresh out of the Academy were getting orders to F-4's [Phantom IIs], and most of us were lined up to get into the Phantom community because they were new and they were hot! More than a few of us wound up flying F-8's though, and in retrospect it was the best thing that ever happened to me. The F-8 was an awesome airplane. And, as good as the airplane was, the community of people who flew and supported it was even better. We're all still pretty tight. We have F-8 Crusader reunions every year.

Tom Clancy: Could you tell us a little about your experiences in the Crusader?

Admiral Johnson: I had about a thousand hours in the Crusader. I did two combat cruises to Vietnam in VF-191 aboard the USS Oriskany [CVA-34], in 1970 and 1972. As I recall, we went out for a long cruise, came back for a short time, and then did an even longer cruise. In all that time, I only had one backseat ride in a Phantom. I think I may be one of the few naval aviators of my generation who has never flown an F-4. From the Crusader I went straight into the F-14 Tomcat.

Tom Clancy: From your record, it looks like you spent the majority of your career in the Tomcat community.

Admiral Johnson: That's right. I did my department head tour and my squadron command tour in Tomcats. However, when I went to become an air wing commander, I tried to fly most of the air wing airplanes. The planes I flew back then included the A-7 Corsair, which is like a stubby-nosed cousin to the F-8 without an afterburner. I also flew the A-6 Intruder. Later, on my second CAG [Commander, Air Group-the traditional nickname for an Air Wing Commander dating back to the beginnings of carrier aviation], on my battle group command tour, I wound up flying the F/A-18 Hornet. I still remember flying the F-8, though. Your first jet assignment is like your first love. It's where everything is defined for you.

Tom Clancy: Following your time in F-8's, you seem to have spent most of your time in the East Coast units. Is that correct?

Admiral Johnson: It's correct, but it really wasn't a conscious decision on my part. I guess it just worked out that way. Initially, when I learned to fly the Tomcat, I headed back out to the West Coast and went through the F-14 RAG [Replacement Air Group], VF-124. Then I was moved back to the East Coast, where I have pretty much stayed ever since.

Tom Clancy: Obviously, you spent an eventful couple of decades with the fleet in the 1970's and 80's. Can you tell us a few of the things that stand out in your mind?

Admiral Johnson: The Vietnam experience stands out, of course. The operations against Libya in the 80's were interesting-Operations Prairie Fire and Eldorado Canyon [the bombing of Libya in April 1986]. I was in and out of there several times during that period. I also remember the day that Commander Hank Kleeman and the guys from VF-41 [the Black Aces] "splashed" two Libyan Sukhois back in [August] 1981. I was sitting in flight deck control [on the USS Nimitz [CVN-68], getting ready to man up and recycle one of the combat air patrol [CAP] stations. The plan was to land the first pair of F-14 Tomcats. Then I was going to be part of the second "go" of the day. It was announced over the 1MC [the master public address system on board the ship] that something "big" had just happened. When the two F-14's that had shot down the two Libyan fighter-bombers got back aboard, everyone wanted to look at the planes and see what had happened.

Tom Clancy: You came into this job [as Chief of Naval Operations, or CNO] at a time of great crisis and turmoil for the Navy. Among other issues, Admiral Boorda's death was a great blow to the Navy. What were the important things that you had to do when you arrived?

Admiral Johnson: It was important to me to make sure, because of Admiral Boorda's reputation as a sailor in the fleet, that the officers and sailors in the fleet knew that things were going to be "O.K." I sent out an "all hands" message to that effect, and spent the next eight or nine months traveling around the world to get the message out to the people in the fleet.

Tom Clancy: As CNO, you seem to have a unique working partnership with Secretary of the Navy John Dalton, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Charles "Chuck" Krulak. Can you tell us about that relationship?

Admiral Johnson: As you know, before I got here, Secretary Dalton made the decision to relocate the Commandant of the Marine Corps and most of his staff from the old Navy Annex up the hill to the E-Ring of the Pentagon. So now Secretary Dalton's office is bracketed by the Commandant's office on one side, and the CNO's on the other. He's got us in stereo! The decision to move the Marine Corps Commandant was a powerful one, in my opinion. The relationship between Secretary Dalton and Chuck Krulak was already in place even before I arrived. When I got here as Vice CNO, and particularly as I made the transition to CNO, both men were very understanding, supportive, and helpful. I could not have asked for a better welcome.

Tom Clancy: It sounds like the three of you have forged a special working relationship on this end of the E-Ring corridor. Is that true?

Admiral Johnson: The short answer is yes! These relationships work very well due to a number of factors. First of all, Chuck Krulak and I are friends. He and I are close personally, as are our wives. That's a good start to a professional relationship, but there's more to it than that. We share some important common goals. For example, we are both making a concerted effort to lead our sailors and marines to work well together in this age of cooperation and coordination between the various branches of the military. I mean, how the hell are you going to do that, if the top sailor and marine can't get along?The relevance of the sea services, both the Navy and the Marine Corps, is that we're the forward presence for our country in virtually any military operation. We're there first, and we're out last. It's essential that we coordinate our forces to do the job as well as it can be done. We're proud of our mission, proud of our people, and proud of our ability to do the job together. That's the strength that we give to the country.Now, just because we're trying to work together on our various missions does not mean that the job of coordinating the Navy and the Marine Corps is an easy one, either for Chuck and me, or for the other officers and enlisted soldiers on our staffs. We work with some very challenging issues, and we aren't always able to agree completely on every point we discuss. As in any working relationship, there are occasional conflicts.

But we're committed to working through them and formulating solutions. The principles that underlie our working partnership and the friendship between Chuck and me girds it all and makes it possible for us to work through those hard decisions. This benefits both services. Both Chuck and I have the support and guidance of Secretary Dalton as well. I think we have a pretty good team.

Tom Clancy: As we all know, it's been a challenging decade for the Navy. In addition to issues like Tailhook and Admiral Boorda's death, there were real problems that had been building for over two decades. You were placed in charge of a Navy whose ships had been run hard during the Cold War years. Can you tell us a bit about the state of the fleet today?

Admiral Johnson: Despite the many challenges we're had to endure, the Navy has carried on wonderfully, in my view, in terms of reacting to the requirements that have been levied upon it. Our mission as the nation's forward-deployed force means we have to be prepared to respond at all times to any situation in which we are needed. The relevance of that mission will not change as we go into the 21 st century. I believe we are ready. That's what we do, seven days a week, 365 days a year. I think that one of the greatest challenges that we face in the Navy is reassuring the American people of the level of our commitment to the mission to serve and protect them. This is important, because for a lot of people, what we do is sort of "off of the radarscope."

Tom Clancy: Given what you have just said, how is the fleet bearing up under this extremely high Operations Tempo [Optempo]?

Admiral Johnson: That's a question that requires an answer on more than one level. There is no denying that our sailors, by the very nature of their work, spend time away from their homes and families. Some of the things that we are looking at are ways to make sure that we don't overstretch ourselves.Right now we have a policy that says that ships will have no more than six months forward-deployed at sea, from portal to portal. We're also maintaining a ratio of two-to-one for time at home port to deployed time, and no more than fifty percent of time out of home port when you are off deployment.We are adhering to that policy, and I am the only one who can waive it for any reason. In fact, whether we are standing by that policy is one of my own measures of whether we are "stretching the rubber band too tight," where people are concerned. So right now, we're OK with that situation. Now, we have had a couple of exceptions to this rule last year because of problems with ship maintenance in a yard that closed down. The result is that in terms of readiness and execution, the fleet is "answering on all bells." I want to make sure as you walk back from looking at deployment issues, that everyone is getting enough training to get ready, but not so much that their home lives suffer. We also want to make sure that the right equipment is available during training, so that the fleet fights with the same gear it trains with.

Tom Clancy: How is retention of personnel holding up?

Admiral Johnson: Retention right now is good, though there are pockets of concern in that situation. If you look, for instance, at pilot retention numbers, the aggregate numbers, they're great. They're not even worth talking about today. There is no problem there. Within that community, though, if you "peel that onion" back a layer, we're beginning to see that we need to pay attention to the attrition rates of some kinds of air crews.In my view, these situations are not developing just because the airlines are hiring. The airlines are always hiring, and will continue to hire. That's a reality that we can't change. But I do think that part of this softness in community retention is based upon the "turnaround" and non-deployed side of a Naval career.In particular, we need to make sure that we're not keeping people too far from home for too much time doing temporary kinds of assignments. We need to make sure that we don't have backlogs in aircraft and equipment depot maintenance, so that our crews have enough airplanes to fly during turnarounds and workups. We also have to pay attention to the matter of funding enough flying hours to keep our people sharp. Let's face it, junior officers [JOs] never get enough flight hours. I know that I didn't as a young aviator, and I don't know anyone who did. We've still got some work to do in that area.These "soft" community areas are not just limited to naval aviation. We've got some year groups in the submarine community that we're watching carefully, as well as some in the surface warfare professionals. Overall, though, we're OK. On the enlisted side the numbers are excellent, and most significantly, the high quality of personnel is there.These days, we're having to work very hard to get that quality, and it's a real challenge. The goal of our recruiting is to have ninety-five-percent high school graduates, with sixty-five percent of those recruits in the top mental group in their classes. When we achieve that, it's good for the fleet, and we're committed to achieving that.However, the competition for that part of the labor market is really intense out there. Given the pressures of a healthy economy, I think that it's going to be more and more of a challenge. The really good young men and women out there-the ones who are really smart and talented-everybody wants them. Frankly, while I can offer them a lot, there are other folks who can offer them more of things like money. Still, there are wonderful and patriotic young folks who take up the challenge, and we work hard to find them and keep them in the fleet.Trust me when I say that the recruiting challenges will not go away. Remember, back in the Cold War we had to bring around 100,000 new recruits a year into the fleet to fill our needs. Today, even in a time of relative peace, we still need between 45,000 and fifty thousand new bsailors every year to keep our force healthy and running.

Tom Clancy: You just mentioned the end of the Cold War. Can you tell us something about the challenges that you and the fleet have faced in light of the end of the East/West conflict?

Admiral Johnson: I think that one of the biggest challenges that the Navy has is to make sure that our nation still has an appreciation for the value of the sea services, especially within the citizenry and the Congress. I think we need to educate the public to understand that while we have a great Navy now, it takes a lot of effort and money to keep it that way. Another challenge the Navy has been faced with in the last few years has been overcoming the public perceptions left by Tailhook. I believe that we've made great strides since then.

Tom Clancy: Do you feel that the challenges that the Navy had to face as a result of Tailhook and other incidents have helped the sea services deal better with the issues of women in the force?

Admiral Johnson: Yes, I do. Since we were the first of the services forced to confront the gender-related issues that the other military departments face right now, I hope and truly believe that we have learned from those hard experiences and are better for them. We needed to change the ways that we were doing business in many respects, and I think that we have, and I'm proud of that. I believe that we have a much better and stronger force today than we did before Tailhook.

Tom Clancy: Let's talk a little more about the roles and missions that the Navy is undertaking in the post-Cold War world. For example, with the decline of the Russian fleet, what have you got the submarine force doing?

Admiral Johnson: We actually have some exciting things coming up for the submarine force. The New Attack Submarine [NSSN] program is underway, and Seawolf [SSN-21] has been commissioned. As far as the submarine mission is concerned, it is much more diverse than during the Cold War. Their main mission is still undersea warfare and antisubmarine warfare [ASW]. Today that mission is less predictable than it was during the Cold War, but challenging nonetheless.The "big water" ASW mission is still a part of our lives, but these days littoral [inshore] ASW is an even bigger and emerging piece of that mission. I might add that inshore operations bring with them a whole new set of challenges. Our submarine force is today involved in strike warfare, reconnaissance, special operations, and lots of other things. The community is being reshaped to reflect all of these new missions, and remains a valuable and viable part of the fleet. And even though today's Russian submarine force is not the Soviet fleet of the Cold War era, I feel strongly that we must maintain sufficient capability to deal with it. With all of that factored in, our force of submarines is still going to shrink. We have around seventy SSNs today, and we'll probably drop to around fifty-five in the next few years.

Tom Clancy: The doctrinal move of the sea services to specialize on the littoral regions has been going on for some time now and the force seems to have adapted well. Can you please tell us your views on how the transition from a "blue water" Navy to an inshore focus has gone?

Admiral Johnson: The transition has gone extremely well, though the Navy has always concentrated on that mission to some degree. You have to remember that the majority of the world's capitals and much of its population reside close to the shores of the world's oceans. Because of that, the Navy has always been tasked for littoral warfare. We kept the littoral missions at the forefront of our planning and preparation throughout this century.During the Cold War years that mission was somewhat overshadowed by open ocean missions. With the demise of the Soviet Union, what we call" blue water" missions have declined in importance somewhat. Overall, I think we're ideally tasked to meet the challenges of the new century with the force that we have today and the force that we're building for tomorrow. This includes systems like the land attack destroyer variant of the SC-21 escort design that we're currently designing.

Tom Clancy: So does this mean that the mission of the U.S. Navy in the 21 st century is going to be like that of the Royal Navy in the 19th century? In other words, showing the flag, keeping the peace, and letting the locals know that we're there?

Admiral Johnson: There's certainly a lot of that in our future plans. I think that the way that we would describe our mission in the Navy is that we plan to shape the environment or battle space. We will do that through forward presence. I might also add that we will do that while carrying the full spectrum of weapons, sensors, and other tools that we need, so that the national leadership does not have to wait for the action to be joined. That is critical because, as I like to say, there is no substitute for being there.The Navy has to be there and ready to trigger whatever kind of response might be required by a rapidly developing situation. That response might be little, it might be big. In one context we're the enabling force for follow-on units, and in another we're the striking power all by ourselves for whatever might be going on in a particular area. Our mission is always situational. There are times when we'll do port visits and paint schoolhouses. That's a part of our job. But we are also ready to kick somebody's ass if that's required. So to that degree, your Royal Navy analogy is quite valid.

Tom Clancy: One major change in how the military is doing business today compared to the past is that, unlike the CNOs of just a decade ago, you don't actually command ships and planes anymore. Under Goldwater-Nichols, the various branches of the military and their assets are combined into organization "package" forces for regional commanders in chief [CinCs] to use as required by the National Command Authorities. Under the new system that came into effect in the late 1980's, the world has been divided into regions and warfare specialties, with a joint unified command and a commander in chief [CinC] assigned to each. The CinCs package forces into joint task forces [JTFs], which are the basic working unit of joint warfare. Could you tell us a little about how that process works?

Admiral Johnson: As far as the Navy goes, I'm the "organize, train, and equip guy." I get the forces ready by making sure that the Navy is well staffed, that our personnel know what they're doing, and that the machinery to support them is of the right kind and in good working order. At the appropriate time, I turn over these forces to the warfighting CinCs. While those ships and aircraft are assigned to numbered fleets and squadrons, we often have to package them in some rather unique ways, depending upon the situation and the requirements.

Tom Clancy: By that do you mean contingencies like Haiti back in 1994? I recall that you stripped two big-deck aircraft carriers of their air wings, and replaced them with a couple of aviation brigades with helicopters and troops from XVIII Airborne Corps.

Admiral Johnson: Well, since I was the Deputy Joint Task Force [JTF] Commander and naval component commander of that operation, let me give you my two cents' worth on how that all worked out. It was really interesting and, I might add, the right thing to do for that situation. I was the commander of the Second Fleet at the time, and was looking at new ways to use carriers. I took some abuse from some of my Naval aviation pals at the time, who said, "Well, there you go, Johnson. You've sold naval aviation down the river. Next thing you know you'll be putting army helicopters on aircraft carriers."The truth of the situation is that I was not threatened by that at all. If you look at what the Navy and our joint service partners were asked to do in Haiti, and you put it into the context of that particular place, at that time, against that threat, and that total scenario, what we did was damned near perfect. It really was. Almost as close to perfect as you can get. Now, the next time, in a different place and situation, doing something like that may be the dumbest idea in the world. For Haiti, though, converting the carriers was as "right on" as anyone could have asked.

Tom Clancy: Once the need for the helicopters during Operation Restore Democracy was finished, how long did it take to get the regular air groups back on board and operating normally?

Admiral Johnson: Well, let me square you on this whole process. The Eisenhower [CVN-69] had the aviation brigade from the 10th Mountain Division, and the America [CV-66] had the folks from the Army's 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment at Fort Campbell. When we were ready to change back to normal, here's what happened. First the helicopters and their personnel cleared off to the Haitian mainland, and Eisenhower turned away. I was there, and watched this with my own eyes. The carrier battle groups left Port-au-Prince harbor, motored out past the island of Guni, and before they left the operations area, both had "trapped" their Tomcats, their A-6 Intruders, and their E-2C Hawkeye support aircraft. By the time that they headed north, both carriers had fully reconstituted air groups, and made the transit home mission-ready. It was a great use of carriers, in my view.

Tom Clancy: So would you say that one of the real challenges of this post-Cold War transition has been trying to adapt the minds and thinking of people in the Navy to new ideas and concepts? Making people say "Why not?" as opposed to "Are you out of your mind?"

Admiral Johnson: Absolutely. It's hard to adjust to change. And we're all guilty of resisting it sometimes, as it turns out. I'm as bad as the rest of them, even though I like to think that I'm open-minded. I am open-minded, until you start messing with one of my ships….

Tom Clancy: Could it not be said that your willingness to be "adaptive" with those two carriers may very well help to justify continued aircraft carrier development and procurement?

Admiral Johnson: It could indeed. I can tell you for a fact that the Navy gained a whole lot of new friends in the U.S. Army as a result of that exercise. Especially when their troops found out that they did not have to eat MREs [Meals, Ready to Eat] during the mission. In fact, here's an interesting piece of trivia from the commanding officers [COs] of those two carriers. It turned out that the soldiers from the two Army aviation units liked Navy chow so much, and ate so much of it, that we had to retool the resupply schedule. The soldiers were just shoveling down all this food on board the ships. Navy chow is good!

Tom Clancy: Taking the Haiti example a bit further, it is fairly clear that since the end of the Cold War, the Navy has been used for a wide variety of roles and missions-everything from blockades and strike warfare [Persian Gulf] to rescues and humanitarian relief [Balkans and Somalia]. Given that you already do such a wide variety of things so well, what else do you want the Navy to be capable of doing in the 21st century?

Admiral Johnson: You're right, the Navy's pretty flexible! In the future, I think that you're going to see us doing some new things with the Marine Corps. We're finding new ways to organize and structure our forces to accommodate new roles and missions. One specific area that I know we'll be developing is Theater Ballistic-Missile Defense [TBMD], using our Aegis cruisers and destroyers. That's new and exciting stuff that ten years from now will be everyday business, though today it's all leading-edge technology.

Tom Clancy: Especially in the absence of a "blue water" threat, has the Navy gotten down to developing a real doctrine to go with the move to littoral warfare?

Admiral Johnson: The answer is yes, but I qualify that answer by saying that we're just at the leading edge of getting it done. At the Naval Warfare Doctrine Command, they're looking at how we can take the earlier "blue-water" doctrine of the Cold War, and embed it in a very solid way into this new reality of littoral warfare. We're trying hard to build new linkages with our various Naval academic institutions like the War College [in Newport, Rhode Island], the Postgraduate School [in Monterey, California], and even the Naval Academy [in Annapolis, Maryland], as well as in the tactical and operational sides of the fleet.

Tom Clancy: Once upon a time, not so long ago, the Navy was seen as not being a good partner in the joint warfare arena. Can you tell us, from the Navy point of view, how you view your corporation and participation in joint warfare these days?

Admiral Johnson: Frankly, I don't see any friction today. I think that's old news. As far as I'm concerned, the Navy is on the leading edge in the joint warfare business these days. In fact, we're committed to it at all levels. Here's a case in point. When we do our carrier battle group [CVBG] and amphibious ready group [ARG] workups, that's all joint. What we used to call a FLEETEX [Fleet Exercise] in the old days is now the JTFEX [Joint Task Force Exercise]. Of course, we still work within our fundamental core sea service [Navy and Marine Corps] competencies during training. But once we get into the JTFEX, it's units like the 2nd Fleet CVBG, the II MEF [Marine Expeditionary Force] MEU [SOC], the XVIII Airborne Corps, the 8th Air Force, and our allies all together. So we are absolutely committed to the joint warfare arena, right down to training within the Joint Training Matrix. This is not the way it was during Desert Storm where the Navy was still "fighting the feeling."That does not mean that we have solved all of our challenges. Full utilization of CTAPS [the joint theater air planning tool] and distribution of the ATO [Air Tasking Order] is still giving us problems, but by and large, we're on board in the joint arena. I might add that we're proud to be part of it, because that's the way that we're going to be fighting in the future as a nation.

Tom Clancy: One of the most interesting joint training exercises that has been run recently is Operation Tandem Thrust, down in Australia. Can you tell us about it?

Admiral Johnson: You have to remember that we have a "special" relationship with Australia, one that has been critical to both countries in this century. Tandem Thrust is just another classic example of that relationship. We just came back from Operation Tandem Thrust. It was huge, involving over 22,000 U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force personnel. We accomplished our objectives and I think everybody learned a great deal.When you are running a large military exercise, one of the biggest considerations is the matter of finding new range spaces for the joint forces to exercise and train in. If you talk with Chuck Krulak, he'll tell you about his interest in using some of the range facilities in Australia. They are beautiful! And the Royal Australian Navy and the rest of their forces are just superb to work with. They are wonderful allies. Australia is an amazing country-just eighteen million people on a land mass the size of the continental United States. You see that when you fly over the place. You just fly for hours and hours and see nothing but open space.

Tom Clancy: Talk a little more about modernization if you will. Every couple of generations, there seems to be a CNO who, because of timing and circumstances, defines the U.S. Navy for a period of decades. Elmo Zumwalt filled that role in the 1970's, since so much of what the Navy uses today was defined, designed, or built during his tenure. You seem to be in a similar situation today in the 1990's. Given this notion, what kinds of things do you want this Navy to do?

Admiral Johnson: I think that what we're trying to cast for tomorrow and the future is to be able to say five, ten, twenty, even twenty-five years from now, that this Navy is really relevant. We need to know that the Navy is giving the country a presence force that can still respond across the full spectrum of crises or requirements that the country asks them to respond to. We don't even know for sure what kinds of crises we'll be facing in that distant future. But the decisions we make today will have a direct impact on our readiness tomorrow.In general terms, we know exactly where we're going. The new equipment we're building and the new shaping of the force that we are currently going through are very important to us, as is the way we push ourselves into the next century. It's very exciting, though somewhat daunting, to be in this job at a time when the infrastructure is under development to this degree, but I think we're building a marvelous future for the Navy. In my opinion, the future Navy will still be anchored in the carrier battle group with its air wing, in the amphibious ready group and the embarked Marine Expeditionary Unit. These are the two core assets that the sea services give to the country. I want that to be clearly conveyed as we move forward into the next century.

Tom Clancy: Let's talk a little more about that issue of "forward presence." Several years ago when we interviewed General Krulak [the current Commandant of the Marine Corps], he described it as: "A native in a canoe is able to reach out and touch the gray-painted hull of an American warship in his territory." How does that match up with your vision for American presence in the 21st century?

Admiral Johnson: The strength of our forward presence is exactly that. The recent Quadrennial Defense Review provided for a strategic vision that carried with it the three elements or phases of military power that our nation requires. These are shaping, responding, and preparing. We've talked a lot in this interview about responding and preparing. So let's take a little time to talk about shaping the world's military situation.That's what we do every day. That's why we have 350 ships afloat in the world's oceans right now. That's the guy in the canoe who touches the side of our gray-hulled ships. We believe that's a tremendously powerful mission, both for our Navy and the country, because of what it means to the rest of the world. You know, even if that man in the canoe can't touch our ship, but can only see it and watch it come and go as it pleases, then that sends a message of great strength to him and to all the other people who see what we can do. Because we're out there, the world is changed every day.

Tom Clancy: Let's talk a little about the material side of the Navy these days. All the ships, aircraft, and other things that were bought during the Reagan Administration are now almost fifteen years old. Military spending has been significantly reduced in recent years. Are you having problems modernizing and reconstituting the Navy for the 21 st century?

Admiral Johnson: I would not categorize the Navy's needs at this stage as problems. I think of them as opportunities, and I would say that the future looks promising. I'm just sorry that I'm not going to be a JO [junior officer] to take advantage of all the things we're going to be getting in the future.If you look at the programs that we've got on the boards for the next decade, it's a long list. There are the DDG-51-class Aegis destroyers, which we are continuing to build at a rate of between three and four a year. We're getting those ships at between $800 and $900 million a copy, depending upon whose numbers you use, which is quite a bargain. I know that sounds like a lot of money for a tin can [the traditional nickname for destroyers], but it's a pretty impressive tin can!After the Aegis, the next class of surface combatant will be the Surface Combatant-21 [SC-21], which we're just coming to clarity on right now. The first phase of that program will give us what we call a "land attack" destroyer or "DD-21." Downstream from that will probably be a group of those ships that will begin to replace the early units of the Aegis fleet.We can be sure of one thing-SC-21 is going to have to be much more affordable than the DDG-51's. That's the bottom-line challenge in all this. That's why we're invested in something called "Smart Ship" [the USS Yorktown [CG-48], which is being outfitted]. We want to see what we can learn about making these ships not only less expensive to buy, but to operate and maintain as well.But they'll never be cheap. You have to remember that Navy combatants are not cruise ships. They need to have combat capability all the time. How you make the different trade-offs for crew size, displacement, engineering plants, weapons, sensors, and other things is very, very important. One day, lives may depend on how well we make our decisions now.

Tom Clancy: What other new classes of warships do you have on the horizon? I know that the first of the new-generation ships will be the San Antonio-class [LPD-17] amphibious ships, which are under construction right now.

Admiral Johnson: The San Antonio-class [LPD-17] amphibious ship replaces four different classes of older ships in just one hull. It's an important ship to me, as well as to Chuck Krulak [the Commandant of the Marine Corps]. As you know, the ARG [Amphibious Ready Group] of the 21st century is going to be a three-ship force. There will be a big deck aviation/amphibious ship like a Tarawa [LHA-1] or Wasp [LHD-1], one of the Whidbey Island [LSD-41] or Harpers Ferry-class [LSD-49] dock ships, and a San Antonio. That San Antonio-class ship is going to be the inshore fighter, which will launch the new AAAV amphibious tractors, as well as air-cushioned landing craft and helicopters.The design and mix of the ARG and these new ships will give us the ability to fight both in the littorals and in the "blue water" of the open oceans. It's going to be an awesome platform. That ship is coming along well, as well as CVN-77, which we see as a transition carrier to take us to some technological developments on our way to the next generation of carrier, the CVX.

Tom Clancy: Tell us some more about the CVN-77, if you would.

Admiral Johnson: Some of the improvements we contemplate for it are not unlike what we're doing with the Aegis cruiser Yorktown, which we're adding a number of different automation systems to for things like assistance on the bridge, damage control monitoring, and a fiber-optic local area network [LAN] backbone. These improvements are designed to reduce the manning of the Aegis platforms, if it proves practical. We want to see what technology can do for us as a practical matter on future combatants. Once we've been to school on that, then we will do the same kinds of things with CVN-77.We think technological improvements will help us a lot on the road to our future carrier designs, especially with regards to things like size, shape, and manning, which are some of the critical design factors that determine the costs of new ships. So the plan right now is that CVN-77 will indeed be a transition ship to take us to CVX. We feel that it is the right thing to do. We're going to make it just different enough through a "Smart Ship/Smart Buy" concept. What we're trying to do is to leverage technology to do things differently and with fewer people, and let technology make the Naval platforms of the next century even smarter and better than the ones we have right now.

Tom Clancy: If you were going to sit here today and describe what CVX will become, what would be your vision of that carrier when it arrives sometime in the 21st century?

Admiral Johnson: Let me do this based upon my own experience. I started on the Orisknay [CV-34, a modernized World War II-era Essex-class (CV-9/SCB-27C) carrier], and I've flown on and off of everything from the Midway [CVA-41] to a number of the Nimitz-class [CVN-68] nuclear carriers. I would tell you that what I want CVX to provide is the same kind of flexibility as you can get out of a Nimitz-class carrier. I also want it to be able to deliver many of the same kinds of services and benefits that we already get from carriers right now. I especially want it to be able to move around the same way.This ship has implications from the strategic level all the way down to tactical implications-like whether I can crank up enough wind over the deck to be able to land an aircraft with the flaps stuck in the "up" position. So we need tremendous flexibility out of this platform, including areas like berthing, data networks, sensors, and tactical systems.The CVX will also need to be an "open architecture" ship, so that we can "net" it into the new kinds of "network centric" battle forces that we want to build in the 21st century. We will want to have distributed sensor and firepower capabilities spread throughout the battle group in ways that allow us to have situational awareness on every platform, both ships and aircraft, and not just the carrier. The carrier is still going to be the core ship of the CVBG. Therefore, it will still need to have flexibility on the flight deck, in the systems that it carries, and in habitability, to ensure a decent quality of life for the crew that will man it. I believe that the Navy in the 21st century will continue to be a forward-deployed force, and given that reality, this ship is a blank sheet of paper in every way.

Tom Clancy: Does that mean that you see every feature of the CVX as being open for new ideas?

Admiral Johnson: As far as I'm concerned, yes. Propulsion, sensors, catapult systems-they are all open to new and innovative ideas, should they be offered or presented. Now, when we talk about a CVX-type carrier, we're talking about a ship that will arrive at a time where the dominant aircraft it will carry will be the new Joint Strike Fighter [JSF], the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and something we call the Common Support Aircraft [CSA]. So this ship will have to be optimized to our vision for operating those future aircraft, none of which are operational today.

Tom Clancy: I've heard some of the people involved in the design and development of CVX call this the first non-Navy or "CinC's" [regional commander in chief's] carrier. Given your own use of carriers during Haiti in 1994, would you concur with this view?

Admiral Johnson: We're saying the same thing. As I mentioned earlier, we're looking for open architecture and connectivity to be able to deal with operations ashore, as well as the Joint Task Force [JTF] commanders in the field, and to handle whatever other circumstances may arise. When you're trying to shape the battlespace and respond to emerging situations, then a battle group commander is going to have to be responsible for a full spectrum of crises. Whether it's a little bitty event or the biggest situation, a commander needs a carrier that can respond on the spot. That's what we need to embed in the CVX design.It will be very exciting to see the kinds of things that we'll be coming out with in areas like catapult and arresting gear technology, combat systems upgrades, and other new systems. We'll be looking at the proper air wing aircraft mix, including V/STOL [vertical/short takeoff and landing] or STOL [short takeoff and landing] kinds of airplanes, for this new platform. Everything is wide open right now.

Tom Clancy: While I know that your first passion is naval aviation and carriers, I also know that you are passionate about modernizing the submarine force as well. Tell us, if you would, a little about Seawolf b[SSN-21] and the New Attack Submarine [NSSN] programs?

Admiral Johnson: I recently took a ride on Seawolf, and it is awesome. The best submarine that has ever been built in the world, period. The Seawolf is truly, truly a magnificent submarine-and remember, I'm a fighter pilot saying this! I took some submariners with me on the Seawolf, and watched their reactions, listened to their comments, and made my own observations. All of that convinced me that this is an awesome platform. I can't wait to get it into the fleet, as well as the two others that come behind it.After the Seawolf, we move into NSSN, where we're going to use a special teaming arrangement between General Dynamics Electric Boat Division and Newport News Shipbuilding. The idea is to try and get the cost down so we can afford to buy them in the numbers that we'll be needing to replace the Los Angeles-class [SSN-688] boats when they retire.

Tom Clancy: Let's talk about aircraft procurement. It's been a really tough decade for the Navy with regards to new aircraft procurement. There hasn't been a single new tactical aircraft for the sea services in more than two decades. Are you comfortable with the current Navy aircraft development and procurement strategy?

Admiral Johnson: Yes. We've made some workable plans to upgrade our aircraft. Though I must point out that if you were to look at a graphic depiction of the last twenty years, it would tell you that we're coming out of something that looks like a bathtub with regards to new aircraft deliveries. I know that we need to buy new airplanes, the plans are in place to begin to acquire them, and I think that we have the platforms and programs that can deliver in a way that makes sense for Naval aviation.The current plan covers the V-22 Osprey for the Marines, the strike fighters we've already talked about, T-45 trainers for our undergraduate training programs, and H-60 airframes for ASW and fleet replenishment. I know that sounds like a lot of aircraft, but we're working our way out of a period when we were lucky to buy more than just a couple of airplanes a year.

Tom Clancy: Since money is going to be the determining factor in making these procurement plans into reality, one wonders how well the Congress is receiving your message about the value of naval aviation. Just how well are you getting that message across?

Admiral Johnson: You'd have to ask them how well we're doing. But from my perspective, when I go talk or testify to Congress, I see a lot of support.

Tom Clancy: If you don't mind, let's run down those aircraft programs one at a time and get a comment on each from you.

Admiral Johnson:

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet — From my standpoint, this is a model program. The aircraft is meeting or exceeding every milestone and specification that we've put out there. It's a wonderful airplane. I've flown it, and though it's bigger than the F/A-18C/D Hornet, it flies "smaller." I say this publicly and I mean it. This plane is the corner-stone of our future Navy air wing. Over the next two decades, they will first replace our fleet of F-14 Tomcats, and eventually our older F/A- 18's. By the end of the next decade, we will have three squadrons [with twelve aircraft per squadron] of these aboard every carrier.

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) — This bird will eventually replace the newest of our F/A-18C Hornets and Marine AV-8B Harrier IIs, which we are buying right now. Initially, each carrier air wing [CVW] will have a single squadron of JSFs, with fourteen aircraft per squadron. When CVX-78 arrives, this will give it a total of 36 F/A-18E/Fs and 14 JSFs. We expect the concept demonstration and fly-off between Lockheed Martin and Boeing to happen in 2001.V-22 Osprey-Even though this is technically a Marine Corps airplane with Marine Corps painted on the side if it, it's part of our budget, and a part of the Navy/Marine Corps forward-presence force. So it's as important to us as it is to Chuck Krulak. Whether it has a role in the U.S. Navy, I'm frankly not smart enough to answer that at this time. If I had to give you an answer, I'd probably have to say yes. Right now, though, those V-22 derivatives are not what I'm focusing on. That's only because the total focus of our effort for V-22 must be to get them into service to replace those H-46's that are older than the men and women who are flying them.

Helicopter Programs — We're necking down into just the H-60 series. The H-60R airframe is going to be what we use for everything within the battle groups, from ASW [with the SH-60R] to logistics and vertical replenishment [VERTREP with the CH-60R].

Tom Clancy: Could you summarize the major focus of the Naval aircraft procurement for the next few years?

Admiral Johnson: Right now, our focus and effort within Naval aviation is clearly with the Super Hornet and what that takes us to with JSF. Those are the two main tactical aircraft programs. The EA-6B Prowler and E-2C Hawkeye are also important to us. The F-14's are vital to us surely, but we are anxious to get the Super Hornets into the fleet to replace the Tomcats in an orderly flow and fashion. Over the next fifteen years or so, if everything goes as planned, what you will see is Super Hornet replacing Tomcats as well as some of the oldest regular F/A-18 Hornets; then JSF will come in and replace the rest of the F/A-18Cs. So, by around 2015, the combat "punch" on carrier flight decks is going to be filling up with Super Hornets and JSFs. That's the vision that we have.

Tom Clancy: Does this mean that you are going to be leveraging the remaining life in existing airframes like the F-14 Tomcat, EA-6B Prowler, and S-3 Viking, to buy time to get those new airframes into service?

Admiral Johnson: Yes. The S-3's are integral to the CVWs right now, and their replacement is part of the CSA program that we discussed earlier. The S-3's, the ES-3's, and EA-6B's are all part of that effort. The Prowlers are of particular value to us, since they are now national assets, due to an understanding with the Marine Corps and Air Force.[15] We're completing the buy of Prowlers right now at 125 aircraft. When we're finished filling out that force, they will be well employed until we decide exactly what the Prowler follow-on will be. If you had to ask me today what that will be, I'd have some expectation of a two-seat variant of the Super Hornet with an automated jamming system. The Wild Weasels may rise again.

Tom Clancy: Over the last fifty years, one of the most important parts of Naval aviation has been the medium-attack squadrons, which used to fly the A-6. With the retirement of the last of the Intruders, has that community more or less died?

Admiral Johnson: Well, I guess because the A-6 is gone that you can say that, but their people and missions have been integrated into other com-munities.Places like the Hornet and Tomcat communities as well as other places. Even the EA-6B Prowler and S-3B Viking squadrons are gaining the experience of former Intruder crews and personnel. The name per se may be gone, but the people and mission live on.I might add that the new Super Hornet is going to be taking on a lot of the jobs that the Intruder used to do for us. In fact, not too long ago the test crews at NAS Patuxent River [the Navy's test facility in Maryland] launched a Super Hornet loaded up at over 65,000 pounds, which is a thousand pounds more than the Intruder used to fly at. The Super Hornet flies with a full kit of precision guided munitions [PGMs], including the new GBU-29/30/32/32 JDAMS, AGM-154 JSOW, and AGM-88E SLAMER.

Tom Clancy: You just talked about the kinds of weapons that you're going to be carrying and dropping from the Super Hornet and JSF. Is it a safe statement to make that if a target is valuable enough for a carrier-based aircraft to hit it, then that aircraft will use some kind of precision or other tailored munitions to do the job?

Admiral Johnson: I guess my answer to that would be that it would depend on the target set. Generally, I would say yes, that's a fair thing to say. The new things that we're developing in JDAMS and JSOW are really going to help us with our combat punch.

Tom Clancy: You also have strike weapons that aren't launched from aircraft, like Tomahawk and a future series of standoff battlefield support munitions on the horizon. Could you tell us more about them?

Admiral Johnson: We're going to embed some quite remarkable combat power in the CVBG of tomorrow. For example, look at our new SC-21 escort design, which we mentioned earlier. The first variant of that is a land-attack destroyer that will have vertically loading guns and vertical missile launchers loaded with all of the new and improved land-attack missiles that you mentioned.

Tom Clancy: Isn't the Navy about to deploy the first TBMD [Theater Ballistic Missile Defense] system aboard the Aegis ships, even ahead of the Army and Air Force?

Admiral Johnson: Yes, but keep in mind that I am really in competition with time. I'm not in competition with the Army and Air Force. I firmly believe that the fleet of Aegis cruisers and destroyers that we have out there is absolutely the optimum place to embed that capability, because of the mobility and flexibility that it gives to the National Command Authorities. So we're full speed ahead on our area-wide, lower-tier system, as well as the theater-wide, upper-tier system. It's going to be an awesome capability.As you know, the top priority of the Department of Defense [DoD] is to get the various area systems on line as quickly as possible. Those are the Army Patriot PAC-3 and the Navy Aegis Area systems. It's looking good right now, and we're planning to have it shipborne in just a few years. That's really a lot of what we're trying to do Navy-wide these days. Doing things "leaner," but more effectively. That's what we need to do to "punch through" into the 21st century.

Tom Clancy: Would it be a fair statement, based upon what you just said, that you're trying to get more out of existing systems and people, rather than start from scratch on new systems?

Admiral Johnson: Yes. We want to harness and focus the technologies that are out there, and embed them in these new systems in ways that give us maximum combat power and flexibility in new and exciting ways. We also want to have the ships and systems manned by fewer people. I believe that, with the right equipment, we can do that and still maintain our effectiveness.

We have to be careful how we flow into all that. But you know about our "Smart Ship" program, which is teaching us a lot about how to do these things. We're learning a lot, really focusing on what makes sense for us on a combat platform in terms of downsizing the number of people we need aboard. For instance, the "mark on the wall" that we have for the SC-21 land-attack destroyer is that we want that ship to be manned by ninety-five people or less. That's a ship the size of an Arleigh Burke-class [DDG-51] guided-missile destroyer, but with a crew about one-third the size. That's where we are going.

Tom Clancy: We talked a lot about the ships, aircraft, and things that you have to buy to give the Navy power. But people make those things work. Obviously, just like the rest of the services, you've had to draw down the size of your personnel pool. You're saying that in the future you want to be able to man your ships with fewer people, each of whom will have to do more. Tell us about the young people you want in the Navy of the future, and what you expect from them?

Admiral Johnson: People are our Navy. But the Navy is going to have to become leaner and more capable. The Navy has very high recruiting standards. As we mentioned earlier, we have a "crossbar" of ninety-five percent high school graduates and sixty-five percent in the upper mental group as recruiting standards. We believe that gives us the quality of sailor that we need to operate our new systems and take us into the next century. I don't see that changing. But the competition for those young men and women is very intense. It's the same corner of the personnel market that private industry, my Joint Chiefs brethren, and everyone else is going for these days. So far, we've been holding our own in the recruiting process. We will build from that pool of great young men and women a Navy that is reshaped into the proper size and structure for the future. We will give them the best tools for their jobs and the quality of life that they deserve.We accept the reality that says the Navy must get smaller. The caution in all of that is that if the Navy gets smaller and our requirements don't change, we run the risk of having to ask our people to do more with less. I've told my Navy that right now, we're out of the "do more with less" business. We don't do that anymore. What we're going to do is reshape ourselves in such a way that we'll be sized for tomorrow, and then do the missions that we are called to do while maintaining a proper optempo, so we don't operate on the backs of our sailors.Let me tell you, that's a very tough thing to do. That's what I tell my sailors. It's a much easier thing to say than to do. Our policy of six months deployment portal to portal, two-to-one turnaround ratio, and fifty-percent minimum in-port time over a five-year period, gives us a set of standards and policies that I think the Navy can live with. The CNO is the only one who can waive that policy, and we've only done it a total of five times in the last year. I might add that four of those five waivers were written for ships in out-of-home-port maintenance. So we're holding well to that policy.

Tom Clancy: You've been saying all along that you're going to be trying to man your new generation of ships with fewer sailors doing more jobs than on older vessels. This means that you're probably going to have to raise the crossbar when it comes to getting new sailors trained. Chuck Krulak has much the same plans for his Marines, and has instituted the Crucible program to help form and toughen his recruits. Are you going to do something similar for Navy recruits?

Admiral Johnson: It's a work in progress. We have upped our own crossbar. Let me give you a couple of quick examples. I talked earlier about the young men and women who come into the Navy from the upper parts of the demographic profile. These are really smart, well-schooled young folks. What we do with them then is send them into a recruit training experience that is a very different, very positive, and very challenging experience.Now, I'm not too proud to admit that we have liked what we have seen of the programs that you have mentioned from General Krulak, including the Crucible. We now have a "final battle problem" exercise evaluation instituted at Great Lakes Training Center. This is a Navy version of a Crucible-like evolution. We call it "Battle Stations," and it's a very arduous, physically demanding fourteen-hour damage-control problem/scenario requiring stamina, ingenuity, and teamwork from the recruits to pass.We just came back from Great Lakes, where we observed pieces of the pilot version. We think that this is an extremely good and powerful program. The way that we treat our recruits and the things that we indoctrinate them with-heritage, core values, tradition, and pride-lets us groom them into very strong sailors when they leave Great Lakes.Then we have what we call the Basic Military Training Continuum, which takes them into the fleet and builds on what they have learned in boot camp. We also have embedded throughout the Navy something we call the Leadership Training Continuum. Now, I'm only the implementer of this program, not the inventor. The program was Admiral Frank Kelso's idea. Kelso was CNO before Admiral Boorda, who also worked on it.It's powerful! It consists of four two-week training blocks for officers and enlisted personnel, and provides formalized leadership training throughout their careers. That's the basic framework, and we'll build on that later.Right now I'm interested in getting these four basic blocks instituted throughout the Navy. And mark my words: If you plan on being in the Navy as a career and want to advance, you will take these training blocks! The Navy has made an institutional investment in formalized leadership training. I'm convinced, based on just the early feedback training and what I've seen thus far, that when you and 1 are gone from this world, this Navy will be a stronger at all levels because of it.

Tom Clancy: Obviously, the Navy has had a rough and rocky time integrating women into the force. Yet, one gets the feeling that the Navy is farther through the process than perhaps the other services and that you've paid a high price to reach that goal. Is it your opinion that the first-stage initiatives for fully integrating women into the combat force have been successfully completed?

Admiral Johnson: Absolutely. We're through that. As a good example, the CVWs and carriers are already fully integrated. CVW-11 just came back off deployment on the Kitty Hawk [CV-63] fully integrated, and it was a marvelous deployment for them. Our surface combatant integration program is going well, though the pacing item is that we want the ships to be properly built or modified so that the habitability standards we have established for the Women at Sea Program are followed. In addition, the crew must be shaped the right way, so that the proper critical mass and makeup of female personnel is maintained. There's a right way and a wrong way to do that, and we've learned how to do that. We're a little over halfway through that initiative right now, and it's going well.Keep in mind though that Women at Sea issues are not the only things that drive our overhauls. Environmental "Green" upgrades, as well as improvements to combat, habitability, and other systems are just as important. Our ship overhauls are the ultimate fifty thousand-mile checkup, and happen every five years that a ship is in the fleet.

Tom Clancy: As you go out into the fleet today, are the sailors having fun doing their jobs?

Admiral Johnson: I think that, overall, the forward-deployed forces are having fun. They're working hard, making a contribution; they're at the tip of the spear executing their missions, and they're doing the things that they came into the Navy to do. On the non-deployed side, we're doing pretty well, but we've got some work to do, some taking care of business. We owe those personnel a reasonable pace when they're not deployed and we owe them ships and airplanes that are properly maintained. Those are the challenges that I'm working on right now. The "tip of the spear" is doing great. The non-deployed part of the force is doing well too, but I think that I owe them a bit more than they're getting right now.

Tom Clancy: Obviously, the last ten years have been a roller-coaster ride for senior leaders in the services. Could you look into your crystal ball, and tell us what new roles and missions that you see the Navy taking on as it moves into the 21st century?

Admiral Johnson: Well, to start with, I don't want to lose any of the core skills that we have right now. I think that we would be very shortsighted to lose any of those capabilities. ASW is a classic example. A lot of people think that you can "take your pack off" now and not worry about it. I do not concur! We're putting great focus and effort into undersea warfare and specifically ASW. We're the only ones in the world who can do that. That's Navy stuff! That gets back to my operational primacy guidestar: "We can never take our eyes off of that ball." The truth of it is, those core combat skills are things that we need to maintain. You've asked what is new. I give you one word: TBMD. That's something fundamentally new and different from what we are doing now. It's a brand-new capability that will reside in our fleet.

Tom Clancy: To wrap things up, I'd like to give you the opportunity to speak your mind about your vision for the Navy. What would you like to say to the readers, sir?

Admiral Johnson: I think that we've touched on the big things already in this interview. One point that I would hope to make is that the capability that CVBGs and the Navy in general give to the country and the world is vital. We've talked a lot about the equipment, and that is vital. But I think more than anything, we've got to really represent all the people in the Navy. That's the story. When you go out and "tie on" with one of those groups, you'll see that people are the magic that makes it all happen.I'd also like to say that we need to make the American people see the need for maintaining the greatest Navy in the world. There still is a need. The lessons of history tell us that. So our commitment to them is that we will never "take our packs off." Operational primacy will stay as one of our guiding stars as we head into the new century, and we'll do it with leadership, teamwork, and pride.

For the first time in almost a decade, the Navy seems to be on a steady course, with a plan, and with stable leadership to guide it through the uncertain waters between the 20th and 21st centuries. Like the early mariners who navigated from star to star, Admiral Johnson has found a constellation for the Navy to follow to the future. Along the way, he has proven himself a quiet but effective warrior. In a time when the Navy needed a champion and hero for the wars on the banks of the Potomac River, they seem to have found a winner-a steady hand on the helm, to guide the Navy into a new millennium.