Sea Control - Sea Control 221 - Congressional Perspectives on Battle Force 2045 with Rep. Elaine Luria and Rep. Mike Gallagher

Episode Date: January 10, 2021

Links1. "Force Structure Perspectives: Congresswoman Elaine Luria on Getting Congress Involved," CIMSEC, Oct 30, 2020.2. "Bringing Congress to the (Wargaming) Table for a Bigger and Better Navy," by Rep. Mike Gallagher, War on the Rocks, Oct. 19, 2020.3. "To Deter China, the Naval Forces Must Integrate," War on the Rocks, Rep. Mike Gallagher Feb 4, 2020.

Hey folks, Jared here with a little bit different intro because I wanted to contextualize the episode that you're about to hear, its timing and its tone. So our guests today are Representative Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, Representative Elaine Lurie of Virginia, and we're discussing Battle Force 2045, congressional perspectives on the document, and the Navy's plans. So we recorded this December 30th with a plan to air it on January 7th, and then January 6th happened. And if you're listening to this, you probably know that our mob breached the Capitol building. Some representatives, staff members, and support staff were evacuated from the building. Others barricaded themselves in offices and spaces in the building. We ultimately opted to delay

airing the episode until now because we were legitimately concerned about our guests and their staff and because it seemed that there were a lot of other important discussions that were happening. I think those discussions are going to continue for months, if not years. so that's the timing piece and why we sought to delay this regarding tone and context this is three people who are enthusiastic about cpower discussing cpower on december 30th before any of the events of january 6th so if you're listening and thinking to yourself why are they discussing this now the tone's totally inappropriate i just ask you consider when this was recorded and what what hadn't happened at the point that we record this that's all i've got

And with that, I'll turn it over to Kimber's men. Aloha, shipmates, and welcome back aboard Sea Control. Today, we're discussing multiple recent articles by Representative Elaine Luria of Virginia and Representative Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin. Thank you both for joining us. representative loria would you mind introducing yourself and telling your listeners a bit about your background first well certainly and uh thank you jared for having me join you today and great to see you uh have you on the call mike um so i am entering my second term in congress i represent the hampton roads area in virginia so the whole coast of virginia and serve on the armed services

committee where i'm the vice chair of the sea power subcommittee and also serve on the military personnel subcommittee. I spent 20 years in the Navy. So I was a surface nuke, drove ships, operated nuclear reactors on carriers. I ended my career as the executive officer of the USS Anzio and then had command of an assault craft unit too here in Little Creek and all the amphibious landing craft here on the East Coast. And really one of my big focuses serving in Congress is the work we can do to support our Navy. Thank you very much, ma'am. And Representative Gallagher, than the same request to you, sir. Well, it's great to be here. I think I could probably be most accurately described as Elaine Luria's sea-powered sidekick on Hask. But prior to that,

I was in the Marine Corps for seven years. I was a counterintelligence, human intelligence officer. I was part of a generation of Marines that primarily did things on land in the Middle East and did not get near a ship, but certainly come from the Naval Services from Northeast Wisconsin, where I represent in Congress. And I am on the Armed Services Committee, on the Sea Power Subcommittee, the IETC Subcommittee. And I co-chaired a special commission on cyber policy for the last couple of years and spent a little bit of time in the private sector, as well as as a Senate staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as the Middle East specialist on that committee before being elected to Congress myself and quickly realizing that

I had more power as an unelected staffer than I do as an elected member of the House. Well, thank you both again for joining us. So we have the Navy, we have the Marines. We do love naval integration here on SimSec, and we like to see it even more in Congress. You both appeared in print recently. So Representative Luria, you did an interview with CIMSEC for our Force Structure Perspective Series. And Representative Gallagher, you've written a few times now for War on the Rocks, and your most recent piece was Bring Congress to the Wargaming Table for a Bigger and Better Navy. So you both have the requisite background and clearly seem continuing interest in this topic by district affiliation and your temperament.

Representative Luria, I'll start with you. Do you consider yourself a navalist? I do. And, you know, I think that I bring, at least for the other members of Congress, a unique background to the House and the Armed Services Committee. And I think that we don't talk enough about how important the Navy is, not only to our national defense, but our economic prosperity. And we really need to do a better job of selling and informing the American public on how important a strong and capable Navy is. And within the House, we need to spend a lot more effort on making people understand why having a large and present Navy around the world is very important. So that has definitely been one of my focuses during my time in Congress.

And Representative Gallagher, same question to you. I think it might just be a little bit more challenging. You obviously have a lot of constituents who are employees, but then how does that discussion transpire with everybody else in your district who is thousands of miles away from the Navy? Well, I think like Representative Lurie, I've spent a lot of time in Congress trying to make the case unapologetically for maritime supremacy to my constituents and to anyone I encounter around the country. And I consider myself not only a navalist, but an unabashed maritime supremacist. And I really do think that case starts with geography. I mean, The United States is blessed to have two enormous oceans between us and any potential competitors.

And this simple reality suggests that an adversary is going to have to come across an ocean or more in order to get us. And I think there's a flip side to that, however. We're only connected to our allies by the ocean as well. And this was one of the great insights of the dean of sea power, John Lehman, when he was making the case for a 600 ship Navy. And while the NATO allies could afford conventional inferiority with the Soviets in Eastern Europe, our ability to surge reinforcements to the theater and counter any Soviet invasion dependent on command of the seas. And so I consider maintaining command of the seas and maintaining American maritime supremacy one of my primary missions in Congress, though I might not necessarily describe it that way at a at a Lincoln Day dinner. That, to me, is part of the mission because the threat may be a little bit different today, but the same principle holds. Whether it's China or Russia, the United States must be in a position to command the seas that connects us with our allies.

And so to the extent I'm a navalist, you know, so is the hand of providence that gave America this incredibly advantageous geographic position. Well, thank you. So as the Secretary of Defense unveiled the Battle Force 2045, what were your first impressions and how did your respective backgrounds contribute to your reactions? And Representative Gallagher, I'm going to come to you first. Well, my first response was, finally. As you know, this was a long time coming. In fact, Congress had been waiting for a new integrated naval force structure assessment that reflects the national defense strategy since the NDS came out in January 2018. Unfortunately, the process really got kicked down the road.

And while I think the ultimate battle force 2045 plan has a lot to recommend it, I have to confess I'm frustrated that it only emerged during the last months of the administration. In fact, today we're supposed to be getting for the you know, or maybe it was last week, the master 30 year shipbuilding plan that charts the path to 355. And and that's great. But, you know, look at the calendar. We're in late December. It was exactly four years ago that the Navy, at the very end of the Obama administration, released the FSA calling for a 355 ship Navy in the first place. And look where we are now with yet another administration releasing a document calling for an aggressive naval growth in its very last days. So I think that's where Congress gets confused, but also where Congress needs to step up and move beyond just bumper stickers that, you know, say, hooray, 355. And Representative Luria, then what were your reactions? Well, I can certainly say I share some of the same frustrations that Representative Gallagher did.

The timing didn't really facilitate us taking this product and acting on it in this year's upcoming year's defense bill. And, you know, I've had a lot of frustration with, you know, the 30-year shipbuilding plan or lack thereof and the fact that even when we do have a 30-year shipbuilding plan, it is truly not a plan. If it changes every single year in years one to five, you know, I know that we have an ambitious plan to get to a 355-ship Navy, and even the Navy's request from last year doesn't put us on a track to get there. And we might talk about this a little bit more later on, but we need to do a lot more investing in the infrastructure we have

to maintain the ships that we currently have. At roughly 290, the fleet we have today, from my personal experience and yours, Jared, you know, training the folks that operate those ships. We just need to put a lot more effort into the back end of making sure those ships are capable, deployable, and able to provide presence overseas. 500 ships is extremely ambitious. I'm not sold on the mix with unmanned vessels. I'm not against exploring that technology, but it's very clear to me what the concept of operations for those unmanned vessels would be. And I'm really looking forward to the Navy coming in this next Congress and, you know, explaining to us the vision and how we need to get there and why

we need to get there. But the bottom line is we need more presence overseas. We need more shifts and we need to make a smart plan that we can execute and that Congress can provide the resources to implement. Thanks. I think we'll go directly into some of the concerns that you just shared. As I read your interview, I was struck by the pragmatism of some of your responses and you're very concerned with the industrial base and maintenance, which I think comes from your surface warfare background. What did you see as the roadblocks to executing that plan? Well, I certainly think that, you know, it is always attractive to an administration and to members of Congress who, you know, don't spend as much time as Mike and I do thinking about these

issues with the Navy to say we're going to have a new platform and we're going to build a new ship and this is the capabilities it's going to have. But, you know, putting all of the resources into the infrastructure that supports those ships is often overlooked. And we have a shipyard infrastructure optimization plan that's supposed to optimize the performance of our public shipyards over the next several decades. But I think we truly need to look at accelerating that and we need to look at the workforce and we need to look at all of the things that actually, you know, keep the ships ready to leave the pier and be present overseas. And I've also spent a lot of time thinking about, you know, how we deploy our ships and what that rotational schedule looks like.

I've never been a big fan of, you know, some blisters might be familiar with the optimized fleet response plan. And I think that we really haven't gotten the investment that we need to out of these ships. The board, for example, we spent $13 billion as taxpayers on the carrier that might, if we're lucky, deploy six years late. And then the optimized fleet response plan has created roughly a six out of every 36-month deployment cycle, which is only on station 17% of the time. And I think that we need to look at different models to get more out of the fleet And, you know, that definitely includes the infrastructure that supports the ships we already have today. Representative Gallagher, I see a lot of nodding from you.

You share the same concerns. You have different concerns. I do. I've been very, I mean, very interested in Representative Luria's critiques of OFRP over the last few years. And I think she's really done a great job of asking hard questions to the Navy. I think where we might have a slight difference of opinion or we've had spirited debates in the past is on the role of unmanned vessels. I think Representative Blair is right to suggest that we need a more fulsome response from the Navy about how they're thinking about unmanned systems and where we are in developing the technology. But I very much want us to push the Navy to develop that technology as quickly as humanly possible while still having a realistic assessment of where it fits within a broader plan for, you know, the future fleet and things like that. But certainly, I tend to nod vigorously whenever Elaine is talking about naval issues. Yeah. And, Jerry, can I jump in real quick?

Yeah, absolutely. I agree. No, you know, I agree with Mike. You know, we need to, you know, not drag our feet on developing a new technology. But, you know, we have seen over the last several ship classes that we've developed that we haven't put the right level of testing and technical rigor into the systems before we built them. And here we are on the Ford with the weapons elevators, the catapults, the arresting gear and the dual band radar. We had problems with the LCS where the mission modules are not developed, you know, years after the ship is already delivered to the fleet and with the DDG 1000. So, you know, I think that it really is a fine line, but we need to get it right. And, you know, we're coming up on building a new class of frigates. We need to get that right. And we need to not just build things and figure out if they work later. We need to really, you know, on the front end, put in the right level of testing and research and development to make sure that, you know, we create a product and we're good stewards of the taxpayer's dollars when we do that.

Now, you also mentioned the need for strategic vision in what you had written for SimSec, mentioning current and past administrations. So, Battle Force 2045, obviously, is designed to culminate 25 years in the future, well, 24 years in the future when this goes live. So, we're talking at least three full presidencies, assuming each last two terms. How do you envision Congress's role in getting to that ultimate goal or some version of it? Or do you envision reaching that goal at all? Well, you know, I think we need to make a plan and we need to follow the plan. That obviously doesn't, you know, preclude any need to respond to, you know, new and changing threats and adapt the plan as we go forward. But, you know, I think it's very confusing and very frustrating for Congress to have a new plan laid in front of us every year.

We need to forecast longer range as well. You know, this gets back to my same thing about the industrial base. They need to invest in their workforce and production of the components of these vessels that we plan to build. And if we have, you know, no predictability, you know, all of a sudden, you know, we're going to build seven of this class of ships and now we're down to two and next year we're back up to 14. That's not an effective way, you know, for anybody involved in the process to be able to plan and execute it. So, you know, I think that, you know, a clearer vision of back to our very first question of why are you navalists? Why is the Navy so important to the defense of our country and having that Navy presence overseas? You know, we need to make sure that people understand that vision. And these are the pieces of implementing that. And then Representative Gallagher, same question. How do you see Congress's role in making this happen? I think somewhat similarly, I mean, given that we have, you know, this turnover administrations, I think the role of Congress is going to be incredibly important for continuity. I think if you I mean, if you listen to this discussion, obviously, naval power really is not a partisan issue.

In fact, both parties should be able to support and appreciate the critical role of naval power. It's not controversial in a way that perhaps, you know, small wars in the Middle East might be. And in fact, I think one area of continuity between the Trump and Biden administrations, I suspect, will be an instinct to draw down our military presence in the Middle East and focus our attention on the Indo-Pacific, however hard that may be. But to do it, you need to focus on the Navy. So while I do have concerns about the defense top line going forward and whether that will be adequate, I think there's a compelling strategic thread behind naval power that's there if the Biden team is interested and can be sustained in future administrations beyond that. The question, you know, I think for me right now in the short term is that with, you know, an army, Jeremy of the Joint Chiefs, an army SECDEF nominee, it's probably going to be hard for the Navy to win some bureaucratic fights within the Pentagon and successfully win the resources it needs to realize its plan, whether it's Battle Force 2045 or whatever the final fleet looks like. The funny thing I'd say is I really do agree with what Elaine said about the industrial base. I mean, you know, I have a shipyard in my district and the investments that they make in their workforce are just phenomenal and they're generational.

And so if we kind of seesaw back and forth between different plans, it sends a very odd signal to the industrial base and it makes that base incredibly brittle over the long term. thanks then representative gallagher i'm going to turn now to the article that you had written for war on the rocks on war gaming and i i found myself just in violent agreement with everything you read in there well let me ask you first do you have experience with war gaming from your time in the marine corps or since you've joined congress uh very limited uh and confined mostly to the the tactical level so i'm by no means an expert i've tried over the last six months to reach out to the um think tank kind of unclassified war gaming community having been stymied in my effort to participate in war games with the navy and the marine corps although i will

say the commandant has has promised me that i can participate in some war gun war games so it's a bit uh it's something that you kind of hear about on the armed services committee but it's a bit like oz and that you never quite know what's behind the curtain and how these scenarios and outcomes are playing out. So I think both from a programmatic and intellectual level, it would be helpful and it would be a useful exercise to to invite certain members of Congress to take part in one of these games just so we can see how the Navy is thinking about this prior to making massive authority decisions and budgetary decisions. Thanks. And I'm going to ask you, could you explain your concept a little bit and how you envision that being executed? Would you have

representatives actively playing the game or just observing the outcomes or what? Well, I should I I should note, as I think I did in the piece, that I stole this idea from Democrats, no less. I believe Flournoy and one of her associates had written about it at some point. I thought, you know what, that's a great idea. I'll write a piece developing that a little bit. So as I often steal Elaine's ideas on the CPOWER subcommittee, I was more than willing to rob this one, even though it came from a different party. So what I would like to have is members actually involved in playing the game. I think it's one thing to sit back and watch, but I think members need to understand the challenges and impossible tradeoffs facing commanders in situations where the worst has occurred and we're at war.

I think it's easy to receive a briefing, even at the classified level, and I think you understand the consequences of what's being discussed and what could happen, but it's something else to see it up close and to help make the decisions. And now clearly with turnover at DOD, the new team is going to need a bit to get up to speed. But as I said, I think Battle Force 2045 could easily be a bipartisan priority, just as the way in which the Trump administration started talking about the 355 ship Navy that Ray Mabus had laid out during his last days in office. And Representative Luria, as you read that article or if you did read that article, how did you what was your response? Well, I think I texted Mike and I said, hey, sign me up. You know, I think that it is very important. And, you know, there's folks like Mike and I who, you know, definitely spend a lot of time and effort on these issues.

But really wanting to get the broader members of the Armed Services Committee and other members of Congress engaged in why this is so important. And I think, you know, wargaming and kind of understanding how all the pieces fit together and why each of these investments that we make is so important. um to you know executing our our plan you know for example the war in the pacific uh you know if we were to have a conflict with china is you know both a naval and air um conflict and we need to understand you know what it takes to get ships there what it needs to do takes to sustain them the logistics involved you know all of the different pieces um and that also fits into another global picture of you know who are strategic allies and partners in the region and why and what sort of resources do we need to put into that and it's a whole of government

question. It's not just what ship is going to show up off the coast or, you know, do Fon Ops, the navigation ops in the Strait of Taiwan. It is truly, you know, all of the pieces that go into that, you know, diplomatically, militarily, and, you know, even economically and how we interact with other countries in the region. And so I think that, you know, something like this can emphasize, you know, to other members of Congress who don't necessarily think about these things every day, you know, how all these pieces fit together. Now, you had mentioned some reticence about the maturity of distributed maritime operations and expeditionary advanced space operations concept. Do you think seeing some of these concepts in execution in a war game setting

would be helpful? You know, I think that it would be helpful for the, you know, Marine Corps and these particular concepts to show, you know, how that they were going to be part of the fight and how these different concepts um could be integral um to the the carrying out the plan uh as it's developed and so you know war gaming for this and you know kind of all of the other concepts that that go into the investments we make in congress because when we talk about these things we talk about you know buying new equipment investing in new training uh for personnel and you know the it could also really emphasize the importance of the integration of our communications networks And that architecture, you know, lacks a full oversight amongst the services and, you know, where those gaps are, you know, within the plan could also be highlighted within wargaming.

And that could then coming back to Congress again and saying, this is why we need to make this investment. This is why the priority would be a really important outcome of members of Congress participating in a wargame. thanks um and you mentioned in your interview a need to revisit goldwater nickels and that stemmed from a question about the origin of battle force 25 why do you think that's necessary well you know goldwater nickels is coming up on in 35 years um since its inception and you know like uh you know any major change that we make to to the way our military operates i think it's time to to go back and take a hard look at that did it accomplish what it was meant to achieve Are there things that we're doing with jointness that maybe at this point we're doing for jointness' sake

and not necessarily contributing to the overall outcome of our defense? And, you know, something to look at just as an example, the current Secretary of the Navy recently announced that he was going to rename U.S. Fleet Forces Command to U.S. Atlantic Fleet. And so then, you know, I had a conversation with him, asked a lot of questions of why, and then asked about, you know, the command structure. You know, so we need an operational command that can counter, you know, the increased activity of Russian submarines in the North Atlantic. Yes. But then what's the command structure? U.S. Atlantic Fleet reports to who?

Who is the combatant commander who they fall under? Of course, they're the maritime component commander for U.S. Northern Command. But there is no longer a U.S. Atlantic Command, which used to be resident and co-located with, you know, the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic that the NATO had, which, you know, ironically, General Mattis, you know, had back when it had become just common was then disestablished. So, you know, is there a need to look at the structure on a worldwide basis and where our priorities are and how that fits into the national defense strategy? And then, you know, another piece of it, and I know we only have a short time remaining, is to talk about the acquisition process. And, you know, how are the things that, you know, the services are coming before Congress and saying we need this capability, we need this platform, we need this ship. But, you know, how do those really fit into the needs of the combatant commanders and what's that feedback loop?

You know, if you went to Admiral Davidson at PACOM and said, you know, what do you need to fight and win in the Pacific? You know, the things that he lays out are those the same things that when you go to the requirements branch within the Navy are then being fed into their budget requests and coming to Congress each year. And where does that feedback loop break down? And so I think that these are just all questions that we need to take a serious look at and make sure that 35 years on in a very different environment than, you know, towards the end of the Cold War, when Goldwater-Nichols was developed, are they still relevant today? And so Mike and I have had a lot of conversations about this and, you know, how we can generate this dialogue. And we have a lot of colleagues who are also interested in joining us in this discussion. Yeah, Congressman Gallagher, same question to you then regarding Goldwater-Nichols. Do you think it's time to reexamine that as well?

Yes, I do, and I'm hoping that Elena and I can make this a priority in this next Congress. I will confess in the early stages, as we've done some sort of exploratory research, every time I think about the issue, I come away with sometimes contradictory conclusions. For instance, I'm convinced we need a more powerful SECNAV in order to bring about the transformation that I think most navalists agree that we need. But on the other hand, you also need strong leadership in OSD to prioritize competing service requests and make the final call, you know, that the Navy's seventh priority is more important than the Navy's third priority, that kind of thing. But it's a topic that I think is is worth exploring for no other reason than we can get that that sort of clear explanation from the Navy as to how it does strategy design and how it approaches the requirements process. And to maybe tie this back to the discussion about wargaming, I mean, I would settle, if we can't do a wargame, just for a very simple, open, and honest conversation away from the cameras with a few people in a room in front of a map where the Navy just explained to us in actual simple and direct prose, free of acronyms and jargon, how it thinks about Indo-PACOM and what it is trying to do. and why it needs certain systems to do the things that it's trying to do.

And I think ultimately that's what that's the type of conversation we haven't really had yet, but need to have if we are going to be effective advocates for integrated American sea power. Thank you. So we're almost out of time, but I'd like to get each of your final thoughts on one last question. Representative Lurie, I'll come to you first. What other opportunities do you see with Battle Force 2045? well you know like we've discussed throughout this i think that it's um definitely a starting point for a conversation about you know why it's so important to have a strong navy to have naval presence overseas and you know what types of things can can get us there it's incredibly ambitious i mean even 355 ship maybe we haven't been on the trajectory to accomplish that um but

we do need to continue to highlight the fact that we need to make the proper investment in our navy both for, you know, our national defense. You know, Mike has alluded to the fact that our geography is our friend. You know, we only have to look back to Mahan and the influence of sea power on history to understand, you know, how, you know, the United States and other nations

throughout history have understood that. And we really need to continue to reemphasize that, especially when we look at who our adversaries are and, you know, how they're acting and reacting to our presence in different parts of the world. And I've previously alluded in our conversation to, you know, increase Russian submarine activity in the North Atlantic, increase, you know,

naval activity throughout the Western Pacific. And, you know, we need to be present. We need to be in China's backyard. I'm happy to see that this administration has made that a priority. I saw that, you know, we just did FONOPS for the 13th time in the Strait of Taiwan, and that's the most we've ever done in one year. But, you know, not just stop at being present. We need to have a credible threat.

And, you know, Mike mentioned Michelle Flournoy earlier, you know, her discussion specifically about, you know, the Chinese need to understand that there's a credible threat from the U.S. Navy in their backyard. And we need to set a goal for that. And everything we need to do as far as, you know, Congress and providing the Navy those tools needs to facilitate that credible threat, you know, responding if the Chinese take any action. Thank you very much, ma'am. Then Representative Gallagher, I'll give you the final word on the same question is, what other opportunities do you see with Battle Force 2045? Well, I emphatically agree with what Elaine just said.

I mean, I mean, Flora and I articulated a goal that I can get behind, which is, you know, having the ability to to put the PLA Navy on the bottom of the Pacific in less than 72 hours. She might not have phrased it in exactly that verbiage, but I think the key question will be if the Biden team comes in with a sense of urgency and hits the ground running to action the plan or if it pulls back while it develops its own defense strategy and its own integrated naval force structure assessment. I get the instinct to, you know, to come up with a plan with their distinctive fingerprints on it, but I would advise them that this is actually a

plan that should survive the transition. You know, I hope that, you know, in the context of a war game or just a discussion with Congress, we arrive at that conclusion. We don't keep continually re-inventing the wheel. And certainly, Elaine and I have our work cut out for us in the next Congress when it comes to this. Well, unfortunately, that's all the time that we have for today. I'd like to thank both my guests, Representative Elaine Luria of Virginia and Representative Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin. Representative Luria, where can we find you online? And do you have any other projects in this vein coming up? Oh, well, thanks, Jared, for having me. And it was great to join you this morning, Mike. So people can follow me on Twitter. It's at RepElaineLuria

and my website, luria.house.gov. So, you know, every time we put out any releases specifically related to the Navy and the work we're doing on armed services, you can follow those there and also have some projects coming up with CSIS, the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Mike and I'll be doing some work with them coming up on the future of the Navy and have some more of these discussions in the future and also working on some other issues related to civilian nuclear power and you know how that ties into our defense industrial base and it's truly a national defense issue so stay tuned for more on that as well i look forward to reading that and then representative gallagher same questions to you where can we find you and

you have anything in your drafts folder right now that we should expect to see sure uh you can find me on twitter uh at rep gallagher matt rep gallagher and um i think this conversation has has made me realize that maybe the many drafts i have in my folder right now are going to have to be put on the back burner so that uh representative lori and i can can co-author a piece either broadly on the future of the navy or or on the future or on the present state of goldwater nickel so i i will look forward to uh to uh writing a joint piece together here shortly in the first quarter of 2021. I would look forward to that.

And, you know, if I can, I can imagine a place where that would really look forward to publishing that. I'll just say that as SimSec represented. But thank you both again so much for joining us today. For our listeners, thanks for tuning in.

We'll see you next time. Sea Control is produced and edited by Keegan Ingersoll, Ed Salo, and William McQuiston. I'm back with Greasy Annie Put it on the shimbo now So help me, Bob, I'm puttin' the alley Way, hey, puttin' the alley

Help me, Bob, I'm puttin' the alley Put it on the shimbo now A pot of rum and a pot of gin, oh Way, hey, puttin' the alley A pot of wine, both white and red, oh Oh, help me, oh my, I'm putting me out of this world. Help me, oh my, I'm putting me out of this world.