Sailors and Marines
from Littoral Combat Group One (LCG-1) returned home to Naval Base San Diego
and Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam after participating in the International
Maritime and Naval Exhibition for South America, known as EXPONAVAL. (1)
The
group apparently consisted of USS Somerset (LPD 25) and USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG
108) plus an embarked Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force (SPMAGTF-Peru)
as well as a Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment.
The
group (are two ships really a group?) apparently conducted humanitarian and
disaster response exercises, fisheries enforcement activities, and community
projects.
I’ve
been unable to find out any additional information about the group or its
intended purpose.
I
don’t know if this was a one-time, ad-hoc group that was given a catchy name
and will never be repeated or if this is some kind of new and idiotic concept
the Navy is implementing.
Taking
the name at face value, there is no way that a single LPD and a Burke can form
a useful, effective combat group for high end combat. This leads us into the next observation.
This
kind of non-combat exercise is absolutely worthless and is all the worse when
our ships are chronically under-maintained and undertrained. Why aren’t we spending the time teaching our
officers and crews how to conduct basic navigation and seamanship in a safe
manner without colliding with giant, hulking commercial ships? Why aren’t we spending our time developing
and practicing peer war doctrine and tactics?
And so on. There are so many
better things our combat ships should be doing.
Now,
I’m not against interacting with South American countries. Quite the opposite, in fact. South America is a major exporter of problems
for the US and we ought to take an active interest in the region. However, there are much better means of
interacting than putting wear and tear on top of the line warships that are
desperately in need of maintenance and training.
I’ll
be keeping an eye out for an recurrence of this Littoral Combat Group idiocy.
(1)Commander,
US Pacific Fleet website, “Littoral Combat Group-1 Returns From South America”,
26-Dec-2018,
https://www.cpf.navy.mil/news.aspx/110635
This sounds like a Coast Guard mission, not a USN mission. If this is what the USN wants to do then put the USCG under the navy department and beef up their budget. This could have been done with a national security cutter instead of a Burke and an MSC ship like the MLP (or whatever it’s initials are now) if they wanted a mothership which is what I assume the LPD is for.
ReplyDeleteCome to think of it, isn’t it non-combat missions like this that the Navy keeps saying they need the LCS now (minus a decent combat fit) instead of waiting? To do those jobs and free up combat ships? If that argument was true then wouldn’t shouldn’t this be an LCS instead of a Burke. Isn’t the “L” for Littoral? This, not sitting in the Pacific is probably the only mission it can do as is.
You buried the lead, the Littoral Combat Group,
ReplyDeletecontained no Littoral "Combat" Ships.
Navy humor is often subtle.
Happy New Year.
"The group (are two ships really a group?) apparently conducted humanitarian and disaster response exercises, fisheries enforcement activities, and community projects."
ReplyDeleteThis phrase alone is so disturbing....Again, are 2 ships a group now? Is that the future of deployments? As others have said, why wasn't the LCS there?!? I thought it was part of the group until I reread the article. No LCSs for a littoral job?
I get that we need to show the flag but "community projects, disaster relief, water purification?" Really?!? This was tailor made for a couple of LCSs, maybe the LPD but why a Burke? Why is the USN using such top of line ships for basic Coast Guard jobs? Doesn't the LCS have the range to go to South America or was USN afraid it couldn't make it without breaking down?
The disconnect is startling between what we are talking about on CNO blog what USN should be doing and what USN is actually doing....
Are you familiar with USAID (US Agency for International Development)? This is the group that should be doing these activities. It's their job description.
DeleteCongress should be beefing up USAID's budget and reducing the Navy's non-warfighting budget.
Not a naval expert but doesn't some of these South American nations have SSKs? Why couldn't they organize a few days of exercises with them? No need to go all crazy sophisticated, just a simple "meet and greet" kind of training would have been invaluable since USN trains so little to never with SSKs.
DeleteNot that long ago, we've been talking about motherships. Again, a great opportunity missed where USN could have improvised a mothership and sent 3 LCSs and operate these missions, not warfighting but just trying to execute their peace time missions probably would have strained them enough but at least USN would have learned if mothership concept could work with LCS....
Yes, this is something that should have been done thru USAID or similar civilian ops or Coast Guard.
USN just seems to miss too many opportunities...nothing here was of war fighting value but with a little ingenuity and thinking out of the box, USN could have learned a few things. Too bad.
"Are you familiar with USAID (US Agency for International Development)? This is the group that should be doing these activities. It's their job description."
DeleteI'm not sure I agree. The AID is a civilian organization and unless you radically reorganize how it is structured it not going to be able to do:
"The group (are two ships really a group?) apparently conducted humanitarian and disaster response exercises, fisheries enforcement activities, and community projects."
OK the last one I suppose. But the rest of the list does sort of suppose the potential for use of force and the ability to operate with out depending on the locals. That's not really an AID ability. Compare the fact the CDC is not helping stop the Ebola outbreak in the Congo. Why? For the first time it is in a low intestine war zone so no go. The CDC might have the best infectious disease resources in the world, but it does not have armed security and armed transport, etc. The Government of Congo certainty does not have any reliable ones.
I would agree it likely should be a USCG job. That is problematical since the USCG does not have the budget teflon protection of the Pentagon budget. They can't even get their desperately needed Ice Breakers funded and that's a core mission.
Theoretically it could be good ideal. With the budget and manpower let the USCG run the hospital ships and patrol boats the Navy despises. Set aside some Navy/Marine assets(that is some but not all Amphibious ships) to be focused on joint relief operations. Up gun a larger fleet of National Security cutters to be able to do things like anti piracy, etc.
However that would require Congress to fundamentally rethink how it funds the Navy and its other navy and what it thinks they should be doing.
Additionally. If its primarily a soft power demonstration why is called a 'combat group'? Why not a NSC and a hospital ship instead of the DD - given the list of potential roles.
Delete"The AID is a civilian organization"
DeleteNo, depending on semantics, it is a government organization. From its Mission Statement,
"In support of America's foreign policy, the U.S. Agency for International Development leads the U.S. Government's international development and disaster assistance … and help people emerge from humanitarian crises ... "
So, humanitarian and disaster assistance is smack in their stated mission along with a wide variety of community assistance projects. So, the only mission that isn't in their purview is fishery enforcement. They also claim,
"... reducing the reach of conflict, preventing the spread of pandemic disease, and counteracting the drivers of violence, instability, transnational crime and other security threats."
So, while active combat is not their mission, they are conflict-adjacent!
USAID seems like the perfect group for these kinds of activities.
"Why not a NSC and a hospital ship instead of the DD - given the list of potential roles."
DeleteI have no idea. I've never heard of this Littoral Combat Group before so I have no idea what its intended role is. It does seem an unlikely fit to the mission, as with so many Navy activities.
"USAID seems like the perfect group for these kinds of activities"
DeleteAgain theoretically I could agree. But it would still require Congress to stop seeing this as a USN role and move allocate money to AID on a sustained basis for that job and expand it personal etc.
Maybe it would help if it was renamed American International Soft Power...
It would also require the Navy to stop lobbying for any visible role for PR reasons and potentially surrender apparent budget to somebody else (department) for the greater good.
" It does seem an unlikely fit to the mission, as with so many Navy activities."
DeleteYou know I was struck by the recent news about the Hospital ship deployment to help refugees from Venezuela in Colombia because that nation's medical and refugee system is over loaded.
Your complaint is often this is wasted effort from war fighting and that is I think valid. But on the whole its also wasted soft power. The visit was for I recall no more than 2 weeks... Sort of more of soft power PR stunt than real soft power. If the USCG or AID was running the ships with an appropriate budget maybe they could have set up shop long term. It was noted in news stories how many Americans of Venezuelans origin, decent or Green card holders volunteered for the trip (Medical translators etc). A long term visit is not really in the USN budget, but it could be in a different agency. Showing up for EXPONAVAL likely does not change a single mind in South America. Helping a lot more desperate Venezuelans over the longer term likely does.
edit - but that should not likely be the USN's job
Delete"it would still require Congress to stop seeing this as a USN role and move allocate money to AID on a sustained basis"
DeleteAbsolutely! And that's part of the reason I do this blog - to suggest better ways to operate. If USAID needs cargo ships for, say, disaster relief, then they should be provided in one form or another. And so on.
As far as the Navy "giving up" budget, it's not theirs to give up. The money doesn't belong to the Navy, it belongs to the people and the government as agents of the people. It's Congress' job to determine where the money can best be spent. If the Navy thinks this kind of soft power job is important - which they must or they wouldn't take it on, right? - then all that is left is to determine what group can best perform the mission and that would seem to be USAID. So, the Navy should be first in line to suggest expanding USAID, if need be. Regardless, it isn't up to the Navy.
"Helping a lot more desperate Venezuelans over the longer term likely does."
DeleteQuite right! USAID's job is the long term "hearts and minds" that so many are so fond of. Personally, I have grave doubts about the efficacy of that concept but if you're going to attempt it, it has to be a long term commitment not a two week hit-and-run medical visit. We need to stay there and, while we're there, help build hospitals and clinics, provide medicines and equipment, and aggressively advertise so as to get maximum benefit from the effort. None of this fits the Navy's reason for existence.
These ships went to EXPONAVAL in Chile for display. While there, they did some mil2mil and mil2civ exercises and outreach. Not really anything USAID does or could do.
DeleteSounds like a big PR exercise.
"Regardless, it isn't up to the Navy."
DeleteTrue but its probably circular thinking. The Navy would certainly vociferously oppose any transfer of assets or money or mission even if it would more optimal for them. Face it in Congress the Pentagon/Military has pull - AID, USCG, any other agency not so much. Consider also the Trump administration: His energy secretary was surprised to discover the DOE runs the construction and maintenance of the nuclear stockpile not the Pentagon and Trump was likely surprised to realize the shutdown was not going to be paying the USCG. If you polled most congressmen and women they would likely make the same mistake (unless they were an relevant committee).
AID sounds like giving away money to foreigners. The USCG is the poor step stepchild of the Navy. Neither get persistent uncritical funding. I mean really If the USCG admitted it had to restrict all its National Security class cutters to port for what a year do think they would get a blank check to double the fleet? (re LCS). What would happen in congress if AID or the CDC, NIH announced it 'lost' 800 million dollars?
Thus the circle. US policy maker want to do Soft Power, and also it is true disaster relief at home can benefit from the typical Navy assets used at that as well. None of the agencies that could do that get reliable funding. The Navy does. The Navy needs to show it doing stuff thus the Navy does Soft Power.
It would I think take a profound effort by a dedicated Administration to shift funding and re prioritize how different agencies should be viewed and sell the ideal to Congress and the Voters.
"Not really anything USAID does or could do."
DeleteRead the comments about USAID. Most of what they did, the USAID has as its mission.
"It would I think take a profound effort by a dedicated Administration to shift funding and re prioritize how different agencies should be viewed and sell the ideal to Congress and the Voters."
DeleteThis is why I do this blog - to present better ideas and try to influence people. You appear to be arguing for status quo. If we all simply accepted the current reality, how would anything ever change? I prefer to push for change rather than accept substandard situations.
"Read the comments about USAID. Most of what they did, the USAID has as its mission"
DeleteThe Marines did disaster relief training with the Peruvian Navy. The Navy did fisheries protection training with the Ecuadorian Navy.
USAID wouldn't do either of those.
Here's a better description.
Http://www.cpf.navy.mil/news.aspx/110624
Essentially a SOUTHCOM grip-n-grin with a dash of training.
Full on GnG.
Deletehttps://www.dvidshub.net/video/642810/b-roll-spmagtf-peru-humanitarian-assistance-disaster-relief-exercise
CH-53 lift demo. Fastrope demos.
PR exercise.
"The Marines did disaster relief training with the Peruvian Navy."
DeleteThe point was that disaster relief is USAID's core mission. They could have and should have done it. That the US Navy wasted a pair of warships doing it doesn't make it right nor does it make it mandatory that the Navy had to conduct the mission. The End.
"PR exercise."
DeleteWhich accomplishes nothing. We need to put USAID and other agencies (hey, State Dept … where are you?) to work building long lasting relationships.
I guarantee USAID has never done fastrope training.
DeleteThat was mil2mil training.
Really it was just PR.
Trump is trying his hardest to neuter State and USAID, so don't expect much there.
Delete"I guarantee USAID has never done fastrope training."
DeleteNow you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. This discussion is over.
Just some comments and/or related information:
ReplyDelete1) Here are some photos of the HA/DR exercise in the coast of Perú:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ministeriodedefensaperu/sets/72157703959598975
2) The US should engage more closely to the South American countries. China is very active in the region and, in different ways, has taken several steps in reinforcing its presence in the region. Actually is trying to do the same move as in Vanuatu.
China and Vanuatu: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/world/asia/vanuatu-china-wharf.html
China and Ecuador: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/24/world/americas/ecuador-china-dam.html
3) In my opinion, the deployment should have been performed by a Littoral Combat Ship and an Expeditionary Fast Transport Vessel (EPF-T).
4) Regarding South American submarines, you can found the following:
- Argentina: 1 x 209/1300 class + 1 x TR 1700 class
- Brasil: 4 x 209/1400 class + 1 x 209/1400 mod class + 1 Scorpene class (on trials) + 2 Scorpene class (in construction)
- Chile: 2 x 209/1400 class + 2 x Scorpene class
- Colombia: 2 x 206 class + 2 x 209/1200 class
- Ecuador: 2 x 209/1300 class
- Perú: 2x209/1100 class + 4 x 209/1200 class
- Venezuela: 2 x 209/1300 class
5) Regarding US Navy – South American submarines training, since 2001, there is the Diesel Electric Submarine Initiative. Here is a 10-years old link: https://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_38/desi.html
"3) In my opinion, the deployment should have been performed by a Littoral Combat Ship and an Expeditionary Fast Transport Vessel (EPF-T)."
ReplyDeleteThey are not deploying right now... They have move past literally not a combat ship to literally a dock decoration. Sending a Burke is sort of necessary since it the working ship the USN can build right now.
Not for nothing, but the Marine SPMAGTF-Peru seems to have appeared out of nowhere. All this seems Ad hoc-ish and designed for this specific deployment.
ReplyDeleteIn case you missed it, USNI has a follow up article on the Littoral Combat Group-1 story.
ReplyDeleteNavy Tests ‘Littoral Combat Group’ Concept That Pairs DDG, LPD in South America Deployment
Yeah, I saw it. The Navy is just plain making up nonsense now.
Delete