Before we go any further, note that I have no access to the
intel and cannot assess whether the US actions are appropriate or not. Neither the government nor the Pentagon has
provided any details about the nature of the threat but the fact is that we
have taken those actions and our military and civilian leadership believe the
actions are appropriate.
Aside from the actual threat and US actions, the most
noteworthy aspect has been the fact that an ally has abandoned us. It was reported today that a Spanish frigate
deployed with the USS Lincoln has pulled out of the group and headed back to
Spain over a disagreement about US actions.
Fox News reported that the Spanish Defense Minister indicated
the departure was due to “a disagreement over the White House’s Iran policy”.
(1)
The
U.S. government has taken a decision outside of the framework of what had been
agreed with the Spanish Navy. (1)
Let’s review our position on cooperation and training with
Spain, back in January 2019.
…
Navy leaders stressed U.S. allies role in the service’s emerging
Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) plan for high-end warfare.
“We
will never fight alone,” Adm. Christopher Grady, commander of U.S. Fleet Forces
Command, said 2019 Surface Navy Association Symposium. “The strength of DMO is our ability to bring
our allies and partners along.”
Currently, Menedez
Nunez is in Norfolk training with the Abraham Lincoln CSG. The training
exercises are expected to start next week and run into February.
“We
bring our partners with us,” Grady said. “We’d be stupid not to because we
learn a lot from them and we hope they learn something from us.”
“We will never fight alone.”
Adm. Grady could not have been more wrong, could he? When this crisis, whatever it is, arose, it
turns out that we do fight alone, as history has demonstrated repeatedly. Adm. Grady has bought in to the Navy line and
is ignoring the evidence of history. He’s
either a mindless drone, repeating the company line, or an idiot.
So, the US enthusiastically trained with the Spanish frigate
and deployed the Lincoln carrier strike group with the frigate. Despite that, what happened when it came time
to act? Spain opted not to support the
US.
So, why did we waste time, money, effort, and resources
training with Spain?
I’ve stated repeatedly that training with other militaries
is a waste and this is a perfect example of why. Our “allies” have their own agendas that
frequently do not coincide with that of the US.
History has proven, repeatedly, that with the exception of the UK (and
even they occasionally part ways with us), we cannot count on our supposed
allies when crises arise. I’m not going
to bother citing a litany of the times “allies” have abandoned us or even acted
against us (I’m looking at you, France).
You know the examples as well as I do and you can readily find and
research them on the Internet, if you wish.
 |
Spanish Frigate F-104 Mendez Nunez
Bye - Thanks for Nothing
|
Now, here’s the point you need to clearly understand: I do NOT blame our allies for having their
own agendas and acting in their own interests.
Indeed, they could not and should not behave otherwise. We act in our own interests so why would
think other countries wouldn’t act in their own interests? The stupidity, our stupidity, lies in not
recognizing and admitting that simple truth.
We need to accept that reality and act accordingly. One of those actions should be to recognize
the futility of training with allies who are unlikely to support us when
the time comes.
Our time spent training with the Spanish frigate was a
waste. Worse, depending on the degree of
integration, if the frigate was an actual integral part of the carrier strike
group, as opposed to a public relations ‘tag along’, then we put ourselves into
a position of degrading our carrier group’s combat capability by counting on an
unreliable Spanish frigate and then losing it when the need came. If that was the case, that’s worse than
merely wasting time and resources, that’s crippling. Of course, it’s completely our fault. Knowingly planning for a scenario in which we
are likely to be crippled is beyond stupid on our part.
Training with allies is a waste and needs to stop.
Warning to commenters:
I’m going to delete any comment that provides an example of an ally
supporting us. I have not stated that
allies will never support us. I’ve
stated that we can’t count on their support.
A fifty/fifty record of support, or whatever the record is, is not a
basis for planning for combat. If you
can’t absolutely count on an ally then you shouldn’t waste time training with
them on the off chance that they might see fit to support you – or not.
(1)Fox News cable broadcast, Margarita Robles (acting
Defense Minister),14-May-2019, ~1100 hr
Your argument boils down to something akin to "I will not practice with my rec baseball team if they refuse to play in my rec soccer game." U.S. interests and missions are diverse and intersect and oppose nations in a constantly shifting pattern. Training with smaller surface combatants that can secure demonstrably vulnerable U.S. supply lines in the Atlantic in the event of a major conflict in Europe is far from a waste of time since it is (1) a capability we lack and (2) an area where our and our allies' interests are likely to converge.
ReplyDeleteArticulating an expectation that any ally that does not blindly follow our agenda is an ally we waste our time by cooperating with weakens U.S. security by leaving us isolated, vulnerable to groupthink and confirmation bias, and denying the Navy an opportunity to practice integrating with non-similar forces in the event of rapidly changing circumstances.
"I will not practice with my rec baseball team if they refuse to play in my rec soccer game."
DeleteAn utterly sophomoric and irrelevant analogy. I'll simply ignore it.
"Training with smaller surface combatants that can secure demonstrably vulnerable U.S. supply lines in the Atlantic"
This is an appealing statement on the surface. Now, let's delve a bit deeper. What smaller surface combatant from an ally is going to be able to secure Atlantic supply lines that we can't and how will they do that? What will they do that with. I think you're falling back on vague generalities that sound good without thinking the issue through. Think it through and then tell me what ally, with what assets, will secure Atlantic supply lines.
If we lack the capability to secure supply lines with our forces, what ally has the capability given their much, much, much smaller forces? Again, I don't think you're actually thinking this through. Wow me with realistic scenarios and facts.
"an ally we waste our time by cooperating with weakens U.S. security"
DeleteHow does not training with an ally weaken our security? Our allies are still free to patrol Atlantic and Mediterranean waters, reign in Russia, fight terrorism, support international maritime trade, and secure the oceanic commons. Our not training with them doesn't prevent that. Indeed, I would encourage them to do so.
Your statement that not training with allies weakens US security is patently false.
" leaving us isolated"
How does not training with allies leave us isolated? We can, and should, continue to engage in robust trade, diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, cultural exchanges, financial relationships, intellectual property agreements, etc. How does not training with someone's military negatively impact any of that?
You're clearly just spouting emotional responses that you haven't thought through and aren't based on logic or fact.
Think all this through carefully and then try again.
The US has had the support of allies in virtually every major war she has fought in.
DeleteTraining with them in anticipation of that is common sense.
There are as many examples that disprove your assertion as their are that provide it.
You seem to just seize on those that confirm your view while ignoring the many, many examples that contradict it.
There have been many deployments of US carrier groups to the middle east supported by allied warships, in peace and war.
The idea that this is all meaningless, because one Spanish frigate detached from an American carrier group one time is over the top.
Not sure if this response is something you'll delete - it's your blog of course, you can do as you like. But that seems to be a case of you ignoring differing points of view.
If you are happy to site an example of an allied frigate abandoning a US carrier group as an example of why the US Navy should abandon decades of practice in training with her allies, then it's completely logical that examples of the inverse can be used to posit the opposite position. This is basic reasoning.
As with any complicated subject this isn't black and white - it's not binary.
Sometimes allies will help, sometime they won't.
The US hasn't fought a major naval war since WW2 - but in that war she absolutely fought side by side with a host of allies. They were integrated directly into American fleets. There;'s every reason to believe that if another major naval war occurred this would happen again.
It makes perfect sense to train then with the allies that would potentially integrate into American fleets - as they did in WW2.
"Sometimes allies will help, sometime they won't.
Delete... fought side by side with a host of allies."
You're making my argument for me but you just don't realize it. You acknowledge that allies often won't support us so one has to wonder what the point of training together is.
You also, correctly, note that we have fought "side by side" with allies in the past. The key is that "side by side" meant separate. D-Day/Normandy, for example, involved Canadian, US, British, etc. forces operating "side by side" but completely separately, each with it's own equipment, tactics, etc. There was no need for cross training.
Even today, a foreign ship can certainly operate with a US group as a SEPARATE entity that temporarily takes command from a US commander. That requires no extensive cross training.
In a future large scale war where we fight with allies, there won't be any mixing of units to any significant degree. There may be some "side by side" fighting but the units involved will retain their own equipment, tactics, etc.
There is also the practical consideration that, unlike WWII, there are few or no countries that possess large enough militaries to actually significantly support the US. The Royal Navy, for example, is so small that, in a war, they would have no ships available to support the US after taking care of their own self-defense needs. Again, why train with an ally whose military is so small that they will never be able to support us to any significant degree? Most/all countries fall into this category.
Thanks for helping make my point.
1) "U.S. interests and missions are diverse and intersect and oppose nations in a constantly shifting pattern. Training with smaller surface combatants [can improve the defense of Europe and the Atlantic]... in the event of a major conflict in Europe... [This is] an area where our and our allies' interests are likely to converge."
Delete...
2) "The US has had the support of allies in virtually every major war she has fought in... There's every reason to believe that if another major naval war occurred this would happen again. It makes perfect sense to train then *with the allies that would potentially integrate into American fleets* [emphasis added] - as they did in WW2."
...
3) "The key is that "side by side" meant separate... each with it's own equipment, tactics, etc. There was no need for cross training."
4) "In a future large scale war... there are few or no countries that possess large enough militaries to actually significantly support the US... would have no ships available to support the US after taking care of their own self-defense needs."
5) "As with any complicated subject this isn't black and white - it's not binary."
You're all right about everything I've highlighted, but Anon and J Mohn are failing to make the gray solution and its appeal clear. CNOps's overstates his point(s), but he's also largely correct:
We can't rely on our allies to perform any mission that isn't critical to them. We can't rely on our allies for some of the more demanding missions that are critical to them, like high-end naval combat with Russia, or large naval strikes against them. We don't (sufficiently) benefit from trying to integrate their navies with our CVBGs, ARGs, or the like. They either won't be willing or won't be able to commit ships to offensive tasks, depending on the scenario. We pay a significant cost for trying to do this, and we should stop.
However, our allies aren't useless. CNOps doesn't (quite) say they are, and I doubt he thinks they are, but the post doesn't do much to convey that.
Their role is fundamentally different from ours in a major war; we project power, they defend their territory. This is a result of geography more than anything, and it isn't going to change. We should train (together) how we plan to fight (together), not stop training together entirely. Training our allies in ASW, merchant convoy escort, and other relevant roles can detract from training for high-end naval combat, depending on which assets we use for this, but a secure logistics chain is worth the cost, and it is (theoretically) possible for the USN to participate in training for these roles exclusively using ships that will support our allies' maritime defense in a major war, eliminating the opportunity cost of using (potential) offensive assets for this training.
"However, our allies aren't useless. CNOps doesn't (quite) say they are, and I doubt he thinks they are"
DeleteOur allies militaries would, if committed, be quite useful in ancillary roles. None have the size or capabilities to contribute to high end war in any significant way. The contributions they would make, like patrolling a specific area, do not require any cross training with the US.
The model for this is the D-Day assault: Canadians, British, US, etc. - side by side but separate. With very few and very limited exceptions, no one mixes units, therefore, mixed training is pointless. If you're not going to mix units, why mix training.
This whole mixed training thing is like diversity. No one bothered to ask how it actually improved anything, they just jumped straight to implementation. No one has asked or answered how mixed training actually improves our capabilities, they've just jumped into conducting it and offering weak, vague, generalized, unsubstantiated justifications. This blog asks the questions, analyzes the issue, and goes where the evidence leads. In this case, it's clear that we get nothing from mixed training.
"they defend their territory."
DeleteAnd, if that's the case (and there's a large degree of truth to that), which country has a large enough military to contribute anything significant after accounting for their own defense needs? None.
I largely agree. The only qualification I'd add is that we can train with them as independent navies on executing the missions they will actually perform, they can benefit significantly from such training, and - if done correctly - it will have little cost and some benefit to our own navy. If we do this incorrectly by, say, acknowledging our respective roles in a major conflict and then assigning CVBGs to train with our allies on defensive missions, that's no better than the current situation; it provides no value at significant cost, and our allies may learn to rely on our CVBGs to perform their own defensive missions.
DeleteTo be clear, what I mean by "training" isn't simply working together on patrols or trying to develop unnecessary levels of interoperability - both of which are often counterproductive - but full-scale wargaming of the types of scenarios we expect them to contend with, likely with USN acting as the OPFOR. Our SSNs need a good ASW environment to practice raiding merchant shipping. Their small vessels need good SSNs (and SSKs...) to hunt. It's clear how training together in ASW can be a win-win, and this extends to several other missions we expect our allies to perform in a major conflict.
"To be clear, what I mean by "training"
DeleteTo be clear, what I mean by training is the kind of mixed unit, cross training that's all the rage right now. We send MV-22s to a British carrier (when are we ever going to operate our MV-22s from a RN carrier?) or practice amphibious exercises with Philippines or Australia (we'll never do that for real) or exercising with the Singapore navy (we'll never fight intermixed with them) and so on.
I have nothing against training AGAINST an ally - for example, against a diesel sub.
I see. I think I - and several others - misunderstood because (1) training is a very broad term and (2) the post didn't go into much detail on what the Spanish frigate was actually doing with the Lincoln group. You did highlight the problems that arise from mixed-unit training and operations, but it wasn't clear if that was the extent of your criticism, if "training with allies is a waste" was intended broadly, or something in between.
DeleteSomebody mentioned that this seems to have been a flag-waving mission for Spain all along. That is unacceptable, even (especially?) if we knew it and weren't depending on them for anything. The group was planning to circumnavigate the globe not to see the sites, but on a deployment. Even if the USN disagrees about the utility of interoperability, our CVBGs can't be playing chaperone to a bunch of tourist-sailors celebrating the achievements of a long-lost empire - they've got to patrol ours while it's still ours. At the very least, Spain needs to understand that there's a political (or military, or economic) price to pay for the political capital they get from this kind of mission. It would be an added bonus if they were also required to recognize the irony of celebrating the naval heyday of Spain while tucking the ship embodying said celebration safely inside a US CVBG.
From a Jan 15, 2019 Navy Times article,
Delete"Part of a trend of European warships joining American aircraft carrier groups, the Spanish frigate Méndez Núñez arrived here Monday to begin two months of training to prep for a long deployment under US commanders.
An Álvaro de Bazán-class F100 multi-purpose frigate armed with the Aegis Combat System, the Méndez Núñez will become part of the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and participate in its upcoming Composite Training Unit Exercise, or “COMPTUEX.”
The Spanish frigate trained for two months with a carrier battle group. That's more than just tagging along for a photo op. That's some serious training. That cost us time, money, resources, and focus - focus that could have gone to better training ourselves.
That was two months of training wasted.
Putting aside the potential for a semantic debate about the term 'side by side', your assertion that Canadian and British forces fought as entirely distinct entities in the D-Day Landings is simply false.
DeleteIt's actually a good example of how wrong your position is in my view.
As one of many, many examples, US troops were landed in mostly American built, but British manned landing craft on D-Day. So that's US assault troops landing in American made landing craft piloted by British naval personnel.
Air support on all beaches was a mix of British and American aircraft piloted by men from literally dozens of nations.
There were ships of many nations providing fire support across all landing beaches.
It was not the case that only American planes and ships provided support to American landings or vice versa.
It wasn't only British, Canadian and American forces at D-Day. There were ships, planes and soldiers from many nations. Poles, Czechs, Frenchmen, Norwegians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians etc. many military personnel, manning ships, piloting planes, storming beaches, parachuting into enemy territory.
It's ridiculous to infer that the US military did anything in isolation, independent of her allies. Particularly in terms of naval forces, task groups were never divided by nationality. British destroyers screened US cruisers. US ships provided AA for Canadian landing craft.
Reconnaissance of the US beaches prior to landing was done largely by British and French frogmen. US transport planes escorted by British spitfires piloted by Polish pilots transported British paras into battle.
The examples go on and on and on.
Your position on D-Day is simply not historically accurate.
"or practice amphibious exercises with Philippines or Australia (we'll never do that for real)"
DeleteThe last time the US fought a major naval war, they repeatedly launched amphibious assaults with Australia specifically. Throughout the New Guinea campaign for example, US and Australian landing craft launched amphibious landing in conjunction repeatedly. They transported mixed units of Australian and US soldiers.
There were US squadrons piloted by Australian pilots and vice versa.
US task groups throughout the Pacific war had Australian ships integrated directly into them. Australian cruisers formed battle lines with US cruisers, Australian destroyers screened for US task groups.
There were Australian cruisers and destroyers at Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, the Phillipines campaign, in fact at every major battle except Midway. They did not operate independently. They operated directly integrated into US task groups as though they were US ships.
There is absolutely no reason to think this would be any different in a future war.
Brothers in war / brothers around the table...
ReplyDeleteMaybe if some weapons contract from Saudi Arabia was made with the spanish industry the spanish navy will have stayed.
You want Lockeed and Boeing to take all the pies and after that the spanish navy to act as an enforcer for the saudi interest, like the US Navy is preparing to do?
If I understand this comment correctly, do you have a shred of evidence that the US is acting to protect Saudi interests?
DeleteI'll give you a brief period to provide your evidence and then, failing, I'll remove the comment as unfounded conspiracy babble.
I think technically he's saying that Spain is for sale,
DeleteI honestly don't know what he's saying. He seems to be suggesting that the US Navy is acting on behalf of the Saudis so as to promote arms sales with them, as best I can interpret the comment. I'm not sure how he sees Spain fitting in.
DeleteI dont have a problem with US training with allies, maybe the mission we are training for is weak but generally I'm ok with it. The problem I see is we are so integrated that Spain this time or UK, France, Australia,etc next time....is part of the TF and then they leave,that's wrong and somebody didn't do their homework. You are near Libya, Syria or Persian Gulf, you know combat could happen, every respective govt should be asked to answer some questions on what they would accept or not. In this case, Spain surely knew Iran strikes would NOT be OK in their book so USG should have said you cant train or be part of the TF in Persian Gulf....this stuff should be worked out by govts before hand.
ReplyDeleteEverything we do should be run through the filter of "how does this improve our combat capability?". If it (whatever 'it' is) doesn't improve our combat capability, we shouldn't do 'it'. With that in mind, how does training with an 'ally' that is just as likely to abandon us as support us, improve our combat capability? No vague generalities - tell me specifically how our combat capability improves by training with Spain, France, Italy, some African navy, the Philippines, etc. How do we sail away from those exercises saying, "wow, we're more lethal than we were before"?
DeleteYour point about anticipating likely scenarios and an ally's commitment in those scenarios is spot on. The problem is that there are very few scenarios, with any ally, where we and they can wholeheartedly commit to supporting US interests. And, if there are so few (none?) such scenarios, why are we training with anyone?
Taiwan & Korea, both cases the US would be coming in as an Ally to a war in progress. Should we not train with them ?
ReplyDeleteKorea is not capable of defending itself and does not need the US. If we did come to Korea's aid, we would fight separately, though beside each other.
DeleteTaiwan, to best of my knowledge, we do not currently train with them. The US has not defense treaty with Taiwan and it is highly questionable that we would come to their aid. Regardless, by the time we chose to intervene and were able to do so, they would likely be militarily beaten and we would fight on our own.
So, no, there is no benefit to training with either.
Consider your history of WWII. While fighting with allies, each country, with minor exceptions, fought separately, albeit beside each other.
"Korea is not capable of defending itself and does not need the US. If we did come to Korea's aid, we would fight separately, though beside each other."
DeleteThis is not quite the case; while South Korea does have a fairly robust army and air force (and is currently building up its navy), it doesn't quite yet have the full C3I setup and institutional experience to be able to control its military in a full-on war, and in reflection of that, by mutual agreement and treaty, in the case of a war on the Korean peninsula, the ROK military will be under operational control of US Forces Korea. So it's not quite fighting seperately, more like if a war happens, ROKA will augment USFK. I'd submit that this is a rare and clear example of when training with an ally is worth it, since the Korean forces will fall under US OPCON (albeit, within the specific confines of a war on the Korean peninsula).
(The issue of Korean OPCON is a talking point within domestic politics; Korean Conservatives favor maintaining the status quo, while Korean Liberals (such as President Moon Jae-In) favor Korean OPCON being in Korean hands, not American. It also ties in somewhat with how politics run there; Korean Conservatives favor less defense spending, preferring to rely on the American security umbrella, while Korean Liberals appreciate the American security umbrella, but favor increased defense spending in order to be militarily independant of the US. Or, in cruder terms, militarily the Conservatives want Korea to be America's kept woman, while the Liberals want to be an equal partner.)
I think there's a difference between 'train with' and 'rely on'.
ReplyDelete- Obviously some countries have kit that China or Russia use and the benefits of training with them are obvious.
- Equally, training with people who haven't been through the US training system and may have better ways of doing some things or better equipment in certain areas is equally obvious.
- Reminding some 'allies' that the US is bigger and badder and making it obvious to their military has a purpose.
- It's a showcase of US equipment to help sales.
As for 'relying on', why anyone ever thought they could rely on Spain in the first place when their political system is in meltdown is astounding. More generally, the US knows which allies it can rely on and in what circumstances so I doubt the State Department was surprised by this. The US (and any other country) should regard any ally as a bonus rather than essential unless they are absolutely sure of them or desperate as hell - the US is currently neither and certainly doesn't need any military help sorting out Iran, although political backing is useful. The Saudis are now one of the top defense spenders and I'm sure they would love to help and the Brits can be relied on for this one.
You may be confusing training with simple military educational exchanges. I have no problem with a few personnel going to see what other countries have and can do. That's just a military exchange.
DeleteI'm talking about training where, for example, we send a contingent of US Marines to deploy on a UK carrier or incorporate a Spanish frigate into a carrier group or train with the Philippines navy or conducting amphibious assault training with Australia or …
These types of training do nothing to improve US combat lethality and are so unlikely to ever happen in real life as to be impossible, for all practical purposes.
Now, I also have no problem with us offering training to another country. If we think it would be helpful to show the Philippines navy how to conduct boarding operations, that's fine. Send a few people to show them.
I think it's important to train at a large scale with the right allies - during the last Gulf wars there were coalitions with significant French and British forces and it makes sense to know how to operate in an integrated way. It's not unthinkable that this sort of coalition may be required again, especially outside the Pacific theatre. Equally, you're much better off sending a complete Arleigh Burke (instead of just a few observers) to train against a European diesel sub so the crew gets experience it can't get in the US navy - this sort of thing directly improves US combat lethality.
DeleteAs for the specific examples you quote, the US Marines are being deployed on the British carrier when it does a deployment to the Pacific - this is effectively a US mission that our ally is helping us with for political reasons. Outside that particular point I believe its more for political purposes than military. The only other point I would add is that any exposure to military commanders who actually think about fighting a war instead of against each other for career advancement (and there are some in foreign navies, if not the US Navy) has got to be a good thing!
"better off sending a complete Arleigh Burke (instead of just a few observers) to train against a European diesel sub"
DeleteTraining against is completely different from training with. I have no problem with training against someone who happens to have a piece of equipment that could simulate one of our enemy's pieces.
My objection is training 'with' someone given that we'll never ever fight integrated with them. Even in the Gulf War we fought separate though side by side. Cross training would have served no purpose or benefit.
Not quite on topic but are we talking about only ONE carrier in Gulf? Seems a bit light as a TF maybe going to war or getting ready to launch some strikes? Any LCSs in the TF? LOL! I guess the difference in fire power will be brought up by land assets.
ReplyDeleteAny good links on US assets in the region right now?
Very little official information on this one. The Lincoln group and a B-52 unit are all that have been publicly acknowledged.
DeleteI agree, let's surge some LCSs!
It appears that an LPD (Arlington), a B-52H unit, a Patriot Battery, the Lincoln, 1 cruiser, and 4 destroyers have been sent so far with possibly F-15s and F-35s based locally in support.
DeleteIts not 'surging' a carrier, its just the normal rotation. A month ago CVN74 was heading out of Gulf and CVN72 was in western Med on the way to Gulf to replace it. Likely this would have been planned 18 months ago, surging would mean both carriers in Gulf or nearby at same time - which has happened before.
Delete"Its not 'surging' a carrier, its just the normal rotation."
DeleteFrom a Business Insider article,
"The Lincoln ... is being redirected on an accelerated timetable to the Persian Gulf, according to the Pentagon."
Semantics aside, that's a surge.
CNO Richardsons twitter feed says CSG ' was planned to deploy for some time now'
DeleteAnd yet when asked specifically if the 'Centcom AOR' wasnt planned for some time, the answer is spin.
https://twitter.com/CNORichardson/status/1125443582184370176
As I see it Bolton is making all the noises about surging - he seems to have reasonable cause and so on- but the deployment to Gulf is a normal rotation to replace the predecessor carrier. Its bombast because its designed to impress 'one person'
I used this website which tracks the major US Navy ships to show CVN72 was in western Med a month ago and May 2 it was in Red Sea. How is 'acceleration' a time period of 12-14 days to travel from Red Sea ( not an area to linger in) and be in Arabian Sea/ Gulf area.
Deletehttps://worldview.stratfor.com/topic/tracking-us-naval-power
Hi,i'm fron Spain and i'm embarrased for this decission. We have the worst goverment of our democratic history.
ReplyDeleteI'm pleased to hear from anyone from another country. Sorry it had to be under these circumstances. Feel free to comment on any post. Your perspective would be appreciated.
DeleteFor I know the NATO as its name defines doesn't include the Middle East (where is Iran) so does not obligue the other members to nothing.
ReplyDeleteEven if it was in NATO area what rights has a member of an alliance that without consulting the others require help menacing other countries? That wouldn't an alliance but a group of vassals.
Moreover most of the alliance support a treaty with Iran from which USA retired unilaterally.
And finally the Spanish frigate was in a training mission, not a potential military attack against other country that has not attacked Spain.
No one but you has claimed that there was any NATO obligation and I have to tell you that you are factually wrong about any NATO obligation involving Iran. There is no obligation.
DeleteThe politics of Iranian relationships with other countries is irrelevant as regards this post. The post is about the quite reasonable lack of consistent support by other countries for the US and the resulting illogic of training with them. The specific politics of Iran are, again, irrelevant. Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?
The Spanish frigate was part of a deployed, combat ready, carrier strike group. If it was not prepared for combat then it should not have been part of the group and the US wasted its time training with the Spanish ship - which was the point of the post.
For your next comment, why don't you reread the post, carefully this time, and contribute something to the discussion?
Well the Spainish are saying it was a training mission not a combat ready mission
Delete"Speaking in Brussels at a meeting of EU ministers, Robles said that Spain and the US had reached a deal two years ago to include the Méndez Núñez, with 215 sailors on board, in a training mission that also commemorates the 500th anniversary of the first circumnavigation of the Earth by the explorers Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián Elcano."
https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/05/14/inenglish/1557817315_163408.html
With more detail
'ESPS Mendez Nunes had been scheduled to operate with the US aircraft carrier until October this year, sailing in the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The frigate was to visit San Diego with the US Navy ships before returning home.'
Clearly a circumnavigation - show the flag type of mission.
https://navaltoday.com/2019/05/14/spanish-frigate-breaks-off-from-us-carrier-strike-group-heading-for-strait-of-hormuz/
This is irrelevant to the post. The Spanish ship could have been along for a photo op. The reason is irrelevant. The point is that the US spent time training with the Spanish navy to no useful purpose.
DeleteI wonder if this could spill over into the FFGX competition as seeing a Spanish design is one of the finalists
ReplyDeleteNow that's an excellent question! I have no answer, of course, but it's well worth pondering. Will the US unofficially rule out the Spanish entry in response to Spain bailing out? Hmm …
DeleteReally great comment/question!
You will know we are very serious when we send all the Zummies and a squadron of lcs to the Persian gulf!!!!
ReplyDeleteNo western country will attack Iran without a security council resolution. It is illegal to attack other countries in all but one western country.
ReplyDeleteBut my comment is about the LCS.
This potential war is the war they were designed for. Littoral MCM, anti midget subs, and speedboats.
Unfortunately truck mounted ASM was not part of their war design.
I guess LCSs are only "operational" for waving the flag and training with allies! But seriously, isnt this why USN bought the LCSs? Littoral combat? We haven't bought enough of them by now to have ONE with the TF?? Wouldnt this be a great time for USN to show off the LCS?
DeleteCNO,
ReplyDeleteA much better example are those Mexican Special Forces soldiers we trained who decided to form the Los Zetas drug cartel, which now smuggles drugs into the USA and commits the most indiscriminate slaughter and worst possible torture of those people unfortunate to come across our path.
I would rate the Japanese as the most trustworthy, and perhaps only, US ally regarding China.
GAB
"...of those people unfortunate to come across [their] path."
DeleteGAB
There's also the South Koreans, the only country in the world that has stated in writing that, in a time of war, it will put its forces under US OPCON (albeit for a very specific war scenario).
Delete"There's also the South Koreans"
DeleteSKorea has never actively supported the US outside Korea, as far as I can recall. Their "support" is strictly limited to us helping them, not the other way around. They are quite capable of defending themselves by now.
We can operate alongside them, separately, without needing to cross train. How does our combat lethality improve by training with them?
"SKorea has never actively supported the US outside Korea, as far as I can recall. "
DeleteYou might want to recall a place called Vietnam, where South Korea sent 300,000 personnel to support the US.
"Vietnam, where South Korea sent 300,000 personnel to support the US."
DeleteGood reminder. I had forgotten that. Thanks.
Not to potentially minimize this situation, but it seems a political slap in the face, but not much more. My question is, did we fund the fuel bill, or any significant part of the Spanish ships inclusion in the TG?? What "training" did we do with the frigate?? How much money and effort did we put into it??
ReplyDeleteI think that this behaviour is fairly typical manifestation of attitudes towards the US from friend/foe alike. The only real problem here is if, like CNO stated, the frigate was being counted on as an integral offensive/defensive part of the formation, and was standing in the place of a US ship. Then it becomes more serious, but having said that, I certainly hope we never would be naive enough to ever be in that position in the first place. Thats akin to planning a mortgage payment with the lottery you hope to win...
Lincoln is reported to have a cruiser and 4 destroyers in the group - my point would be that the Spanish frigate would never have been a substitute for the second Tico and the real question is why Lincoln is having to deploy with only 1.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment the Baltic Protector exercise (led by HMS Abion) is underway in the Baltic where British and various baltic states in the Joint Expeditionary Force exercise together under the scenario of defeating a beach head taken by an enemy. They will later be re-inforced and led by ships from the US 2nd fleet.
ReplyDeleteI guess the 2nd fleet will gain a better understanding of combat in the baltic area, a better understanding of the capabilities of various allies and training in what the russian baltic fleet considers their back yard.
They will also have access to coastal training areas that they don't normally use which would increase flexibility.
Furthermore, as a direct consequence of previous joint exercises (notably Aurora and Northern Winds), the Swedish parlamentary defense committe yesterday specifically concluded that Sweden needed to invest in infrastructure and logistics units to be able to cooperate with and receive help from NATO and Finland in case of a russian aggression.
I would suggest that joint execises like these does make the 2nd fleet and the British navy (as well as the other participants) more capable of combat in their designated area with and without allies.
Just for clarity, the US led exercise is called Baltops and is not the same as Baltic Protector though they are sequentially coordinated.
Delete"I guess the 2nd fleet will gain a better understanding of combat in the baltic area,"
DeleteHow does engaging in some staged, highly scripted, photo op exercise gain us a better understanding of combat in the Baltic area?
"a better understanding of the capabilities of various allies"
We can better understand our allies capabilities by simply sending a few observers. We don't need to waste time training for something that will never happen.
"as a direct consequence of previous joint exercises (notably Aurora and Northern Winds), the Swedish parlamentary defense committe "
Great! That's a great reason for Sweden to conduct training but it doesn't do a thing for the US.
I have a feeling you are being a bit provocative or I'm being stupid and missing the point somewhere. Since both options are entirely possible I'm not going to pursue the first arguments.
DeleteThe last one however might be caused by me not being a native English speaker so I will try to clarify a bit.
Sweden is not a member of NATO and the US and NATO are under no obligation to send military help to Sweden under any circumstances. This has in fact been stated many times by various NATO officials and my guess is the US wouldn't lend Sweden a $15 garden hose if it was on fire unless it was to their benefit.
Somehow representatives of the US have come to the conclusion that under certain conditions and undisclosed circumstances, the US will be better off with military assets in Sweden. The Swedish parliamentary committee have found this to be potentially beneficial to both countries and proposed an enhanced capability in receiving such assets.
In other words, a thing is exactly what it is intended to do for the US.
Hey, that reminds me, how many major wars has the US actually won without critical support from several of its allies ?
ReplyDeleteHint : the answer is inferior to 1.
That probably applies to every single power in history when you think about it...
I never said that other countries would not support the US in a major war. That support can take the form of logistics, SEPARATE but side by side fighting, political support, etc. However, none of that requires that we cross train with them. We operated side by side with various allies in WWII without needing to cross train with them.
DeleteNow, rather than a snarky remark, try offering a substantive comment.
Technical Q on the side by side, convoys for example would have to escorts from one country only, since the CEC or IAD systems would not be talking to one another ?
DeleteAs opposed to WWII where convoy escorts were from several Navies.
"As opposed to WWII where convoy escorts were from several Navies."
DeleteWWII technology required only a radio to coordinate. Today is the same, at its basic level. Now, if one wants to attempt some kind of US Navy Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) then more extensive, compatible equipment is required. Still, that's an equipment issue more so than training.
The point I was making is that countries -no matter how powerful- usually can't win wars without allies. That counts double for an expeditionary power like the US.
DeleteFurthermore, history shows that major powers who gave up on their allies almost always ended up on a path to irrelevence on the global stage. I get the feeling that many Americans today do not understand that.
I agree and I'm sure many don't look forward and understand that those allies become more valuable as the USA continues its steady comparative decline against China.
Delete" history shows that major powers who gave up on their allies almost always ended up on a path to irrelevence on the global stage."
DeleteWho suggested giving up on allies????
In the context of this post (Iran), in spite of the state of our Navy, which gives us all the wonderful material to debate on this blog, I dont think any allies are necessary. Whether you agree or not with the decades old crisis between the US and Iran, I think the Navy can handle it. Short of a full on Desert Storm replay, which is NOT in our interests to repeat, a couple CVBGs can carry out whatever Iranian military-destroying, government-decapitating missions that our leadership requests with minimal assistance from other branches, and all the overflight permissions that require "allies"...
DeleteNow certainly having allies, permissions, basing, and other assistance is nice and makes things easier, but we not only shouldnt count on help, but should plan and TRAIN as if we're alone.
What he is stating (I believe) is that because allies may or may not be there to provide their support when needed relying on them to provide that support in training is a mistake.
DeleteKind of like saying "well we dont need to train for mine warfare because the ______ will provide that for us.|
No one has addressed what I believe to be the true reason for the Spanish to pull out. I would offer that the Spanish and all of Europe for that matter, will stay out of any Iranian business because they still hold onto hope and their politics demand the JCPOA will somehow contain the Persians.
ReplyDeleteSince the US is diametrically opposed to this idea, no one except the those in the Saudi Sphere to include Israel and maybe Jordan will support any US action in the gulf.
Which simply reinforces the Commanders view
DeleteSpain withdraws it forces from a US led effort? Sounds like 2004 all over again.
ReplyDeleteJust a few thoughts:
ReplyDelete- I've been reading so many books that I'm behind on my Jane's Defense Weekly magazine. I'm catching up, so last year, Russia had a big navy exercise in Med and their army had a huge training exercise. As far as I can tell from JDW articles, Russian navy had nobody else along, I can think of at least 2 countries that could train with Russian Navy: Algeria and Egypt...so why not? When it comes to the more "peaceful" activities like humanitarian relief or similar parts, almost any NATO country could participate. So why not? Russian Army exercise had a small contingent of Chinese and Mongolian troops, almost insignificant. Again, why not have more "allies" training with them? Nobody wants to train with Russia? How about China? They train a little with Pakis and had a flight to Turkey few years ago, rumor was they sent some Chinese Navy pilots to Brazil...but not much. So why does our 2 main "adversaries" Russia and China not train much with their "allies"? They have some countries that are aligned with them plus they could cultivate some more if they wanted too but they don't seem all that troubled by the fact they train in "isolation"....
- Other thought was how much of this "training" is really just showing our gear to allies so they will buy it?!? I'm not saying Japan or other allies wouldn't have bought AEGIS but Im sure it didn't hurt for them to see it first hand on US DDGs and during training....
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/looking-ahead-us-marine-corps-aircraft-to-embark-on-board-hms-queen-elizabeth/
ReplyDeleteJudging by this article, it seems the USMC F35Bs are going to be one of the rotational squadrons for the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers for the next 5 years.
These are allies not vassals. They do not have to join us in every conflict BUT neither do we have to always intervene for them. Neither of us has to integrate forces so tightly as to require the training ComNAvOps is referring to.
ReplyDeleteWe have treaty obligations but NATO itself has very specific limitations and obligations and requires voting and secondary agreements to act.
Even our rather acerbic US leadership has only asked NATO to pay their treaty request spending.
The US didn’t assist the UK in the Falklands, and nobody is jumping up and helping France in their various North African escapades. Allies help when they decide to. I have nothing against Spain bowing out from the Gulf. But neither should the US train with the expectation they will be there.
Israel is considered by many to be our staunchest ally in the Middle East. But how many big joint training operations do we have? Few to none, probably none. And the only attack they have joined us in was the cyber attack on Iran’s centerfuges.
We are not a “1000 ship Navy” made up of every nation on Earth.
US Navy strategy since WWII has always been seen through the prism of NATO since there wasn't a serious peer challenge outside of the NATO/Warsaw Pact conflict. Any serious naval challenge to the US would involve invoking NATO Article 5 (an attack against one is an attack against all), so it was all handled through NATO integrated command.
ReplyDeleteIMO, the primary triumph of America in the first Gulf War was diplomatic in building a broad coalition (including Egypt and Syria), obtaining basing rights in Saudi Arabia, getting Israel to sit on the sidelines even when directly attacked, and getting UN Security Council approval from Russia and China. We could then leverage a lot of NATO operational doctrine in the conflict, such as POMCUS and REFORGER.
Since 2003, the US has chosen not to follow the Powell Doctrine, especially the part about ensuring broad and genuine international support. The Powell Doctrine was formulated in light of the US experience in Vietnam and the realization that you can lose a war politically and diplomatically even if you are winning militarily.
We can debate the wisdom of this course of action, but if we continue on this path, then we need to be realistic about going to war without allies. And we need to anticipate that geopolitical rivals will seek to detach US allies to limit US power outside of the western hemisphere. Our military strategy then needs to take into consideration the ramifications. For example, what do we do if we can't traverse the Suez Canal? What do we do if we lose basing rights in Japan? In Germany? What if we lose access to the Panama Canal?
If those are untenable strategic positions, then we need to pursue diplomacy that will avoid those outcomes. If such a diplomatic course is too constraining to US policy, then we need a military strategy that makes those positions tenable.
However, I don't see the US having the political will to clearly decide on either course of action so we'll continue to be surprised when this sort of thing happens.
OK, technically the line "leverage a lot of NATO operational doctrine" should be "leverage a lot of NATO operational planning".
DeleteA nice comment and your conclusion is, sadly, probably true.
DeleteWe should recognize that the Gulf War, while it involved a lot of allies in the coalition, did not require any allied military involvement - basing rights, yes, military assets, no. Yes, various allies did contribute assets that were used but those were symbolic rather than necessary. Had no allied assets participated, it wouldn't have changed the outcome to even a small degree. The coalition was a political/public relations one rather than a required military one.
" NATO Article 5"
DeleteJust a point of clarification, Article 5 applies ONLY to an attack against a member nation in Europe or North America. A Chinese attack against Guam, for example, could not be used to invoke NATO Article 5.
Good point about Article 5. NATO is not really an instrument of American national security outside of the North Atlantic region, and then only in a defensive scenario.
DeleteRegarding your other point, I was speaking about the 1991 Gulf War which did see significant allied assets deployed, including Syrian and Egyptian divisions and Gulf state forces. France and the UK both contributed significant divisional strength forces. British SAS were a primary asset in the SCUD hunting. This is also where the Tornado validated it design as a low altitude penetration platform.
IMO, the building of the coalition still stands as the finest achievement of American diplomacy.
"IMO, the building of the coalition still stands as the finest achievement of American diplomacy."
DeleteI don't know about finest ever but, yes, it was a remarkable achievement, in some ways. HOWEVER, it was about the easiest situation ever to build a coalition. The enemy had been condemned by the UN, giving everyone political cover, the enemy had no great military strength and the US was leading the charge so there was no risk of defeat, and with the US providing the vast majority of the troops and supplies there was no need to overextend anyone else's military.
Now, ask yourself, if the enemy had been the equivalent of today's Russia or China, how many of those 'eager' allies would have shown up?
There was also no cross training required or performed - the point of the post. Yes, various allied units were give tasks to perform alongside the US and each other but there were no significant mixed unit operations that would have required or benefited from cross training.
They certainly won't turn up if Americans keep insulting them! You may not need them today but in 15-20 years time when the US superiority is marginal, if not lost, you will. Not looking far enough ahead will cost America dear.
Delete"They certainly won't turn up if Americans keep insulting them! "
DeleteWho's insulting them? You're the only who has mentioned insults. Why would you insult our friends? What have they done that has upset you?
The rest of us want mutually beneficial trade relations, technological cooperation, friendly markets, cultural exchanges, military defense cooperation, intellectual property respect, and solid political relations.
I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from insulting our allies.
" obtaining basing rights in Saudi Arabia,"
DeleteGiven Saudi feared invasion, hardly great stretch
Ah the thousand ship navy idea
ReplyDeleteSome allies are better than others:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/auckland-top-stories/108336730/new-zealand-defence-force-presented-rare-award-by-us-navy
Apparently New Zealand offered to take over the patrol missions after the US destroyers collided.
Still, CNO's point is valid. Allies have their own policies, and can be quite unreliable.
Andrew
I hadn't seen that. Thanks. I'm at a loss, however, to see what the ship did to merit a meritorious commendation. They appear to have extended their patrol by nine days to cover some US patrol area. The award appears to be a political and public relations gift. That cheapens the award for every other ship that actually earned it. I'm all for recognizing NZ's assistance but there are other ways to do that.
DeleteOf course allies might say the same about the USA after WW1 and WW2. Even with the Falklands the USA was not there to help one of its closest allies because it felt it wasn't in its interest to do so.
ReplyDeleteCompletely incorrect. The US provided satellite (repositioned a Soviet monitoring satellite to support UK surveillance needs) and signals intelligence, Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, Stinger hand-held missiles, airfield matting, mortar shells. The US diverted a supertanker to fill up the Royal Navy’s tanks when the underground fuel tanks at Ascension Island were found to be empty. Reagan offered to loan the RN the amphibious ship USS Iwo Jima and 'contractor' crew if the RN lost either of its carriers.
DeleteThere are many Internet articles detailing this. For example, this Washington Post article, US Aid to UK
You need to do your homework before posting.
Canadian officers seconded to U.S. Army for their professional development got to go to Iraq a decade and a half ago, even though the Canadian government did not support the 2003 invasion, because you don't leave an ally with holes in his force structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Iraq_War#Military_participation).
ReplyDeleteA friend will generally support you if he thinks you are right; a really good friend will support you even when he thinks you are wrong.
Nice ship. It would make a great FFG(X), eh? Ask Norway about it.
ReplyDeleteHere's the other major reason why you don't train with allies. In a typical cross training exercise, a very, very few number of individuals are involved. For the sake of discussion, if a time ever came in a war where we wanted to cross-operate, the odds that those very, very few individuals who actually cross trained would be available to cross-operate are vanishingly small. We'd have to initiate a cross training period before beginning operations - AS WE DID THE FEW TIMES WE CROSS OPERATED IN WWII.
ReplyDeleteThus, there's no lasting benefit to the cross training. The few individuals who participated in the training disperse and the mythical benefit is lost.
That might be true for navy, never served in the RAN or USN so no idea, however, there's certainly a fair degree of institutional memory of US Army and USMC capability, tactics etc, as a result of cross training between our armies over an extended period of time. But... that also involves being on actual deployments from 20+ years in Iraq and Afghanistan.
DeleteIn defense of our navy. while Albo is undoubtedly the worst excuse for a Prime Minister we've had in the last fifty years he was quite right o refuse the request from the US. We have 8 frigates, but can only man six, 2 were returning from extended deployment in the South China Sea. So was one of our three destroyers. We have SAR responsibilities for one of the largest sections of the globe and other commitments, we simply did not have the naval assets to provide any meaningful assistance in the Middle east.
"cross training between our armies over an extended period of time"
DeleteI know nothing about US-Australia army training so I can't comment. However, US-Australia naval training is almost non-existent and any such examples suffer from all the drawbacks mentioned in the post.