Pages

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Navy Flight Hours Slashed

The Navy has been hinting for some time now that flight hours would be reduced and, possibly, and air wing deactivated due to a large naval aviation budget shortfall.  Details have now been announced.

According to a USNI News website article, non-deployed east coast P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol squadrons will see a 10% flight hour reduction, non-deployed MH-60R/s helo detachments will see a 25% reduction in flight hours, and support units such as Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 1, Fleet Logistics Support Squadron (VRC) 40 that flies the C-2A Greyhound airplane and bring passengers and goods to and from aircraft carriers at sea, C-12 logistics planes, and search-and-rescue aircraft out of Key West will see a 10% reduction in flight hours. The reduced flight hours will last for the remaining 11 weeks of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.  In addition, most demonstration flights (air shows and the like) have been cancelled. (1)

So, with readiness at historic lows, we’re reducing flight hours.  That’s the Navy’s way to address readiness.

How did this budget shortfall occur?  Don’t we pretty well know exactly how many flight hours we need to operate and train the various aviation units?

According to the article,  

… the shortfall was created by deployed P-8s and MH-60s over-executing due to fleet commander needs in U.S. 6th and 7th Fleets. The aircraft deploy with a certain number of flight hours allotted, and the local commanders are asking the aircraft to operate beyond those hours due to operational needs – particularly the P-8s operating in the Western Pacific, the Mediterranean and other forward locations … (1)

In addition,

Other unplanned events, such as the aviation component of the Hurricane Michael rescue and aid effort, have also contributed to spending money faster than planned, and naval aviation will now have to pare down its spending for the last two and a half months of the year. (1)

One of ComNavOps pet peeves is the use of the military for humanitarian assistance.  Using military assets for non-combat or non-combat training tasks puts unproductive wear and tear on men and machines, subtracts from the finite number of service life flight hours that aircraft have before they have to be rebuilt or retired, reduces readiness, takes away from combat training, and distracts from the mission of warfighting and warfighting preparation.  Now, we see the concrete evidence.  The Navy has specifically cited a humanitarian effort as part of the reason that we will now experience reduced flight hours and even lower combat readiness.

I have no problem with America performing humanitarian assistance missions but not by the military.  There are a number of other organizations who, with a little boost in funding, can perform the mission far more efficiently than the military.

Everything, EVERYTHING, the military does must, MUST, run through the filter of combat effectiveness.  Does the proposed action enhance our combat effectiveness?  If not, we simply can’t do it.  Does humanitarian assistance enhance our combat effectiveness?  No!  Not only does it not enhance combat effectiveness, it actually decreases combat effectiveness.

We must stop using the military for humanitarian missions.  Let’s buy USAID or some such organization a few cargo ships, fund some extra personnel, and let them do the mission instead of sending a carrier battle group to hand out meals.

The evidence is right here, in black and white.  Humanitarian missions hurt our military.

The other aspect of this is the insatiable appetite by local commanders for assets - assets whose use produces little discernible benefit.  Our prolific use of flight hours in the Med hasn't settled Iran down.  If anything, it's exacerbated the situation.  As I've said, we need to either kick some butt and enforce peace or leave.  Trying to exist in between is gaining us nothing and, likely, costing us.

Has China become a better world neighbor and tempered their runaway military buildup because we flew more P-8 patrols?  Not in the least!  So why are wasting airframe hours watching them if we're not going to do anything about it?

The local commanders will always want more assets under their control.  It's how they justify their existence.  We have to start saying no to mission requests.

We're running our military into the ground conducting pointless tasks and degrading our warfighting readiness.  The idiocy must stop!




______________________________

(1)USNI News website, “Navy Reducing East Coast Flight Hours to Cover Costs of Overflying P-8s”, Megan Eckstein, 16-Jul-2019,
https://news.usni.org/2019/07/16/navy-reducing-east-coast-flight-hours-to-cover-costs-of-overflying-p-8s

30 comments:

  1. I can't help but think this is a budget ploy by the Navy. They are doing this for budget resources, not to reduce operational hours on platforms.

    And by saying, "It's because we're flying more in global hotspots and helping people. You don't want people to die or us to lose to the Iranians, do you?" they are making a budget case.

    It's not like the hours the Blue Angels fly are coming off the service life of assets that will be used in wartime.

    You'll also note they aren't reducing hours for deployed units which means they aren't really addressing the problem of overuse of assets by local commanders.

    IMO, a key aspect of flag level leadership is ensuring your assets are properly and efficiently utilized. You will never have enough assets to do everything you want, so you have to work within your means. But the Navy isn't saying that, which continues to indicate this is a budget maneuver.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given the Navy's past budget manipulations and ploys, I can't say you're wrong.

      Delete
  2. "Has China become a better world neighbor and tempered their runaway military buildup because we flew more P-8 patrols? Not in the least! So why are wasting airframe hours watching them if we're not going to do anything about it?"

    You are kind of missing the point of these P-8 patrols and what maritime patrol aircraft do.

    First off, let's presume a lot of P-8A missions are spent finding and tracking PRC submarines and surface ships.

    The intent would be to gain insight into their location, tactics, capabilities and vulnerabilities should the balloon ever go up.

    This is termed Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment (IPOE). Its an operational task designed to support the Theater Commander.

    We spent most of the Cold War doing this to pretty good effect against Soviet submarines such that any time they got underway we were on top of them. Hard to start a war when you are already located.


    Incidentally: I recall reading a quote from a Soviet admiral that the way he kept track of his submarines was by following the flock of USN P-3s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You are kind of missing the point of these P-8 patrols and what maritime patrol aircraft do."

      No, I'm not missing anything. If that was what we were doing, I'd be somewhat okay with it but that's not it. Chinese subs are not operating out in the ocean. They're operating, for the most part, inside the E/S China Seas and we're not flying any great number of patrols in those areas. I don't know what the P-8s are doing that's chewing flight hours but that's not it.

      Besides, the best way to collect information on Chinese subs is with our own subs. I hope we're doing that but I have no idea.

      The other problem I have is the budget. Let's say, for sake of discussion, that ALL our P-8 flight hours are directly monitoring Chinese subs. If that's the case, we should know, by now, how many flight hours are required and have budgeted for it - but we didn't. So, either we screwed up royally in our budgeting or we're screwing up royally in how we're using our flight hours. Which is it? Nothing about the Chinese has changed significantly from last fiscal year so why have we come up a few months short in our flight hour budgets this year?

      Delete
    2. Actually, P-8s monitor surface ships and submarines.

      As for PRC submarine activity, you are jumping to conclusions based on data you cannot possibly have. I doubt very much you know where and when PRC subs deploy or where P-8s fly.

      I do agree that an SSN is often the best way to prosecute another sub. Not always.

      However, we cannot afford to go sub-vs-sub with the Chinese. Our boats are far too expensive and we have worldwide commitments. They have more boats and are only in Pacific.

      Delete
    3. "I doubt very much you know where and when PRC subs deploy or where P-8s fly."

      I do not have daily P-8 flight schedules. What I do have is Chinese reactions. The Chinese lodge world wide protests and threats every time one of our ships or planes ventures into 'their' seas. The frequency (or lack thereof) tells me what and when we're flying in the E/S China Seas. Every month or so we see a Chinese outrage when we do fly into that area. So, that seems to be the flight frequency - not exactly budget busting.

      So, where are the rest of the budget busting flights going and what are they doing? I have no idea but they can't be all that productive.

      Delete
    4. "They have more boats "

      Estimates put China's sub fleet at around 15-20 SSBN/SSN plus a couple dozen SSK. The US has around 70 SSBN/SSN/SSGN.

      Delete
    5. The USN has 68 SSN/SSGN/SSBNs. The PLAN reportedly has a total of 76 subs. 18 nuclear powered and 58 conventional powered.

      What is more; the entire PLAN sub force is concentrated in the Pacific. The USN is divided among multiple theaters.


      Delete
    6. About half of China's SSKs are obsolete and no longer in active service.

      Delete
    7. No. See below numbers, types and approx. completion dates.

      17 Type 039A YUAN (2006-2019)
      13 Type 039 SONG (1998-2011)
      2 Project 877 KILOs (1994-1995)
      10 Project 636 KILO (1997-2005)
      12 Type 035G MING (1990-1999)
      2 Type 095A MING (1980s)

      I'll grant the MINGs are 70s technology and pretty obsolete, but that's only 25% of force. The rest are fairly new.

      Heck even if half their diesel submarines are obsolete, that leaves 28 boats -- which is likely way more SSNs than what we have in PACOM.

      Delete
  3. Using military resources for non-military missions is very good training, it breaks the regularity of exercises and presents new demands that broadens ability.
    In the UK the RN/RAF provided crews for Air-Sea and overland rescue, this has stopped now as it is a civil service. It did provide very useful opportunities.
    I do agree that if that impacts on fundamental military function or training then it it should be avoided.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Using military resources for non-military missions is very good training"

      Oh come on now! How does loading and unloading pallets of food and water to and from helos and boats constitute "very good training"? How is that making the Navy more proficient at combat?

      "I do agree that if that impacts on fundamental military function or training then it it should be avoided."

      You just agreed with me!

      Delete
    2. Doing something "for real" that puts effect into a dire situation is quite fulfilling for the personnel involved. In this case it is only helos and ships, perhaps the difference from my perspective is that "Aid to the Civil Community" is a formal part of the UK Armed Forces role.
      The Army rebuilds bridges swept away by floods in the UK (nether regions like Cumbria I will admit).
      The overseas effect can be effective and the influence significant, hurricane affected Caribbean islands for example and the only realistic way to do this is with amphib related units. Having said that, RN crews from a frigate were the first to get the electrics working in one hospital.
      It also shows politicians that they are getting some use out the defence costs, that in itself is very relevant.

      Delete
    3. "The overseas effect can be effective and the influence significant, "

      How the UK chooses to use its military is their affair. In the US, with the resources we have, using the military is foolish and inappropriate.

      To your statement. This is an appealing notion but is utterly unsupported by evidence. There is no example I'm aware of where we have changed a country's opinion of us because we provided disaster assistance. If they liked us before, they'll still like us - no change. If they didn't like us before, it was for a variety of non-disaster relief reasons and they'll still not like us. I would genuinely like to learn about even a single example of this working because I, too, would like to believe it works. The reality, though, is that it doesn't.

      That said, I'm all in favor of providing disaster relief but not by the military. In the US we have organizations dedicated to exactly this task. All we need to do is provide them a bit more funding. Relative to using the military for the task, it's almost free! As an example, check out 'USAID' on the Internet and look at their website. The US has lots of organizations, public and private, like this. We don't need the military to do it. We just need to provide a pittance of additional funding to non-military organizations.

      Delete
    4. As a matter of interest, what military support National Guard or otherwise was provided when New Orleans was inundated?
      I don't know.
      Would military assistance have been useful? I cannot imagine many civvy organisations with CH53s or Chinnok for useful lift.

      Delete
  4. Hurricane Michael struck the southeastern part of the United States, including Florida and Georgia. We used the military to help our own people. Besides, many military personnel and bases were affected by Hurricane Michael as well. Tyndall AFB suffered nearly $5 billion in damages.

    You could question why the Navy didn't find another program to cover the shortfall or the amount involved, but I don't see a problem using the military to aid our own people in response to a natural disaster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I don't see a problem using the military to aid our own people in response to a natural disaster. "

      The problem is that's not the military's job. We have National Guard, FEMA, and dozens of other funded domestic disaster assistance organizations.

      If you don't have a problem with using the military for disaster relief in the US then, by extension, you wouldn't have a problem using the military for, say, building homes in a Military Habitat for Humanity, or fighting forest fires (we do actually, on occasion!), or enforcing traffic laws, or collecting taxes, or building roads and vital infrastructure, and so on. These are all activities that are beneficial to US citizens, after all.

      Delete
    2. To a degree I feel this is also the fault of Congress and the civilian populace. My observation of American culture suggests to me that there is an expectation that Uncle Sam will use the awesome might of his military to do things - doesn't matter what things, any things! - to bail out his citizens when there's trouble at home. Thus, military leaders have to find ways to use the military for the benefit of the civilian populace, as a way of justifying the military's existence, especially when there is no official war going on.

      "Yes, but what have you done for me _today_?" is, unfortunately, a phrase that is not unknown to the American psyche.

      More states, I feel, should emulate the Texas State Guard. Unlike other state guards, which generally lean towards some flavor of incompetent militia, the Texas State Guard oriented itself towards the aim of being the premier disaster response agency for the state of Texas, because the TXSG wanted Texas to still have something if the TX NG units were called up and federalised. So the TXSG runs battalions of Civil Affairs, Medical and Military Police, stationed throughout Texas, so that every region of the state has disaster response assets that can get the ball rolling while the rest of the TXSG is being mobilised to support them.

      Delete
    3. The military should be deployed as necessary. If their are unique skills and resources within the Navy that could benefit another country in response to a major humanitarian relief effort (e.g., earthquake, hurricane, etc.), then so be it. Would you rather see Chinese ships and crews doing this? Would you rather see the Chinese building relationships with our allies? Would you rather see the Chinese publically praised for their efforts?

      Delete
    4. "Would you rather see Chinese ships and crews doing this? "

      You've created a false binary solution set: either the US military or no one. The reality is that the US has many organizations whose mission/charters are exactly to provide foreign aid. Do a quick check of USAID for example. Their mission is exactly this. We also have various public and private organizations that provide international disaster relief. All we need to do is provide a little additional funding.

      It would be far, far, far, far, far, far, more efficient and cost effective to deploy a dedicated humanitarian cargo ship and crew than a carrier battle group. And, compared to the cost of operating a carrier battle group as a meals on wheels, the cost of a dedicated humanitarian ship is almost free!

      So, would I rather see the Chinese do this? No, I'd rather see a dedicated, non-military organization, WHOSE CHARTER IT IS, do this.

      So, shake off your binary view and research some of the groups that are available and would be much better and more cost effective than the military.

      Delete
    5. "You've created a false binary solution set: either the US military or no one. The reality is that the US has many organizations whose mission/charters are exactly to provide foreign aid."

      There are unique skills and resources within the military that you wouldn't find in USAID, FEMA, or any other civilian agency in the government. Only the military has the ability to move large numbers of people and equipment by land and by air. In some cases, without military support, for example, airlift that can operate under austere conditions, USAID couldn't even get to where they need to go.

      We're not simply talking about a few cargo ships and some food supplies. In many instances, emergency care that overwhelms local resources need to be provided. Power and communications need to be restored. Areas need to be searched for survivors. This often means bringing in heavy equipment and the ability to move that equipment to where its needed and that's difficult to do with damaged roads and bridges.

      Humanitarian aid is part of the game of global politics. You help someone in their time of need and they become indebted to you, likely leading to more goodwill between the parties involved. I'd like to see the US doing more of that instead of the Chinese.

      Delete
    6. Okay, you've now acknowledged that the task can be done by other organizations, IF PROPERLY FUNDED. Good, you're making progress. Now, we'll address your remaining objections.

      Note: at this point, I have to ask, did you research USAID? I suspect not because most of your objections are addressed in their website. For example, they specifically mention humanitarian assistance, water supply, sanitation, food delivery, disaster response, etc. They have all the capabilities need, just on a much smaller scale than the military.

      For most of your objections, the solution is simple: additional funding. Give an organization (let's use USAID as our example) funding to buy/lease a commercial cargo ship and they can move all the people and supplies they need, same as the military. Give the ship a helo pad and some heavy lift commercial helos and they can drop supplies wherever they need to, better than the Navy!

      They already have engineers, electricians, pipefitters, etc. If they need more, let's give them a bit more funding. Relative to the cost of using the military, it's almost free!

      If we think they need heavy equipment (I don't know what, if anything, they have along those lines) we can fund a construction 'battalion' with their equipment stored on the ship.

      Everything needed either already exists (do the research) or can be easily funded.

      "leading to more goodwill between the parties involved"

      This is an appealing notion that is completely without supporting evidence. I have looked into this and there is zero evidence that this actually works. Consider the logic: if you help someone who already likes you, they'll still like you - you haven't changed anything. If you help someone who doesn't like you (assuming your can get permission to help; we've been denied permission to help unfriendly countries in the past!) they still won't like you for a host of other reasons because their original dislike wasn't based on the lack of disaster relief.

      There is not a shred of evidence that we have ever changed a country's opinion of us because of disaster response. In fact, there are documented examples of people disliking us even more because they perceived (incorrectly) that we didn't do enough to help.

      As I said, this is an appealing notion and I'd love to see some evidence that it actually works. This is closely related to the 'hearts and minds' concept which, also, has zero examples of success.

      Delete
    7. I did a Google search for USAID and looked at images of USAID. I found plenty of pictures of military personnel unloading boxes marked "USAID" off a variety of military aircraft, mostly helicopters. I didn't see the pipefitters and the others you mentioned, but I'm sure they are there.

      But, USAID is a pretty small agency with about 7,000 working in about 100 countries overseas. Being that dispersed, I don't see how effective they would be in response to a major relief effort, like the earthquake at Fukushima, Japan in 2010. Or, the tsunami that struck Malaysia in 2004 that killed hundreds of thousands. Or, the earthquake in Haiti in 2010 that killed over 100,000.

      Situations like these require more than a few cargo ships with helicopters. Given the military already has the resources, developing a separate organization seems redundent and a waste of money. Besides, as evident by the reduction in flight hours, not everything is easily funded.

      Delete
    8. Of course USAID can't handle a disaster response right now. They're not funded or equipped for it. However, they have all the expertise needed. They just need some additional funding. For example, a single cargo ship could carry all the supplies needed for a single disaster. Look up the cargo capacity - it's shockingly huge. So, a single dedicated cargo ship with a handful of helos would be more than capable of handling a response. The actual amount of supplies dispersed in a disaster isn't that large.

      Pre-position a couple of these ships in areas that historically are prone to disasters, marry up crews with ships when needed, and you've got your ready-to-go disaster response for a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost of diverting a carrier battle group.

      The funding, compared to equipping and operating a carrier group is vanishingly small. The cost of buying or leasing a commercial cargo ship would be less than $100M to buy new and on down to maybe $10M per year to lease a ship. Fifty extra 'crew' or so would suffice to man the ship and conduct the supplies dispersal so the manpower costs would be miniscule. And so on. As I've said, the cost is almost free.

      Delete
    9. I think you're woefully under estimating what is required to handle a major natural disaster.

      Our response (Operation Unified Response) to the Haiti earthquake, according to Wiki included some, "17,000 personnel in and around Haiti." And, "Between the beginning of relief efforts and 18 February the US Air Force had delivered nearly 6,000 support members and 19 million pounds of cargo while evacuating 15,000 American citizens and conducted aeromedical evacuations for 223 critical Haitian patients."

      Operation Tomodachi, our support effort for the earthquake in Japan which lasted about 7 weeks, according to Wiki, "involved 24,000 U.S. servicemembers, 189 aircraft, 24 naval ships; and cost $90 million."

      Delete
    10. "17,000 personnel in and around Haiti."

      You can't seriously think that means 17,000 personnel intimately involved in the response. When you park a carrier group offshore to let a few helos deliver food, sure, you've got many thousands of personnel "in and around" but of those many thousands, only a few dozen are actually distributing food. The rest are just sitting around doing nothing. The Pentagon likes to tout those irrelevant, inflated numbers because it helps their budget case but the numbers are utterly irrelevant.

      "19 million pounds of cargo"

      LOL!!! You can't seriously believe that Navy warships can store 19 million lbs of food, water, and medicine? 19 million might be the total delivered by all the 100 or so countries and organizations that eventually got involved but the military response was a fraction of that.

      From wiki: "The Navy had conducted 336 air deliveries, delivered 32,400 US gallons (123,000 L) of water, 532,440 bottles of water, 111,082 meals and 9,000 lb (4,100 kg) of medical supplies by 20 January."

      Compare those numbers to the tonnage that a single cargo ship could carry. Those numbers are miniscule.

      You desperately need to see the reality of these types of operations, not the PR put out by the Pentagon. If a carrier battle group rescues a fisherman from a sinking boat, did that mean that it required 10,000 personnel, 60+ aircraft, and several ships to perform the rescue? They were "in and around" the area but only a dozen people likely were involved. Get a grasp on the reality.

      Delete
  5. Mis-use of brids? The biggest one I can't stand is the idea of using F-18's as "tankers". That is plain asinine. I can understand (some) training to do it to be uses as a last resort for combat ops if required . However should be doing that in peacetime, highly stresses the airframe on launch and wear them out from constant hours.

    However the "humanitarian" ops that is actually close to simulating all the logistics operations our forces would be doing in war landing supplies. Remember "teeth to tail" we're 10% teeth and 90% tail m aybe the USMC is slightly higher. But still landing supplies on a "foreign" is what 80-90% of ops would be in a war so a 95% humanitarian op with 5% for security is fairly close.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. above should be "Mis-use of Birds", need better edit or me need better edit syntax/java/idk understanding

      As to plane ops during a humanitarian mission , the same applies to an extent, still can land supplies and personnel to move those with V-22's and provide security with war-birds, much as they would do in a war.

      Delete
    2. "However the "humanitarian" ops that is actually close to simulating all the logistics operations our forces would be doing in war landing supplies."

      No, not really, and only in a very minor way. The logistics in war are handled by dedicated logistics units and don't involve aircraft to any great extent. It's simply not possible to supply combat units by air - aircraft just can't carry enough to make it work. Combat logistics are cargo ship and then dispersal by truck transport.

      Delete
  6. Cancel a damn Ford. $15 billion should buy a bunch of flight hours. It's like we don't even have a clue what we are trying to do.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.