TRANSCOM
officials are still reviewing the results of the turbo activation, but initial
reports indicate that between 80 percent and 85 percent of the ships targeted
to participate were able to successfully meet the underway evaluation criteria,
Navy Capt. Kevin Stephens, a TRANSCOM spokesman, told USNI News. (1)
To briefly review, here’s a description of the exercise.
Overall,
33 surge sealift ships left Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coast ports last month
as part of the turbo activation. Most of the ships were part of the U.S.
Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD) Ready Reserve
Force. …
The
purpose of the test was to gauge how effectively the Ready Reserve Force – the
fleet of civilian-operated ships that would be called upon to deliver personnel
and equipment – could be activated in an emergency. The ships have five days to
be fully crewed and set sail for what is typically between a three and five-day
sea trial. The turbo activation involved nearly 1,000 merchant marines who were
called to work on ships usually maintained by skeleton crews. At sea, each ship
has between 30 and 40 crew members. (1)
The question, of course, is whether a 80%-85% success rate
is good or bad. It’s supposed to be 100%
success but that’s unrealistic. There
will always be some unexpected breakdowns that prevent sailing. On the other hand, these ships are supposed
to be checked and maintained on a regular basis, as I understand it, so even
one failure to sail should not happen.
So, is that fact that several ships were unable to sail acceptable?
I guess I’d call the result disappointingly average. It’s not horrible – 50% success would be
horrible – but it’s not great. What do
you think? Good or bad?
__________________________________
(1)USNI News website, “TRANSCOM Stress Test Practiced Cargo
Delivery Through Mine- and Sub-Filled Waters”, Ben Werner, 16-Oct-2019,
https://news.usni.org/2019/10/16/transcom-stress-test-practiced-cargo-delivery-through-mine-and-sub-filled-waters
Context is important. If this is a one off exercise then we are in deep do-do. If this is going to be an on-going SERIOUS series of exercises, then this is a good starting point.
ReplyDeleteAnalysis needs to be done on what were the casualties that prevented sailing, did they correlate across ships or ship types? Were all ships/systems maintained the same way. Could be that one system just needs a tweak to the maintenance procedures to not fail.
As with all testing gamed one and done are a waste of my taxpayer dollars. Worse it just lets some goldbricking Captain get his star or a General get a cushy retirement job. But serious on-going exercises with careful analysis - now that is value added.
I would concur with the above. 80%-85% is not a epic fail. When was the last time something similar was done?
ReplyDeleteA solid review of what when wrong and right and doing it soon again (and/or every year) would make me feel better about hopeful a first not only score of below 90-95%
We used to conduct REFORGER (REinFORce GERmany) every two years during the Cold War. Similar exercises would be a good idea.
Delete"We used to conduct REFORGER (REinFORce GERmany) every two years"
DeleteYes, a Pacific version of that would be useful and informative.
Concur that this exercise needs to be repeated regularly and the results analyzed, with investments to get the effectiveness improved. Having said that, not too bad given the parsimony of the Navy towards our CLF/Sealift component. I gather the exercise also included steaming (motoring?) in formation at night and threading through a simulated minefield. All encouraging in my view.
ReplyDelete"exercise also included steaming (motoring?) in formation at night and threading through a simulated minefield."
DeleteWell, for five ships, yes. The simulated minefield exercise sounded ridiculous to me. They lined up and stopped using cell phones. In reality, is anyone going to have precious, vital supply ships sail through a minefield? If all it takes to defeat a minefield is not using cell phones, why are we wasting money on mine clearance assets? It sounded like a little public relations stunt rather than anything anyone would actually do in combat. In combat, you'd give wide berth to a minefield.
I would have rather seen the ships sail to a port and see how quickly they could unload their cargos. That would be far more informative and realistic since that's exactly their purpose! I'm betting that we aren't prepared to unload the ships quickly and then move the cargo to a some location.
All that said, this was a better exercise than what we've been doing so, good for that!
In addition to this : I would have rather seen the ships sail to a port and see how quickly they could unload their cargos.
DeleteHow about an actual real life scenario. At the port you would pick out, how about having some sort of convoy, with associated escort ships and enemy vessels intending to impede our shipping? Like submarines, air craft.
As you mentioned about unloading at the port, how are the facilities there ? Enough cranes, enough forklifts, enough trucking ? Adequate roads to get the cargo to the end user ?
The exercise is at least a step in the right direction. But a lot more needs to be done.
My take on the five ship convoy is that it was very much intended to simulate realistic scenarios. They addressed common threats in a contested environment such as mines, subs, aircraft, and missiles. All while trying to minimize their emissions to avoid detection, which is something you stressed the importance of recently. Maybe we should be asking why all of the ships in this exercise did not do this as well!
Delete"it was very much intended to simulate realistic scenarios."
DeleteWhat is remotely realistic about practicing sailing through a minefield? No sane commander is going to attempt that - even with cell phones turned off. It was a pointless exercise. Now, defending the group against a cruise missile attack would have been a worthwhile exercise but they opted not to do that.
If I read this right, 80 to 85% of the ships sailed within the 5 day requirement. Off hand, that sounds pretty good.
ReplyDeleteTwo questions:
1. How many ships sailed but didn't meet the 5-day time limit? And, when did they sail?
The article states that 33 ships left port. Does that mean 27 or so ships left within 5 days and the rest followed sometime after that?
2. How many ships couldn't sail and the reasons why?
Also, there is no mention of any escorts by the Navy being involved. In practice, there ought to be, especially if the ships are expected to operate in contested waters.
Full results should be available - if they're made public - in a few more weeks, according to the article. It will make fascinating reading.
DeleteI realize they can only report what they know at the time. But, I hope a report comes out with more details.
DeleteQuestion are these ships in regular commercial service normally? or are they just pre-positioned sea lift. If they where in commercial service could it be they where delayed in unloading what ever they where carrying before sailing for the exercise?
Delete"Question are these ships in regular commercial service normally? or are they just pre-positioned sea lift. "
DeleteI can't answer for every ship, for sure, but the vast majority, if not all, were from the Ready Reserve Force which is maintained at an idled, reduced operating status pending emergency (or exercise) needs.
I hate to say it, but 80-85% is far better than I would have expected. Of course, that depends in large part on what the Navy defines as success. The devil is in the details.
ReplyDeleteAll things considered, my bottom line is that it is at least good to see this sort of thing being tried. We need to do it far more often.
Great first step USN! Now, let's not lose the momentum, do it again, make it more challenging, like unloading and going back, have 10 to 15 ships in a convoy, not just 5, do it again with some escorts and maybe even add a SSN for realism....
ReplyDeleteUnrelated article on USS Ford: sorry for cutting in CNO:
ReplyDeleteWow, SHOCKER, looks like 9 elevators still don't work! What caught my eye was this: "At the time Secretary Spencer made his bet, even casual shipyard observers knew that the likely problems with the USS Ford’s structural flexing and the vessel’s dysfunctional elevators were far larger and more challenging than portrayed...."
Wait a second!!!! "Structural flexing"?!?! When did this happen and what flexing are we talking about?!?? Never heard that before, heard about problems with: engines, elevators, catapults, RADAR, storage batteries, arresting gear,etc,etc.
but structural flexing??? Is this something made up by the author or new Ford problem buried under all the PREVIOUS PROBLEMS??? Is this elevator related? Is it JUST elevator related? I know that elevators going up and down in some areas had problems with everything lining up but STRUCTURE FLEXING??? Hasn't been all the testing done in harbor? USS Ford hasn't been moving and the elevators can't work because the structure is flexing?!? It's not even moving! What happens when it moves? What happens when Ford isn't new anymore, like 10, 20,30 years of service? You bet it will be flexing and out of alignment!!! Forget shock testing...maybe that's why USN doesn't want to shock test! All the elevators stop working!!!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2019/10/16/the-navys-accountability-crisis-over-a-bet-ensnares-its-top-leader/#25c244f21098
I have never heard that before and I can find no corroborating evidence. That doesn't mean it's not true, just that I can't verify it through a second source. The author offers no proof. Further, the author's style of writing suggests that he might be engaged in some hyperbole although that seems like a fairly specific bit of hyperbole, if that's what it is.
DeleteIf there is an issue with structural flexing, it raises a few serious questions:
1. What will happen when the ship starts encountering waves and weather and the ship flexes as all ships do?
2. Is the EMALS also susceptible to flexing problems?
3. What happens to the flexing when tons and tons of aircraft, supplies, and munitions are loaded on board?
Of course, given the wording, it's not 100% clear to me that the flexing and the elevator problems are linked. The author wasn't completely clear.
We'll have to keep an eye on this.
Agree, I hope its hyperbole too!!! Agree too on the other questions,if flexing, does this impact other systems? Hard to believe it won't. Will be interesting to see if we hear more about this and what "lessons" will be applied on follow on carriers....if even moderately true, Ford would seem very much compromised as a design.
DeleteIf the Ford is an enhanced Nimitz, you would expect some flexing to be normal and nothing new.
DeleteIt does suggest that some of the new systems may be unduly finicky, which is probably to be expected.
As has been frequently discussed, R&D on a $15B warship doesn't seem to be the brightest idea and it doesn't sound like its going to end soon.
I read that Rumsfeld pushed this down the throat of the Navy over their objections. Is this true?
Everybody says Ford is just an enhanced Nimitz but is it true? There's been so many changes not just in terms of systems like radar,reactors, catapults, reduced crewing,etc...but to the inside of the ship too,no? how much carry over is there from Nimitz class? I wonder....can you apply the lessons from Nimitz class in terms of structure and loads to Ford? As you say, these new systems seem a lot more fragile which lends me to believe Nimitz lessons might not apply. I just hoping the author was exaggerating what he might have heard or misunderstood....fingers crossed.
DeleteI found this from 2017.
DeleteIt would seem this mess is Rumsfeld and the "transformational" military thinking.
"Ford was designed under President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as the Pentagon sought transformational new technologies. The carrier, then, was packed with major cutting-edge technologies: a steam-free Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System, an Advanced Arresting Gear, a powerful Dual-Band Radar, a new nuclear propulsion and power distribution system, and advanced weapons elevators. In all, the ship class has 23 distinct changes and upgrades from the Nimitz-class carriers."
https://news.usni.org/2017/07/24/newly-commissioned-carrier-fords-leap-ahead-technology-approach-may-be-a-thing-of-the-past
The article does make it sound like Ford is Nimitz++.
A possible source for the claims concerning USS Ford’s structural flexing could be this:
Delete"The shipbuilder’s use of HSLA 65 thin steel plating for ship decks—intended to reduce weight in the ship’s design—excessively warped and flexed during construction, which contributed to lower than desired levels of pre-outfitting and additional disruption to build processes."
Page 22 of this 2013 GAO report:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657412.pdf
"A possible source for the claims concerning USS Ford’s structural flexing could be this"
DeleteGood catch. I had seen that report but missed that particular item. Thanks!
Sounds like its time someone finally makes a wise decision and determines that the keel for the next carrier is another Nimitz....
ReplyDeleteUnless we significantly increase the air wing size, the keel for the next carrier should be a Forrestal.
DeleteCVA-66!
DeleteGAB
@CNO If it wasnt for the added replentishment issues, Id agree 100%!!!
DeleteReplenishment issues? What's that? You lost me.
DeleteFueling... I think the logistics will be strained in a big conflict, and fueling a carrier is one less thing to have to worry about...
Delete"Unless we significantly increase the air wing size, the keel for the next carrier should be a Forrestal."
DeleteYou open up the possibility of not being tied to just one contractor/yard.
@Jjabatie
DeleteHow about cost. If you could bring one in at something less than a Nimitz, maybe you can by two for less than a Ford and have a ready reserve to replace damaged or sunk ones. Its not like we are going to ramp up and roll them off the line B-24s from Willow Run.
I'm pretty sure the Chinese can count and read a calendar. An in terms of deterring your enemy it would be nice if we could project a sense of the capacity to sustain or replace losses to our capital ships. Right now they (China) don't have many but they sure do seem to building them faster they the USN can.
"China … sure do seem to building them faster they the USN can."
DeleteExactly right! Shipbuilding capacity (shipyards) is a national strategic resource just like rare earths (also largely produced by China) or oil or whatever. We need to rethink our approach to shipbuilding, both commercial and military. We regulated shipbuilding to the point that we drove it away from the US and it's time we re-examined those policies and treat shipbuilding like the national strategic resource it is. That may mean subsidizing or favorable tax laws or whatever but we need to address it.
Any specific ideas about what we should do to encourage and support more yards?
Very good comment.
" That may mean subsidizing or favorable tax laws"
DeleteActually it does. I don't want to make a political argument. But Reagan killed the subsidies and related tax laws that had sustained US shipbuilding(*). I don't know if he expected reciprocity from then Japan/Korea/Europe at the time (and now China), but the US never got it. They all subsidize one way or the other to the hilt for their commercial producers. That is US shipbuilding was not loosing to better foreign competitors, but well subsidized equal competitors. Well not all -now bizarrely the EU nations after watching US ship building die and briefly benefiting have also unilaterally rolled back support for reasons. I dunno maybe they want China to own shipbuilding? Or had faith the WTO would work for them.
* I guess I am always been perplexed at the policy and that nobody has ever cared to revise it. Compare for example how sacrosanct farm subsides and all the related USDA backing for American agriculture is. Without at least the EU/Japan/Canada/Australia dropping their comparable government support would any US pol really unilaterally kill ours? I am not sure why subsidizing industry for a national goal is so awful. I mean helping the auto makers was controversial, but is anyone screaming that bailing out farmers for the tariff war is now 2-3 times as expensive (and they won't be paying back that help)?
Link for US ship building and the results of ending the construction differential subsidies.
Deletehttps://www.enotrans.org/article/decline-u-s-shipbuilding-industry-cautionary-tale-foreign-subsidies-destroying-u-s-jobs/
@Kath Sure, Im not totally opposed to a non nuclear carrier, and having a second builder emerge would be nice, but is unlikely. As far as cost, in previous research I found that the nuclear component cost of construction (and the RCOHs) for carriers isnt that high. Once you look at the additional logistics ships, crews, escorts for them etc that would be needed to keep conventional carrier groups at sea, it seems like a wash, so I give the nod towards nuclear propulsion.
DeleteI totally agree that shipbuilding here is endangered and unhealthy. Economics, a shrinking Navy, and competition for civilian shipbuilding overseas has mostly destroyed our ability to resurrect the wartime production capability we might need. Even if shipyards were able to gear up though, the days of cranking out warships (or even freighters) in weeks or even months is probably over. I think that a ships modern complexity means that even a crash program couldnt turn some out before hostilities are over. It appears the Chinese are continually expanding their capabilities, so with regards to them, weve already lost...
Add a somewhat bitter view of the same from a rather bitter US merchant marine officer.
Deletehttp://www.professionalmariner.com/June-July-2019/Time-to-make-nations-shipyards-merchant-marine-great-again/
The simple fact everyone else is subsidized, we should as well.
"I think that a ships modern complexity means that even a crash program couldnt turn some out before hostilities are over."
DeleteThis is the point (well, one of them!) that I keep harping on: our ships are too complex to build quickly, maintain well, repair easily, and keep the costs down. We need to return to somewhat more basic technology. Instead of the exquisite Aegis radar that is continually degraded, can't be repaired, and is so sensitive to physical alignment problems that the slightest bump ruins it, maybe we need to consider going back to mechanical, rotating radars. There isn't that much performance difference between a modern, well operating, rotating radar and a degraded Aegis array but there's a whole lot more ease of operation, maintenance, and repair. Or, consider the steam catapult versus the EMALS - maybe we should stick with tried and true, basic, straightforward steam. And so on.
The EMALS is head scratch kind of thing. Could that not have been deployed on some kind of test ship that then flew just some trainers and sailed about a bit (a year or more) to see if worked? And still buy a only 9 Billion dollar Nimitz.
DeleteIs there any rush to have it and not just a new Nimitz class?
Does the Ford assuming it might work intimidate China (maybe if they only cost 5 billion and were produced in half the time), or how about now when it kinda does not work.
Oh wait I know it cuts crew the holy grail of the MBA USN
Agreed. While technology and its advances continue, I think that the answers to many of the Navys problems, whether budgetary, functionality, capability, survivability, etc, lie in the past. Embracing past proven systems to build a capable fleet in substantial numbers is the answer. Everyone wants to think outside the box, but frankly, the stuff inside the box works fine....
Delete@Jjabatie
DeleteOn domestic production. We unilaterally surrenders. Restore the CDS. Then fact then face some jump starting will be needed. I'm not saying that Y+1 the US would be back to 1979, but its a start and if its a national goal accept it is a long term plan. I know the US has been overwhelmed with wall street's next quarter thinking but its the government that should be the balance.
"I found that the nuclear component cost of construction (and the RCOHs) for carriers isnt that high. Once you look at the additional logistics ships, crews, escorts for them etc that would be needed to keep conventional carrier groups at sea, it seems like a wash, so I give the nod towards nuclear propulsion."
So they don't need to techno wonder toys like the Ford as large. They can demonstrably be as small as the Charles de Gaulle.
But I think the better question is why build Nimitz class CVs. If as I understand it correctly in the past they used to really have a total air wing (all flying things included) of close to the 90-100 they supposedly can carry, but in sometimes now seems they have only half that. What does that say? We have no array of mock CV carrier platforms in the Great Lakes or the Gulf of Mexico for reservists to train on nor some fleet of ready to deploy surge aircraft. One might suggest that the great why no Japanese 3rd wave at Perl Harbor already has its answer in the USN - a USN strike group of 4 or 6 CVs has no air wing abilty to provide a 'third strike'
So if that why bother building overlarge and expensive CVs. We can't surge build them not in war - with only one viable producer. We probably can't repair them lacking large dry docks and at least a sort experienced industrial base.... the cost of the logistical ships would be trivial. But for the gasp crew cost. But if you not paying 13 billion and counting for a Ford (that does not work oh and wait those Zumwalts) maybe you could afford to hire and maintain a reserve that could run some support ships.
I think the shrinking airwing size is a relatively easy fix. Decide that they are 90+ again!!! That makes the CVN worthwhile 100% again. I feel the Nimitz class needs a restart because its a proven design, and massively cheaper than the still-not-functional Fords...
DeleteI dont think a smaller carrier is the answer (the Navy has repeatedly said the same) except to purely budgetary questions, not CNOs "combat filter". With recent examples/trends, trying to create a new design would end up being too expensive, and by the time it hit the water it would probably cost the same as a Nimitz or awfully close, for a ship with lesser capabilities.
Ive seen a lot written recently about how terrific the new light carrier LHA concept is... And we've seen holes shot all through it here. I have to think that in non-Ford form, the big deck is still the way to go....
"Decide that they are 90+ again!!!"
DeleteKeep the cost in mind. At $100M per aircraft for the F-35, a mere 10 additional aircraft cost $1B !!!!! To get the air wing back to the 90+ size, you'd need to add around 20 F-35/18 for a cost of around $2B !!!!!!!!!!
The problem is the cost of the air wing, when added to the cost of the $13B+ carrier, is simply unaffordable. Again, that's why we need to return to much, much cheaper carriers - so we can afford the air wings that make the carrier useful.
With some effort and judicious simplification, we should be able to get carrier costs down to around $4B and we should be able to build a good (not Star Wars) state of the existing art fighter for $50M (I've posted how to do that). THAT'S how you build an affordable carrier fleet with useful air wings and enough carriers to be effective and absorb some losses.
"With some effort and judicious simplification, we should be able to get carrier costs down to around $4B and we should be able to build a good (not Star Wars) state of the existing art fighter for $50M (I've posted how to do that). THAT'S how you build an affordable carrier fleet with useful air wings and enough carriers to be effective and absorb some losses."
DeleteCouldn't agree more. If the current thinking doesn't change, at least tow bad things will happen.
China will continue the trend where they are building 10+ major combatants more per year than the US.
The next war will see the US completely unable to build any reinforcements/replacements in time to be useful to the fight.
@GAB... Sadly the names taken already!!
ReplyDeleteAugust Proceedingd article "Can Sealift Deliver?", states "between 2010 and 2018, MSC... Vessels achieved a 70% activation rate". The source they link is Turbo-Activation history 2010 to 2018 (MSC and MARAD vessels).
ReplyDeleteSo the 85% rate seems to be better than average, and the issue ia attracting attention.