 |
| Cocaine Seized By Preble - An Aegis Destroyer To Do This? |
This is a perfect example of what’s wrong with the
Navy. Our focus should be on high end,
AAW combat training along with fundamental navigation skills and other basic
seamanship tasks. Instead, we’re using
our top end, front line Aegis ship to track drug smugglers.
Don’t misunderstand me – I’m all for the mission but not at
all for the asset used for it. This is a
Coast Guard mission, pure and simple. If
you really want to involve the Navy then let’s acquire some very cheap, very
low end boats to conduct this very simple, very low end mission.
Not only is using an Aegis destroyer a waste of resources,
it’s worse than that because it causes an actual decline in combat
readiness. Every minute spent chasing
down drug smugglers is a minute of decaying skills and lost opportunity to
enhance combat skills.
The Navy is crying out that they don’t have the resources to
meet the Combatant Commanders tasking requests but then they do this –
assigning a precious combat asset to a non-naval combat task.
By all means, do the anti-drug smuggling mission but use an
appropriate asset.
(1)Commander, US Pacific Fleet website, “USS Preble returns
after successful counter-narcotics deployment”, 25-Jun-2020,
https://www.cpf.navy.mil/news.aspx/130660
I'm not even sure of the mission. Portugal legalized medical use of cannabis and decriminalized other drugs, and their drug usage has not increased. It has actually declined among problem populations, and the street value of some drugs has decreased significantly. With criminal penalties removed, one would expect a much higher percentage of cases to be reported, so arguably there has probably been a significant decline in unreported cases.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, if we are going to keep the law and enforce it, you are absolutely 100% correct that use of an Aegis destroyer for that purpose amounts to waste, fraud, and abuse. Same IMO for using an Aegis ship for Indian Ocean pirate patrol. But when you don't have a bunch of reliable cheaper ships (LCSs are not what I would call reliable) you use Aegis ships for this purpose, and others.
"But when you don't have a bunch of reliable cheaper ships ... you use Aegis ships for this purpose"
DeleteOr … you build a bunch of Cyclone class patrol boats
Or … you buy a bunch of $1M civilian yachts, mount a couple 0.50 cal MGs and send the crews on luxurious patrols. Not a joke. I'm serious. It would be an almost free means of providing patrol capability that's good enough.
Or … you build up the Coast Guard forces.
There's lots of options. An Aegis ship just happens to be far and away the worst option so, naturally, that's the one the Navy chooses.
No disagreement. I think the cheap frigate may be a better option for IO pirate patrol. And I think we need some patrol boats for other purposes. But I would make drug interdiction an exclusive USCG mission, upgrade them if necessary, but if we can take the money out of it, I think the number and extent of drug piracy will decrease significantly.
Delete"This is a Coast Guard mission, pure and simple"
DeleteIt is when they get the budget freedom the Pentagon has. But is the USN going to give up useless LCS hulls so the USCG can match Russian (armed ) ice breakers in the Arctic or build more Sentinel class or NSC cutters?
"But is the USN going to give up useless LCS hulls so the USCG can match"
DeleteWell, it's not really up to the Navy. It's up to Congress. The Coast Guard needs to make their case that they can do the drug smuggling mission better and cheaper than the USN. If they can do that, they'll get funding.
"match Russian (armed ) ice breakers in the Arctic"
Why do we want to match Russia in the Arctic? What's there that we want? I ask this of everyone who mentions the Arctic and no one has yet been able to identify any strategic interest we have in the Arctic. I'm genuinely curious what rationale people see who call for us to be in the Arctic. What are your thoughts?
Just think when the Navy assigns the first FFG to Carribean, it'll only the misuse of a billion dollar asset.
ReplyDeleteWell its already doing with the USS Detroit and the LCS.
DeleteThe LCS is the absolutely perfect platform for this. It is useless sitting out there in the South China Sea. What is it supposed to do to the Chinese? Intimidate them? With what? The 4 missiles they strapped on the front in the belated realization that the ship has no offensive weapon capability??
DeleteIt could be worse. Some of these cartels are heavily armed and willing to kill to protect their investments, so having one of these very expensive but unarmoured Aegis ships getting sunk from a barrage of RPG fire wouldn't be impossible.
ReplyDeleteThey didn't send an LCS because the cartels could outgun her.
DeleteSadly this isnt new... I had friends that were out on Spruances shooting up drug smugglers in the Carribean 30 yrs ago. Saw a few yachts and sailboats towed into Gitmo. What I dont understand is why we have Coast Guard vessels in West Pac and/or other placed, far from American shores, and the Navy is doing drug patrols??
ReplyDeleteI dont know if this is better, worse or just the same, but my point is, the Navy isnt the only only using valuable high end assets to stop drug traffikers in speedboats:
ReplyDeletehttps://theaviationist.com/2020/06/20/usaf-to-deploy-e-8-jstars-e-3-sentry-and-kc-135s-to-support-counter-narcotics-operations-in-the-caribbean/
And to follow the rule of providing analysis of any links posted, I would say that the use of these is directly equivalent to the use of aegis ships. Maybe they are good at the task, but to paraphrase the post, every hour spent doing this is an hour spent not working on perishable skills. I am confident there are cheaper platforms for watching speedboats.
Delete@Dale: Think of it this way: it's unscripted training. You're using ISR assets to detect, track and identify smuggler boats, which are generally going to be harder to track and detect compared to ground vehicles, because of the small size and wave clutter. If a J-STARS crew can track smuggler boats through the ever shifting wave clutter of the sea, if they can do that, then tracking tanks through ground clutter is a much simpler proposition.
DeleteCNO,
ReplyDeleteI remember discussion about Australian frigates being wasted doing this type of mission too. Billions spent on installing the latest sensors and electronics, and the ships gets sent ten thousand kilometres away on a mission an OPV can do.
Still, for the US, this situation will be remedied in the 2020's slowly as the FFG(X) get built and replace the DDG's for the drug busting missions.
I think they should try to send a few LCS based around a supply ship to do some low level threat missions like this at least once. frees up the DDG's, and get to see if the LCS can even do a CG duty.
Andrew
"I think they should try to send a few LCS based around a supply ship to do some low level threat missions like this at least once. frees up the DDG's, and get to see if the LCS can even do a CG duty."
ReplyDeleteFrankly I think we should just give the LCSs to the CG and let them use them as they see fit. I don't know if the CG can handle, or wants, the maintenance headaches, but if they go out primarily on local ops and don't deploy, they should be good enough. The speed should be an huge asset in chasing smugglers, although some smuggler boats might outgun them. I say give them to the. CG, and if the CG can't use them either, then that is just further testament to how bad a decision they were.
One question I do have was raised earlier. We have deployed CG cutters far overseas, to WestPac and to the Indian Ocean. Why are we deploying them afar to do Navy missions, and using Navy ships here at home to do CG missions?
It was my understanding from working with the CG on port mobilization prep that every Coast Guardsman E-5 and above is also a badge-toting federal marshal. Seems to me like those are much more appropriate personnel for drug interdiction than Navy personnel.
I suppose that getting rid of all the LCSs in one feel swoop would put a damper on the Navy numbers. Of course, if we still had the 2 Sprucans and 44 Perrys that are not yet 40 years old, and the FFG(X)s starting to come online, we really wouldn't need them, so we wouldn't have them to give away, or if we did giving them away wouldn't hurt.
"if the CG can't use them either, then that is just further testament to how bad a decision they were."
DeleteI have stated repeatedly that the CG has absolutely no desire to take on the high cost of an extensive shore based maintenance system just to gain a few very short ranged vessels.
As proof, I note that the Navy has announced that they will retire the first four LCS early next year and the CG is NOT knocking on the door trying to get them.
"Seems to me like those are much more appropriate personnel for drug interdiction than Navy personnel."
DeleteNavy personnel do not have arrest authority. When a Navy ship deploys on an anti-smuggling patrol, a CG detachment goes with them for legal purposes. This was documented in the recent link to the story about Preble.
"Navy personnel do not have arrest authority. When a Navy ship deploys on an anti-smuggling patrol, a CG detachment goes with them for legal purposes. This was documented in the recent link to the story about Preble."
DeleteMy point exactly. If they have to take CG sailors along to do the mission, then let it just be a CG mission.
"I have stated repeatedly that the CG has absolutely no desire to take on the high cost of an extensive shore based maintenance system just to gain a few very short ranged vessels."
DeleteI wouldn't think the short range would be an issue, given the nature of their operations. And I think the high speed would be quite useful in a number of cases.
But you are correct, the maintenance is a huge issue, particularly for a force that is historically underfunded. I don't know what the economics would be if they could get 20-odd ships for free. Offset that against the cost of hiring civilian maintenance personnel and see what the payback period would be. At least since they operate basically out of home port without deploying, you could handle the maintenance with civilians, just not sure what the economics would be. Yeah, I know, there I go being a CPA again.
Of course, if we still had the 2 Sprucans and 40-odd Perry that have not yet turned 40, we really wouldn't need the LCSs. If only there were a way to reverse SINKEXes.
"If only there were a way to reverse SINKEXes."
DeleteFloatEx?
First 4 LCSs are going to be retired. Drug running patrols need far cheaper ships than LCS and, if they run, you need a squadron of armed T-6 Texans (or pull some P-51s off the civilian racing circuit!).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/07/01/the-us-navys-first-4-littoral-combat-ships-are-out-of-the-fleet-in-9-months/
ReplyDeleteSo which decision is worse: The Fords, the LCSs, or the LHAs/LHDs?
DeleteThe appointment criteria for Admirals.
DeleteWell, all of the ones involved in any of those three should be fired.
DeleteNext step, use SSNs to covertly trail drug smuggling boats. Cheap isn't it ? Just kidding !
ReplyDeleteLegalize marijuana and tax it, decriminalize the rest, and take the big money out of the equation. Yeah, there'll still be a few smugglers, but the number will drop dramatically. So will gangs. It's a win-win all the way around.
ReplyDeleteLet's keep it naval and not get into social policy!
DeleteFair enough, I apologize. Was about to delete it.
Delete