I’ve repeatedly stated that the Navy has moved from designing WARships to designing glorified cruise ships. I’ve also repeatedly stated that we can significantly reduce ship construction costs by eliminating excessive crew comfort features. Of course, that goes hand in hand with eliminating interminable deployments in favor of home port based training, maintenance, and occasional short duration missions. The eliminated crew comforts can be provided by shore based facilities.
I stumbled across a partial listing of ‘cruise ship’ features
of the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) which demonstrates some of the non-combat,
non-essential, cruise ship, crew comforts that were built into the ship. Here is a partial list of some non-combat, non-essential crew
comforts that were part of the USS Kitty Hawk (1):
Closed Circuit Television: 6
channels [if
the crew is working hard, there won’t be time for watching TV]
Average Soda Consumption Daily: 5,040 cans [that explains some
of our weight problems]
Public Works Force: 300 personnel [what is this???]
Number of ATMs: 4 (Navy-specific) [if you eliminate
ship’s stores, you don’t need money aboard ship]
Chaplains: 3 [make them shore
based]
Ship's Retail Stores: 2 [it’s a WARship, not
a shopping mall]
Dentists: 5 [make them shore
based]
Barber Shops: 2 [make them shore
based]
Exercise Facilities: 5 [if the crew is
working hard, there won’t be any interest in exercise during off duty time]
Lawyers: 2 [make them shore
based]
Post Office: 1 [pick your mail up on
shore]
Pounds of Mail Processed Daily: 2,500
pounds [how
many sailors must be employed processing and distributing 2500 lbs of mail
every day?]
This list is, by no means, comprehensive.
It was just a partial list of some interesting features. Consider,
though, the number of compartments even this partial list requires and the
number of sailors working to support these non-combat, non-essential functions
and you can see where significant savings begin to accrue by eliminating
them. I'm sure a comprehensive list
would be 2x-10x larger!
Consider, also, the secondary effects of eliminating these functions. By reducing the number of ‘comfort support’ crew, you also reduce the number of crew supporting the support crew. You need fewer cooks, fewer laundry workers, etc. You can also reduce the number/size of galleys, food storage, water generation and storage, laundry, heads, berthing, etc.
Then, there’s the tertiary effects. Once you’ve eliminated the crew comfort functions
and the facilities and people supporting them, you wind up with a smaller,
lighter ship and can design in smaller engines, smaller HVAC (heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning), smaller distillers, smaller chillers, and
so on. It’s a domino effect of savings …
all from eliminating cruise ship comforts.
Interesting, huh? It shows how much we've moved from designing WARships to
designing cruise ships.
USS Kitty Hawk
_____________________________________
(1)Kitty Hawk Vets website,
https://www.kittyhawkvets.com/ship-awards
ComNavOps, I know you like to rail against "cruise ships," but Kitty Hawk is not exactly a new carrier. I do know that except for the CCTV and the ATMs (modern developments) and maybe fewer exercise rooms, we had all those things in Ranger in the 1960s.
ReplyDeleteI can comment about a few of them.
Closed Circuit Television: 6 channels [if the crew is working hard, there won’t be time for watching TV] At least one of the channels goes to the squadron briefing rooms, and plays landings for review and critique. Everything that happens on the flight deck is also recorded for review, so these have some training benefit. Also, you can put the nightly movie (or are you arguing against having that too?) or movies on CCTV instead of using hangar deck space like we did on Ranger,
Average Soda Consumption Daily: 5,040 cans [that explains some of our weight problems] One can per sailor per day hardly seems excessive. We can't live on bug juice alone.
Public Works Force: 300 personnel [what is this???] Probably the same as ashore, the people who run the potable water, sewer, and garbage systems. That number seems excessive, but unless you have a magical way to stop sailors from peeing and pooping, you need them. Obviously on the Ford 300 were not enough to keep their toilets working. Which brings me to what I think is a legitimate question--I know we have women on ship now, but why no urinals on the Fords?
Number of ATMs: 4 (Navy-specific) [if you eliminate ship’s stores, you don’t need money aboard ship] I hate to say it, but ready availability of cash reduces the amount of cash that sailors have to carry around or keep in lockers, and probably reduces theft.
Chaplains: 3 [make them shore based]
Ship's Retail Stores: 2 [it’s a WARship, not a shopping mall]
Dentists: 5 [make them shore based]
Barber Shops: 2 [make them shore based]
Exercise Facilities: 5 [if the crew is working hard, there won’t be any interest in exercise during off duty time]
Lawyers: 2 [make them shore based]
Post Office: 1 [pick your mail up on shore]
Pounds of Mail Processed Daily: 2,500 pounds [how many sailors must be employed processing and distributing 2500 lbs of mail every day?]
With respect to most of the rest of them, they are things that you are simply going to have to provide in order to attract the number and quality of sailors you need in modern labor markets.
They don't really add much cost or space relative to the entire ship. The size of a carrier is dictated by the need to have catapults and landing space, not by any of these things. The Kittys are about 30 feet wider at the flight deck (280 v. 250) than the Forrestals, for better handling of aircraft. In particular, the "six pack" area just forward of the island, and between the island and the angled deck where you can park up to six aircraft ready to go (looks like maybe 4 or 5 there in the photo), can speed up operations and is something we did not have room for on Ranger.
" have to provide in order to attract the number and quality of sailors"
DeleteI'll repeat myself since you seem not to be hearing it … we eliminate deployments and ships/crew have no need for crew comforts since they won't normally be at sea for more than a few days at a time and when they're at sea they'll be working far too hard to utilize crew comforts.
Also, it's not just carriers. We're putting these comforts into all ships, on a scaled basis.
If ships are sent on actual missions that last weeks to months long you can't expect crews to be either working or sleeping the entire time or you'll just see increased accident rates as sailors wear out.
DeleteEven in WW1 and WW2 ships at sea when not in combat had things to allow crew to relax in downtime.
"I'll repeat myself since you seem not to be hearing it … we eliminate deployments and ships/crew have no need for crew comforts since they won't normally be at sea for more than a few days at a time and when they're at sea they'll be working far too hard to utilize crew comforts."
DeleteIt is not that I am not hearing it, it is that I am not buying it. Two points:
1) We cannot eliminate deployments with our current set of commitments to allies and others. Maybe the answer is that we need to relinquish some of those commitments. I am all for that. One of the reasons that I have pushed for a closer relationship with the British Commonwealth is because that is the only force I see that can take over some of that--UK in Europe, India in the Indian Ocean, Australia/NZ/Canada/Malaysia/Singapore in the Pacific. If we just walk away without a replacement, then we invite China and Russia in to take over--and they will.
2) Even without deployments, if all we do is go out on a one or two week exercise, some of those things are going to be necessary. The Navy is in a competition for manpower, and if we remove all creature comforts from ships, we will lose a number of good sailors.
"Also, it's not just carriers. We're putting these comforts into all ships, on a scaled basis."
I don't really think that laundry list is excessive. Start putting masseuses and putt-putt golf onboard and that is way too far, but the list you have included above is actually pretty modest.
"We cannot eliminate deployments with our current set of commitments to allies and others."
DeleteYou keep saying this and it's not true. What treaties require us to conduct deployments?
" if we remove all creature comforts from ships, we will lose a number of good sailors."
DeleteBilgewater! First, you have absolutely no evidence to support that statement. Second, as the Marines once demonstrated, if you give a crew a tough, meaningful challenge, under austere conditions, they'll line up and beg to do it. This is why athletes put up with physical and emotional stress and why the Marine's used to have no problem with getting good quality recruits and why the SEALs attract many more candidates than they can use. It's human nature to want to overcome challenges. They just have to be worthwhile challenges, not aimlessly drifting around a 10 month deployment that accomplishes nothing.
The kind of sailor that might run away from service because he can't get a latte to sip during his Internet session is not the kind of sailor we want, anyway.
"list you have included above is actually pretty modest."
DeleteIf it does not enhance combat capability, it has no place on board ship. Also, that list was from the '70's or so. The list of comforts has only gotten more extensive since then.
I said commitments, not treaties. NATO for starters. And a whole bunch of combined exercises. And kind of the gentlemen's agreement with the world to police the sea lines of communication (SLOC) since WWII. I'd like to see us cut back, but we better have somebody to replace us. If not, I'm sure China would be willing to take our place.
DeleteIf you want to pretend they don't exist, go ahead. This is after all a naval and military forum, not a political one.
I've been on deployments, I've been on out-and-back-in daily ops, and I've been on week-long home waters training/ops. And except for the daily ops, I'd say pretty much all of those laundry list items are necessary for all the others, and some for even the daily ops.
Another place where we just have to agree to disagree. I'm not aware of any hard data to validate either side, nor frankly how to obtain such data.
From a Navy Times article (https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2014/10/13/crew-s-ship-sailors-comfort-a-centerpiece-of-new-supercarrier-ford/),
Delete"aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford boasts amenities like smaller berthings, tricked out gyms and loaded lounges, plus many design changes like wider passageways that make the ship more livable."
"smaller berthings"
"The Ford features three huge gyms to accommodate weight lifting, cardio exercises, even boxing."
"Each berthing has an associated head, including showers, toilets and sinks."
"New lounges feature flat screen TVs, comfortable chairs and tables. The lounges and berthings, Moore has said, will also be wired for Wi-Fi, Rear Adm. Thomas Moore, program executive officer aircraft carriers has said. Even better, the TVs will feature on-demand TV, so you can catch your favorite shows or movies after watch."
"The gyms will be set up to accommodate weight lifting for specific muscle groups; spin and cardio equipment, such as bikes, treadmills and ellipticals; boxing, with equipment such as heavy bags, jump ropes, speed bags and upper-cut bags; and cross-functional fitness equipment, such as bars, boxes, kettle bells and ropes. The gyms will total 3,085 square feet — more area than most three-bedroom homes."
"Sailors will find the chapel and store in quieter areas of the ship"
"more air-conditioning"
and that's far from an all-inclusive list! Why did the Ford cost $15B+? Well, this is part of the reason.
"I said commitments, not treaties."
DeleteWhat commitment requires us to conduct deployments? None. We do so of our own choosing.
"gentlemen's agreement with the world"
Again, NOT a required deployment.
"combined exercises"
Not a requirement and only constitute a very short term time period, not a deployment.
To sum up, contrary to your statements, we have NO deployment commitments. None. Zilch. Nada. Zero. Our deployments are our own choosing and, as I've demonstrated, are the worst possible way to run a fleet and stay prepared for war. The proof is that our deployment system is running the fleet into the ground and readiness is at an all time low. So, please stop claiming that deployments are a requirement. You can favor deployments, if you wish, but acknowledge that they are purely voluntary on our part.
"China would be willing to take our place."
Our deployments have not stopped China, in the least. They are expanding as fast as they can into the Middle East, Indian Ocean, Africa, etc. Your statement is demonstrably false.
My best man's first ship was Kitty Hawk and his and his wife's beef was you couldn't get the gas smell out of the clothes from washing the clothes that had water separated from the fuel in the same tanks.
DeleteLawyers. Hmmmm, this smells like opportunity.
DeleteNow this is true deterrence.
But questions abound:
What is the maximum effective range of a lawyer?
How many can fit in a VLS cell? Could they be quad-packed like the ESSM?
What happens in case of a mis-fire? Do you really want a live lawyer flopping around on the deck?
You'd need to have a trained team with proper protective equipment to get it over the side as quickly as possible...and then the environmental impact paperwork...
But still, a terrifying weapon if used responsibly.
Lutefisk
"I'll repeat myself since you seem not to be hearing it … we eliminate deployments and ships/crew have no need for crew comforts since they won't normally be at sea for more than a few days at a time and when they're at sea they'll be working far too hard to utilize crew comforts."
DeleteI agree on the need to minimize the comforts on combat ships. Of course among your other posts you mention making a separate fleet just for hand holding, presence, and pirate chasing mission. Smaller ships, more modest armaments and more amenities. In war time you can use some of them for the fine tune, slow drone method of naval demining or some other auxiliary use. Of course even with the extra deployment fleet it would be good to slow down on deployments.
On the medical folks, they are combat crew. You have to have them on board. You just don't have all them on board for every exercise.
As far as creature comforts go, a tablet or net book goes a long way and calisthenics is still a thing for fitness.
Could a Vertical Lawyer System be the answer to the Navy's troubles?
Delete" among your other posts you mention making a separate fleet just for hand holding, presence, and pirate chasing mission."
DeleteThat 'fleet' is, literally, yachts with machine guns. They can have as many comforts as will fit! They are not a combat fleet in any sense of the word.
"In war time you can use some of them"
Not the ones I have in mind. They are strictly a peace time public relations fleet. No war time use at all.
""China would be willing to take our place."
DeleteOur deployments have not stopped China, in the least. They are expanding as fast as they can into the Middle East, Indian Ocean, Africa, etc. Your statement is demonstrably false."
The two are unrelated.
But go ahead, pull everybody home, end all deployments, and see how fast the world goes to crap.
"see how fast the world goes to crap."
DeleteHow much faster could it go than it is now?
I'm baffled. You have no evidence, whatsoever, that deployments accomplish anything and a great deal of evidence that they don't and that they result in decreased readiness and yet you still want to continue them???????????????????????????????????????
We have global reach from the Army and Air Force so we have all the deterrence we need. How is the presence or absence of a ship or two going change anything? You're just defending an outdated and demonstrably ineffective paradigm.
The "yachts with machine gun" idea might be worth taking a closer look. If there is a case could be made for increased morale leading to enhanced combat effectiveness, I don't see an issue with building a seperate single-purpose ship class for it. I could see a ship similar to a supply-ship, outfitted in a similar taste to a hospital ship (double function perhaps?) that could be used to supply long-term operations (weeks at a time?). This both doesn't distract you from the main fleet and simultaneously provide the amenities that the Navy so desperately thinks its necessary. I do agree that we have to perform cost benefits analysis to see if it's worth pursuing but it's an idea to look at.
DeleteTo be fair, I don't actually know how necessarily this amenities requirement is. Maybe the Navy did research it and find out a critical loss in combat effectiveness. I'm just talking from personal experience, coming from a younger generation. My experience has been the acceptance of what constitutes as bare-minimum standard of living nowadays is vastly different than what you perceive. Many young people could not stand the sign of dirtyness or the lack of basic entertainment amenities like video games/sports or a detach from their hobbies. Is this a big problem as I made out to be? I am not sure I could answer that. Could current generation accepts a lack of "basic" amenities for weeks? Maybe, perhaps we would do it with great success. But this idea would constitutes as a great alternative if that case turns out to be untrue.
"I don't see an issue with building a seperate single-purpose ship class for it."
DeleteWhoa! I'm absolutely not talking about building a class of ship. I'm literally talking about buying million dollar yachts and mounting a few machine guns on them. A million dollars is round off error in the Navy budget. For all practical purposes, they're free. The moment you build an official navy class of ship the cost balloons. Buy used yachts, slap a few guns on them, and let them go be the presence that everyone seems to want.
"Could current generation accepts a lack of "basic" amenities for weeks?"
Of course they can … IF they you give them a worthwhile mission. That used to be the Marine's recruiting pitch: you're not tough enough for us. It attracted all the recruits they needed. The SEALs attract far more candidates then they can use. Athletes put up with physically and mentally abusive conditions and do so with great enjoyment because they have a worthwhile goal.
We don't want the pampered, weak people who require video games to be happy. We want the self-motivated, self-disciplined people who want to challenge themselves. We've scared them off with the new military that is feminized and has become a global meals on wheels peace corps. We need to go back to worthwhile, challenging missions and then the right kind of people will come begging to serve. Instead of meekly surrendering two heavily armed boats and crews to three Iranians, if the Navy had fought and wiped the Iranians out, you'd have seen a recruitment surge of the right kind of people trying to get into the Navy - people who want a challenge and don't mind a fight. Isn't that what we want? Warriors?
A used Christensen 164'/50m just went for 35 million. The cheapest fast response cutter inflation adjusted went for 41 witht hem ranging up to 70. The price I have for a Westport 164' is 45.1. Their first 172'/52m is on the books at 46. Cyclones adjusted for inflation sit at 46.6. Pakistan bought the Westport version of FRC the Global Response Cutter for 47.4. Their is a real case for patrolling yacht hulls. They can do the same mission as an FRC with less gas and should be considered okay for ocean travel independently.
Delete"You have no evidence, whatsoever, that deployments accomplish anything and a great deal of evidence that they don't and that they result in decreased readiness and yet you still want to continue them???????????????????????????????????????
DeleteWe have global reach from the Army and Air Force so we have all the deterrence we need. How is the presence or absence of a ship or two going change anything? You're just defending an outdated and demonstrably ineffective paradigm."
We had a 50-year experience after 1945 when deployments may or may not have been individually successful, but somehow or another we managed to halt the spread of, and ultimately overturn, Soviet communism. Something accomplished that. It wasn’t Vietnam, but it interestingly occurred right after we began building a 600-ship fleet and made clear our intentions to be a force on the high seas worldwide.
I have made it very clear that I totally agree that we need a new paradigm. But I don’t see a never-deploying fleet as a sensible part of the paradigm. We need a paradigm based on economic power rather than military intervention. A fleet to protect our SLOCs seems an integral part of that paradigm.
Intervention is one thing. Protecting SLOCs is another. One happens on land and is a proper Army/Air Force evolution, if at all. The other happens on water. How do the Army or Air Force protect against, say, Somali pirates? How does the Navy do it from home port?
There are a lot of bad people in the world. Not all of them are Chinese Communists.
I'm specifically not talking about interfering in internal affairs of other countries. My rule since experiencing Vietnam has been never fight a war that you don't intend to win. In the case of Syria, I'll go even further--never even think about fighting a war where you don't want anybody to win. The parties are Syria/Russia, ISIS/Daesh or whatever they are called today, and Iraq/Iran. Which one do we want to win?
It's the difference between isolationist and non-interventionist. An isolationist totally withdraws from the world. A non-interventionist is present and very active in the world, but doesn't get involved in other folks' business. North Korea is isolationist; Switzerland is non-interventionist. I want a non-interventionist approach.
The UK was pretty much non-interventionist in the 100-year Pax Britannia that followed Waterloo. The Royal Navy dominated the seas, but they didn’t really get involved in other people’s goings on ashore, aside from Crimea. That would be the model I would like to see.
If we keep our fleet at home, then PLAN fills in the gap because they have to. China’ economy is totally dependent on international trade. I don’t think we want that result. I don’t think we want a world where everybody does China’s bidding because they have no choice.
To be clear, we do a lot of useless, wasteful deployments today. I would exercise much greater care in deciding which deployments to take and which to pass.
Delete"We don't want the pampered, weak people who require video games to be happy. We want the self-motivated, self-disciplined people who want to challenge themselves."
DeleteAt first, I would have wrote about how you are dealing in absolutes and being optimistically optimistic. But I have recently read the early days of SpaceX and you are right. We are a species that is always looking for challenges that inspires us. I just hope that you are right or we are in for a losing fight.
IMHO you are wrongon many counts. I'm a Brit ex medical officer. Dentists are essential, toothache takes someone out, with it they just can't function. Why do you think that dentists went ashore so early at DDay 6/6/44? Chaplains are essential, especially in wartime, check your histories. Mail is essential for morale. I know electronic mail has supplanted it, but you were talking Kitty Hawk which was a few years ago. Surely you know all this, after all you served at sea.
ReplyDelete"Dentists are essential"
DeleteYou've completely missed the accompanying aspect which is no deployments. The ships are home ported, conducting maintenance, intensive training, and occasional missions. Being home ported all the time, those services would be readily available on shore.
The entire point of this post is to break the deployment paradigm and the resultant 'cruise ship' design paradigm.
Because know one will ever have an accident at all that requires a dentist or develop a condition on an actual mission deployment.
DeleteGet rid of all medical personnel as well then they are just cruise ship perks and unneeded.
"Because know one will ever have an accident"
DeleteDon't be obtuse. If we send ships out on a mission then, of course, some medical personnel can accompany them. The point is to not design in excess capabilities that are only needed during extended deployments and are unnecessary for a home ported fleet model.
Having lawyers on warships is very fitting of US Navy, Inc.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, you really do want dentists and some other of those.
Delete"On the other hand, you really do want dentists and some other of those."
DeleteSince you either didn't read the post or didn't understand what you read, I'll repeat the relevant quote from the post:
"Of course, that goes hand in hand with eliminating interminable deployments in favor of home port based training, maintenance, and occasional short duration missions."
When deployments are eliminated, the ships are home ported, conducting maintenance, intensive training, and occasional missions. Being home ported all the time, those services would be readily available on shore.
So, no, you really do NOT want or need dentists and some other of those.
All that space CNO wants to free up, will be in used to accommodate wartime crew sizes. So keep the oversize HVAC systems etc. The Navy can score Tough Guy Points in peacetime, in wartime I want the crew at best possible efficiency.
ReplyDelete"The Navy can score Tough Guy Points in peacetime, in wartime I want the crew at best possible efficiency."
DeleteYou're missing two points:
1. This isn't about 'tough guy' or wartime comfort. It's about being able to afford enough ships to make a credible, affordable navy. The spaces and billets that I'm freeing up save money that goes to building more and better ships.
2. WWII proved that, in a time of war, we can operate ships WITHOUT crew comforts so, no, comforts are not required. Every comfort on a ship is a potential death trap in combat. We saw exactly this when the two Burke collisions happened. Crew died because they couldn't get out of flooding compartments due to obstructions from all the crew comfort items, in addition to the unavoidable obstructions from structural damage. It was detailed in the Navy investigative reports and I posted on it.
A great seaman's eye view of WW2 is James J. Fahe 'Pacific War Diary: 1942 - 1945, The Secret Diary of an American Sailor'. He was a crewman on the USS Montpelier (CL-57) manning a 40mm mount.
DeleteInteresting take and highlights how we have moved away from our mission in so many areas. We have turned the ship (while homeported) into supporting the Sailor, with unnecessary comforts, vice having it designed solely for the Sailors to support the ship with her role as a combatant.
ReplyDelete"With respect to most of the rest of them, they are things that you are simply going to have to provide in order to attract the number and quality of sailors you need in modern labor markets."
ReplyDeleteRecycle the savings from construction, excess personal, etc into sailors base pay, per diem, hardship pay, etc. I know quite a few service members that would rather have child, hard cash over creature comforts that they only get to occasionally utilize.
In regards to the elimination of some of these facilities from the carriers, however, the case could be made to keep them in some form. Being the center of logistics for task forces and transit times involved, it could reduce the need to offload personnel for mundane medical/dental.
Unless, we increase the number of our medical ships, ie hospital ships, from two, it could be a logistical problem to completely eliminate those types of facilities.
Lawyers in the US Navy are like the Political Officers in the old Soviet military.
ReplyDeleteKind of an elephant in the room, but the way to make a stripped down 'no frills' warship design philosophy work will be to increase berthing and/or amenities ashore.
ReplyDeleteSailors won't be too bummed about the austere conditions at sea if they can have a nice Airforce-style dormrooms at their home base. Austere ports may require a hospitality ship or portable facilities with pools, bars/resteraunts, and plenty of wifi Hot-spots to call home on.
"Kind of an elephant in the room, but the way to make a stripped down 'no frills' warship design philosophy work will be to increase berthing and/or amenities ashore."
DeleteExactly.
Leave all the fancy non-combat amenities at the base, don't have mega-long deployments that only result in wear-and-tear, and that's it.
The Ford cruise ship has had ~200 long term passengers (unfortunately non-paying) from NNS trying to complete Ford's Phase 1 build, installation of its weapons elevators and expect additional numbers finishing Phase II build, plus others as and when required eg to sort out the EMALS when it went down :)
ReplyDelete"It looks like this topic was not a very good one"
ReplyDeleteThis comment was deleted as it contained nothing of value to enhance the discussion.
"Dentists: 5 [make them shore based]
ReplyDelete"Barber Shops: 2 [make them shore based]...
"Post Office: 1 [pick your mail up on shore]"
As a man, I had to get one haircut every two weeks, to keep my hair length within US Army regulations. Putting the barber shop ashore, will force the Navy to either eliminate grooming regulations for the MONTHS its ships are at sea, or limit its ships to two weeks at sea.
Doing away with shipboard mail service, will cutoff service members from communications with friends and loved ones, during the MONTHS the ships are at sea, devastating morale. Do you want to makeup for this, by allowing service members to email, text, and do video conferences 24/7- and having the ships constantly transmit, allowing enemies to pinpoint their locations with ease? Or do you want to limit the ships to short deployments- no longer than one week- to minimize the impact on morale? Expecting service members to simply "tough it out," is unrealistic- they're still human.
Or do you want to replace all the Navy's manned ships with unmanned ones?
Since you didn't read the post, I'll repeat the salient passage for you:
Delete" Of course, that goes hand in hand with eliminating interminable deployments in favor of home port based training, maintenance, and occasional short duration missions."
You put the cart before the horse. Emphasize you proposed eliminating months-long deployments in order to eliminate the NEED for shipboard "luxuries." Otherwise, readers will focus on the downsides of eliminating services essential to months-long deployments.
DeleteIf you are willing to pay good money for a week of R&R with just the features listed, perhaps you'd be interested in my oceanfront property in Arizona.
ReplyDeleteWhat are Coast Guard standards on this stuff on the NSCs? Seems like a good benchmark for comparison. I know FRCs are 2 or 4 per cabin.
ReplyDeleteUnlike many other nations, US Navy needs to go all over the world to meddle into other nations' affairs than just defense its coasts. Sailors need to stay in ships for long times. People are not machines thus we need to care their basic mental, medical, and entertainment needs. If you don't, then, not just morale will go down and unwanted behaviors will happen.
ReplyDelete"Chaplains: 3 [make them shore based]"
ReplyDeleteNo. Chaplains have long been embedded with combat troops on land. And, the same should apply to ships as well. Not to say a patrol boat needs a chaplain. They don't. But, larger ships like an aircraft carrier should have some number of chaplains on board.
Being granted absolution for past sins, or recieving communion, or even handed a simple blessing before into combat has a powerful affect on people.
"larger ships like an aircraft carrier should have some number of chaplains on board."
DeleteYou're not grasping the concept. A home ported fleet that only puts to sea for a few days at a time, normally, doesn't need chaplains. Religious needs can wait a few days until the ships return to port.
Combat, of course, is a different case and then, yes, we will need medical personnel and Chaplains. But, that's only during war.
Your post has caused me to think of a few questions about a mission focused fleet structure versus a deployment focused fleet structure.
ReplyDeleteWhat would be the length of time away from port for the average mission? I would think that if this time was less than two weeks, many of the services listed would not need to be provided on ship and could be reasonably deferred till the ship returns to port. If I go on vacation for two weeks, I just pick up my mail when I get back.
Could ships be shared with multiple crews? The wear and tear on the fleet could be minimized if the majority of the fleet never or rarely leaves port. This may not be possible since many of the ships are not identical in equipment (each of the DDG1000 class has different equipment) and the training would not be completely transferable to the other ships in the class.
If ships were placed in service with no changes within block buys, then all ships within the block could be used in a training group. If a block of 6 ships was in a block one could be the designated training vessel that got used continuously and the other 5 would only be used once or twice a year for large group training. All the ships would be maintained at the same level, but only one would be accumulating significant hull fatigue.
Could "cruise ship" tenders be used in training the crews in an off ship environment? Many of the sub systems could be placed on a tender that had an increased level of comfort but could still support the training of sailors in the operation and repair of the equipment. This may be more useful if the ship's home port is not a US territory.
Michael,
DeleteLots of good thoughts in your comment.
Generally, I'm not a fan of swapping crews among ships. I think developing pride in one's ship and a sense of ownership is important.
Regarding missions, absent an active war, I wouldn't think most peacetime missions would be more than a matter of days or a couple weeks. Honestly, I'm hard-pressed to think of a single legitimate mission that we might have executed in recent history. One could argue that some of the Tomahawk strikes constitute legitimate missions although even those have rarely had any lasting effect so one has to wonder why they were executed. But as an example of a mission, they would be to sail to a launch point/time, launch, and return home - a couple weeks?
I think if you told sailors that they would be on ship 12 weeks a year and the rest of the time they had the run of the naval base with a private room/apartment/home that they didn't need to share with anyone, word would get out that the Navy was the place to enlist.
ReplyDelete“Unlike many other nations, US Navy needs to go all over the world to meddle into other nations' affairs than just defense its coasts.”
ReplyDeleteA bit of history is in order. Prior to WWI the world was a series of colonial empires, headed primarily by European nations. You didn’t trade with your neighbors because you didn’t trust them—England didn’t trust France, France didn’t trust Germany, Germany didn’t trust France or Russia, Austria-Hungary didn’t trust the Turks (but found themselves in bed with them for WWI). You traded with your colonies—they sent you raw materials, you sent them back finished goods, with a big markup in price. Each such colonial hegemon maintained its own military and naval forces to secure its own colonial territories and the sea lines of communication (SLOC) back and forth.
The system started to break up after WWI, when the losers lost their empires.. The Austrian and Turkish (both basically overland) empires were broken up, Germany was divested of its foreign colonies. Russia went communist. The winners kept theirs. Britain still had colonies in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. So did France. Italy had colonies in Africa. Japan had colonies on the Asian mainland and in the Pacific. Belgium had the Congo. Portugal had Angola and Mozambique plus others.
WWII blew up the rest of that system. Almost all of the colonies received independence in the 15 years or so after the end of WWII. Moreover, the war had devastated the economies and militaries of the participants—except the USA. We were worried that in its weakened state, western Europe would be easy prey for the Soviets. So we bribed up an alliance to stop them. We will give you preferred access to our economy, so you have someone to sell to, and our Navy will protect your SLOCs, worldwide, so you don’t have to rebuild your military as well as your economy. There’s only one catch. You have to be on our side against Russia. NATO, SEATO, probably ultimately the EU grew out of this. And it worked, fabulously. Despite missteps like Vietnam, we contained the Russians (and Chinese), and the world economy grew like gangbusters. Basically, Truman bribed up an alliance to contain the Soviets, and Reagan put pressure on their economy to bring it down.
It worked too well. The day the Berlin Wall fell, this whole paradigm became outmoded. Ross Perot said something in 1992 that I had been thinking for some time, “In the post-Cold-War era, economic power will become more important than military power.” We are still living in a system that says we will be the world’s policeman in exchange for your allying with us against Russia. And that does not reflect where we are today. We are in Cold War II with China, not Russia. And China took Perot’s words to heart and is fighting us economically rather than militarily, while we are mired in trying to impose a military solution in the Mideast—and, in the process, guarantee the security of China’s critical oil supply line.
So we are stuck guaranteeing the security of worldwide markets—until we can find someone to pass it off to. And that requires deployments.
My idea is that we build the strongest military in the world, bar none (the “two and one half wars” standard) and never use it, because nobody dares pick on us, and we don’t go around picking on them. And we find a friendly power to take over some of the policeman duties. If we just pull out unilaterally, we open the door for China. The logical choice would be the British Commonwealth countries, and there are some promising developments—CANZUK, a proposed military and commercial alliance among Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and UK; and some ideas floated about a combined Commonwealth military, which would be no worse than the 4th strongest military in the world and the 2nd strongest navy. We should do what we can to help these things happen. That would be a force that could take a lot off our hands. Then we focus on winning the economic contest against China.
Bottom line--Before we can go cutting out deployments, we need to find someone to pass at least part of the world policeman role to. If we just abandon the field, China will be all too happy to pick up the pieces.
DeleteWhy not let China pick up the pieces- and end up in pieces, if it stupidly tries to meddle in the Middle East the way the US did? Being the world police stopped paying off the moment the Cold War ended.
DeleteMeddling in internal affairs of another country is a very different proposition from keeping SLOCs open. As I have said many times, ideally we should have the strongest military in the world, bar none (the "two and a half war" concept), and never use it, because nobody dares pick a fight with us, and we don't go around picking on them.
DeleteKeeping SLOCs open involves doing things on water. Meddling in the affairs of another country involves doing things on land.
CDR Chip, I've thought for a while that we need Dwight Eisenhower as president.
DeleteLutefisk
" If we just abandon the field, China will be all too happy to pick up the pieces."
DeleteThat sounds good. Let them deal with over commitments,
decreased and deferred maintenance, excessive wear and tear on ships and crews, reduced readiness, and constant complaints from the rest of the world. Let them run their fleet into the ground. We can sit home, watch, laugh, train, and maintain!
"that goes hand in hand with eliminating interminable deployments in favor of home port based training, maintenance, and occasional short duration missions." I am so sorry to read this statement from you. It means you don't think US aircraft carriers need to be far from port, like most Coast Guard Cutters. After so many years reading your excellent analytical articles, I am so sorry to see you've become an isolationist. I hope you enjoy your comfortable retirement into isolationism, I hope you are comfortably funded by my taxes. I think its time you retire.
ReplyDelete"sorry to see you've become an isolationist."
DeleteHow in the world did you come up with that??? I'm strongly in favor of world engagement in the political, economic, cultural, etc realms. I just think a home ported navy is a better way to ensure maintenance, training, and readiness. I've demonstrated that deployments accomplish nothing so why would you want to do them?
I served in the army, the divisional cavalry squadron in the 101st Airborne Division, during peace time in the 90's.
ReplyDeleteWe spent a lot of time in the field. But they were usually fairly short stints. Sometimes up to a month, but often times only for a week or a few days.
But when we were in the field there was no wasted time. We went there to practice, to work on specific things.
We didn't just go camping ever.
The impression I am getting is that the navy often has ships at sea that do not have a specific training purpose?
Why would they ever do that?
I would think that they should be moving, communicating, navigating, training as much like in a war footing as is practical.
I had thought that the navy was living it every day when they put to sea.
It seems that isn't the case.
What CNO proposes, at least from my army experience, seems to make a lot of sense.
Lutefisk
"Why would they ever do that?"
DeleteI can think of a couple of possibilities:
(1) Remember that ships only sail a few hundred miles per day. So if they need to respond quickly to some attack, and they are in port, that means they are days to weeks away at a time when hours may count.
(2) Consider a mission like ballistic missile defense. Regrettably, we can't count on the North Koreans always giving us days to weeks advance notice before launching missiles at one of our allies.
"Regrettably, we can't count on the North Koreans always giving us days to weeks advance notice before launching missiles at one of our allies."
DeleteFirst, our allies have the capability and potential to defend themselves. Let them sail ships, if they feel threatened.
Second, think it through logically. NKorea isn't going to suddenly launch a few missiles at some random country. They might initiate a war with SKorea but that would involve mobilizing and pre-positioning their entire military. That takes weeks, if not months. Plenty of notice.
Actually, in the case of North Korea, I believe their army is always positioned quite close to the border. So I doubt they'd really need to move them by very much. And of course the thousands of artillery tubes are positioned to start an attack with no warning at all. And of course the nuclear missiles wouldn't require massive obvious movement.
DeleteThere's always repositioning, reserve movements, logistical surges, etc. that are required to support any initiation of war - otherwise the war could only last a day or two. It's impossible for a modern war to occur with absolutely no warning.
DeleteOne option is to have some "Liberty Ships" as I suggested long ago, with all the crew comforts plus more for over deployed ships and troops ashore.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.g2mil.com/Liberty%20Ships%20for%20Liberty.htm
LSTs are no longer an option but any used cargo ship will do.
Sorry if this ends up duplicated. This is my first post and I've tried several times and it doesn't seem to take.
ReplyDeleteOne thought I haven't seen yet. In order to be able to respond quickly to a Chinese "fait accompli", the ships would need to be based in the region, since it takes weeks to get there from the US West Coast. But ships in the region are actually safer at sea than in port. There is some doubt about the ability of the Chinese "carrier killer" missiles to target a moving ship at sea. But there is no doubt whatever about their ability to target a ship in port tied up at a pier. At the pier, a ship is just a building.
That's a nice thought but the reality is that a fait accompli of any significance doesn't happen overnight. There's always a build up that takes months or years. For example, China's seizure of the E/S China Seas took place over a period of years and we did have ships in the region which accomplished nothing. Even Pearl Harbor was not a surprise. We knew almost to the day when it was coming. The only surprise was that we took no significant defensive actions to prepare for it.
DeleteHaving ships in the region is useless unless we're willing to do something with them. As I said, we've had ship's in the region for decades and yet we've sat back and watched the Chinese seize territory.
Even if we had the will to take action, that doesn't mean we need ships in the region. We can have bombers overhead any spot on the globe in a matter of hours. So, ships on scene are not a requirement - even less so since we have no political will to take any action with them.
"Consider, also, the secondary effects of eliminating these functions. By reducing the number of ‘comfort support’ crew, you also reduce the number of crew supporting the support crew."
ReplyDeleteExcept, in wartime, our warships will go so sea with a wartime size crew. So, the facilities you propose to reduce or eliminate will be needed in war, though underutilized in peacetime.
Per the Navy Historical Society, "The Fletcher class destroyers had a wartime complement of 329 personnel. That number was necessary to allow around the clock manning of gun mounts, repair parties, and other watch stations. The peacetime manning was 14 officers and 236 enlisted men."
In wartime, carriers are likely to go sea with more aircraft, which would require more pilots and crew. The Burkes would go to sea with extra crew too for damage control, larger watch crews, and for posting additional lookouts.
While I would like to believe that ships will go to sea with larger crews for combat, there is nothing to indicate the Navy would do that and every indication that they are more firmly committed to minimal manning than ever before. There is nothing in any ship design or Navy policy that mentions increased manning during war. In fact, the recent designs have had very strict limits on berthing capacity. The Ford, for example, is already max'ed out on berthing, right now, during peacetime, and has no capacity for additional crew. The LCS has max'ed out its berthing capacity. I'm pretty sure the Navy has no intention of adding crew for combat.
DeleteThe majority of the crew comforts I want to eliminate have nothing to do with combat and would not, therefore, be added back. Lounges, video game rooms, saunas, coffee bars, ship stores, ATMs, lawyers, exercise facilities, etc. are not needed during peacetime or war.
When you say ships would go on war deployments with medical staff, chaplains, etc, you already have a vision for a wartime size crew. My point is that you would (or should) size a ship for the largest crew you expect to sail with.
DeleteAnd, while berthing capacity might be maxed out on many ships, that doesn't you couldn't add extra crew accomodations on a temporary basis. I'm sure we've done that before. Plus, there is always the option of hot racking.
"Plus, there is always the option of hot racking."
Delete*Gasp!!* The consensus is that no crew would stand for that! No sundae bar, no combat!
"you already have a vision for a wartime size crew"
DeleteA few extra people is not a wartime crew size increase. It's a couple of extra people.
"A few extra people is not a wartime crew size increase."
DeleteTrue. But, I'd like to think the Navy would add more than just a few extra people. Historically, ship crews have increased during wartime and think the same will happen in the future. But, that depends on who is available and qualified to go to sea.
Maybe the Navy isn't doing this, but I think you should design a warship for a wartime size complement. With the ship manned at reduced levels in peacetime.
At the same time, our warships should provide a decent level of crew comfort. Given how many ships we have, wartime patrols could easily last last 6 months. I wouldn't begrudge the crew modest exercise facilities or a breakroom.
And, in wartime, I'd like to think the Navy would cut down some of the fringe benefits such as soda and the ice cream sundae bars and focus more on bombs and bullets.
"Given how many ships we have, wartime patrols could easily last last 6 months."
DeleteThis is absurd. Navies don't fight that way. They assemble, go execute a mission, and return to base. Staying out for months at a time is not only impossible (VLS cells can't be refilled at sea, for example), it invites sinking by hanging around in contested waters (with enemy nuclear subs, all waters are contested). Reread the USS Enterprise war patrol post I did some time ago to understand how ships fight or read any naval history.
Not really. Right now, we have about 40 percent of the destroyers and cruisers we had at the end of 1941. I'm not counting the LCS for obvious reasons. Over the next decade, that percentage will probably get worse as China builds up their numbers and ours remain the same or are reduced.
DeleteI think the dynamics of the next war will be far different than WW2. There are multiple sea lanes of communications to protect and we'll probably need some ships to protect our allies as well. Refilling VLS cells at sea is a technical challenge that will have to get resolved.
Hi CNO,
ReplyDeleteI just want to talk about one specific issue- dentists.
(I'll let you in on a secret. My profession is dentistry.)
I did read you emphasised ships go on missions, instead of deployments, but how long is a mission? Let's say it's 7 days.
Because your crew size is so large, you'll still have to make provision for health issues imho. Some points to make:
- By your arguments, there should also be not doctors, nursing staff, or medical facilities, since all health related issues should be handled on shore before and after that week.
- I'll give you some issues which can happen at any time:
- toothaches and facial swellings. Most people don't floss, many don't brush well. So these will happen in a crew of 5000. Even if it's just 0.1%, that's 5 people either incapacitated, or in a life threatening situation, since the swelling in the mouth could spread to the brain.
You might say....
What if you make it a law you have to do a check up before you go?
Can you imagine 5000 people turning up to the dentist's the day before the mission?
And what if the person needs 2-3 fillings? That'll take 60-90 minutes to do. Where's the dentist going to find time to do those, and still find time to see all the other people?
I actually face such issues at the end of every year in my city. What happens is: many employees get a few hundred $ as part of their salary package which expires end of the year. So everyone books an appointment in December for a check up to use their benefits, and the month books up very quickly. If someone then also has a few issues to get taken care of, the next available appointment would be for several weeks.
Notice that a) everyone waits til the last moment; and b) people can have problems without them knowing, because there often isn't pain.
In a crew of 5000, let's say just 0.1% get massive toothache, another 0.1% get swelling, another 0.1% get a painful issue from wisdom teeth (remember the crew is mostly under 30's ), 0.1% have an accident and get smashed in the face/mouth. We'll ignore non painful/life threatening problems like breaking fillings/dentures/bridges/orthodontic retainers/splints for grinding.
In this very amateur example, you can expect about 20 each mission to have considerable pain or swellings.
That's about 3 people a day, over 7 days.
So that's my discussion about whether or not Dentists should be on a carrier of 5000.
Have a good one,
Cheers,
Andrew
Most of what you're describing is just discomfort and can be tolerated for the length of a short mission. The remainder is highly unlikely but in the event that a truly life-threatening emergency crops up the patient can be flown to the nearest facility.
DeleteYou may or may not recall the famous around the world submerged voyage of the Nautilus? During the voyage, a crew member came down with a life-threatening condition (appendicitis? I can't recall). The sub surfaced and the patient was helo'ed out.
Finally, note that I am not against a few medical personnel accompanying a mission. I'm against the routine installation of extensive facilities and staffs on a permanent basis.
Finally, you and everyone else have focused on the medical aspect when the main focus is the proliferation of non-medical crew comforts that have turned WARships into cruise ships.
Hi CNO,
DeleteOn the issue of being airlifted off the ship, I hadn't known about that (as you know, I'm still learning). That seems like a reasonable alternative.
As for everything, else, I can completely see your point.
Andrew
Speaking as a civilian Physician, I must admit the figure of 5 dentists for a crew of about 5600 looks luxurious, even factoring in the Task Group they will be supporting also. The Continental US has the equivalent of about 3.4 dentists per 5600 people, albeit many people are under-served.
ReplyDeleteHowever, looking up public domain information on rates of dental emergencies amongst deployed military personnel shows surprisingly high rates of painful or concentration-distracting problems, only about half of which might be preventable with more intensive pre-deployment dental prep.
Even so, most of those 5 dentists are probably doing routine work. And, during an actual shooting war, there are various things you can do to defer issues. Most dental infections can be suppressed (temporarily) with suitable antibiotics, especially if you get in early. Painkillers can suppress pain, although not necessarily what you want in folks operating delicate electronic equipment. There are things like open jaw fractures, but these will be a minority of emergencies. After all, plenty of ships deploy by themselves without dentists onboard, without needing to return to port early.
The larger issue is, given we can avoid almost all dental work for at least a week at the start of the next peer shooting war, and that carriers spend almost their entire lives at peace, whether or not we really need to ship a very large dental clinic inside our expensive future 15 Billion Ford-class ship. That's expensive real estate. An equivalent charity-based clinic on land would be looking for cheaper land on the outskirts of town.
If we choose to deploy during peacetime, Medevac to a less expensive hospital ship based on a commercial hull (or nearby land-based facility or field hospital) holding our dentists and other services, might be eye-wateringly expensive to us civilians. But everything starts looking cheap compared to a 15 Billion dollar hull. Perhaps they could put the lawyer in there also. And they probably have to do Medevac when transferring crew from escorts to the carrier for emergency dental work. With smaller air groups perhaps there is even more deck space for Medevac flights?
I am aware that RO-RO based hulls rock about a bit more in heavy seas (preventing surgery being done in some cases), but the pricier Tanker-based conversions the US Navy has historically preferred for it's hospital ships (and ESB's) are more stable. This is similar to the Liberty Ship suggestion above.
If we assume that Carriers will be deployed in groups of at least four in a serious shooting war, as ComNavOps estimates and seems logical, then the argument in favour of specialised hospital (or support) ships becomes more favourable. Why have four separate 5-dentist dental clinics in the combat zone when we can put them upto 1600 km (estimated V-22 range) away, and somewhere where they're not taking up valuable hangar and munitions space inside our expensive nuclear-powered boxes?
I'm not suggest removing all dental surgery or surgery capability from future Carriers. Only that the fleet is designed on the basis that carriers will be operating in groups, with at least one hospital ship (or suitable land-based facility) and perhaps a backup facility on a second support ship within V-22 range. Some onboard dental capacity will be needed for stabilising injuries during a mass casualty event for later treatment or Medevac. This level of capacity should be more than sufficient for peacetime needs.
I have no issue with the barber and dentist, if anything the more medical and hygiene care the crew gets the better.
ReplyDeleteI assume you would have no issue with doctors (including OB/Gyn's), as well, then? And therapists for mental health? And a staff of masseuses? And lawyers for legal peace of mind? And a wide selection of religious priests and leaders? And personal trainers for optimum health and exercise? And dieticians? And tailors? And physical therapists for any injuries? And …
DeleteYou see where this leads? It's all for the physical and emotional care of the crew. As you stated, the more care the crew gets the better, right?
Slippery slope fallacy here, just because we are letting the crew have basic hygiene and health care means that this is suddenly going to be a luxury cruise.
DeleteNote that I do not mention anything regarding the lawyers or chaplains.
Plus tailors are already something of a standard on navies, but they are not the kind that takes your measurements for a suit, more like the guy who patches holes and tears.
In a cruise which can take anywhere for weeks ore months having access to a haircut or a toothfiling without going ashore is a great thing.
While beyond the scope of this topic, I think this discussion has opened up a critical issue. The old paradigm--with USA as the protector of the western world in exchange for alliance against the Soviets--died when the Berlin Wall fell, and we are still trying to execute a strategy that has now been passe for 30+ years. This invites a discussion of exactly what our proper geopolitical strategy should be going forward. If you think that is beyond the scope of this blog, ComNavOps, I will defer to you on that point. But it is a question that I think needs a lot of attention and is appropriate for discussion somewhere.
ReplyDeleteA few questions that impact directly on the deployment issue, and consequently on the design and operation of our Navy are as follows:
-Should our fleet protect global SLOCs, or is that a mission that is more appropriate for China since they are far more dependent on international trade than we are?
-If we intend to keep that role, to what extent is it appropriate for us to find allies to share that burden?
- And if it should be shared, then what allies?
My answers would be that we want to keep it rather than turn it over to China, that we need allies picking up a part of the burden so that we can reduce the strain of deployments on our fleet, and that the appropriate allies to do so would come from CANZUK, the British Commonwealth, and the Quad (USA, India, Australia, Japan, which is redundant with the Commonwealth except for the addition of Japan). I would note that one of the drivers behind the CANZUK movement is the intent to form a union that is better able to resist China.
Consistent with that approach, I think our foreign policy should seek to:
- Do everything we can to facilitate bringing CANZUK about, probably starting with bringing UK into NAFTA/USMCA
- Form some sort of trade and defense alliance with CANZUK
- Expand that to the Commonwealth, bringing India, Singapore, and Malaysia into the fold, among others
- Strengthen ties to the Quad
- Revisit TPP with some significant modifications to prevent the deterioration of national sovereignty, so we don't end up with another EU
- Find ways to triangulate Russia against China; to the extent that we can prevent them from aligning together, we make our problem much simpler
A Navy with fewer, but not no, deployments would fit into that strategy.
WestPac is a major deployment for us, but basically local ops for Australia, Singapore, and Malaysia.
DeleteThe Indian Ocean is a major deployment for us, but basically local ops for India.
Europe is a major deployment for us, but basically local ops for the UK--even the Med, because of the presence they maintain at Gibraltar.
"This invites a discussion of exactly what our proper geopolitical strategy should be going forward. If you think that is beyond the scope of this blog"
DeleteIt is not beyond the scope as it is the basis of our geopolitical strategy which is, in turn, the basis of our military strategy. Just keep any discussion confined to the military aspects as opposed to, say, purely financial relations. Otherwise, feel free!
OK, well I pretty much laid out my grand strategy above. China is clearly pursuing a land-based strategy as a land power. So did the Soviets, and so is Russia. I don't think we can fight them on their turf, but if we can maintain the freedom of the seas for our military and commercial needs, we don't have to. We just can't fight another winless war like Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria. I really think we can reprise what UK did 1815-1914, and that seems to me to be the course to steer.
Delete"I really think we can reprise what UK did 1815-1914, and that seems to me to be the course to steer."
DeleteThe problem is that the UK handed off the global power role to a generally allied nation, while the USA is not in the position to do that.
It is one thing to manage the rise of a friendly power, and another to deal with an obviously hostile one.
Of course UK handed it off roughly 130 years later, and we have no idea who might be a friendly or unfriendly power in 130 years.
DeleteI'm not saying we can make it last 130, or even 100 years. But I do think a strategy focused on preserving trade and non-intervention into matters that don't matter to us has a better chance of succeeding than our current neocon (sorry if that's too political) interventionist model.
So weve all discussed protecting the SLOCs... But major unasked question... Protect them from what?? From who??
ReplyDeleteIf we pulled every USN ship back to territorial waters tomorrow, what are we afraid of?? Pirates?? What are we actually protecting during peacetime??
Theres realistically nothing thats imported, that we cant do without. We dont HAVE to import oil. And frankly the import of Chinese goods would be fine. Sure Walmart and the Dollar Stores would go under, but so be it, thats better than continuing to fund CCP growth!! Btw, the FONOPs are nice to use in Stars n Stripes, but dont REALLY do anything either..
So again, what are we protecting, and from whom during peacetime??
Really well said!
DeleteThanks CNO... It had just occurred to me how everyone says "we have to _____", but in fact, we dont. Its in everyone's best interests to have open sea lanes!! Even China. Who would want to close them?? Or what, maybe try to tax ships for passage(?) or access(?) or... Even if done by a nation-state, thats piracy, and could be dealt with by the offenders neighbors, or maybe the UN... And if not, fine, so the world police (the USN) has to sail a week from home and go deal with it. The expense of fwd and regular deployments isnt really achieving anything, short of the occasional warm fuzzy feeling. Only in times of war do we worry about sea lanes. The previously posted questions were rhetorical, and the answer was: NOTHING!!
DeleteOK, give up protecting SLOCs. Give up every mission except a peer war with China that we hope will never come. That's not the way I would choose to go.
Delete"OK, give up protecting SLOCs."
DeleteMock, if you wish but while you're doing so, maybe try to answer the question? Who are we protecting the SLOCs from?
"OK, give up protecting SLOCs. Give up every mission..."
DeleteSo CDR CHIP, heres how im seeing it. We are spending tons to have the fleet out sailing around. You mention giving up missions, but whats the mission? To me a "mission" involves opening fire, breaking stuff, and killing people. These presence and cooperation 'missions' where we meet and sail alongside other nations ships for a day... Or doing laps around the globe. Theres little to no return, except for a silly press release. The fact that deployment lengths and records are being set and broken isnt somthing to be proud of. Its wasteful. When we are out patrolling and protecting the SLOCs... I doubt the merchant mariners breathe a sigh of relief when the see the DDG on the horizon. In fact, with our Navys poor training and crews with little sleep, it probably scares them!! If every ship came back to CONUS tomorrow, what would happen?? I dont think anything appreciable would change. Ok so maybe the odd Somali pirate might get an occasional payday but is that really our problem?? Should we spend millions on that?
So what if somthing drastic happened, like say, the Iranians decide to shut down the Strait?? Well we would feel it, but we dont NEED the oil. China And the EU would be the ones hit by it. Its a UN problem. But, say we were called on to rectify the situation. We are in the Gulf and strait all the time now. Its common. But if we werent, and then a fresh BG appears, EVERYONE knows its not routine, and that its there to complete "a mission"... NOW, presence matters. Our being there matters. The ships and crews are in shape to execute the mission ruthlessly, quickly, and go home. And that presence might even avert a conflict, rather than it being so commonplace as to be considered benign...
To me, US Navy "presence" should be synonymous with gaining the fear of God, because if it appears off your coastline, its there to kill you. Anything else is just waste.
DeleteYou're on a roll. I'm going to turn the blog over to you!
DeletePreparing for a peer war also prepares us for anything less. Only difference is we surge en masse to a conflict rather than piecemeal. We do it with ships of better material condition, and crews better trained and rested. Honestly this post/comments really triggered an epiphany... I spent a lot of time in the med. Granted it was Desert Storm, and subsequent things like Bosnia. BUT, right now, why do we need "presence" in the Med fir instance? Can't Italy, France, and Spain police their own backyard?? And whats the threat there?? The Russians?? Call the UN. If we have to come rescue them, fine, we'll be there in a week or so...
ReplyDeleteDo we need to save the Filipinos from Chinese overfishing? Nope, they and their neighbors have Coast Guards, and navies of their own. If we need to come to their rescue, again, our big ol multi carrier BG will be there in a week or so... Rested, trained up, well maintained and ready for a fight.
I just dont see the return on having ships all over the globe, (and their crews) being beaten to death for nothing. If we're to rebuild our fleet and its capabilities, the COCOMS need to be given a big "NO!" Its time for diplomacy, in the form of mutual defense agreements. Its time to bring the boys and girls and the fleet home, and get it back in shape.
I know the word "isolationist" came up early. While i might be trending in that direction, heres the thing... If we are to be ready for a peer war, that IS coming, we need drastic steps. Its not so much isolationism, as a fleet-wide safety, maintenance, and training stand-down, writ large. If we need to "engage" with our allies, do it through diplomatic pacts and promises, not flotillas of our rust buckets in their ports. Let other countries take the responsibility for their own regions, with the caveat that if they truly need us, we'll be there....
Well said. I wish the Departments of State AND Defense put AT LEAST as much thought as you did. Seriously, why is the US Navy doing the jobs of OTHER NATIONS' coast guards?
Delete"Seriously, why is the US Navy doing the jobs of OTHER NATIONS' coast guards?"
DeleteBecause that was the deal we made to win the Cold War (or at this point, Cold War I because Cold War II is now underway). Europe was flat on its back after WWII, and Truman did want it to fall behind the Iron Curtain, so we basically bribed up an alliance. We will protect you and your SLOCs and give you preferential access to our markets, and in return you will take our side against the Russkis.
It worked. Problem is, it worked perhaps too well. When the Berlin Wall fell, we didn't have a Plan B. 30 years later, still don't. The closest we may have come on the Navy front was the "1000 Ship Navy" concept, which sought to create "a global coalition of navies cooperating to fight terrorism, piracy, drug trafficking, human trafficking, natural disaster, and any other ills that afflict the international system." (1)
I still think something like this might be possible if, say, CANZUK happens and we form a trade and military alliance with them, and extend that to the larger British Commonwealth. If we could contribute 400 ships, UK 50, Canada 28, Australia 24, New Zealand 9, Malyasia 32, Singapore 38, South Africa 14, and India 61 (current fleet numbers except USA), that gets us to 654. Add potential additions Japan (already member of the Quad with USA, Australia, and India) with 98, South Korea with 81, and Indonesia with 72 and we get to 905. We would greatly reduce the pressure on us to conduct deployments, as UK could take over a lot of the load in Europe, India and South Africa in the Indian Ocean/Mideast, and Australia, NZ, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia in WestPac. Those are all long deployments for us, but basically local ops for them. We (along with Canada) could focus on the Western Hemisphere, which is an area that we have too much and too long neglected.
We would have occasional deployments to show the flag and let everybody know that we are key players on the team. This is kind of middle ground between ComNavOps's no deployments position and the current USN position. I still think deployments have some value, even disregarding any deterrent value. Letting our allies know that we are their allies has significant benefit, and they help familiarize personnel with the locations where they may actually have to operate in wartime. In one area where I have a fair amount of experience, mine countermeasures, that is critical information.
I agree that beating our people up with things like back-to-back deployments (I did one, and it was rough, and the month in between was Christmas and New Year's) is nonsensical. But I don't think we can withdraw completely, either.
(1) https://prospect.org/article/1000-ship-navy.
"I still think deployments have some value, even disregarding any deterrent value. Letting our allies know that we are their allies has significant benefit,"
DeleteI disagree but, for sake of discussion, let's say you want to do that. Doing a 'tour' of several countries or ports should be a out and back with each stop requiring a few to several travel days and a few days in port. So, for a several stop tour, we only need several weeks, not these nearly year long deployments we've been doing.
"familiarize personnel with the locations where they may actually have to operate in wartime. In one area where I have a fair amount of experience, mine countermeasures, that is critical information."
That's a training mission, not a near year long deployment. I'm all for training missions. Go out, survey the area, get familiar, conduct some extensive, non-stop, near combat conditions, hard training, and return home. That's 2-6 weeks or so, depending on exactly where and what you're trying to accomplish. It's NOT a deployment.
I have yet to hear a good reason to send ships on these 6-12 month deployments.
"I have yet to hear a good reason to send ships on these 6-12 month deployments."
DeleteWe are getting closer together. I see no reason for these, either, particularly when they are run back-to-back. I've done one of those. The second was to the Caribbean, basically a cruise that I've paid Carnival good money to take a couple of times since, but even that was bordering on too much on top of the Med.
If we are going to rely on allies to pick up a large part of the burden, we need to operate with them at least enough to know that we are all reading from the same sheet of music. So do some port visits, do some combined training missions, and be back in 3-4 months.
Actually, come to think of it, that Caribbean deployment was pretty much what you suggest. Panama Canal, San Juan, Charlotte Amalie, Cartagena, punctuated with week-long training exercises with the Colombians, Venezuelans, and Brazilians, and a US only evolution off Gitmo. All told two months, mid-January to mid-March. If only it hadn't come right on the heels of a fairly intense Med trip (if you call an Arab-Israeli shooting war ashore and a near-shooting-war with the Russkis intense) it would probably have been an enjoyable trip.
DeleteMy family was allied with Governor Bligh. He commanded a ship under Adm Nelson at Copenhagen.
ReplyDeleteThis is what happens when you upset the crew - least Navy people don't frag their officers. A gym and dentist may have prevented it.
From Wikipedia
"Vice-Admiral William Bligh FRS (9 September 1754 – 7 December 1817) was an officer of the Royal Navy and a colonial administrator. The Mutiny on the Bounty occurred during his command of HMS Bounty in 1789; after being set adrift in Bounty's launch by the mutineers, Bligh and his loyal men all reached Timor alive, after a journey of 3,618 nautical miles (6,700 km; 4,160 mi)."
"Seventeen years after the Bounty mutiny, on 13 August 1806, he was appointed Governor of New South Wales in Australia, with orders to clean up the corrupt rum trade of the New South Wales Corps. His actions directed against the trade resulted in the so-called Rum Rebellion, during which Bligh was placed under arrest on 26 January 1808 by the New South Wales Corps and deposed from his command, an act which the British Foreign Office later declared to be illegal. He died in London on 7 December 1817."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bligh
Navy can also reduce crew by automation. Take example of Japan's new frigate - 30FFM. For first two (displacement 5,500 ton), Japan only spent 9.51 billion Yen total. First one was launched last November while last one this month. Crew count for each ship is only 90.
ReplyDeleteIt has a 127 mm gun, 16 MK-1 VLS (but not installed on the first two), 2 x 4 type 17 anti ship missiles, a set of Sea Ram. More impressive are:
Integrated mast with AESA radars.
Cheap yet excellent power system.
From Japan side, just save on salaries of crews are impressive - can buy a new ship about 5 years.
Its fire power is not impressive on its size but Japan made them to fit into its defense network thus no need to arm to teeth at cost of reduction of range, etc.
Again, only need 90 crews to operate this 5,500 ton frigate.
"Again, only need 90 crews to operate this 5,500 ton frigate."
DeleteAnd zero ability to conduct damage control. This is a one-hit sunk ship.
Those ships are likely large enough to accommodate sufficient numbers of damage control crew members, should they participate in a war. (Whether the JMSDF will pack those ships with the necessary service members, is another matter.) The LCS is NOT large enough.
DeleteEchoing other comments here but my perspective from on board a contemporary carrier right now is that these amenities contribute hugely to morale. A carrier is full of superfluous space and manpower: divisonally and departmentally, there are ample hands to cover things like "2500lbs of mail"(1 hour or less of work by divisional mail PO) or ship's stores(handled by an entire RATE). On-board dental keeps mission-critical personnel on board... and exercise is self-explanatory, for physically active sailors it is an integral part of the daily routine. I know I've spent many hours doing hard labor underway and still wanted to get some intentional and structured exercise in when I have time.
ReplyDeleteThe standards and expectations you're suggesting are not realistic for contemporary sailors in the 21st century. I agree about the soda consumption but thats more an American health and obesity issue than a naval one. Treat the disease and not the symptoms.
"my perspective from on board a contemporary carrier right now is that these amenities contribute hugely to morale."
DeleteYou're missing multiple points:
1. The amenities are, undoubtedly, helping morale WHEN THE CREW IS ON A YEAR LONG DEPLOYMENT. I stated in the post that the corollary to removing amenities is ending deployments.
2. The best morale does not come from amenities, it comes from a worthwhile mission that provides challenges and accomplishments. A deployment is not worthwhile which means the only source of morale is amenities.
There are not enough amenities to maintain morale on 12-month deployments. My idea of a worthwhile deployment is be gone for up to 4 months, visit some good liberty ports, and have 3-4 meaningful exercises with allies.
DeleteI don't have any data, so cant make any recommendation, but would be interested in exploring the possibility of longer ship deployments with blue/gold crews so that no sailor has to be gone more than 4 months at a time. See what would be the pros and cons.