Congress, fed up with Navy attempts to classify and hide readiness data, put into law a requirement for the INSURV inspections to be summarized and submitted in a public, unredacted, annual report.
Title 10 USC Section 8674 requires an annual report not later than March 1 each year setting forth an overall narrative summary of material readiness of Navy ships, overall number and types of vessels and for in-service vessels, material readiness trends.[1, p.1]
By law, ships are required to undergo an inspection every three years, at a minimum. However, as noted in the report,
As of 30 September 2021, there were 185 of 362 (51.1%) vessels, subject to inspection, that exceeded a 3-year inspection periodicity.[1, p.4]
Over half the required inspections have not been performed. So much for the Navy’s adherence to the law.
If there are 362 ships subject to inspection once every three years then 121 ships should be inspected each year. The reality is that only 79 INSURV inspections were performed in 2021.[1, p.4]
Inspections are required, by law, to be minimal notice inspections so as to assess true readiness rather than giving ships time to scramble and cross-deck equipment and personnel for inspections purposes. In reality, the Navy has defined minimal notice as 30 days notice.[1, p.13] That’s not exactly a surprise, come-as-you-are inspection, is it? Again, this is the Navy working to hide readiness issues.
Without going into the gory details, inspections are now scored on a 0-1 scale which was presented numerically in the report as well as a color coded assessment of SAT/DEGRADED/UNSAT for ease of comprehension. From the report,[1, p.14]
UNSAT (0.00 – 0.59)
DEGRADED (0.60 – 0.79)
SATISFACTORY (0.80 – 1.00)
The results are depressing for surface ships. Of 17 surface ship inspections in 2021, the functional area inspections[2] were assessed as DEGRADED for 12 of the 20 areas, overall. Bad as that is, it’s actually slightly worse than 2020 which ‘only’ had 11 of 20 areas assessed as DEGRADED.
On the plus side, for 11 submarine inspections, only 1 of 17 functional areas was assessed as DEGRADED. Numerically, however, the 2021 results were an overall slight decrease in performance.
For carriers, the results were grouped across multiple years due to the small sample size. The latest group (2018-2021) had 9 of 18 functional areas assessed as DEGRADED. Overall, this is unchanged from previous years/groups.
The shining star of the inspections was the Military Sealift Ships. From 21 inspections, only 1 of 11 functional areas was assessed as DEGRADED.
INSURV also conducted 23 ship trials of various types.
Based on these trials results, INSURV assessed that the following programs performed well on trials:
-INDEPENDENCE Littoral Combat Ship (LCS 2)
-SPEARHEAD Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF)
-LEWIS B PULLER Expeditionary Support Base (ESB)
-VALIANT Yard Tug (YT)
The remaining programs experienced significant deviations from OPNAV trials requirements or declining trial performance during this fiscal year. Three ships (CVN 78, DDG 1000, LCS 15) were unable to complete FCT requirements prior to their obligation work limiting date (OWLD). The VIRGINIA submarine program did not present any boats for CT in FY21 even though five boats, scheduled for delivery since 2019, have yet to be delivered. One craft (APL 67) had an unsuccessful AT and required a Retrial prior to delivery. Four additional vessels (LCS 17, LCS 19, LCS 22, and DDG 119) required Retrials because they had significant incomplete capabilities, uncorrected deficiencies, or unperformed demonstrations during FCT; two of these trials (LCS 17, 19) were not conducted. The LCS 1 program ceased new ship deliveries after LCS 23 because of a combining gear design flaw. The Ship to Shore Connector craft had propeller and cushion vane design flaws that limit its amphibious warfare capability. The DDG 51 program had continuing design concerns with its anchor windlass. The National Security Cutter program delivered a ship without two warfighting systems because of procurement delays.[1, p.9-10]
One of the things that stands out in this report is the number of failed inspections and trials that required retesting and yet were not performed. Waivers are handed out like candy.
Another thing that stands out is the number of ships that have been delivered physically incomplete and yet accepted by the Navy.
This report is an excellent assessment of the state or our fleet readiness. In this age of suppressing information, it is refreshing to see Congress step up and insist, via law, that basic oversight information about the taxpayer’s Navy be made available to the taxpayer. I thank and commend Congress for this.
__________________________________
[1]Navy Department, Board of Inspection and Survey, INSURV Annual Report, 1-Mar-2022
[2]Functional Areas are things like navigation, damage control, main propulsion, etc.
Although bureaucrats can swamp organizations with endless request for information, a leader sifts through those requests, especially legally binding ones and responds to the most important ones. The Navy refuses to make ships available for inspection means they do not think it is important to have even Navy personnel inspect the Fleet so leaders can know what needs attention.
ReplyDeleteConfirmation once again we have leader deficit. And now another Congressional Staffer is the Under Secretary of the Navy. Not a Sailor, not a proven leader, just another political hack that will only be interested in keeping bad news hidden.
" Not a Sailor"
DeleteI'm not as down on having a SecNav (or UnderSec) not be a former sailor as you are. There's an undeniable value in having the hands on experience that having served provides. On the other hand, there is also an undeniable detriment to having been indoctrinated into the badly flawed 'Navy way' and a former sailor would only continue that flawed behavior.
A non-sailor as SecNav/UnSecNav does have access to all the experience he needs in the form of a few hundred admirals ... in theory.
Regardless of background, I want a SecNav who has common sense, no sense of loyalty to a flawed naval bureaucracy, a laser focus on the true mission, and a willingness to fire people to achieve that mission. If that person is a former sailor ... great. If that person is a former ditch digger ... great.
At the moment, given the state of the Navy, I see former service as more of a negative than a positive. That's sad but realistic.
DeleteI got off on the point of your post, sorry about that. If the SecNav thinks that knowing the state of his ships is important, and there is a law that mandates inspections. He should be following that and have all ships inspected within the mandated 5 year window. There are n't that many ships. The first thing you do as a CO is tour the barracks, inspect the troops, look at the chow hall, and working conditions. You have to know what you have to work with.
On my sidebar, we think alike on the need for common sense and I must admit that I have repeatedly said I would not hire any O-6 or above unless I determined they did/built something THEMSELVES. After O-4 the push to be political is too tainting, unless it is for a marketing job.
That said someone has to have experience or understanding of what the Navy is about. After all, Liddel Hart was not a tanker but was very knowledgeable. If they have no direct experience, then they have to have a keen ability to detect the political BS and ignore it and get input from the Sailors that know how things should work.
Congressional Staffers may have an understanding or interest in the Service they get assigned to. But the extreme number of them (IMO) only know how to get, protect and move money and glory in the DC power that comes from that.
Perhaps, however, if the Admirals providing the years of knowledge and experience have also been indoctrinated into that same system, will the SECNAV be getting good information, or, will he simply be indoctrinated by proxy? At least if you have a former Sailor, if properly chosen, you could have a chance of seperating fact from fiction.
ReplyDelete"will the SECNAV be getting good information, or, will he simply be indoctrinated by proxy?"
DeleteIf he blindly accepts whatever he's told, then, yes, he'll be indoctrinated. If, however, he questions and investigates and reads this blog, he'll be able to draw proper conclusions and can separate fact from fiction.
Its good to see Congress push a bit. Now, if only theyd notice that the Navy isnt complying with them on this, and many other issues, and then withhold funding until they do as they're told...!!!
ReplyDelete"then withhold funding"
DeleteThat's the key.
A beter one might be for Congress to not pass the flag officer promotions.
Delete"A beter one might be for Congress to not pass the flag officer promotions."
DeleteWith the way the USN is now, Congress must also threaten to DEMOTE admirals, in order to make them stop screwing around. We need warships that WORK, not floating junkyards for enemy and ally alike to point and laugh at.
Off topic, and I know CNO has warned about making conclusions about current events, but the sinking of Moskva is certainly some of the biggest naval news since the Falklands. Info is thin at best right now, but as it develops, (that might be months or years), sure would be interesting to dissect the event!!
ReplyDeleteFog of war is still thick.
DeleteBut if via either ineptitude and accident or missile strike. I did see a couple comments here or there by US sailors who happened to to tour a Slava class back in the Yeltsin days when they made port calls in the US and we were friends. They kind felt bulk heads and fire fighting equipment seemed well minimal as in really unsafe.
I hope the USN takes note and stops its desire for minimal crews since that seems to be a recipe for not being able to fight a ship and do damage control.
@Kath. Still very early so we have to wait till we know more.
DeleteUS DoD saying just now it was hit by 2 ASMs but I'll wait some more.....I think we should see some lessons from this, hopefully USN will look into it!!!! There's definitely lessons to be learned here.
Suppose it has been an accident.
DeleteRussians would have an interest in saying Ukraine did it, to hide their incompetence.
And Ukrainians would obviously want to take credit for that regardless of what actually happened.
Just food for thought.
I think that among the lessons to be learned here are a few things that ComNavOps has harped on repeatedly:
Delete1) The need for AAW defense in depth including missiles, CIWS, and soft measures like decoys, chaff, and electronic countermeasures
2) The need for armor, and particularly internal armored bulkheads to contain damage
3) The need for large enough crews to man damage control (DC) parties plus extensive training in proper DC procedures
USN take note. You are on the clock.
Preach it brother!
DeleteLutefisk
When I read stuff like this, I always wonder...
ReplyDelete- does China really have anything to fear from the US military?
- or is the US still the benchmark, and China is in even worse shape, given it's lack of experience and corruption?
Andrew
"- does China really have anything to fear from the US military?"
ReplyDeleteDepends do you believe every Chinese announcement about their military it true. I mean thay have so many open source independent agency run reports about their military right? They have so much combat experience at sea and on land - err no. That have no track record of their other vanity projects having problems right, oh wait no that yes they do...
Wait lets recall we supposed to terrified of the Russian military just a few years ago after a few well run tiny ops.
It seems like, rather than relying on the services, not just the Navy, to do these inspections, Congress ought to have an independent body that does them. There is no reason Congress can't have its own inspection body to ensure that the budget is being spent appropriately. It shouldn't cost that much and wouldn't be that difficult to implement - particularly given the minimal notice requirement.
ReplyDelete