Wednesday, June 8, 2022

RIMPAC 2022

The 2022 iteration of RIMPAC (Rim of the Pacific), the international Pacific naval exercise, will get underway soon.  This is the 28th iteration and this year’s exercise will consist of

 

… 26 nations, 38 surface ships, four submarines, nine national land forces, more than 170 aircraft and approximately 25,000 personnel … [1]

 

The 26 nations and 38 ships is an average of 1.5 ships per nation.  Is that really an effective and worthwhile exercise when each nation commits a mere one or two ships to the exercise?

 

I don’t know, yet, how many US ships will be involved.  The absolute US maximum if each nation contributed just one ship is 12 ships, so it’s much less than that but it won’t be many.  Among the US ships will be the unmanned trimarans USV Sea Hunter and USV Seahawk along with two Ghost Fleet support vessels Nomad and Ranger so there’s at least four US ships that are not fleet combat vessels.

 

How does it prepare our 290 ship fleet for combat when half a dozen or so ships are all that participate?

 

Our job, as a Navy, is not to make other, smaller countries feel good about themselves.  Our job is to prepare for high end, all out war.  RIMPAC does not do that for us.

 

Who is planning, hosting, and subsidizing the lion’s share of this exercise?  That’s right … the US.  We’re paying for this exercise.  That’s money we don’t have being spent on an activity that does almost nothing to enhance our combat capability.

 

Fight like you train … train like you fight.

 

We’re not going to fight with a couple of ships and a flotilla of other country’s small fry vessels so why are we training that way?

 

RIMPAC planning has been on-going for the last two years.  If we’re going to take the time and spend the money to dedicate staffs for two years to prepare for a major exercise [does it really require two years to plan an exercise?  we planned full blown amphibious assaults in WWII in a matter of months], shouldn’t it be one that reflects exactly how we’ll fight in a real war and shouldn’t it involve every US ship in the Pacific?

 

I have no problem with the occasional port visit to a foreign navy or the occasional officer exchange.  It doesn’t do anything for us but it doesn’t cost us much, either.  However, when the biggest exercise in the Pacific accomplishes almost nothing for us, I do have a problem.

 

Stunningly, Taiwan, arguably the focus of the Pacific pivot and China’s main objective in any war, has not been invited to participate.  Let me see if I understand this    we want to train for war with China (as predicted by the US Navy to be imminent) and Taiwan will be the focus of that war but we don’t include Taiwan in the training?  What single digit IQ moron thought that was a good idea?

 

Let’s face it, RIMPAC is just a giant photo op with very little relevant combat enhancement for the Navy.  At a time when we’re early retiring ships left and right due to budget concerns and we’re cutting 10,000 sailors from the force while we’re gapped several thousand at-sea billets, is this really the best use of our limited training time and budget?

 

When are we going to get serious about preparing for war?

 

 

 

_________________________________

 

[1] https://breakingdefense.com/2022/06/us-prepares-for-rimpac-exercise-against-backdrop-of-russian-chinese-tensions/


11 comments:

  1. So we're sending 6 or so proper ships...Thats sad, neigh, pathetic. I seem to recall when Rimpac was the premier show of force and capabilities. When the other participating navies could look at our massive offerings in awe, and it was certainly a reassurance for them. 38 ships total?? Shouldnt that be just the US contingent??
    Sometimes I feel like theres no hope left for our navy, which is depressing. My youngest is now entertaining the thought of a naval career, which makes me proud to possibly see a 3rd generation sailor, but Im also struggling mightily to not try and nix it...

    ReplyDelete
  2. A total waste of time and money.

    But it does accomplish the primary mission of the current US Navy; public relations to continue the flow of budget dollars.

    At the risk of putting inaccurate words in CNO's mouth, I agree wholeheartedly with his concept of home-porting ships closer to where they will operate and reducing the duration, but increasing the war--preparations, of at-sea deployments.

    If I was in charge of the US Navy, I would limit at-sea deployments to 30 days, with two weeks being the norm, unless EXCEPTIONAL operational needs required a longer mission.

    All sea deployments would be as a fully combat-ready battle group with a combat posture just short of weapons hot.
    They would practice functioning as a team doing missions and all under EMCON.

    That would be a navy that is serious about preparing for war.

    Too bad that isn't our navy.

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
  3. I should have included that time in port would be spent maintaining and training.

    Maintaining equipment and training in all the individual skills and group tasks that need to be perfected to make the at-sea missions successful.
    I'm sure that very few of those building blocks activities would require being out on the ocean.

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I'm sure that very few of those building blocks activities would require being out on the ocean."

      A great deal of fundamental training can be accomplished dock side, however, bear in mind that being at sea adds that element of realism that can't be duplicated while docked. The ship pitches and rolls, equipment is stressed, machinery fails, confusion occurs. There's value to trying to do one's task while slightly seasick. Simple things like operating a trackball cursor become more difficult when the operator is pitching and rolling. Weather begins to inject a note of uncertainty into sensor readings. Fatigue creeps in. Maneuvering while trying to track a target is more difficult than a dock side simulated track. And so on.

      Shore/dock training is fine but it's not substitute for doing it at sea. I understand that's not what you were suggesting. I'm just offering the caution that we all tend to think we can simulate much of our training and we can't, really. Simulation is good for grasping the basics but you have to put to sea and do it for real to really master the task(s).

      Delete
    2. "Simulation is good for grasping the basics but you have to put to sea and do it for real to really master the task(s)."

      To keep expanding on the discussion:

      In an air cavalry squadron, there are a host of individual tasks that can be worked on when not in the field...everything from donning a protective mask to marksmanship training at a firing range.

      Air crews can work on how to do radio calls for spot reports and calling artillery, academic classes like airspace, aircraft limitations, and just doing maintenance on aircraft, vehicles, weapons, radios, NVG's, flight gear, etc, etc, etc...

      When you go to the field is when you put it all into practice.

      I would envision the navy doing things similarly with sea deployment the equivalent of doing a field problem for the army,

      Lutefisk

      Delete
  4. "At a time when we’re early retiring ships left and right due to budget concerns and we’re cutting 10,000 sailors from the force while we’re gapped several thousand at-sea billets"

    This one perplexes me. So is there shortage of recruits or not. If there is why not simply retain the 10,000 cut. What we can afford LCS wastes of money but no the time and effort to let somebody change specialties - toss in some bonus money.

    If they are that short of billets why is my son who sailed through boot with top scores and rank and awards cooling his heels in greater Chicago and just refining his fire fighting skills and learning to sail and getting his 1st rate swim classification? But not in A school yet? Is there some lack of funding staff for the training schools? Also how come in Idaho a place where the military looks like a good option to a lot of kids the closest Navy recruit station to manage deferred entry is in Salt lake city a 3-4 hour drive and not a fun one in winter. There used to be one in SE Idaho but it got closed. Kinda hard on potential recruits who might only have limited access to cars or are working. Seems like an all volunteer navy could spend a bit more on getting recruits and a little less a shat ships.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is a diplomatic activity than a real drill. Top goal is to secure friendship. Many participants don't even have alliance treaties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Top goal is to secure friendship"

      I hope that it's what they are doing.

      I'd love to think that we are actually thinking ahead and laying the groundwork for a future Western Pacific NATO equivalent.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
  6. Cdr Salamander has already realized than the coverage of the Ukraine war is HOPELESSLY SKEWED but you have not. You carry on as if the Kiev propaganda has some real meaning - but it does not. At what point are you going to "smell the coffee"? and discuss the naval issues as they "really are"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Instead of your worthless comment, I invite you to offer documented examples of whatever issues you believe to be important and 'real'. Such examples would be informative and discussion-worth, I'm sure, and would constitute a positive contribution. I look forward to your examples.

      Delete
  7. They need a true leader, don't care what his (or her, or cousin IT) title is, but someone whom will call for large scale drills, and snap drills, and have repercussions for those found wanting as the captains and commanders. We hang captains and derail their careers if they bump a dock, but heaven forbid they actually spend enough time doing the real task at hand and their career depends on wargaming and real life patrol duty. The whole issue of maintenance and these exercises go hand in hand. Though I may not agree with every last thing you say oh Boss of the Blog, I do agree with your one statement that they should not be allowed to procure a damn new ship until they prove they can take care of the ones they have. The only good reality they have is if the opponents are the Chinese and Russians, the former nobody is sure on and the latter are the worst at taking care of anything. But this whole set of exercises reminds of when in the early 2010's time period the administration at that time would send over one battalion to remind the Russians we were still in Europe along with the two brigades a million miles from the front. A battalion? I bet Ivan laughed at that one for a full day till his stomach hurt. No such thing as Reforger anymore...

    ReplyDelete

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