ComNavOps has long stated that we shouldn’t be wasting time
cross-training with allies (see, “This Is Why You Don’tTrain With Allies”) since, far too often, they have their own agendas
and won’t support us when needed. That
being the case, it is a pointless waste of time and resources to cross
train. Needless to say, this is not a
universally popular position. It is,
however, supremely correct. The latest
example is the US attempt to form an alliance to protect shipping off Yemen
from Houthi missile and drone attacks.
The concept of a naval coalition, while strongly indicating
that the US lacks the will and courage to take unilateral action to defend
itself and others, seems simple enough.
Various countries with shipping interests in the area band together to
provide for the common defense.
Unfortunately, even this simple, if weak, response appears
to be beyond the capabilities of the US Navy and the administration. Redstate website has an excellent summary
article describing the failure of the coalition.
Without debating the merits of the attempted naval
coalition, this vividly demonstrates ComNavOps’ contention that allies simply
can’t be counted on and it is, therefore, a waste of time cross training with
them.
By the way, the two countries that agreed to send a ship
were the UK and Italy.
_________________________________
The final box score shows that the 20 coalition members will contribute a total of two surface combatants.[1]France and Spain have refused to participate under US leadership and most other countries have opted to limit their participation to sending staff officers. Redstate reports that the 20 nominal participating countries are sending just two ships but are contributing 27 staff officers.
https://redstate.com/streiff/2023/12/23/red-sea-security-coalition-melts-down-as-member-nations-refuse-to-accept-us-leadership-n2167876
Thats a joke. "Sending staff officers" isnt participating, its intelligence gathering. Unreal. Id publicly give kudos to the UK and Italy, and call out all the rest for their "contribution"!!!
ReplyDeleteAnother option would be for the US to actively protect US affiliated ships and leave the rest to their fates. If other countries want to protect their ships, they're free to do so. If not, it's not our problem.
DeleteOf course, that ignores the reality that ALL international shipping is connected to the US, ultimately, so ...
Are there any US affiliated ships not sure I should care about corporate assets that fly flags of connivance to avoid us taxes and regulations or not hire us merchant marine sailors?
DeleteIn a sense, every ship in the world is a US ship in that they all, ultimately, link back to our economy. That's why you should care.
DeleteI am aware of that in the abstract and realize it require action. That said I remain little moved to spend tax dollars to save companies who are essentially avoiding paying US tax, US safety and environmental regulations and employing people in a decent and and well paid manner (or comparable regulated shipping under say EU law).
Delete"I am aware of that in the abstract"
DeleteYou say that and yet the rest of your comment demonstrates that you most certainly do not grasp the functioning of the global/US economy.
Those companies that you're 'little moved' to defend are the home of thousands of jobs. When those companies that you're 'little moved' to help go under, those jobs are lost. In turn, the supplier companies that supported those companies are forced to lay more people off due to reduced business. The reduced output due to the collapsed companies creates shortages of whatever their product was/is which results in higher prices (inflation) and reduced buying power making everyone a little poorer. The economy, as a whole, suffers ... all because you feel 'little moved' to protect shipping.
Are you 'little moved' to protect jobs, reduce inflation, eliminate shortages, and boost the economy? 'Cause that's what you seem to be saying. The only other explanation is that you're so uneducated about the global/US economy that you're speaking from uninformed feelings rather than from any factual understanding. So, which is it? Do you not care about jobs, inflation, shortages, and the economy or are you just woefully ignorant about how the economy works? Either way, it doesn't speak well of you.
You should study and understand the basic workings of economic systems before you comment again.
The problem is that allies know the mission is to shoot down Houthi missiles without going after Houthis launching missiles. Why send ships to waste $2 million dollar missiles to shoot down $2000 Houthi drones or $10000 Houthi missiles when the U.S. is already doing it for free?
ReplyDeleteI bet more countries would join the coalition if we announced that we are going to bomb the Houthi hideouts where they build the missiles or destroy the launch sites so the Houthis can no longer attack shipping.
You've said it before and it still holds true. The best way to collaborate with allies is to give them a separate job away from yours. As we did in the North Atlantic during WWII: the RCN was in charge of one sector. The RN was in charge of another. We were in charge in ours, etc...
ReplyDeleteWe had completely separate beaches during D-Day for the same reason as well. Adding complexity to an already complex situation doesn't help anybody.
Plus, as you've also said: They will always have different agendas. I don't know, but I can imagine it became rapidly clear to the Europeans the US Navy was going to use this Houthi business to foment a war with Iran. They walked out. Not their agenda.
Wouldn't be surprised if this is also a readiness issue for EU ships. We all know how many reports of general poor level of maintenance, spare parts, lack of training, etc of EU countries military. How many EU countries REALLY have the capacity to surge 1 or 2 ships on short notice?!?
ReplyDeleteIt's really just a political problem. Many countries have already dispached ships to the area, including NATO and EU countries. In the end it all comes down to the fact that while most countries seem to favor a protection of shipping lines there are many opinions on how to manage the Houtis. So the ships of various countries will ooerate in the area indipendently and not under an official joint comand. In the EU we have been burned to often by the US and as such there is a real trust problem at the political level. If the Houtis are attacked in the end only the US abd the brits will be shooting.
ReplyDeleteJust consider that, both the british and italian ships lack any sort of land attack capability so they have a purely defensive role in this operation.
The EU contries dont want another war on their hands. When, not if, the US will leave the ukrainians hanging it will become a purely european problem that we can do without. Joint training can always be usefull, in the end most procedures are already standartized so it's mostly a reherasal of common knowledge.
" we have been burned to often by the US and as such there is a real trust problem at the political level."
DeleteThat works both ways. The US has little trust in the EU. However, this is not a political blog so I'll leave it at that.
Number one, if you're not sending a ship, we don't want your staff officers. We already have too many of those ourselves.
ReplyDeleteNumber two, I don't see this as necessarily prohibiting combined training. I can see benefits even if we don't count on them in action. And I definitely wouldn't count on them in action.
" We already have too many of those ourselves."
DeleteTruth!
"I can see benefits"
Really?? What?
The EU staff officers being seconded are from Ships Maintenance subspeciality Paint & Corrosion Control.
Delete"Really?? What?"
DeleteMaybe Poland does not supply ships this time, but maybe in the future we have to do a combined mission with Poland. I can think of a few scenarios. In that event, some working together would be useful.
I suppose my biggest complaint with multi-national exercises is that most of them appear to be more photo ops than intensive training. We need to have something like the inter-bellum Fleet Problems--an intensive training effort involving a significant portion of the fleet doing high-intensity operations simulating expected operations or contingencies,
"but maybe in the future we have to do a combined mission with Poland."
DeleteSeriously, now ... Poland has two ancient Perry class FFGs, an old corvette, and one modern corvette. In what million to one scenario would the US Navy have reason to mount an operation with one of those vessels? It's a ridiculous notion.
The larger question is not what mission we might mount with Poland (there isn't any) but how likely are we to ever conduct joint missions with any ally that amount to more than 'you cover that area and we'll cover this'?
We might conduct side by side ops with other countries, as we did in WWII but that doesn't require cross training. In the unlikely event that we want to actually integrate another country's vessel into a US task force, we'll train with them for a period of time before the mission so ... problem solved.
The reality is that no other country has sufficient numbers of ships to be able (or willing) to spare some for detached service with the US. They'll be tied up meeting their own requirements.
Japan is the only country that has sufficient numbers of ships to even consider cross operations and they'll only get involved with us in a China war and, in that case, they'll be fully occupied defending themselves and won't have any extra ships to send us.
Face it, this is one of those notions that might sound good on paper but has no real world, practical value or likelihood of happening.
I have nothing against some small personnel exchange to talk about radio frequencies or wardroom menus or whatever they do on those exchanges but actual cross training is utterly useless.
Let's say, for sake of discussion, we send a ship to exercise with a Polish Perry class frigate. In a few to several years, when the need actually arises, where will the captain and crew of the ship we sent be? They won't be on the ship we sent! They'll be retired, left the service, or scattered about the Navy on other assignments. So, what good will the training have done the US Navy?
Give up the notion of cross training. It might be slightly more useful than sensitivity and diversity training but not much.
From Spain:
ReplyDeleteYou are right on the issue of the reliability of the US allies in a situation like this one, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes merely for "free riding" and risk aversion.
But joint training would be needed in the event of a major NATO-Russia war, maybe an unlikely contingency, but the one we have to prepare for. European navies, when combined, have more surface combatants than the US Atlantic Fleet. In the event of a war with Russia, they will have to fight together, is better to be prepared to do it (I'm not talking about CSG integration, I'm talking about Cold War style exercises).
"You are right on the issue of the reliability of the US allies"
DeleteTo be clear, I'm not criticizing allies for not supporting the US. They have their own priorities and agendas, as does the US, and they should follow their agendas, as does the US. What I'm criticizing is the stupidity of wasting training time, effort, and resources on something that can't be relied on.
"But joint training would be needed in the event of a major NATO-Russia war"
No, for a variety of reasons.
1. As history shows, we'll fight side by side (Normandy, for example) but not integrated in joint units so why attempt to train that way?
2. The miniscule number of people actually involved in joint training will have long since retired or been scattered throughout the military by the time an actual need comes along so what's the point of training that way?
3. None of our allies have sufficient numbers of units to contribute in any significant way to a joint force so why attempt to train that way? The few units our allies have will be completely occupied attending to their own country's needs and there will be nothing left to contribute to a joint force.
"European navies, when combined,"
If Europe wants to train together, that's their concern. It would probably be a good idea but you can't get two European countries to agree on seating at a table let alone some kind of integrated naval force. The various countries will pursue their own agendas and refuse to integrate.
In short, joint/integrated training is a waste. Our training time is much better spent trying to learn how to sail a ship without running into giant, hulking commercial ships or practicing simple corrosion control/painting so that our ships don't look like decrepit rust buckets.
I would have thought a more beneficial "joint opps / Training exercise is one country acting a an enemy. e.g., A German or Swedish SSK trying to sink a DDG (or other way round), or an F35 trying to penetrate UK airspace without detection. That way both sides benefit and test their weaknesses in their systems. Just a thought? Clive F.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely! That would be very useful training. The type of training I'm objecting to is cross training where our units intermix with another country's.
Delete1976 we had two Dutch chiefs assigned to engineering on our ship for a year. At the end of the Med cruise they departed. They were hands on and did stand watches and work, they were actually quite interesting and professional. During Westpac in the early 80s, we did a lot of solo ASW on the Knox class I was on. Anytime we were in the sea of Japan we would operate with JN ships. Several times we swapped out ASW/Ops crew between their ship and ours for a couple of weeks at a time. Had a buddy in sonar that did it and he loved the experience of learning new techniques.
ReplyDeleteAlso, some "coalition members" couldn't contribute anything useful even if they wanted (Seychelles, really?), so what's the point, militarily speaking?
ReplyDelete