Do you recall the no-notice, 2019 TransCom logistic surge
exercise in which 80%-86% of the ships were able to sail within the required
5-day window? We discussed whether this
was a good result or bad and kind of concluded that it was not horrible but not
great (see, “Logistics Surge Exercise”). Well, I finally remembered managed to track
down the after exercise report so let’s take a closer look.
The Maritime Executive website published a summary of the
exercise findings.[1]
Not surprisingly, as with any Navy related activity, the
results weren’t quite as good as initially claimed.
The exercise resulted in 27 of the 33 (82%) ships activated being
ready to sail within the 5-day window, however, 6 of the 27 that sailed
subsequently experienced problems that would have prevented them from executing
any mission. That drops the ‘sail and
mission capable rate’ to 21/33 or 64%.
Not quite the 80%-86% success initially claimed.
Worse, 12 ships of the 61 ship fleet were excluded from the
exercise due to known, pre-existing problems, 10 others were excluded due to
planned maintenance, and one could not leave port due to a bridge height
clearance issue. Thus, 23 of the 61 (38%)
ship fleet were unavailable for the exercise.
Apparently, the sailing included ship’s speed tests and it
was noted that,
____________________________
My apologies for having let this slip until now.
____________________________
[1]The Maritime Executive website, “Activation Exercise
Reveals Challenges Facing U.S. Sealift Fleet”, 31-Dec-2019,
https://maritime-executive.com/article/activation-exercise-reveals-challenges-facing-u-s-sealift-fleet
… none of the four Large, Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-off ships (LMSRs) in the test completed their operational speed runs at the target speed of 24 knots. One heavy lift vessel, the Cape Mohican, also failed her operational speed run due to a control automation casualty.[1]I think we can revise our previous assessment of ‘not horrible’ to ‘extremely disappointing’ especially since these ships were all supposed to be manned with caretaker crews whose job was to maintain them in ready-to-go condition.
https://maritime-executive.com/article/activation-exercise-reveals-challenges-facing-u-s-sealift-fleet
no-notice, 2019 TransCom?
ReplyDeleteMy military experience with "no-notice" exercises is that the media wasn't given notice. Everyone involved was alerted in advance.
Quite likely!
DeleteYet we continue to whistle past the graveyard. Future events will not be kind to us.
ReplyDelete"Future events will not be kind to us." Perhaps that's one reason why youngsters are reluctant to enlist.
DeleteMy son is doing the Naval Academy high school summer program this year. It's hard to encourage him to sign up for the full tour.
Deletehttps://defence-blog.com/us-navy-looks-to-buy-foreign-used-ships/#google_vignette
ReplyDelete" The proposal, discussed by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti during a recent House Armed Services Committee Navy budget hearing, seeks to increase the Secretary of Defense’s authority to acquire such vessels to recapitalize the Ready Reserve Force."
I would suspect that a learning curve would need to be underway if these used foreign ships are acquired .
Today as in the past a relevant part of the Reserve Fleet has been sourced abroad. The list of issues is quite long, the ships are getting old, while there are some classes in service there is a number of unique vessels in service. As problems mount the usefullness of the fleet declines.
Delete"a relevant part of the Reserve Fleet has been sourced abroad"
DeleteI have no idea what you're referring to. Perhaps you could explain that? Are you referring to the MARAD sealift reserve?
Exactly most of these ships have been built abroad, are quite old and I assume a headache to mantain.
DeleteDuring the 1980s I was assigned to an MSC reserve unit. As part of our annual training a number of us participted in the annual Reforger (reinforce Germany) exercises. My thoughts after each one were that if it took this much rigamarole to sail one ship, we would be in a helluva fix if the balloon actually went up.
ReplyDeleteThis is the kind.of exercise that should be a (bi?) annual thing. Reserve fleet, and the regular Navy oughta be having the same kind of "scramble" events too. This was 5 yrs ago- and not another since (??). Thats pretty sad...
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. We need far more realistic training across the board. A biennial scramble exercise like this, annual ORE and Fleet Problem or Springtrain for the active fleet, and a Perisher course for all prospective COs would be places to start. I would guess that the US Navy would fight these things tooth and nail, because they would--at least initially--expose just how bad our real readiness is. But doing those things annually would bring that readiness up pretty quickly.
DeleteAgreed...the press releases would be damning. Things like the Boxers issues are bad enough, and it likely only scratches the surface. When the Navy publically states a goal of having 75 ships deployable but says its a ways off, you know its bad. Idk what powers Congress has, but itd sure be nice if they mandated some kind of exercises and readiness standards beyond the negligible ones in place now. Making INSURVs and OPPEs public again might be a good start...
Delete"... one could not leave port due to a bridge height clearance issue."
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean the ship needs an especially low tide to get under a bridge, or does it mean a new lower bridge has been built since the ship last left port? Either seems negligent, but the second is worse!
Surely they wouldnt let that happen!! A while back a museum ship destroyer was removed from the Washington Navy Yard and sent to the scrappers because a new, lower bridge was being built downstream... Did someone miss the memo somewhere else?? 😂
Delete