Wednesday, December 11, 2024

Amphibious Shell Game

As we know, the Navy considers ship maintenance to be a low priority task and even that may be underestimating their disinterest in maintenance.  I truly believe that the Navy’s philosophy is that the quicker the ships wear out, the sooner the Navy can justify new ships to Congress thereby securing – or, dare they hope … increasing? – their budget slice.  The astounding part of this is that the demonstrated lack of interest includes ships the Navy actually wants: surface warships. 
 
Worse than the lack of interest in maintenance, there is a major chunk of the fleet that the Navy doesn’t really want and that is amphibious ships.  They offer nothing for the Navy; they’re purely to mollify the whining of the Marine Corps to Congress.  Thus, the Navy has even less interest in providing maintenance for amphibious ships.  Here’s some notes from a GAO report, as described in a Breaking Defense website article.[1]
 
Half of the Navy ships the Marine Corps would use to make amphibious assaults are in “poor condition,” and some of the vessels have been unavailable for operational or training use for years at a time, according to a pointed new watchdog report.[1]
 
… the report found that as of March this year, nine of the Navy’s 10 dock landing ships were in “poor material condition,” as were five of the seven amphibious assault ships and two of the 13 amphibious transport docks.[1]

Am I being fair and factual in suggesting that the Navy has little interest in amphibious ships and even less interest in maintaining them?  Well, let’s see what the report has to say.
 
The report notes several factors that contributed to the problem, including “challenges with spare parts.” But a summary of the report also noted that in order to “save money, the Navy proposed early retirement for some ships and cancelled critical maintenance on them.[1][emphasis added]

Here’s another damning tidbit.
 
The Navy partially concurred with the GAO recommendation that the Navy update its amphibious ship depot maintenance policy “to clarify that, absent operational needs, the Navy should not cancel depot maintenance for amphibious ships proposed for divestment that have yet to reach the end of their expected service life.”[1]

This demonstrates that the Navy has been cancelling depot maintenance for operational ships merely because they’ve been put forward for early retirement.  This is a self-fulfilling prophecy type of situation.  You propose a ship be retired early so you halt maintenance on it.  Then, after a few years you report that the ship needs to be retired early because it would cost too much to bring it up to maintenance standards.  Quite a racket, huh?
 
How does the Navy justify this blatant failure to properly maintain active ships?
 
… the Navy said it’s currently “prohibited by law” from modifying vessels destined for the boneyard, and waivers to do so have a narrow timeline. “However, the statute permits normal Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical (HM&E) work within the five-year window prior to a ship being removed from service. The Navy will schedule this work, including depot-level repair as necessary, to maintain the ship in operational condition.” It also noted the Navy Secretary may grant waivers for that statute in the “national security interests” of the US.[1]

Note the use of waivers?  Those keep cropping up in all types of deplorable situations, don’t they?  And yet we keep handing them out like candy.
 
The Navy clearly has no interest in amphibious ships and uses every machination they can think of to avoid spending maintenance money on them.  This is criminal mishandling of the taxpayer’s investment.
 
 
 
______________________________
 
[1]Breaking Defense website, “Half of Navy’s amphibious fleet in ‘poor condition,’ some ships out for years, GAO warns”, Lee Ferran, 3-Dec-2024,
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/12/half-of-navys-amphibious-fleet-in-poor-condition-some-ships-out-for-years-gao-warns/

9 comments:

  1. "This is criminal mishandling of the taxpayer’s investment."

    This is certainly true, but where is the accountability? I think we can write off the JAG Corps. They wouldn't think of charging a flag officer with dereliction of duty. They are more concerned with securing their own career track.

    So, then it comes down to Congress and the President. As far as Congress goes, most of them fall into one of two camps when it comes to the military:

    1. Simply lack the subject matter knowledge or interest to address the issue. Military issues aren't things that drive people to the polls until something really bad happens (unfortunately).

    2. View the military (and the supporting defense industry) as a jobs program for their district/states. Effectiveness and readiness are of secondary concern.

    So, we can pretty much write off Congress too. There is a lack of political will to push any sort of accountability through that institution.

    It then comes down to the President (and those advising/working for him) to create an accountability structure by firing huge amounts of officers. I don't know how someone who follows our Navy (and the entire military, for that matter) could not see that we desperately need to clean house from OF-5 on up. We need to cultivate an officer corps which has the mentality of your previous post, kill or be killed, and not simply trying to secure a bigger slice of appropriations. We need to create a promotion structure to ensure that the right types of people rise through the ranks, not merely the best politicians in uniform.

    -Huskers1995

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So where is the John Boyd of the Navy?,
      find that person, then you get a fighting Navy.
      Any nominees ?

      Delete
    2. @Gordon Unfortunately, as a civilian observer with limited time, I'm not familiar with specific names to put forward. But, I'm willing to hear if you have anyone and I can look into them and provide thoughts.

      My analysis is on a systemic level. For a massive system to get this bad, it takes a lot of people doing the wrong things. Some are giving orders and others are merely following them. Perhaps the most concerning thing is that we haven't seen prominent protest resignations, it's not as if there haven't been enough debacles to justify such actions.

      Why do we not have a current-day naval John Boyd? We don't have a system that promotes such a man to high positions. I think such men are out there, but if they go into the military (and that's a big "if" for reasons ComNavOps has covered in detail), he almost certainly won't advance as far as he should.

      The ideal military officer should have just the right amount of conformist and maverick in him. That's a tough balance to strike, but in a nation of over 300 million, they are out there. Our current promotion structure almost exclusively rewards conformity. Thus, it should be no surprise when those in command are nearly all spineless conformists who are little more than politicians in uniform.

      Delete
  2. The Departmeny of the Navy should put a bid in for the Brit's two carriers. Their hangars can even take MV22.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The state of the US Navy is unacceptable.
    We allocate enormous sums of taxpayer money to this organization and the mismanagement could probably be categorized as criminal.

    Heads need to roll during the first half of 2025.

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For example,

      Littoral Combat Ships To Sail With Mk70 Vertical Launchers Strapped To Their Decks

      Give up the helo deck for four missiles.

      https://www.twz.com/news-features/littoral-combat-ships-to-sail-with-mk70-vertical-launchers-strapped-to-their-decks

      Delete
  4. Old British naval joke:

    The job of the Royal Navy is to cross water to launch projectiles at the enemy. The biggest such projectile is the British Army.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Am I correct in thinking the cost of purchasing, flying, maintaining, training etc for their aircraft comes out of the Marines budget? If so transferring the Amphibious ships, crew etc to the Marines from the Navy with a corresponding transfer of budget would shake things up. (very much tongue in cheek) I don't pretend to understand how it works, in fact the Navy / Marine relationship thing seems confusing from the outside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Marines do not have their own budget, per se. They are funded through the Navy budget.

      Delete

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