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/

18 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
  6. Maybe we should just abolish the marines altogether. They already stated that they are out of the amphib assault business. Use the ground elements to flesh out Army units and let the aviation component transfer to which ever service they choose (naval aviation, AF or army aviation). Mothball or repurpose the amphibs (command ships, EW ships, spy ships or drone carriers, ect.) The money saved by not having to support a marine force could be used for expansion of combat vessels for the fleet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed.

      I find it bizarre that the Marines were allowed to just declare they were out of the amphibious assault business. Isn't that supposed to be their primary reason for existing? If they aren't going to do the job they were created for, why are they still being funded? And keeping them around is not just chump change!!

      Delete
  7. This is slightly off topic, but relevant to the blog generally. This channel is by far the best I have found on the subject of China, and I have watched every video Kevin has made. This morning is about Chinese shipbuilding vs US and global shipbuilding. Not a pretty picture.

    https://youtu.be/r2bi1AIiHWo?si=jJRmbo-pI2enif8Y

    ReplyDelete
  8. The US Navy hasn't built an "amphibious" ship capable of conducting an amphibious assault since probably the 1970s. The LHAs, LHDs, and LPD-17s are all too big and expensive to be risked in close to shore, so they would operate 25-50 miles offshore. From that far out, there are no effective ship-shore connectors for landing tanks or heavy artillery--boats are too slow, helos and V-22s can't lift the weight, and surface effects craft are not judged sufficiently reliable for assault operations. Additionally, the remainder of the surface fleet does not include sufficient naval gunfire support (NGFS) assets to carry out an amphibious assault. So the Marines have dropped tanks and heavy artillery and pretty much gotten out of the amphibious assault business.

    There would appear to be two possible options, 1) get out of the amphibious business altogether, or 2) rethink the whole concept of amphibious operations and design a fleet and Marine Corps to execute that concept. At this point, it seems pretty clear that the Navy and Marines have both adopted option 1). I am not sure that amphibious operations are a capability that the Navy and Marines truly want to drop, nor am I aware of any need for the Marines which cannot be met easily elsewhere if they succeed in dropping amphibious warfare as a capability.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There's a great article over at the Defense One website, "The Army is too top heavy" that could could be echoed as the same problem with the Navy. The Army's enlisted to officer ratio is now 6 to 1, the highest ever. Most telling for the Navy as well as the army is the stat that the number of general and flag officers in the U.S. military as a percentage of the total force increased by 46 percent. Result? So many layers of high ranks creating an insane amount of rules and regulations that force lower officers to lie in order to keep their units functioning.
    Some comments on this blog have occasionally pointed to Army procurement as a model for the Navy. Nope. Their aquisitions have 1600 officers who have succeeded in borking every major push for new weapons from artillery to the Commanche attack helicopters.
    Though not mentioned in the article, the success have mostly been in simply improving existing equipment. Failures have been plenty. Ask any grunt who had his MRAP rollover in the Sandbox.
    DOGE to the rescue?

    ReplyDelete
  10. CNO, you are right about the Navy’s actions but completely wrong about the reason.

    After the Cold War, the Navy was left without an enemy giving USMC more say in Navy matters. Marines destroyed the surface fleet by focusing on unworkable DDG-1000s with $1 million rounds that had less effect on target than 5 inch guns and LCSs to support mine clearing and close in fire support for amphibious assaults Marines no longer practice.

    Marines divested tanks and artillery resulting in MEUs that are rarely requested by COCOMs. The new force structure makes it difficult to field enough Marines to fill 33 amphibs.

    Marines need to get back to the business of assaults and provide forces COCOMS request to force the Navy into being interested in Amphibs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "right about the Navy’s actions but completely wrong about the reason."

      You don't seem to have actually disagreed with anything I've said so I don't know what you think I'm wrong about. Perhaps you'd care to explain further?

      " Marines destroyed the surface fleet by focusing on unworkable DDG-1000s"

      You need to do some research on the genesis of the DDG-1000. It was NOT the Marines that pushed for it, it was the Navy. The Marines wanted the Navy to maintain the Iowa BBs but the Navy wanted to retire them but were unable to because the Marines had a documented requirement for a certain level of fire support. The compromise that was reached was that the Navy would retire the BBs and meet the fire support requirement with the DDG-1000. Of course, we know how that turned out.

      Regarding the LCS, the Marines had no special input or interest in the LCS. That debacle was purely the Navy's and was motivated 100% by the Navy's desire to reduce manning.

      Please be sure to research history as you comment!

      Delete
  11. I enjoy your blog because I always learn something new and I researched it and you are right that Marines wanted battleships but how would you justify the maintenance, manning, and cost of such battleships when they are really only useful in one type of scenario?

    Still, I stand by my assessment that by emasculating the MEU and divesting of assault capabilities, Marines provide no reason for amphibious support.

    Ironically, the shift to MLRs launching missiles, which is supposed to signal support to the Navy, provides less reason for justification of amphibs.

    The only people who can put pressure on the Navy to maintain amphibs and build more amphibious ships are COCOMs and they currently would rather have Army Air Assault or MDTFs than MEUs or MEBs.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Congress pulled funding for the LSM RFP because all came in way over budget which means Marines will never get their LAWS / LSMs.

    ReplyDelete

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