CNO Richardson Incriminates Himself

CNO Richardson just issued the most self-incriminating statement imaginable.  The Government Accountability Office (GAO) just issued a report on the submarine maintenance problems. (1)

… a recent Government Accountability Office report that found the Navy has lost more than $1.5 billion and thousands of operational days over the past decade due to attack submarines caught in maintenance delays or sitting idle while awaiting an availability. (1)

Soak up those numbers … $1.5 BILLION and THOUSANDS of operational days lost !!!!!!!!!!!

Did you catch how long it’s been going on?  - From the quote, ‘over the past decade’.

CNO Richardson’s reaction?

Richardson, in a media call on Thursday during his Thanksgiving visit to USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), told USNI News that he found “no surprises in that report. Every bit of information in that is information we’re very, very aware of. (1)

So, CNO Richardson, you have a massive, massive problem facing the fleet, you weren’t surprised by any of it, and you’ve been “very, very aware” of it?  So what in the hell have you been doing about it besides sitting on your ass?  Talk about dereliction of duty!  This is incompetence on a massive scale.

CNO Richardson’s statement is about as self-incriminating an indictment of his incompetence as is possible to imagine.

What does the GAO have to say about the Navy’s pathetic efforts?

The Navy has started to address challenges related to workforce shortages and facilities needs at the public shipyards. However, it has not effectively allocated maintenance periods among public shipyards and private shipyards that may also be available to help minimize attack submarine idle time.

So, even after a decade or more, the Navy’s effort at a solution is feeble and ineffective.

Why does CNO Richardson still have a job?

______________________________________

(1)USNI News website, “CNO: ‘No Surprises’ in GAO Report on Submarine Readiness Challenges”, Megan Eckstein, 26-Nov-2018,

https://news.usni.org/2018/11/26/cno-richardson-no-surprises-gao-report-highlighting-attack-sub-readiness-challenges

CNO Richardson Must Be Fired

Since the report came out about the lapsed certifications among the deployed 7^th Fleet ships and crew, I’ve been trying to find out more about the mechanism by which this state of affairs was sanctioned.  The mechanism was the “risk assessment and management plan” (RAMP).  Apparently, RAMP was used to directly and consciously bypass mandatory Navy training and certifications.  Among 7^th Fleet deployed destroyers and cruisers, around 40% of crew certifications in damage control, navigation, flight operations, and basic seamanship had lapsed (1)

Despite my efforts, I’ve been unable to find any mention of RAMP as an official Navy program.  It appears that it may have been a locally (local to the 7^th Fleet) devised and implemented program that lacked official Navy sanction.  Whether it was universally know throughout upper Navy leadership and unofficially sanctioned is unknown.

The conclusion from this is obvious.  The program has led to disasters, deaths, and horribly damaged ships.  Someone must be held responsible and pay the price and, indeed, VAdm. Joseph Aucoin, commander of the 7^th Fleet, has been relieved.  Of course, the firing may have been largely symbolic since he was due to retire in a few weeks, anyway.

There is another person who must pay the price and that is current CNO Richardson.  

If he did not know about an unsanctioned program intended to bypass mandatory Navy readiness certifications for an entire major fleet then he should be fired for incompetence and obliviousness.  

If he knew about the program then he should be fired for violating the trust of the country, the Navy, and the sailors serving under him and hazarding the military preparedness and security of the country.  

Either way, he has to go.

Get used to it.  You’re going to hear me continue to harp on this.  CNO Richardson is the Captain of the Navy and the Captain is accountable for everything that happens on his ship – his ship being the entire Navy.  I have lost confidence in his ability to command.

Richardson has allowed, and may have actively aided and abetted, the readiness and basic seamanship of the Navy to fall to dangerously low levels.  If our Navy is no longer capable of basic navigation, anchoring, and other acts of basic seamanship, how are we going to fight a war?  If we no longer have a grasp of basic seamanship, what are the odds that we’re tactically trained and proficient?  Through actions and inactions he has endangered the security of the country.  That’s tantamount to treason.  Further, he is directly responsible for the deaths of sailors and hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to US military assets.  He should be court-martialed and punished severely.

Let’s be fair.  This didn’t all happen on Richardson’s watch.  His predecessor, Adm. Greenert is at least equally culpable.  He should be recalled to active duty and court-martialed. 

A Chinese or Russian mole agent could not do more damage to the Navy and our nation’s security than our own Navy leadership is doing.

____________________________________________

(1)Defense News website, “US Navy worked around its own standards to keep ships underway: sources”, David B. Larter, 7-Sep-2017,

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2017/09/07/us-navy-worked-around-its-own-standards-to-keep-ships-underway-sources/

Loss Of Confidence

The Navy has always operated under the principle that the commanding officer is always responsible for whatever happens regardless of whether he had any direct involvement or not.  The Navy has been hair-trigger quick to relieve commanders for “loss of confidence in their ability to command”. 

Isn’t it about time that the ultimate commander, CNO Richardson, be held accountable for the tragedies that are occurring under his command?  Isn’t it about time that he was relieved for loss of confidence in his ability to command?

CNO Richardson Disappoints

Long time readers know that ComNavOps was not a fan of recently retired CNO Greenert.  In fact, it’s fair to say that ComNavOps viewed him as the worst CNO in a long, long time.  Thus, it was with cautious optimism that ComNavOps greeted incoming CNO Richardson.  The optimism had less to do with any knowledge of Richardson’s accomplishments or abilities and more to do with the belief that a tree stump would do a better job leading the Navy and Richardson could only be an improvement, no matter how bad he might be.

Alas, those giddy, hopeful days have slowly given way to disbelief – disbelief that anyone else could rival Greenert’s incompetence and yet we seem to have a contender in the making. 

Consider all the problems facing the Navy and all the issues that the CNO could have chosen to take on and fix.  I won’t even list the problems.  You know the litany as well as I do.  So, what has CNO Richardson chosen to focus on?

His latest focus and apparent best use of his time is to ban the acronym “A2/AD” (anti-access/area denial). 

“We’re going to scale down the mention of A2AD,” Adm. John Richardson said Monday, referring to the acronym for anti-access area denial, a warfighting approach with, he said, a variety of definitions. 

“It’s a term bandied about pretty freely and lacks the precise definition it probably would benefit from, and that ambiguity sends a variety of signals,” Richardson said. “Specifics matter.” (1)

The term does not have a variety of definitions.  In fact, as military acronyms go, it’s one of the most specific and well understood ones!  Richardson may not understand it but the rest of us do.  Recognize, though, that my complaint and derision stem not from the fact that he’s banned the acronym but that he considers that to be a priority issue over all the other challenges the Navy faces.  Is this the best use of his time?

What else has he accomplished in his short tenure?  Well, he appears to have prioritized the long standing system of Navy ratings as more important than warfighting, training, maintenance, etc.   His solution to the non-existent problem is to eliminate the time honored and specific rating system in favor of a generic rank label (2).  I’m not going to debate the merits of this but, rather, point out that if this is the best use of the CNO’s time and the most pressing issue he believes he faces then we truly have a contender for Greenert’s position of worst CNO in recent history.

Richardson also seems to have inherited his predecessor’s naïve views regarding China.  He has met with his Chinese counterpart five times already and, apparently, sees a rosy future in our relations with China.

“Despite rising tensions in the South China Sea, the US Navy’s top admiral says his Chinese counterparts “by and large” behave professionally, not provocatively, when the two nations meet at sea. And precisely because of those ensions, Adm. John Richardson said, it’s all the more important to emphasize cooperating with China, not confronting it.”

How’s that cooperation working out, there, Adm. Richardson?  We’ve ceded the entire South China Sea, gotten nothing in return, and are now watching the Chinese preparing to expand their territory still further, including annexing the disputed Scarborough Shoal which is also claimed by the Philippines.

“In March, U.S. Navy chief Admiral John Richardson said the United States had observed “survey type activity” around Scarborough that could be a precursor to reclamation. A month later, South China Morning Post added fuel to the fire by citing an anonymous source “close to the PLA Navy” as saying that China would carry out reclamation work at Scarborough “within this year.” (3)

Again, the point is not whether China ultimately will or will not seize the reef (they will) but, instead, the complete absence of a grasp on reality being demonstrated by Richardson.  China has already proven that they will use any means, including illegal acts, to further their expansionist agenda.  Richardson’s attempts at appeasement paint a picture of a man with no grasp of geopolitical or strategic reality or, indeed, any remembrance of very recent Chinese actions.

In addition to what Richardson has done (and disappointed in the doing) consider what he hasn't done.  He hasn't killed the LCS, he hasn't killed the Ford class, he hasn't laid out a solid F-35 CONOPS and acquisition strategy, he hasn't developed a viable amphibious assault doctrine in conjunction with the Marines, he hasn't prioritized warfighting, maintenance, training, and tactics.

Whether you look at what he's done or what he hasn't done, it's all the same: disappointing.

My cautious, feeble hopes for Richardson are gone.  The only hope I have left is that he proves to be only the second worst CNO I’ve seen rather than supplanting Greenert as the absolute worst.

______________________________

(1)Defense News website, “CNO Bans ‘A2/AD’ As Jargon”, Christopher P. Cavas, 3-Oct-2016,

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/cno-bans-a2ad-as-jargon

(2)USNI News website, “Navy Eliminating 241-Year-Old Rating System in New Enlisted Rank Overhaul”, Sam LaGrone, 29-Sep-2016,

https://news.usni.org/2016/09/29/navy-eliminating-241-year-old-rating-system-new-enlisted-rank-overhaul

(3)The Diplomat website, “China Building on Scarborough Shoal? Don't Hold Your Breath.”, Shannon Tiezzi, 9-Sep-2016,

http://thediplomat.com/2016/09/china-building-on-scarborough-shoal-dont-hold-your-breath/

CNO's Design

The old CNO, Adm. Greenert, has left and the new CNO, Adm. John Richardson, has taken over.  Regular readers know that ComNavOps has been highly critical of Greenert, considering him to be one of the worst CNOs ever.  Will Adm. Richardson be an improvement?  Time will tell.  Let’s take a look at his first formal effort, his vision for the Navy as laid out in his “Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority” document (1).

The document begins by identifying three global forces that he claims are impacting the environment in which the Navy must operate.  They are,

• Maritime traffic
• The global information system
• Technology

There’s nothing wrong with that list and certainly they do impact the global security environment but the list omits a couple of key forces that have a greater impact.

Competition for Resources – the competition for resources is increasing and since the world’s land masses are essentially 100% claimed, new resources can only be obtained by taking them from someone else.  China, for example, is seizing the South and East China Seas and working to subjugate surrounding countries in large measure to obtain more resources.  Russia is working to secure more resources from surrounding countries and the Middle East.

Evil – Evil is a palpable human force and is on the rise as evidenced by ISIS, Russia, China, Iran, and NKorea.  Evil does not behave as we do, does not honor agreements, does not respect boundaries, and does not hesitate to engage in barbaric acts.  Left unchecked, evil expands – always.  To paraphrase, all that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

So, the document stumbles right out of the gate by failing to recognize a couple of the major forces at play which are shaping the global environment and should be shaping our response.

Moving on, the document then proceeds to explicitly name our potential enemies:  Russia, China, Iran, and NKorea.  Interestingly, Islamic Jihadism is not named.  Well, this is a vast improvement over CNO Greenert who refused to name China as even a competitor let alone an enemy and refused to discuss incidents out of fear of escalating tensions.  At least now we’ve mustered the courage to speak our enemy’s names (excepting Islamic Jihad). 

Next, CNO discusses “Lines of Effort” through which the Navy will meet its requirements.

• Strengthen naval power
• High velocity learning
• Teamwork and leadership
• Partnerships

Strengthening naval power comes close to the mark but the discussion gets bogged down in information warfare rather than recognizing that, ultimately, it’s about explosive power and numbers.  Warfare has not fundamentally changed throughout history and failing to recognize that cannot lead anywhere good.

The other three “Lines” are just buzzword bingo.  High velocity learning - seriously?  All in all, a very poor effort at “Lines of Effort”.

In summary, this is a better effort than his predecessor’s but still weak.  CNO Richardson is not off to a strong start.  We’ll keep watching and hope for better.

(1)http://www.navy.mil/cno/docs/CNO_STG.pdf