The Thousand Ship Navy

Do you remember the Thousand Ship Navy concept?[2]  To refresh your memory,
 

In the fall of 2005, Admiral Michael G. Mullen, the U.S. Navy’s Chief of Naval Operations, challenged the world’s maritime nations to raise what he called a “thousand-ship navy” to provide for the security of the maritime domain in the twenty-first century. Speaking at the Seventeenth International Seapower Symposium at the Naval War College, in Newport, Rhode Island, Admiral Mullen candidly admitted to the assembled chiefs of navy and their representatives from seventy-five countries that “the United States Navy cannot, by itself, preserve the freedom and security of the entire maritime domain. It must count on assistance from like-minded nations interested in using the sea for lawful purposes and precluding its use for others that threaten national, regional, or global security.”  He had voiced the idea a month earlier in an address to students at the College, but he now elaborated the concept:
 
Because today’s challenges are global in nature, we must be collective in our response. We are bound together in our dependence on the seas and in our need for security of this vast commons. This is a requisite for national security, global stability, and economic prosperity. As navies, we have successfully learned how to leverage the advantages of the sea . . . advantages such as mobility, access, and sovereignty. . . . We must now leverage these same advantages of our profession to close seams, reduce vulnerabilities, and ensure the security of the domain, we collectively, are responsible for. As we combine our advantages, I envision a 1,000-ship Navy—a fleet-in-being, if you will, made up of the best capabilities of all freedom-loving navies of the world.[1]

Consider this excerpt from Mullen’s speech:
 

“…leverage the advantages of the sea . . . advantages such as mobility, access, and sovereignty. . . . We must now leverage these same advantages of our profession to close seams, reduce vulnerabilities, and ensure the security of the domain …

What a bunch of verbal garbage!  No wonder this concept didn’t go anywhere or amount to anything.  Mullen’s Thousand Ship Navy proposal was just vague fantasy for the purposes of public relations.  It was tantamount to calling for world peace – a fine sentiment that is totally divorced from reality or action.
 
Okay, so is this post just a quick shot at Mullen and we’re done?  No!  While Mullen had nothing worthwhile to offer, the idea of an international, thousand ship navy has enormous potential though not in any way that Mullen would ever have imagined.  Let’s examine a better Thousand Ship Navy.
 
Consider the following truths:
 

• Reality is that the US Navy is the biggest and only truly significant friendly naval force in the world.
• Reality is that the US Navy, through its own incompetence and mismanagement, has glaring gaps and weaknesses in its force structure.

 
Now, let’s lean back in our chairs, close our eyes, and think fairy dust thoughts:
 

• Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t have those gaps and weaknesses? 
  
• Wouldn’t it be nice if those gaps and weaknesses could be magically filled without us having to spend any money or resources?

 
Opening our eyes, we realize that those things can’t happen, right?  I mean, the only way we could fill those gaps and weaknesses without spending money or resources would be if someone else built the missing assets and gave them to us and that’s not going to happen.  It can’t happen … could it?
 
Well … what if other navies around the world focused their efforts and force structures on the assets we’re missing.  What if they built the minesweepers and SSKs, among other needs, that could fill the gaps and weaknesses in our Navy and we could call on those assets as needed?
 
Think about it.  As an example, when the global war with China comes, and it will, will the UK’s one carrier with a couple dozen short-legged F-35Bs make any difference?  Not much.  However, a couple of squadrons of highly effective mine countermeasure ships would be invaluable to the war effort.
 
Will some country’s couple of underarmed frigates make any difference?  No, but large numbers of small ASW corvettes would be a big help.
 
And so on.
 
The idea is that other countries would partner with the US to fill the gaps and weaknesses in our Navy.
 
Of course, this is easier said than done.  Consider the following challenges.
 
Command and Control – This is a challenge in peace and in war.  Who commands these fill-in assets?  No country wants to give up command and yet a single, central command, the US, is necessary.

Agendas – Every country has their own geopolitical agendas and, often, those don’t perfectly align with the US.  A fill-in force can’t be subject to the whims of each individual country.  A NATO-like imperative is needed that would compel every participating country to actively contribute their eligible assets to meeting certain defined needs such as mines in international waters, war with China (with the US required to formally declare war on China).  It is the defined nature of the compelling threats that allows countries to still pursue their own agendas outside the bounds of the defined threats and ensure that the assets are available in the face of the defined threats.  What can’t happen is, for example, a Spanish frigate pulling out of a task force because their country doesn’t perfectly agree with the task force’s mission.  If the mission is a response to a defined threat then the assets are in, pure and simple.

Force Structure – Which country would build which assets?  That can’t be left up to the individual countries.  The individual contributions must come from analysis of the US Navy’s needs and, ultimately, be subject to US dictation.  Otherwise, each country will build whatever suits them and the US gaps won’t be filled other than haphazardly, if at all.

Reciprocity – In return for, say, building mine warfare ships instead of frigates, participating countries must be supported by the US Navy for any legitimate defense needs.  In other words, the US becomes the participating country’s navy against defined threats.
 
 
Discussion
 
Ideally, this shouldn’t be necessary.  The US Navy is big enough and well funded enough that it should be able to build its own complete naval force without any gaps or weaknesses.  However, until we clean house and fire every flag officer, that won’t happen.  We’ll continue to obsolete Burkes for the next two hundred years and bigger carriers as our air wings shrink ever smaller.  This NATO-ish concept at least provides a work around to the Navy’s abject stupidity for the foreseeable future.
 
The key to making this work is a set of very specific, well defined, major international threats that would trigger the combining of assets.  This precludes, as an example, other countries being forced to go along with, say, a US strike on an aspirin factory in the middle of nowhere for political messaging purposes.
 
It should be made crystal clear that any country that opts not to participate is on their own if they find themselves threatened by an enemy.  Participate and share or stand alone.  A simple choice.
 
In order for this concept to work, it has to be divorced from any of the political maneuverings of the type that prioritized the F-35 as an international jobs program rather than a lean, focused production program.  Ship types can’t be assigned based on politics or jobs or whatever.  Of course, the individual countries can build their assigned vessels any way they like but the assignments have to be based strictly on naval combat needs.
 
Finally, note that none of the above precludes any country from still building their own ships of whatever type as long as they meet their assigned gap-filling quota.
 
 
 
___________________________

 
[1]https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=2029&context=nwc-review
 
[2]USNI Proceedings, “The 1,000 Ship Navy: Global Maritime Network”, Vice Admiral John G. Morgan Jr., USN, and Rear Admiral Charles W. Martoglio, USN, November 2005, Proceedings Vol. 131/11/1,233
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2005/november/1000-ship-navy-global-maritime-network

Get the US Out of NATO

NATO once served a valid purpose and did so admirably.  That purpose, however, is long gone and with it NATO’s reason for existence or, at least, the US’ reason for remaining a member of NATO.  Unfortunately, the mere mention of the faintest possibility of the US exiting NATO seems to trigger angst and panic among so many observers in Europe and the US.
 
Panic among European observers is especially ironic given that so many in Europe despise the US to begin with and work to actively undermine and obstruct any US action or desire.
 
Let’s examine some of the arguments against the US pulling out of NATO.
 
Isolation.  Many seem to feel that pulling out of NATO would automatically lead to the US being isolationists on the world stage.  This is ridiculous.  Aside from erasing our name from a piece of paper, we’re just talking about removing our military presence from Europe.  We would still have extensive and intimate financial, trade, cultural, and scientific interactions.
 
Russian Threat.  This argument has been forever laid to rest by the Ukraine war.  If a single, small country with almost no military to begin the war and a population a quarter the size of Russia can fight Russia to a standstill, albeit with significant munitions resupply help from the West, then the Russian threat is overblown to the point of irrelevance.
 
Political Balance.  Some suggest that the US presence balances political and territorial ambitions among the European countries as if our absence from NATO would trigger all out wars between European countries.  This seems patently absurd if for no other reason than the European countries don’t have much in the way of extensive or effective militaries, as evidenced by their very low defense expenditure levels and nearly non-existent munitions inventories (remember Libya?)!
 
Mutual Military Support.  The contention is that the US would lose the military cooperation and support of European countries and access to bases.  Well, any country can assist the US at any time and in any way they choose without the US needing to be part of NATO.  The reality, however, is that all too often European countries already refuse to assist the US militarily.  Overflight permissions have been refused during US actions and foreign ships have pulled out of US naval task forces when the possibility of US action has arisen.  Sometimes foreign countries assist us and sometimes they don’t.  They have their political objectives and we have ours.  Short of invoking Article 5 of the NATO agreement, nothing would change the degree of cooperation with the US.
 
Defense of Europe.  Some seem to think that if the US is not a member of NATO, that precludes the US from helping to defend Europe.  This is absurd.   If Europe is threatened, the US will most certainly step in to help, treaty or no treaty.  It’s in our best interest.
 
 
Options
 
An option, for those too queasy about the US formally pulling out of NATO, is that the US could simply pull out of Europe while remaining a member of NATO.  Nothing that I’m aware of obligates us to be physically present on the continent.  This would allow all the resources currently devoted to Europe to be redirected at the real threat which is China.
 
Another option would be to use US withdrawal from NATO as a major bargaining chip in a Ukraine-Russia peace settlement.  For example, the US might agree to withdraw from NATO if Russia returns Crimea and returns to pre-war borders and Ukraine is granted NATO membership.
 
 
Conclusion
 
In summary, there is no valid argument for the US remaining in NATO and every reason for the US to leave NATO.  The world faces an extreme threat from China and US resources need to be focused on that threat not babysitting a Europe that faces no realistic threat.  It is past time for Europe to stand on its own.

NATO Spending

ComNavOps has opined that it is long past time for the US to pull out of Europe, militarily, and that Europe/NATO can more than stand on its own.  The bogeyman specter of the Russian bear has been shown to be an illusion, thwarted by the tiny state of Ukraine.
 
Here’s some interesting data on NATO spending for 2023.
 
Here’s the top 10 countries for defense spending as a percentage of GDP.[1]
 
Poland              3.9%
United States    3.5%
Greece              3.0%
Estonia              2.7%
Lithuania           2.5%
Finland              2.4%
Romania           2.4%
Hungary            2.4%
Latvia                2.3%
UK                     2.1%
 
 
Here’s the top 10 countries for total defense spending (million USD).[1]
 
United States   $860,000
Germany            $68,080
UK                      $65,763
France                $56,649
Italy                    $31,585
Poland               $29,105
Canada              $28,950
Spain                 $19,179
Netherlands       $16,741
Turkey                $15,842
 
 
 
The US spent $860B.  The rest of NATO spent $400B combined.
 
 
The reason for NATO’s existence has ended.  It’s past time to leave NATO and let Europe take care of itself.
 
 
__________________________

 
[1]https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country

Europe Redux

In previous posts, ComNavOps has called for the US to leave Europe, militarily.  In fact, I’ve stated that it is long past time to allow and, indeed, require Europe to stand on its own.  That position was met with less than total agreement due to unreasonable fears of Russia attacking and conquering Europe. With the ‘data point’ of the Ukraine conflict, it’s time to re-examine the belief that Europe can’t stand on its own.
 
To begin, review this post, “Europe– Why?”
 
Now, with the evidence of Russian inability to defeat a single country the size of Texas which had little in the way of a military before the Russian invasion, let’s again ask ourselves why we’re maintaining a major military presence in Europe?
 
If Ukraine can successfully stand against Russia, surely the combined might of Europe can do so without any US presence.
 
For those of you who can’t comprehend what you read, a reduced military presence in Europe does not mean zero military interaction with Europe.  We can certainly maintain relations and military basing/leasing arrangements in the event of need.  We can even maintain some small military presence if there’s a specific reason to do so - direct support of the Middle East, for example.  Removal of our military forces does not mean cutting off all cultural, financial, and trade relationships.  Those would continue as before.
 
Withdrawing from Europe would force Europe to step up and take responsibility for their own defense.  It would also free up huge resources for the US to focus on China.
 
I’m not going to belabor this any further.  The only previous reason for not withdrawing from Europe was the pathological fear that Russia would instantly conquer all of Europe.  That’s been emphatically shown to be pure fear-fantasy. 
 
There is no longer any reason for the US to maintain a significant military presence in Europe.  The US should withdraw from Europe, immediately.

Depend On Yourself, Not On Others

This blog avoids politics and for good reason but this is just too good to pass up and, besides, it directly impacts military matters.  The United Kingdom (UK) has withdrawn from the European Union (EU) – Brexit – and the EU is now grappling with the resulting impact.  One of the major issues facing the EU is defense.  A Breitbart article touches on this and the discussion offers some insights and belated recognition of the philosophies espoused on this blog.

Britain’s vote to leave the EU in 2016 was followed by U.S. President Donald Trump’s arrival on the world stage. Since then, the feeling has only grown in the EU that its foreign policy has to change to meet the bruising, confrontational challenges of a new age. (1)

This is not a new age.  The world has not changed.  It’s the same brutal, ruthless, often evil world it’s always been.  The only change is that the West has grown soft and complacent.  Worse – far worse – is that the West has come to believe that the rest of the world is as civilized as the West believes itself to be.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Most of the world is a violent, hateful place ruled by warlords (regardless of what title they choose to bestow upon themselves) and governed by the ancient and still totally relevant principle that ‘might makes right’.  The strong survive and thrive and the weak die in subjugation.  Evolution does not reward meekness or pacifism as a survival strategy.

As the article succinctly states,

For decades now, the EU has tried to be the counterpoint of alpha male superpower politics, spreading its “soft power” brand across the globe based on economic and developmental aid, cultural clout and the promotion of human rights, among other non-coercive strategies. (1)

While it is laudable to strive for a world based on warm, fuzzy feelings and mutual respect it is also foolish to ignore the reality that the world is a brutal place and most of the world doesn’t respect or care about the niceties of polite society.  I’m not going to bother citing the litany of soft power failings - you know it as well as I do.

Now, the EU is being forced to confront reality.

“We Europeans must adjust our mental maps to deal with the world as it is, not as we hoped it would be,” Borrell [EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell] wrote in an article last week. “To avoid being the losers in today’s U.S.-China competition, we must relearn the language of power.” [emphasis added] (1)

Wow!  ‘The world as it is, not as we hoped it would be’.  That’s basic, eternal truth being relearned the hard way by the EU.  Hopefully, the US will also learn the lesson of reality from this.

How does one avoid being a loser in today’s world?  The answer is the same as it’s been throughout history – have a powerful military.  Unfortunately, that immediately leads to yet another painful lesson for the EU.

That will be something made even more difficult without the military clout of Britain. French leader Macron says “Europeans must take more responsibility for European defense.”

“The European Union needs to shoulder greater responsibility for its own security and also step up its geopolitical presence,” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said at the EU parliament this week. (1)

How long has ComNavOps called for the US to pull out of Europe and let Europe defend themselves?  Finally, at long last, the EU is beginning to recognize the faintest glimmer of this reality and the wisdom that motivates it.  If the EU wants security and safety, they have to fight for it.  No one is going to hand it to them out of the goodness of their hearts.  As the saying goes, ‘If you want peace, prepare for war’.

A US pullout from Europe is not only in the best interest of the US but it’s also in the best interest of the EU.  It will force them to end their welfare-like dependence on the US for security.  That dependence may have been necessary immediately after WWII but it hasn’t been necessary for many decades now.  That dependence not only is a source of weakness for the EU but it breeds resentment towards the US as all dependence ultimately does toward those bestowing the welfare.

Not only should the US pull out of Europe, the EU should kick the US out and take their proud and independent place among the nations of the world !

The road ahead for the EU will be difficult and painful as noted here,

Firas Modad, a senior analyst with IHS Markit, issued a downbeat assessment of the EU’s stature as it struggled unsuccessfully to keep the Iran nuclear agreement intact.

“Europe is regulated from Washington,” he said. “The European banking system depends on the dollar, the European economy depends on the European banking system. The Europeans don’t spend on their own defence. The weak don’t have a say. (1)

Again, this illustrates the vulnerability of dependence by the EU.  It will be challenging but the EU must accept responsibility for its own well-being and security and rise up and stand on its own.

Now, how does all this tie into military matters beyond the obvious call for the US to disengage from Europe?

The answer should be obvious.  Just as noted in the article, the US geopolitical strategy must recognize that the world is a brutal place that does not recognize our desire for gentle approaches.  The world respects power and only power.  That power can take many forms but its ultimate foundation is military might.

We need to stop bending over backwards, to our own detriment, trying to persuade barbaric countries/rulers to miraculously become civilized.  By all means, let’s try the soft approach the first time but when that fails, as it almost always does, we need to switch to the application of power.  That does not mean we should instantly bomb every country that doesn’t agree with us on the first attempt.  What it means is that we should defend our interests (and our boats, drones, ships, aircraft, and personnel) with all necessary force. 

I’ve posted on the moral and legal aspects of this so I won’t bother repeating myself.  Suffice it to say that the US needs to begin reasserting itself and its interests.

• When Iran can seize two US boats and crews with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
• When Iran can shoot down US drones with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
• When China can seize US underwater drones with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
• When Russia can conduct unsafe harassment of US ships and aircraft with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
• When China can order us out of international waters - and we comply - with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
• And so on …

Just as the EU needs to relearn the brutal lessons of the world, so does the United States.  Our security is being threatened daily, in many different ways, and we need to begin defending ourselves aggressively.  While that defense should take many different forms, one of the obvious forms is the military.  Deploying around the world while being unwilling to act is pointless, wasteful, and provocative.  It’s past time for the military to take aggressive action, when threatened.

__________________________________

Note:  While it should not be necessary to say this, I’ll say it anyway for those who are incapable of grasping the obvious.  Calling for the US to pull out, militarily, from Europe does not mean cutting off all diplomatic, financial, trade, cultural, and scientific interactions.  All of that would continue.  It also does not mean zero interaction with European militaries.  There is nothing wrong with cooperative training, personnel exchanges, technology exchanges, etc.  In fact, there’s nothing wrong with the US maintaining basing rights or a military presence where it suits American interests. 

__________________________________

Breitbart website, “EU Mired In Squabble Over Who Should Pay to Cover Lost British Money”, 15-Feb-2020,

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/02/15/eu-mired-squabble-over-who-should-pay-cover-lost-british-money/

Dynamic Mongoose ASW Exercise

Norway is hosting a NATO ASW exercise, called Dynamic Mongoose 2018, described as the year’s largest ASW exercise in the North Atlantic.  Participants include Norway, Denmark, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Spain, Turkey, and the United States. Good thing, right?  Well, maybe not so right.  Look at the lineup for this exercise. (1)

• 7 surface ships
• 2 submarines
• 3 aircraft (one each from Germany, Norway, and US)

That’s the lineup for the “year’s largest NATO anti-submarine training in the North Atlantic”?  Three aircraft for the “year’s largest NATO anti-submarine training in the North Atlantic”?  Two subs?  Seven ships?  That’s a pretty pathetic effort.

Take away the token US contribution and the lineup is just 6 ships, 2 subs, and 2 aircraft from seven countries.  Seven countries could only muster two aircraft for the “year’s largest NATO anti-submarine training in the North Atlantic”?  That’s appalling.

This also highlights the weakness of many of the participating NATO members.  Norway’s entire navy, for example, consists of 5 frigates.  And so it goes.

I realize that most of these countries are fairly small but given their proximity to a militarily expansionistic and extremely aggressive Russia, I would think these countries would be wise to have much larger military forces.  I’m sure their thinking is that the US will defend them so any significant defense investment on their part is unnecessary.  That’s an attitude that the US needs to change.  We need to insist that they get serious about their own defense and this exercise is a perfect example of the problem.

I also realize that there are many exercises throughout the year and this may be a simple case of having to pick and choose which to attend but, really, is there any better use of time than actual, semi-realistic exercises?  Unless there are competing, concurrent exercises then there's no good reason not to attend this exercise in force - unless it's constraints imposed by operational budgets which would, again, go back to the degree of seriousness with which these countries are taking their defense responsibilities.

Now, any semi-realistic training (don’t know if this or not) is better than none but contrast this effort to a Russian exercise in the Barents at about the same time.

“A total of 36 warships and support vessels are currently on their way out to the Barents Sea. Also, about 20 aircrafts are in the air. Along the coast of the Kola Peninsula, more than 150 different rocket- and artillery weapon systems and special equipment are deployed.

Larger areas in the Barents Sea are now closed off for civilian shipping and overflights by civilian passenger aircraft. The drill will last until the end of next week. 

Among the warships are the missile cruiser Marshal Ustinov [Slava class], anti-submarine ship Severomorsk [Udaloy class], the destroyer Admiral Ushakov [Sovremenny class], the large landing ships Kondapoga, Georgy Pobedonosets and Aleksandr Obrakovsky.

Without specifying classes or names, the Northern Fleet says both nuclear-powered and diesel submarines participate.” (2)

Who’s more serious about combat readiness, Russia or NATO?  Seems obvious.

____________________________________

(1)The Barents Observer website, “Photos from NATO's anti-submarine warfare exercise outside Harstad”, Thomas Nilsen, 4-Jul-2018,

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2018/07/see-photos-natos-anti-submarine-warfare-exercise-outside-harstad

(2)The Barents Observer website, “Alarm-drill: 36 Russian warships sail out to Barents Sea”, Thomas Nilsen, 13-Jun-2018,

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2018/06/36-russian-warships-sails-out-barents-sea