What's In A Name?

The Navy’s latest social engineering imperative is to gender neutralize all job titles.  Without commenting on the utter stupidity of that, here are some tongue-in-cheek suggestions for the Navy and Marines.

Old Title - New Gender Neutral Title

Rifleman – Projectile Propulsion Technician

Engineman – Mechanical Movement Facilitator

Signalman – Message Transference Specialist

Machinery Repairman – Mechanical Reconstructionist

Corpsman – Advil Distribution Technician

Legalman – Obfuscation Specialist

Damage Controlman – Floatation Assurance Technician

Yeoman – Minion

Fire Controlman – Random Location Generator

Infantryman – Personal Supplies Transporter

Aviation Ordnanceman – Airborne Explosives Handler

Naval Aircrewman – Sensor Supernumerary

Aviation Maintenance Administrationman – Arcane Forms Administrator

Mineman – Antiquated Explosives Expert

Feel free to suggest any of your own.

Do You Want To Know What's Happened To Our Navy?

Do you want to know what’s happened to our Navy?  Just look to the titles of the articles in the most recent issue of Proceedings (Apr. 2016).  I’ve put the subject in parentheses for those that are not obvious from the title.

• Misnavigation or Spoofing? (GPS)
• #Savetheskirt (wearing skirts at the Naval Academy graduation)
• Best Practices Evolve From Open Discussion (something about modifying a paperwork form)
• To Drink, or Not to Drink?
• @AdmNelson (social media)
• Twilight of Manned Flight?
• What Makes the CPO Mess Tick
• Innocent Until Investigated
• All Manner of Contingencies (interview with Royal Army commander)
• Innovation is Initiative
• Charles de Gaulle Fights ISIS
• A South China Sea Game Changer? (sovereignty ruling from the Hague)

Proceedings is supposed to be the professional voice of the Navy.  Of course, the magazine can only published what’s submitted and this is what’s being submitted.  Look at the list of articles.  Women’s skirts, artificial innovation (like it’s something that can be mandated), drinking, social media, legal matters, foreign navies and officers – this is what’s passing for professional concerns today.  Meanwhile, China is busy building a navy and air force that is on its way to surpassing us.

Where are the articles about ship design, tactics, strategy, readiness, amphibious assault, weapons, etc.?  I weep for my Navy.

A Littoral CONOPS ... Now?

Here’s some news that is an absolute condemnation of the entire Navy and Marine leadership.  The Navy and Marines have apparently realized that they need a littoral combat concept of operations (CONOPS) and are developing one.

“The Naval Board, …is working with the Naval Development Warfare Center and the Marines’ Combat Development “to write a concept for littoral operations in a contested environment …”

I have only one observation:

Shouldn’t the Navy and Marines have had a littoral CONOPS before they committed to building 55 littoral combat ships?

__________________

(1)USNI website, “Navy, Marines Developing New CONOPS For Contested Littoral Operations”, Megan Eckstein, April 8, 2016,

https://news.usni.org/2016/04/08/navy-marines-developing-new-conops-for-contested-littoral-operations

America Class and the F-35B

The F-35B is, or will be, inextricably linked to the America class LHA.  The F-35B was built to operate from the America and the America was built, specifically, to operate the F-35B since the ship has no well deck.  My suspicion is that the America was built to be a mini-aircraft carrier rather than an amphibious ship.  America can operate 20 F-35Bs when configured as a mini-carrier.

America was informally commissioned in Jul 2014 and proceeded to sail to San Diego where the ship was formally commissioned in Oct 2014.  In the ensuing 17 months, the ship has spent the majority of the time in dock and has just now returned to duty after spending the previous ten months undergoing upgrades to accommodate the F-35B.  Upgrades included strengthening the flight deck, adding soundproofing, rearranging and restructuring compartments immediately under the flight deck due to noise issues, hangar modifications, and treating the flight deck with a specially designed thermal coating to accommodate the massive heat load of the F-35B.  As a USNI News article puts it,

“The aviation-centric big deck was commissioned in late 2014 but required additional work to take the day-to-day strain of operating the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) strike fighters that will operate from the ship.” (1)

Apparently, no one realized the impact the F-35B would have on the ship that was designed to operate it.  That’s some pretty major design flaws in a ship that was specifically designed to operate the F-35B! 

This also illustrates the on-going impact of the F-35B on the entire military.  The cost of the F-35B program extends well beyond the “mere” cost of the aircraft’s construction.  I have seen no figures beyond an initial $32M contract for normal post-shakedown work but what do you think a 10 month upgrade/rebuild effort on the America cost?  It’s got to be hundreds of millions of dollars.  Further, the next ship in the class, LHA-7, will also require extensive refits after completion which is more money to make the F-35 program work.  The Navy’s website makes it clear that the vast majority of the 10 month upgrade period is due strictly to the F-35.

“America is more than halfway through its post-shakedown availability period (PSA) in which the ship's crew and contractors make improvements to the ship's design. About 20 percent of the work being performed is the normal maintenance associated with PSAs for newly constructed ships. The rest of the maintenance consists of the upgrades designed to support the JSF.” (2)

Beyond the cost, the work required the ship to be idled for 10 months.  Thanks to the F-35B, the America has been in dock for 10 of its 17 months in commission.  The ship’s two year anniversary is coming up and it has yet to deploy.

(1)USNI News, “USS America Back to Sea After Completing 10-Months of Deck Strengthening for F-35s”, Sam LaGrone, March 22, 2016,

http://news.usni.org/2016/03/22/uss-america-back-to-sea-after-completing-10-months-of-deck-strengthening-for-f-35s

(2)navy.mil, “America Modifications Increase Air Capabilities”, USS America (LHA 6) Public Affairs, 8-Dec-2015,

​http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lha6/Pages/America-Modifications-Increase-Air-Capabilities.aspx#.VvKU_tIrJxA

Then and Now

ComNavOps is ever one to try to place events into an historical context and try to learn lessons from history.  With that in mind, I’ve often lamented that it will take a major debacle inflicted on the Navy to shake the current leadership out of a peace time mentality and into a warfighting posture.  Indeed, the bulk of that shakeup would, undoubtedly, come in the form of relieving most of the current crop of Admirals and ship’s Captains, just as occurred at the start of WWII.

Just recently, a commenter echoed that exact observation and my immediate reaction was, “Yep, the Navy is in the same place they were just prior to WWII.”   The Navy is just repeating a cycle and, while we see today’s problems more clearly due to the Internet and open media, it’s no different than it was just prior to WWII.

But then I thought about it a little more.  Are we really at the same point as just before WWII?  There are certainly a lot of similarities.

• Untested weapon systems that the Navy refuses to subject to realistic testing.  Now it’s Aegis.  Then, it was the torpedo.

• A no-risk attitude inculcated into ship’s Captains.  Now, it’s probably every Captain as evidenced by the never ending firings.  Then, it was, famously, the submarine Captains.

• An utterly unrealistic presumption of superiority on our part.  Now, it’s the absolute certainty that our enemies can’t match or disrupt our networks, GPS, and communications combined with our dismissive attitude towards Chinese ships and planes.  Then, it was the belief that the Japanese soldier and technology was inherently inferior.

• A badly flawed belief in one of the main components of our fleet.  Now, it’s the LCS which will make up a third of our battlefleet.  Then, it was the battleship.

On the other hand, there are some striking differences.

• Arm’s race.  Now China, Russia, Iran, and almost every other country is in a flat out arms race which we seem to have no interest in and what interest we have is being misdirected towards toothless LCS’s and an F-35 the Navy doesn’t seem to really want.  Then, we were in it to win it with North Carolina, South Dakota, and Iowa class battleships, the Essex and Midway class carriers, new destroyers, and new aircraft – and those were all pre-WWII in origin.

• Obvious enemies.  Now, we’ll barely even name our enemies.  Then, we knew with absolute certainty that we would fight Japan and Germany – the only question was the timing.

• Strategy.  Now, we have lost all concept of strategy and tactics and are proud of ourselves for re-instituting a watered down version of surface warfare tactical training after decades of neglect.  Then, we conducted extensive strategic wargaming that, by the time war came, had explored every scenario against Japan to the point that it was claimed that Japan showed us nothing unexpected except the Kamikazee.

• Leadership.  Now, we have leaders who seem fixated on career above all else and exhibit absolutely no integrity or courage of conviction.  Then, we had at least a few warfighters such as Halsey, Spruance, and a few others.

On reflection, then, while today’s situation is part of a peace-war cycle of unpreparedness that we’ve seen before, we seem markedly worse off than prior to WWII.  Given how poorly that war started for us, I’m not sure we can afford the same kind of behind-the-curve performance against China and Russia if hostilities start.

History is screaming words of warning at us and we’re not listening.

JHSV Update

The Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) is a class of high speed intratheater transport that is being looked at for a variety of additional missions and tasks.  The DOT&E 2015 Annual Report offers a look at the use of the JHSV as transport to/from the Navy’s Mobile Landing Platform (MLP – essentially, the sea base).  Unfortunately, the JHSV was found to be unsuited for connecting with the MLP due to the JHSV’s ramp design limitations.

“JHSV interoperability with MLP (CCS) is not operationally effective since, by design (ramp limitation), it can only conduct vehicle transfers when conducted in sea states with significant wave heights of less than 0.1 meters (approximates a Sea State 1), which are normally found only in protected harbors.”

“JHSV is not operationally effective interfacing with MLP (CCS) for open-ocean, at-sea transfer of vehicles. The JHSV ramp cannot handle the small, but continual, relative movement of the two ships when moored skin-to-skin. Although vehicles were successfully transferred inside a protected harbor, transfer operations at-sea failed.”

More generally,

“The operational restriction of the JHSV’s Safe Operating Envelope (SOE) is a major limitation of the ship class that must be factored into all missions.”

The ships were built a bit too weak and significant bow damage has occurred due to higher sea states, forcing the Navy to strengthen and rebuild the bows of all the ships.  Still, the ship’s main asset, speed, will be subject to limitations.

“To utilize the speed capability of the ship, seas must not exceed Sea State 3 (significant wave height up to 1.25 meters). At Sea State 4 (significant wave height up to 2.5 meters), the ship must slow to 15 knots. At Sea State 5 (significant wave height up to 4 meters), the ship must slow to 5 knots. Above Sea State 5, the ship can only hold position and await calmer seas.”

Some Significant Limitations

The JHSV’s purpose and usefulness has always been questionable, in my mind, and the imposed limitations only add to that doubt.

China's Straight Face

You have to admire China’s ability to keep a straight face and not laugh while it delivers its political messages and warnings to the US.  Consider the latest warning to the US, as reported by Defense News website (1).

“Beijing’s Defense Ministry on Thursday warned the US Navy to “be careful” in the South China Sea and slammed a newly signed agreement between Washington and the Philippines.”

The Philippines and US recently signed an Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) which allows the US greater access to naval bases and further development of the bases.  In particular, the agreement gives the US access to Palawan (Oyster Bay) on the western side of the main Philippine islands and closer to the disputed Spratley Islands where China is building artificial islands and air/naval bases.

“Asked about the deal, Yang [Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun] said: ‘To strengthen military alliances is a reflection of a Cold War mentality.’

‘It is in the opposite direction of the trends of the era for peace, development and cooperation,’ he said, adding bilateral military cooperation should not ‘undermine a third party’s interests.’ ”

Hmmm …  An agreement between two countries outside the South China Sea is opposite the trend for peace but building and militarizing artificial islands somehow promotes peace?  How do you say that with a straight face?

“ ‘Now, the United States has come back, and is reinforcing its military presence in this region and promoting militarization in the South China Sea,’ Yang said.”

So, the US is promoting militarization but China’s artificial islands and newly constructed naval/air bases is not promoting militarization?  Again, do you have to have special training to say that without laughing?

“Beijing acknowledges that the facilities on its new islands will have military as well as civilian purposes.”

China would seem to be contradicting its own assertions about its peaceful intents but I guess that doesn’t register on them!

Our politicians and military leaders want to believe that China’s statements are backed by good faith, as ours are.  However, this is clearly not the case.  China will say whatever it needs to in order to achieve its goals and we need to stop ascribing our values and integrity to a country that does not share those values and integrity.  If we see China’s statements for what they are – manipulations in a war – then we can begin to see reality and counter their expansionism.

China continues to aggressively and illegally push its expansionist policies.

“China’s comments came as Malaysia accused ‘a large number’ of Chinese fishing trawlers and a coast guard vessel of entering its waters, understood to be last week.”

This should also serve as a reminder to the US that China’s military and civilian affairs are, ultimately, one and the same.  We need to recognize that there are no civilian actions – civilian actions are directed by the government and serve as a part of the overall military strategy.  China sees no distinction between civilian and military nor between peace and war.  Peace is just a form of war that uses less explosives.

We can counter China now, on our terms, while they are still building their military up to our level or wait and counter them on their terms after their military has achieved parity or superiority.  Waiting will prove far more costly in blood and money.

_____________

(1)Defense News website, “China to US: ‘Be Careful’ in South China Sea”,

Agence France-Presse, March 31, 2016,

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/03/31/china-us-careful-south-china-sea/82495812/