| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Strained Navy experiments with smaller strike groups |
| 2003-10-25 |
| Global Security from Chicago Tribune By James Janega EFL Here is an example of the type of initiative that Rumsfeld is alluding to in his memo. Hoping to double the forces it can send to hot spots around the world, the Navy has begun experimenting with deployments of small strike groups of ships to reduce the Navy’s reliance on its heavily used aircraft carrier fleet. The Navy also plans to dramatically overhaul the schedule for deploying military personnel on ships, reducing the time between deployments and creating a less predictable schedule. This will be a family buster. Officials have characterized the plans as a means to be more responsive to unpredictable and more numerous threats in the post-Cold War era. The Navy’s prototype Expeditionary Strike Groups pair 2,200 Marines and their equipment aboard amphibious assault ships with a mix of Navy destroyers, cruisers and submarines that provide defensive measures and the ability to launch cruise missiles at targets far inland. This is one good idea that makes sense for situations like Liberia and Somalia. Snipped out a large chunck for brevity, but the whole article is worth reading as well. Though six-month cruises will still occur, some ships likely will be sent for longer, while others could be dispatched to trouble spots for only a month or two. Returning ships would be kept on alert for a time, ready to head back out to sea on short notice. Following typical six-month maintenance schedules, they would be ready to go out after just four or five months of training--more than six months faster than earlier, a senior Navy official said. Pentagon strategists who support the plan talk about its promise of doubling the "employability" of carriers by either speeding them out to sea or keeping them ready in the event of an emergency. Though carriers will be the first to employ the new timetables, other ships would follow. Critics say the plan leaves unanswered many questions, including what impact more frequent cruises will have on an aging fleet. "The people and the ships and the aircraft, and all of the subsystems, are all going to be worn out," Baker said. "It should be a temporary step in anticipation of a short-term need. But it’s being couched as a permanent change. The Hose’s simple answer for solving this problem for ships other than carriers. Have a blue and gold crew assigned to two ships. Keep one ship in the US and deploy the other out of Naples, Bahrain or wherever. Rotate the crew’s back and forth using the stateside asset for training. This will work because the Navy uses or (used?) a standardized Engineering Sequencing System to operate equipment and a standardized planned maintenace system. Most of the ships have been built cookie cutter style. Even the equipment has been standardized - one type of fire pump installed across the board. The advantage: to get a ship to the Persian Gulf the transit is two weeks ... just to cross the damn Atlantic. Tack on another two weeks to get to the gulf. Month there and a month back chews up two months of a six month deployment. Historically ballistic missile submarines have been assigned two crews to keep an expensive asset operating. |
| Posted by:Super Hose |
| #12 That's right NMM - it is voluntary. That, in case you missed it, was my point. Good people are getting sick of the sacrifices they are being asked to make for people like you, who not only fail to appreciate them, but actively work to undermine their efforts. My point is that they can and will walk if they are also asked to sacrifice their familes. If you weren't such a blind believer in the liberal faith, you'd realize it's everyone's loss if our military is weakened. But not you, right? Who needs to have real fights against real terrorists when you can show how strong you are by flinging insults at THE MAN(TM)? |
| Posted by: B 2003-10-26 1:42:27 AM |
| #11 Yeah B and the "Evil Bill CLinton" is still pulling the strings on the US military--has nothing to do with the fat cat tax break that has left the US gov with less money to take care of the military--BTW last time I looked--it was a VOLUNTARY service |
| Posted by: NotMikeMoore 2003-10-25 11:12:11 PM |
| #10 Yeah B and the "Evil Bill CLinton" is still pulling the strings on the US military--has nothing to do with the fat cat tax break that has left the US gov with less money to take care of the military--BTW last time I looked--it was a VOLUNTARY service |
| Posted by: NotMikeMoore 2003-10-25 11:12:08 PM |
| #9 That's true, but I think one reason why many people didn't get out was because the Reagan benefit was still being felt and there were good quality people to work with, reasonably good pay and (unless you got the cash incentive) enough years invested that it was worth it to stick out a few more years until retirement. But there is a different issue today that senior leadership seems unable to grasp: the service member's choice on whether to stay or get out is based on an entirely different set of factors than it would have been even 5 years ago. If Rumsfeld et al apply their own experience to get in the head of todays families...they will be missing the boat. I don't think they realize the dramatic decrease in a spouse's identity with Navy life. Rather, they find their identity through their own career and their children's school, sports, etc. This means that they are much more emotionally vested in their community life than they are in their Navy life. Consider also that male spouses, not so long ago, were relatively rare; now they are common. And many of the Navy wives are ex-service members as well. You'd get married, go to sea, come home and be looking at nothing but more sea time, sea time and more sea time. Would YOU choose to be bounced around every two years, lose all that is important to you when you could just have your spouse find an ok job to keep you afloat long enough to find a job that lets you have a life?? These leaders and their paper pushing aides are completely out of touch if they think they can bounce families around and maintain those long deployments. The decision stay in and force the spouse to quit that good job. is tough enough as it is. Frequent or long deployements will make that decision a no-brainer. |
| Posted by: B 2003-10-25 10:31:37 PM |
| #8 The best time to punch was during the Clinton years. There was a good economy - plenty of jobs. Deployment schedules were getting ridiculous. Fianlly, to meet draw down numbers they were giving us cash incentives ... to get out. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-10-25 9:04:41 PM |
| #7 The Navy also plans to dramatically overhaul the schedule for deploying military personnel on ships, reducing the time between deployments and creating a less predictable schedule Look, the discussion of smaller boats v/s aircraft carriers aside, I can say, on good authority, that the leaders are making a huge mistake. Someone needs to alert Navy leadership that they have GREATLY underestimated the family crisis this will create. They are taking the 1950's/1960's mentality of family life and trying to impose it in the 21st century. It's not going to work. The decision won't be to divorce or to suck it up, it will be not to make another move. Around the rank of chief or Lcdr, when the kids aren't babies and the spouse is looking at quitting another job, they will find it more attractive to punch. |
| Posted by: B 2003-10-25 7:01:29 PM |
| #6 Let us hope that in future they ensure that disease prevention is taken seriously, too. A large percentage (of the small force) of the Marines who were in Lebanon came down with malaria, and were found not to have been taking the preventive meds, using insect repellent, etc. Gruntdoc blames it on command not following through. *Liberian Marine Malaria * ...when force protection, in this case malaria, isn't pushed, hard, from the top down, it will not get done. |
| Posted by: John Anderson 2003-10-25 6:31:03 PM |
| #5 Some truths have always been true. One of them is it is not what weapon is used but how it is used. I think if the Navy retains any weapon system it should be the carrier. Yes, they are expensive, but they are absolutely indispensible for the strategic defense of the United States. Divided forces even in the context that is being discussed would be diffusing the strength of our Naval/Strategic forces. There is no question that our ground forces need to be expanded. We are in a war and this requires more people. Now the Navy has been toying with the idea of PT like boats for a few years. The concept is very sound but the only way to effective project this kind of Naval power is with air cover and the only air cover we have that is deployable literally with days is the US Carrier forces. I think it is fatuous to even think about diluting a tried and true weapon system. |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-10-25 6:01:48 PM |
| #4 Next time someone claims that the Democrats and the "peace" movement aren't hurting our ability to defend themselves, ask them what would happen if we tried to expand our military to cover our commitments properly. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-10-25 5:40:46 PM |
| #3 Bruce, I was talking about the longer deployments, not your post :-} |
| Posted by: B 2003-10-25 5:28:13 PM |
| #2 This is the kind of stupid decision making that is made by paper-pushing clueless, ambitious 24 year old aides who think they have it all figured out and leaders who are losing touch with "the little people". "Who cares what THEY want, this is what WE want and we're in charge. If they don't like it, they can get out." Well, hey,come to think of it, I think I will. Great way to lose your best and brightest and all of those training dollars, overnight. That type of arrogance bodes nothing but an ill wind. |
| Posted by: B 2003-10-25 5:26:28 PM |
| #1 No matter how carefully you optimize the employment of your assets eventually you come to the point where you cannot cover all your requirements. If we want to continue to carry the fight to the enemy we are going to have to face the fact we need to expand the military. This does not mean building more of what we have now. The type of thinking behind the Expeditionary Strike Groups is also what needs to go into the the acquisition of new assets. Do we buy a new carrier or two LHDs? An Arleigh Burke DDG or a flotilla of Storm class PFs to work with SEALs? Time to invest in new military units, questions is what do we buy? |
| Posted by: Bruce 2003-10-25 5:08:48 PM |