Tag Archives: US Navy

The Lighter Side

SECNAV Reintroduces Grog to the Navy

2 Comments

International Maritime Satire Week Warning: The following is a piece of fiction intended to elicit insight through the use of satire and written by those who do not make a living being funny – so it’s not serious and very well might not be funny.  Our apologies to those who read this without the warning and mistakenly believed it to be true. 

Secretary of the Mabus and Bill the Goat celebrate the planned return of spirit rations at the U.S. Naval Academy yesterday.

In a surprise announcement yesterday, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus reversed a key portion of the initiative known as “The 21st Century Sailor.”  After the fleet-wide failure of his “breathalyzer on every quarterdeck” policy, Mabus announced that the Navy would not only do away with the newly installed devices, but bring back the tradition of alcohol rations.  The announcement was all the more stunning as it came after a period of 24 hours in which no one could seem to find the Secretary.

“Today’s Sailors understand leadership and motivation,” Mabus said to reporters at the U.S. Naval Academy, who filed into Mahan Hall Auditorium for a hastily assembled press conference.  “After spending the evening with the combat-leaders-in-training on the Academy’s Varsity Cheerleading Squad, exchanging ideas at various establishments around Annapolis, I became convinced we need a course change in our policy. We need spirit back in the U.S. Navy!”

Sources close to the Annapolis discussions say the cheerleaders’ original intent was to get Secretary Mabus to seek additional funding for the squad’s upcoming travel arrangements to football away games, but that Mabus seemed to become single-mindedly focused on the effects of alcohol after misunderstanding one cheerleader’s discussion of spirit and Sailors.  

In a rare bit of candor, Mabus acknowledged the unusual nature of the announcement and burdens of naval service. “I understand this is a dramatic shift,” said Mabus at the Academy, “but it is also sensible.  Our Sailors know that we’re separating them for their families or from service, capping their pay, and looking into cutting their benefits.  We need to offer them a new benefit to brighten their day.  That’s why I’m bringing back the daily spirit ration.  It’s time to splice the main brace.  That’s right, Grog is back!” 

In 1862 the spirit ration was removed from Navy enlisted messes, but the Navy Secretary at the time, Gideon Welles, allowed “ales, beer, wine, and other non-distilled spirits” to remain in the officer’s messes.  It wasn’t until Secretary Josephus Daniels signed General Order 99 in 1914 that the spirit ration was removed completely.  Since that time Officers and Sailors have been stuck with a “cup of joe” as their beverage of choice.  “Today’s Sailors and Marines are responsible professionals,” said Captain Mike Pussers from the Secretary’s staff, “treating them as such and offering minor and responsible usage just makes sense.  It’s kind of like how you don’t see binge drinking in Europe because they don’t make a big deal of prohibiting kids from having a beer.”

Naval analysts agree that for the majority of Sailors, grog has a calming effect, whether they’re facing German U-boats or a discharge after 14 years in the service and no money towards a pension.

When contacted for comment, the U.S. Naval History & Heritage Command pointed out that this year the Navy has been relearning many lessons from its experiences in the War of 1812.  It makes sense that historically successful leadership techniques might return as well.  However, despite suggestions from a number of captains in the Navy’s surface fleet, the JAG Corps firmly denied that the return of the lash and walking the plank are also on the table.

Responses to Secretary Mabus’ announcement were mixed across the country.  “Sailors are drunks, we all know it,” said Westin Johnson IV, of the Navy League’s Tennessee Chapter, “that’s just the way it is.”  He was supported by Lawrence Sherman of the American Society for Temperance in the Sea Services.  “They simply can’t be trusted,” Sherman told CIMSEC in a phone interview, “I thought Ray understood that when he made them start blowing the tubes.” 

Reached for comment in Annapolis, noted maritime expert Bill The Goat said, “Yes, yes, yes, we do.  We love spirit.  How about you?”  Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), a USNA grad, combat decorated Marine and Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan Administration, agreed.  His staff pointed out that he’s been telling people that Sailors and Marines are responsible professionals for years.  “We do have a really stressed force,” the Senator pointed out when he advocated for a new look at General Order #1 in Afghanistan.  He suggested that sometimes having a drink, in a limited and responsible way, can have a positive impact on Marine’s and Sailor’s lives and can be a leadership and motivation tool.  According to members of his staff, Senator Webb supports the new imitative and is quoted asking, “Man, why didn’t I think of this when I was SECNAV?”

When reached for comment, Secretary Mabus’ office said the details for the grog’s return are still a work in progress.  “Following the model we used to study our allied forces in implementing the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ the Secretary plans to examine a number of different options,” said spokesman LT Alice Dawson.  Studies are reportedly planned on the wine service aboard French warships, the beer service aboard British ships, and other similar allied methods.  “The Secretary himself has volunteered to lead a select test group among our allies’ vessels to sample their spirits and determine the best way forward.”

“We have to get this right, you know, for the Sailors,” Secretary Mabus told CIMSEC from the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, after arriving last night.  “I’m willing to drink as much as I have to in order to make sure we get this right, for the Sailors.” 

A Master-at-Arms involved in the tests told CIMSEC, “Can you imagine, I get to make port calls all over the Med to visit our allies and drink on their ships…now this is real partnership building.”

“This is great,” said a Second Class Petty Officer interviewed by CIMSEC, “not only does it look like SECNAV finally trusts us, but I may get the chance to relax for 12 seconds after rushing between scripted drills that go the same way every time and staying up all night working on computerized admin baloney!”

In an ALNAV message released by the Secretary later this morning Sailors will be required to complete 3 NKO courses prior to consuming each spirit ration.

Capability Analysis, Strategic Outlook

Mission First, Capabilities Always

13 Comments

 

My esteemed colleagues Kurt Albaugh and Matt Hipple made some interesting arguments about the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) in the past two days, although I disagree with each in different ways. At the risk of drowning our readers in the LCS debate, I’m going to make some brief remarks of my own and defer my own full analysis until I’m conflict-of-interest free, just so we can get it out of our system.

 

Mr. Albaugh highlighted a lot of good points about LCS. LCS is not meant to be the concept vessel formerly known as streetfighter and does a good job fulfilling a lot of low-intensity missions and niche combat roles. A less-threatening platform makes it easier to operate with partners in places like Africa, where cooperative engagement is more law-enforcement focused. And, as the Chinese and Philippine navies demonstrated by pulling out in favor of civilian vessels in the Scarborough Shoal, low-end ships can help ease tense stand-offs and prevent misunderstandings from escalating into conflicts. Few would like to see the U.S. and China in a dust-up, so there are benefits to be gained from the U.S. demonstrating to its partners a commitment to peacefully resolving maritime incidents.

 

However, I disagree with the argument that forward deploying only weak vessels will prevent China from hostility. As commentor Chuck Hill noted, being inoffensive does not always prevent aggression. In dealing with state actors like China with a “Realist, zero-sum view of the world,” more capability is likely a greater deterrent of aggression than a perception of weakness. While deploying only low capability ships in sensitive areas would limit China’s ability to claim a menacing U.S. naval presence as pretext for action, it would not prevent China from taking that action.

 

In addition to soft power missions like Pacific Partnership and America’s commitment to its value system, the influence the U.S. maintains in the Asia-Pacific region is in large part derived from its partners’ perceptions of defense assistance credibility. In a region with a rising power with uncertain intentions, purposefully choosing weakness lessens the United States’ influence with friends and potential foes alike.

 

Two of a kind of a sort.

 

The good news is I continue to disagree with Mr. Albaugh. LCS can actually be used as an offensive asset, clearing the way for power projection. And I disagree with Mr. Hipple that the ship was designed without a purpose or strategy in mind. The very example of China’s focus on anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities are what drove LCS’ design. The three official mission packages – anti-submarine warfare, surface warfare, and mine-countermeasures – are all meant to fill counter-A2/AD capability gaps. And the ship itself, with its shallow draft, is meant to open access to U.S. forces in precisely that area of congested waters, the littorals, where most hostilities are expected to take place. This is the reason just purchasing multiple HSVs, as Juramentado and Mr. Hipple suggested, would not work. It is the same reason the National Security Cutter would not work.

 

This is not to say LCS can perform every mission of a destroyer or frigate – but that’s okay, that’s not what the Navy meant it or needs it to do. Nor is LCS perfect. Rather than risk-averse organization Mr. Hipple portrays, if anything, the Navy took too much risk on immature technologies for LCS’ mission packages, as Juramentado suggested. Budgets and politics also played a role in the program’s history. And sure, I would love to see a better anti-ship cruise missile, but this is a failing across the entire U.S. Navy, not confined to LCS. Learning from experience, capitalizing on feedback, and tweaking things like manning and mission package equipment will help.

 

There are still wrinkles in the LCS program, but a question of the role of LCS within the U.S. fleet remains only if the technologies that enable the originally intended missions do not come to fruition. That is no small wrinkle, but it is a different one than finding a strategy. 

Capability Analysis, Strategic Outlook

Strength in Weakness?

13 Comments

USS Fort Worth (LCS-3) just completed her acceptance trials today. Though a small step in itself, it is yet another reminder that this class is coming soon to a fleet near you. Just considering the Freedom-class variant, LCS-5 and -7 are under construction and funding for LCS-9 and -11 was approved in March. Though any fresh news about this class roils the waters of debate in the naval blogosphere, let’s step back and examine where the class has been, and where it is going.

LCS is not streetfighter. This much is true. Critics point to the ship’s fitness to defeat anti-ship cruise missiles and other anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) threats, small crew size and its resulting effect on damage control, lack of proven mission modules, and a host of other design and cost factors as reasons to reduce or discontinue the LCS program.

These critics rightly identify tactical weaknesses inherent in the LCS platform. Why do we need to reconsider their analysis?

One good reason is that strategy should drive tactics. LCS is a poor power-projection platform, but is that the strategic role we want or need to ask of it?

The fact that states are often unsure about the intentions of others drives foreign policy and strategy-making. The same tools we produce to defend our interests could also be used to attack. Many smart people think this uncertainty is the reason why wars occur. Whether this is actually the case or not, it’s clear that China believes in a Realist, zero-sum view of the world. So, you ask, what does this have to do with LCS?

The persistent uncertainty that things-that-go-boom produce can be resolved in part if military technologies can be clearly identified as either offensive or defensive. A rifle is a pretty poor example of this principle: it is equally suited to attack enemy forces as it is to defend friendly forces. A tomahawk missile, on the other hand, is designed primarily to attack. So it is with many missile systems. It makes me think back to The Hunt for Red October: “Would you characterize this as a first strike weapon, Dr. Ryan?” Think of it another way: if I drove the pickup truck I recently bought (used, of course) down your street, would you believe that it’s only for self-defense?

LCS is a defensive technology – it is defensively useful by allowing the United States to secure the seas from lawlessness and engage with allies and partners to help prevent China from expanding their influence through “soft power” means. Months ago, Rear Admiral Rowden called this idea “flags on halyards.“ LCS is therefore the ideal platform to park near China – it allows us to maintain influence in the region while preventing China from claiming that the US Navy is a menace to their security. LCS would indeed be a poor choice if the US strategy against China was one of power projection. However, it’s not immediately clear to this humble blogger that’s true. Other strategies have been proposed which rely less on our ability to “kick down the door” and fight China a la WWII. This latter strategy would incur huge costs in lives and treasure. LCS represents an alternative strategic vision – one that paradoxically transmutes tactical weakness into strategic strength.

Streetfighter was designed to aid the Navy in it’s power projection role – a role that dominated strategic and force planning in the late 1990s. Rather than compare LCS to an idea designed for a different strategic era, the first consideration should compare it to the strategic requirements of today. LCS fills a niché for a forward-deployed vessel that can advance American interests and influence without undue provocation. The United States can and should provide naval forces for sea control and power projection, but LCS may help ensure that we don’t need to place the entire battle force in harm’s way.

Tactical strength does not always translate into strategic usefulness. We would do well to remember that, as the “Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Sea Power” says: “preventing wars is as important as winning wars.”

The opinions and views expressed in this post are those of the author alone and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, or any other agency.

Asia-Pacific, History, Strategic Outlook

Coral Sea Redux?

4 Comments

Earlier this week I attended the Battle of the Coral Sea 70th Anniversary Commemoration at Washington, D.C.’s Navy Memorial. Rain earlier in the morning threatened to push the event indoors, but the weather was blessedly cool and dry. Yet storm clouds might be gathering on the horizons of the Australian-American partnership the ceremony celebrated.

 

70 years ago, a clash of carriers handed the Japanese their first major defeat in the war in the Pacific, turning back an invasion force enroute to Port Moresby. As the Australian ambassador noted on Tuesday it also signaled a change in Australia and New Zealand’s defense formulations. Britain’s ability and responsibility to defend her imperial possessions and former colonies formed the bedrock of the nations’ pre-war planning.

 

According to the honourable Kim Beazley, the structure of British imperial defense “had crashed on land with the Japanese capture of Singapore, and at sea with the sinking of the British warships Prince of Wales and Repulse.” The American decision to risk carriers to parry the southern thrust threatening Australia – while so much else in the theater was at stake – was praised and highlighted as one of the key moments later bringing the nation under the American security umbrella, where it has remained ever since.

 

A Future Crisis

Could Australia face another crisis and restructuring of its strategic security arrangements down the road? This depends much on the ability of China and the U.S. to play nice. Australia is bound to the U.S. in the ANZUS treaty, a firm defense alliance between the two nations and New Zealand (the Yankee/Kiwi portion has been much less firm, but is improving), and has contributed forces to major American-led military conflicts from Korea to Afghanistan. Just last month, U.S. Marines began to deploy to Darwin, Australia, as a step towards strengthening ties (unofficially, in the face of growing Chinese regional clout).

 

Coming soon to a down-under near you.

However, Australia is much more commercially dependent upon the Chinese than the U.S., exporting less than a quarter of the goods to the U.S. it does to China, its biggest trading partner by both exports and imports. A serious spat between the two nations could cause Australians to rethink the benefits of their closeness to the Americans, especially if the cause of the row was of only marginal importance to the Aussies.

 

Similarly, the Chinese could begin to apply economic leverage to force Australia to scale back the level of its security and basing commitments (although done poorly this could risk a backlash). Conversely, the Chinese want to boost their own ties with Australia. In an April interview, Rory Medcalf, director of the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Australia pointed out:

Beijing has recently asked, or warned, Australia to build stronger security and strategic dimensions into its ties with China, to bring them more in balance with the very strong trade ties. In fact, Australia’s military already has quite good relations with the People’s Liberation Army and has provided a conduit of contact during phases when U.S.-China and Japan-China military-to-military ties were in trouble.”

Might Australia decide in the future it’s better to step from under the American umbrella and risk rain rather than a lightning strike? Might the Royal Australian Navy’s highly skilled mariners and expanding fleet be kept in port in the event of a conflict?

 

Some voices are already cautioning against more closely embracing the American military build-up in the Asia-Pacific, warning of the danger of being drawn into “someone else’s” fight with the potential for dire economic consequences. This appears to be a minority opinion among the public and politicians. According to the Lowy Institute, 85% of Australians are to some extent supportive of the U.S. alliance. As Mr. Medcalf states:

if Canberra is asked any time soon to make hard strategic choices between China and the United States, the signs are clear about the choice it would make—it has intensified the alliance with the United States.”

Yet Mr. Medcalf also correctly points out 15% is a substantial minority, and could grow as the American footprint expands in Australia. I don’t foresee Australia dropping the U.S. for China as its main strategic guarantor any time soon, but if the relationship between the two nations is handled poorly by either side, and its benefits not fully explained, the Chinese would be only too happy to exploit the opportunity and apply pressure to limit Australia’s commitments.

 

The Americans can help ensure this doesn’t happen. Proactive prevention of the sort of liberty incidents that so inflamed relations with another key partner to the north are vital. Aggressive goodwill diplomacy and exchanges can remind the Australian public of shared values.

 

And of course, events like the commemoration of the Battle of the Coral Sea remind both nations of shared sacrifices. Said Ambassador Beazley:

As the distribution of global power becomes more diffuse, it is useful for us to have as a reminder American risk-taking for its friends at a time when the US position was by no means the superior one.”

Coverage of the commemoration down under: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/us-flags-stronger-security-ties-with-aust-20120503-1y228.html