Checking In

Hope all is well, looks like the "Thought of the Day" idea is working out as a way to keep conversations going. A few thoughts on that...

The LCS "flat" organization post is kind of contraversial. It is something I have seen, and I think what will end up being problematic down the road is that only the LCS has this tiny officer, large chief + experienced seaman small crew organization. The experience + many chiefs + very few officers enables the "flat" nature of the organization.

It is fair to call it similar to submarines, but it is different. Why? Because the entire submarine community is the same, where as this "Hybrid Crew" high experience requirement thing is specific to only 1 ship of the surface fleet, and a very small number of SWOs by percentage. A small section of a large group... looks like trouble to me.

The small ships post is something I want to hit on in more detail in the future. I don't understand the FAC fleet concepts, I think helicopters are the way to destroy the enemy in the littoral and I see no advantage gained by using ships instead. With that said, helicopters are value added for sea control, but are not sea control. Sea Control is the reason for small ships, not power projection.

In regards to fleet organizations, the reason I raise this discussion is because I think there is a debate on this topic coming with the QDR. It is worth many more words than I gave it, but ultimately it is something to consider. I don't think anyone is suggesting the Navy stops forward deploying and remaining persistently present, but the question is whether Carrier Strike Groups remain the organizational force for that forward presence requirement, or do we use a different type of organizational for the routine deployment? I advocate no position on the issue, just raise the questions because they will come up in QDR.

I'll be back Sunday, may or may not check in again, and am off to find something for my sunburn. Enjoy and have a good week.