Observing the Shift of Naval Strike Groups Towards Africa

We are observing a shift of naval operations that originate from the Atlantic fleet, and all indications are the shift may be permanent. For the past decade the Atlantic fleet has provided what is essentially a token presence in the Atlantic Ocean, with the majority of deploying forces heading for the Middle East. While Kosovo represents an exception, compared to the cold war, naval operations in the Mediterranean Sea had almost completely disappeared by 2005, activity that has included closing the Naval base at La Maddalena, Italy a few years ago.

However, there are several signs that the US Navy is reducing its naval presence in the Middle East, or put another way, beginning the process of more widely distributing the activity of its forward deployed Atlantic based strike groups. The current deployment of the empty ESG, the Nassau Expeditionary Strike Group, appears to be the first candidate executing this shift in naval deployment strategy. Rather than a return to a cold war posture of naval forces in the North Atlantic, it appears the Navy is making its shift from the waters of the Middle East towards the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, and all points around Africa including and probably specifically the Gulf of Guinea. The Nassau ESG for example, spent several weeks in the Mediterranean Sea early in its 6 month deployment, then moved to the 5th Fleet AOR for a few months, and has pulled out of the region back into the Mediterranean Sea. Another example is the USS Ashland (LSD 48), which is part of the Nassau ESG, spent almost its entire time after crossing the Suez Canal in the Southeast African region building partnerships with regional nations. While not a unique mission profile, it has happened infrequently enough that it is worth noting.

Everyone is skeptical of AFRICOM, and to be honest, we are too. It simply is not popular to Africans and is having a very difficult time building an image that can be embraced. We believe there is only one solution for stopping the violence and improving the conditions in Africa, and it is economic power, not military power, although we acknowledge there is a role for military power to improve security conditions long enough for economic power to take its course.

We have read what amounts to whining from some circles that big foreign business wants to go to Africa and strip the land of its resources. While that is one way to phrase it, we certainly hope that is exactly what happens, because nothing would improve the conditions in Africa better and faster than the arrival of business interests that bring stability to governments, jobs to the people, and connection (thus interest) with the rest of the world. People who genuinely care about Africa want more economic investment there, people who don't care actually complain about the influx of opportunities that would become available to Africans if big business invests, as if the alternative of spontaneous economic combustion is likely to occur and change the culture instead.

The naval approach to Africa is not similar to AFRICOMs approach. The Navy is only going where it is being invited, specifically to train domestic security forces and improve the domestic security capacity to foster commerce. While these naval projects include humanitarian assistance and volunteer work to build infrastructure, the focus is to improve security capabilities to facilitate private sector investment.

For example, Naval engineers help build up a decapitated dock while a local contractor dredges a port. This leads to the port being able to accept deeper draft ships for commerce, thus kick starting the capacity of commerce by sea. The commerce is protected by the security forces (read coast guard) that are being trained through assistance programs set up by western navies. The trained security forces keep the commerce free of piracy, thus keep the lines of commerce open. These steps improve the conditions for foreign investment, and builds the domestic economic conditions towards a favorable conclusion. Everything is one step at a time, and the process will take years to get all the pieces in place, but the objective is not to build from the inside out (which is sort of how we see the AFRICOM approach), rather create multiple avenues in and out (read connectivity) thus expanding markets and economic oppertunity. We note the US Navy has been building a networked approach for working with regional nations at sea for years.

The next step in this process is presence by the US Navy to build partnerships in the region, and we observe forces like Expeditionary Strike Groups are an excellent way to do this. As large, shallow draft vessels with virtually every littoral capability, these ships can enter port in many places where a surface combatant cannot, and if there is security in the port and places to spend money, well hello economics! Consider the potential... the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) is entering Hong Kong today, and estimates are the visit will result in a minimum $1,000,000 boost to the local Hong Kong economy.

Now scale that potential to a ship like the USS Nassau (LHA 4) (crew slightly over 900) making port at Sao Tome while the USS Nashville (LPD 13) (crew of around 400) makes port in Santo Antonio. If 65% the crew of each ship takes liberty and spends $100 each day for 3 days in each port, that would be $253,500 for the local economies, and that is just two ships making a 3 day liberty. For perspective on local impact, $253,500 is nearly .1% of the GDP of Sao Tome and Principe. If the US Navy made 4 similar visits in one year, the GDP of Sao Tome and Principe would grow .4% on tourism by the US Navy alone.

From a force posture perspective, the shift of naval forces will essentially reduce the time an Atlantic fleet strike group tours in the Middle East thus increasing the naval presence off Africa. There will be some who are skeptical of motive, they are the ignorant. This is a smart move by the US Navy, not only to improve our image in Africa, but it connects the US national economic interest in Africa with military power, an alignment long overdue, and does so through presence without footprint allowing us to build relationships without imposing them, and has a nice side effect of boosting local economies to boot.

We are left with one unknown that will be interesting to observe. While amphibious ships can make port in more places than a surface combatant, it will be interesting where the CSGs go when they spend time off the African coast later this year. We believe it is very possible one side effect of this shift of naval forces from the Middle East could be a greater presence in the South Atlantic, and that could lead to more Carrier port visits to South American nations like Brazil. Very little was said about the liberty by the USS George Washington (CVN 73) crew in Rio earlier this year, but we imagine the local economic effect of four days liberty for ~4000 sailors was very positive. At $100 a day for 3 days, that potentially had a $1.2 million dollar local impact.

So what will the US Navy be doing off Africa when it's not in port? We won't speculate in detail, but this is an example of the kind of nonsense that will hopefully be put to an end with more US Navy presence:

If you read the news even casually, you have probably heard of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and his violent crusade for power. A couple months ago, a Chinese ship loaded with weapons was prevented from unloading those weapons in South Africa. The ship eventually left port an sailed around for a week before reportedly heading back to China. However, with no naval presence, the ship was able to do its thing unobserved, and reportedly made port in the Congo where the weapons were unloaded and eventually delivered. These same weapons are almost certainly being used in the violence we are seeing today. This is the Chinese naval approach to Africa, something that needs to be highlighted more often if the violence is to stop. Yes, we suggest they were PLAN, because middle of the night underway refueling at sea isn't the stuff of average mariners.

With the US Navy's attention focused on supporting the wars in the Middle East and piracy off Somalia, while the Europeans manage refugee problems in a number of places including the Mediterranean Sea while also shrinking their naval forces, and with most of the growing Navies condensed to the Pacific, the simple fact is if the US Navy isn't there, nobody is. Presence by the US Navy matters, and off Africa it is part of smart strategy towards the ends of improving the security conditions.

Accounting for the capabilities of Amphibious Ships not discussed, we note this is one of many reasons why we believe smart 21st century naval strategy for resources increases the number of amphibious ships as an emphasis. The US will do more with a LPD or a corvette flotilla off Africa in 2020 than it will ever possibly be able to do with a reduced crew, invisible, warfare centric first-rate battleship. The Strategic Maritime approach for Africa calls for metrics like visibility, manpower, and operational flexibility. Just saying...