Tracking Gustav On the Net

Quick note for those who want to track Hurricane Gustav. Not sure if the name Michael Barnett rings a bell, but it should. He was the guy who started a live journal diary to record a few experiences during Hurricane Katrina only to see it blow up into much, much more (read history here). During Hurricane Katrina he was the only blogger to stay online, most notably through his live journal blog Interdictor. Carrying his torch forward, the good folks in the Zipa Datacenter in downtown New Orleans are the only bloggers on the internet that can say they have done this before, so keep an eye on the Gustav Bloggers.

Last time they did an amazing job coordinating IRC channels, offering audio for local police scanners, running a web cam from downtown NOLA, and generally became the place to be online. Yea, some of the old IRC logs are still on the internet from 2005, I even found good ole "Galrahn" in the logs. I kid not when I say these folks are up to the task, and will be who to watch if the worst happens.

Also noteworthy is a Gustav Wiki, which we find to be a very interesting way to record lessons learned in real time for natural disasters, potentially a very useful source depending upon update quality. Admittedly, what we already see is excellent.

5th Fleet Focus: Singapore Deploys Again to the Gulf

Singapore continues to be a solid friend to the Iraqi people as they deploy a LST yet again to the Persian Gulf in support of defending the Iraqi oil Terminals.

A Singapore Navy Landing Ship Tank (LST) left the country's Changi naval base early Saturday for the Gulf region to support the multi-national reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

According to the statement issued by the Defense Ministry on Saturday, RSS Resolution and its crew of about 175 personnel will undertake tasks such as protecting the waters around key oil terminals, conducting patrols and boarding operations, as well as providing logistics support for coalition vessels and helicopters during the three-month deployment.

To review the history here, RSS Endurance (L 207) operated in the Persian Gulf from October 2003 until December 2003. RSS Resolution (L 208) operated in the Persian Gulf from November 2004 until January 2005. RSS Endeavour (L 210) operated in the Persian Gulf from February 2006 until April 2006. RSS Persistence (L 209) deployed last September to contribute to Task Force 58.

Once again, we see an amphibious ship used in a role other than for amphibious assault, more evidence of the flexibility of the platform. In this case, Singapore uses their LSTs as motherships in protection of fixed resources at sea.

As the picture above highlights, in the past Singapore has deployed Protector USVs from their LSTs for patrols. In other words, big motherships, not small, is the trend everywhere but the US Navy.

In the past, people in the comments think we are out on a limb with our mothership concepts, but we again highlight the concepts promoted on the blog are tested, it is the US Navy spending taxpayer money on untested ideas... namely replacing rated frigates with unrated small motherships and expecting the same results.

We see RSS Resolution (L 208) replacing the USS Oak Hill (LSD 51) which will be returning home soon. The US Navy amphibious force has been on a very rapid deployment schedule, and we don't believe the US Navy will be deploying an amphibious ship to replace the USS Oak Hill (LSD 51) due to the high operational tempo. This deployment would seem to alleviate the necessity for a replacement.

Royal Navy Responsds To Gustav

The BBC is reporting the Royal Navy is sending two ships to Cuba in a humanitarian response to Hurricane Gustav.

Gustav, which is forecast to strengthen to a Category 5 storm over the Gulf, powered through western Cuba overnight.

Frigate HMS Iron Duke and RFA Wave Ruler are sending up helicopters to survey the area and are offering first aid, water and food to victims.

They will also help clear up and restore local infrastructure.

Prince William is no longer aboard, in case you were wondering...

All indications are that Gustav kicked Cuba's ass. I keep at what point the United States will attempt to reach out and offer assistance. Even if they say no, it never hurts to ask. The only way to change the relationship is to change the way the relationship works.

5th Fleet Focos: Establishing Deterrence for Piracy

We do not believe it will make much of a difference, but hope to be wrong. Navy Times is discussing the new Maritime Security Patrol that Task Force 150 is establishing in the area of the Gulf of Aden between Somalia and Yemen. We look forward to seeing whether this will make a difference.

Cmdr. Jane Campbell, public affairs officer at 5th Fleet, said the patrol area could be described roughly as a rectangular shape over the Gulf of Aden, with a constant allied naval presence. “The number will vary, but we’ll have ships on station,” she said. “This is not a long-term solution; it’s a short-term, focused operation.”

Along with surface patrols, shore-based aircraft, shipborne helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles also will keep a weather eye on the Gulf of Aden.

Convoy information in support of the Maritime Security Patrol Area can be found at Noonsite, who is cooperation with Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) is looking for all information available to better coordinate patrols.

Click the image above for a high resolution look at 2008 piracy in the area as of April 24, 2008. Stopping piracy will not be easy. Even if we assume the rectangle described is only 200 by 50 nautical miles large, that is still 10,000 square miles of water to cover. Figure 5 coalition ships, and maybe, possibly 5 US Navy ships and between the 10 vessels each ship is responsible for 1000 square miles for each ship. Even spacing the ships within the grid, response time at 25 knots within a grid would likely be measured in hours not minutes.

While aircraft and UAVs can assist in scouting, without a change in the RoE we don't see this making a significant impact to the patrol beyond scouting, so early detection will be their only true value to the program. Early detection, particularly in regards to attacks that originate from pirate motherships, has proven difficult in the past.

Update: Eagle1 has more, and very useful information on the sea lane being established.

2nd Fleet Focus: USS Bataan Responds to Gustav

Navy Times is reporting the USS Bataan (LHD 5) will be putting to sea Monday for potential response for Hurricane Gustav.

The amphibious assault ship Bataan will get underway Monday for what officials are calling a “readiness at sea event”

The ship’s initial mission will be to prepare for disaster response, according to Vice Adm. Mel Williams, the 2nd Fleet commander.

There is some irony, for those who may not remember, the USS Bataan (LHD 5) was in the Gulf of Mexico 3 years ago during Hurricane Katrina, and one of the lessons learned noted how the ship was never well utilized, mostly due to communication problems and agency coordination issues.

As we look observe much of the analysis of this storm, it does appear we can expect to see considerably more damage to Louisiana from Gustav than we saw from Katrina, and an even larger set of problems. Katrina hit Mississippi very hard, but Gustav will end up hitting Baton Rogue and Lafayette with wind damage harder than what we expect to see in New Orleans. With much of the state command and control networks built into Baton Rogue and Lafayette, but with heavy flooding expected in New Orleans, command and control will immediately be tested.

From our point of view, the USS Bataan (LHD 5) deployment is coming a day late, and it is particularly noteworthy the Navy will have difficulty deploying more ships from the east coast if necessary. Hurricane Hanna will soon be influencing the lines of communication at sea off the east coast of Florida, meaning after Monday any other ships will be forced to take the long route through heavy seas around Hanna to help in the Gulf Coast. It will be interesting to see how this develops, but if major damage hits Baton Rogue, Lafayette, and New Orleans, we might end up wishing we had more ships at sea.

Hurricane Gustav Response Preparations

As Hurricane Gustav approaches the Gulf of Mexico the DoD is preparing its response. This article lays out all the DoD preparations, but we note the last paragraph is the naval response being prepared.

Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., has given direction to three amphibious ships -- the USS Bataan, the USS Nassau and the USS Ponce -- to be prepared to sortie if needed. The command also has at its disposal additional communications, engineering, and aviation units.

It is an interesting combination of ships. The USS Nassau (LHA 4) just returned from deployment a few weeks ago, while the USS Bataan (LHD 5) is probably the next Atlantic fleet LHD to forward deploy. USS Ponce (LPD 15) returned earlier this year with the Kearsarge ESG.

There are reasons why we constantly call for more amphibious ships, the op-tempo doesn't match the priority. The LPD-4s are getting very old, very fast and the LPD-17s are coming online very slow. The USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) and USS Peleliu (LHA 5) are both on scheduled deployments, while the USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) is on a soft power mission for SOUTHCOM. The USS Tarawa (LHA 1) is currently under way in the Pacific after completing Fuerzas Aliadas PANAMAX 2008 military exercises on Aug. 22.

We only have 10 LHA/LHDs in inventory. With the Essex ESG fall cruise to begin in about a month or so, if the three ships named above have to deploy for hurricane response, that would mean 6 of the ten LHA/LHDs would be on deployment, leaving the forward deployed Essex, the USS Boxer (LHD 4), and the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) available. The USS Wasp (LHD 1) is still in dry dock, being fixed up to support MV-22s.

This is another example why we believe Robert Farley has it exactly right, the amphibious ship is the dreadnought of this era. Presidents in the 21st century no longer ask "where are the carriers" because we currently do not face foes at sea that will compete against our naval forces, instead we face challenges on land that require maneuver by sea capable of putting boots on the ground.

Oh that's right, Russia is the big naval threat now... not. Show me evidence Russia wants to go to war with the United States, and I'll entertain the idea.

2nd Fleet Focus: More Delays for Iwo Jima ESG

This is a very good article from WAVY, informative and interesting.

Navy officials tell WAVY.com the USS Ramage and USS Vella Gulf deployments are delayed again, citing the loading of weapons as a main problem. They say a recent rainy mist covered the ships at the Naval Station, not to mention the possibility of lightning nearby. That weather makes loading weapons, like rockets, too dangerous.

Officials say the Vella Gulf departure is re-scheduled for Saturday while the Ramage is scheduled to set sail Friday evening.

The Ramage is one of only two ships of it's kind on the East Coast It now has a brand new Ballistic Missile Defense system on board.

"We can detect a missile when it launches and then we can track it and figure out where it's going to hit and then if necessary, we can intercept and destroy it mid-flight before it attacks a civilian population," says Commander Peter Galluch, USS Ramage.

LPD-17 was delayed, now two more warships delayed albeit for different reasons. Anyone else heard the phrase bad things come in the threes. Hopefully this means good news from here for the deployment. All ships should be underway by tomorrow.

Note the last paragraph, sounds like we have a SM-3 sighting.

5th Fleet Focus: Order of Battle

Order of Battle in the 5th Fleet Area of Responsibility.

Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72)
USS Mobile Bay (CG 53)
USS Russell (DDG 59)
USS Shoup (DDG 86)
USS Momsen (DDG 92)
USS Curts (FFG 38)


Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)
USS Chancellorsville (CG 62)
USS Gridley (DDG 101)
USS Decatur (DDG 73)
USS Thach (FFG 43)
USS Springfield (SSN 761).


Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group

USS Peleliu (LHA 5)
USS Dubuque (LPD 8)
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD 52)
USS Cape St. George (CG 71)
USS Benfold (DDG 65)
USS Halsey (DDG 97)


In Theater

Ocean 6
HDMS Absalon (L16)
FS Floreal (F730)
FS Nivôse (F732)
FS La Boudeuse (P683)
HMCS Iroquois (DDH 280)
HMCS Calgary (FFH 335)
HMCS Ville de Quebec (FFH 332)
USS Oak Hill (LSD 51)
HMS Chatham (F87)
HMS Montrose (F236)
HMAS Parramatta (FFH 154)
HMAS Stuart (FFH 153)
USS Scout (MCM 8)
USS Gladiator (MCM 11)
USS Ardent (MCM 12)
USS Dexterous (MCM 13)
HMS Ramsay (M 110)
HMS Blyth (M 111)
HMS Atherstone (M38)
HMS Chiddingfold (M37)

Have a Good Holiday Weekend

Posting will be sporadic over the holiday. While we have lots to talk about, the holiday weekend has arrived and spending the weekend with my kids is high on the agenda, but as anyone with kids knows, that isn't always the way they want things to go.

For many Americans who have been observing the politics, feel free to comment in this thread, but don't get banned attacking others and be aware that the likelihood of me being influenced by someones blog comment in this thread is ridiculous. Disagreements is what politics is all about. If you read this blog for politics, you're a damn fool.

I thought last night was incredible TV with Obama, and it was every bit the historical moment the media made it out to be. I was very pleased my 13 year old sat and watched it with me, she has heard my stories growing up in Arkansas, and she understood the moment. Obama really is the most dynamic political speaker in my life time, and is better than Bill Clinton ever was in communicating with others. Was I sold? Nope. Everyone has different issues that matter to them, and mine are economic and foreign policy. As a business owner I had chills thinking where his economic policy is going, as it became very clear that Obama's brand of economic policy is very much a socialist policy that goes after business to fork over money to Washington so that political leaders can redistribute it to the country. Faith in government to manage money is hardly a sign of wisdom, as best highlighted by the current administration. It is time to cut spending.

Obama's single largest problem is that he believes he can do what Republicans and Democrats have been trying to do for decades, tweak the income tax code and find a magic bullet. Won't happen, the tax code under the Bush administration is actually valued the right way, the problem isn't the policy, its the reality the tax code is very broken and we need a consumption (fair) tax. Taxing business instead of individuals is being sold as wise economic policy. That is laughable stupidity in this market, the sure sign business is not a priority in the economic system. The suggestion America will innovate under higher taxes of corporations is misguided political strategy, the reason we see so many alternative energy start-ups today is precisely because of the way the Bush administration has managed taxation of business. Look, Bush economics suck too, but its as good as it can get until we throw out the tax code, and that will become painfully obvious under Obama.

My wife and I had all but decided to vote for Hillary until that went off the tracks. I have never been a big fan of John McCain and never saw me voting for him, but the more I think about it, I'm not sure that I haven't been waiting my whole life to vote for him. He really is the against the grain politician that I've always claimed to be looking for, the maverick who I think is what we need, and he represents the American story I can believe in. Admittedly I'm more concerned with McCain's foreign policy direction than Obama's, but I vote with my wallet and see John McCain's economic vision as better than Obama's, although I can see why people who are not business owners completely fail to understand that. When they lose their job, they'll have more time to study the reasons.

The association between John McCain and George Bush might work on simple minds, but the attack underestimates the memory of the independent voter, so I ultimately think that line of thought will fail as a tactic. Obama is going to need to sell himself more and worry about McCain less if he wants to win, because McCain will sell himself just fine as the recent polling data indicates.

Sarah Palin is a brilliant choice, but for awhile people will not understand why. The American media is so shallow, they will highlight her as a woman, her position on abortion, her lifetime membership in the NRA, talk about her lack of experience (even if she is the only person on either ticket with executive experience), and will talk about womens issues and think they are covering the bases. To think the decision is about politics leads to her being underestimated, and the last time I saw someone underestimated in politics because of what they are, rather than who they are, that politician (Barak Obama) crushed his opponent. Underestimating Sarah Palin would be extraordinary shortsighted, she is a much more impressive pick than Joe Biden who was all but forced on Obama by his critics. People know so little about Sarah Palin this is a brilliant way to exceed all expectations, and expectations matter in politics.

I see my partisan friends worried about how the Republican Party or Democratic Party is split, and I can't help but smile. The only thing I've taken out of the election season to date is that business as usual is in the process of being rejected. We have two very interesting tickets, but they both tell the same story. The United States of America is the greatest country in the world, and the lives of all four candidates combine to represent and reaffirm that reality.

Have a great holiday weekend

China Forces the Diplomatic Option

Like we always say, SCO runs through Shanghai, not Moscow. Put the cold war on ice, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is not the WARSAW PACT.

China and several Central Asian nations rebuffed Russia's hopes of international support for its actions in Georgia, issuing a statement Thursday denouncing the use of force and calling for the respect of every country's territorial integrity.

A joint declaration from the six-member Shanghai Cooperation Organization also offered some support for Russia's "active role in promoting peace" following a cease-fire, but overall it appeared to increase Moscow's international isolation.

Now Russia has choices, they can change tone and start talking to the rest of the world instead of at the rest of the world, or they can also shrug it off and dig a hole to isolation. Without any help, the suggestion that Russia can wave the magic pipeline is an empty threat, Russia needs the revenue as much as Europe needs the oil.

There are still several ways Russia can accomplish its goals without disconnecting itself from Europe and the west, but the first question is whether they want to. The second question is whether the United States will push for ideological resolutions instead of strategic resolutions.

The political atmosphere surrounding this is still a mess, and with Europe and the US taking a hard line regarding the potential independence of the two breakaway provinces, it is time for everyone to recalculate. Is Georgia better off without the 2 provinces? Neither has been part of the national economic system anyway, and what we are talking about here has more to do with geography than governance.

Russia needs the west to accept the independence of two breakaway provinces pretty bad right now, too bad there is no government for the west to recognize. Good news for Russia though, serious cooperation in regards to Iran while they stand up a couple of democratic governments could go a long way towards Russia achieving its objectives. Democracy doesn't happen over night, if Russia sets up a couple democracies, which could take a year, and works with the west over that time period towards stopping Iranian nuclear development, I'd say there is a good bargain for both sides to be made.

Yes, I would trade recognition of Russia's military actions as legitimate and recognize two new independent democracies to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That is a diplomatic deal, a strategic choice, worth making.

Photo of the Day: Shock Test 2

A new picture up on navy.mil of the USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19) shock test. Good idea, whoever came up with it. We had wanted to talk about expeditionary warfare this week but between the New Orleans INSRUV and leaving the reporters on the pier for the San Antonio rear gate issue, its been hard to find good news. Recycling good news with photography is clever, assuming Mesa Verde is still floating. Great Photo, but we note the caption editor slept during geography.

PACIFIC OCEAN (Aug. 16, 2008) The amphibious transport dock ship USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19) successfully completes its first of three shock trials events off the coast of Jacksonville, Fla. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class David R. Quillen/Released)

Click photo for link to hi-res.

Putin's Office: Dumbfounded by Law

Lex is linking to this article in the Guardian, where Lex finds a good quote of the Russian view regarding the humanitarian operations in the Black Sea.

"The decision to deliver aid using Nato battleships is something that hardly can be explained," said Peskov. "It's not a common practice."

Dmitri Peskov is the spokesman for Vladimir Putin, so it isn't hard to believe that Peskov would be unaware of the laws governing the Black Sea. I've been a bit confused myself, so I did what people usually do when facing legal confusion, I consulted an attorney. As Eagle1 points out, there are limitations regarding how the NATO can respond.

The Montreux Convention limits the total weight of a single warship that countries not bordering the Black Sea can deploy to 15,000 tons. Country’s bound by the agreement can deploy warships totaling a maximum of 45,000 tons.

Upon reflection, we've done a pretty poor job highlighting this. 15,000 tons isn't much, in fact that disqualifies the vast majority of the MSC ships in the US Navy inventory, and btw, ALL of the amphibious ships in the current inventory. The two largest ships in the US Navy that could be sent to Georgia carrying supplies would be a Ticonderoga class cruiser and an Arleigh Burke class destroyer. There are no cruisers currently deployed to that region (that we are aware of), so the use of a destroyer is practical as it is the largest ship in the US Navy inventory allowed by the Montreux Convention.

At face value, it is "something that hardly can be explained" only if you don't look into it. Lex concludes with a great comment.

Nothing could be a more common practice than rendering assistance to those in need. It’s the protesting humanitarian assistance that’s uncommon in the 21st century.

Guess it depends on ones perspective, this comment does source from Vladimir Putin's office.

Clearing the Air for Ballistic Missile Defense

If a major corporation in the defense industry makes their case for their product, we are interested. I don't want to see my tax money spent on a company that won't stand up for their product. Say what you want about Lockheed Martin, but we give them huge props here for one reason, Fred Moosally and several others from Lockheed Martin put themselves out there and sell their product to the American people. Whether I agree with them or not, at least they believe in their product, and are willing to engage the debate why it is superior.

Geoff Fein did an interview with Dan Smith (PDF), Raytheon president for Integrated Defense Systems division, and if Dan puts himself out there, we'll talk about it. In particular we want to talk about this great article by Geoff Fein, who we love on this blog. Well done by Dan Smith, facts from the July 31st hearing need to be told, and can only be explained if you guys get your ass out there more often. You allowed the Navy to put out disinformation on the SM-2 thing, and they certainly had me fooled. I don't like repeating disinformation, my readers deserve better. That issue still needs clarity, so do a follow up interview. You guys can hit your audience here if you want, we do a Guest Author Series you know...

For the first time since the July 31st hearing, Dan Smith rightfully points out that the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are not built BMD capable. From Defense Daily (subscription only).

"There isn't a DDG-51 today that comes off of the production ways with BMD capability, for example. That's an upgrade to existing DDG-51s," he said. "When they get through the next phase of that...I think the Navy plan is to have like 15 destroyers which have what you would call rudimentary BMD, but those are upgrades, as opposed to a standard package coming off the production way. So there is some knowledge there that needs to be looked at with a little bit finer tooth comb."

And to do BMD a ship is going to need sensors, Smith added. "There really is no comparisons in capability between a DBR and a SPY-1D, either from a concurrency perspective...in other words how many phases can be in operation and how many modes at one time...or in just the capability to command the missile which is in the other end of the spectrum in the SM-3 (Standard Missile) mode."

Even if the Navy's proposal is approved and they go back to building DDG-51s, there is still opportunity for Raytheon, Smith added. "There is nothing that says you couldn't make the non-recurring investment to put much of Zumwalt into a new construction DDG-51 hull, that's what it was designed to do."

OK so lets detail exactly what Dan Smith of Raytheon is talking about. When Chairman Gene Taylor called a meeting of the House Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee on July 31st to discuss the DDG-1000, Gene Taylor's stated intent was to have "a hearing that would clear the air of rumor and lay out all the facts without championing any ‘side’ in the debate." One problem though, Vice Admiral Barry McCullough didn't clear the air at all, instead of simply saying "hey we screwed up, this thing is expensive as hell and we can't afford it" the Navy took a position that made claims about the DDG-1000 out of context, then made claims about the DDG-51 also without context. In the question and answer part of the hearing, Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI) asked Vice Admiral Barry McCullough to detail the technology of the new DDG-51s the Navy wanted to buy to replace the DDG-1000s. Vice Admiral Barry McCullough answered:

Sir, the capability set I described for a DDG 51 that would restart as DDG 113 is based on the modernization program that we currently have funded in the DDG modernization program.

And that includes the COTS-based computer hardware, the open-architected computer program, the multi-mission signal processor with inherent ballistic missile defense capability, and the extended range anti-air warfare capability with SM-6.

Here is the problem. Any new DDG-51s the Navy buys today does not have "inherent ballistic missile defense capability" as McCullough suggested. Dan Smith talked about 15 destroyers, we have names of fourteen of them: USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53), USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54), USS John S. McCain (DDG 56), USS Russell (DDG 59), USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60), USS Ramage (DDG 61), USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62), USS Stethem (DDG 63), USS Benfold (DDG 65), USS Milius (DDG 69), USS Hopper (DDG 70), USS Decatur (DDG 73), USS Higgins (DDG 76), and USS O’Kane (DDG 77).

Notice a pattern? Every DDG-51 configured for AEGIS ballistic missile defense is either a Flight I or a Flight II version of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. Most people don't realize this, but the reason why is because as Dan Smith suggests, AEGIS BMD is an upgrade. It is actually more specific than that. Current ballistic missile defense only runs on ships with AEGIS version 5.3.x, and it is specific to hardware/software. You cannot put current AEGIS BMD on the new baseline ships, it simply won't work, the hardware/software doesn't exist on those ships, and for the record, the hardware that supports todays AEGIS BMD isn't even made anymore.

In the future this is all supposed to come together with AEGIS open architecture (OA), but until then there is no such thing as a new Arliegh Burke destroyer "with inherent ballistic missile defense capability" as was implied in the July 31st hearing.

As a side note, AEGIS ballistic missile defense will never work for the seven “Baseline 2” cruisers, essentially CG-52 through CG-58, because they have the old SPY-1A which utilizes very old computers known as UYK-7s and UYK-20s. It is incredibly expensive to upgrade these ships to use the SPY-1D(V), which will prevent them from ever performing the AEGIS BMD role. Such information begs the question, is that where the number "7" came from in determining the number of DDG-1000s to build? Did the Navy originally intend to retire seven more ships early with the construction of seven DDG-1000s?

As we have already highlighted, the suggestion the DDG-1000 can't use SM-2s is a comment out of context. As is highlighted in that link, the 2009 budget asks Congress to fund SM-2 Block III integration for the DDG-1000, integration that will be completed in time for the DDG-1000 class to support SM-2s. Gene Taylor called the July 31st hearing to clear the air, but the Navy blew so much smoke in that hearing how could anyone see a clear picture in case the Navy made. Think about it, the Navy is telling Congress the DDG-1000 cannot support Standard missiles because that capability hasn't been developed yet, but the Navy is also telling Congress the DDG-51s can support ballistic missile defense, even though that capability hasn't been developed yet either.

We think it is frustrating that even in a Congressional hearing we can't get straight talk from the Navy. Dan Smith is right to get out there, do interviews, talk to the press, and stand up for Raytheon's product. If there is a case to be made for Dual Band Radar instead of SPY, then make it with clarity. Lockheed Martin is kicking the crap out of General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon in their public approach. This is the information age, it stuns me how so many companies in the defense industry allow their competition to dominate the information flow, which ultimately can lead to misrepresentation of the information. It seems to me whenever we are talking about taxpayer money, accuracy is important, and trusting in a reporter, or a blogger, to always get the facts right is asking too much, particularly when information can be disclosed out of context inside the House chamber during a public hearing.

All information in this article is public information collected from media sources and public congressional testimony.

Signs of Expanding Russian Ambitions

It has been a long day in the office, and while I admit to being behind in the current events, particularly if the topic is politics, I couldn't get passed how good an article Navy Times published today regarding the conflict in Georgia. These guys did a great job, and while one would typically think we would focus in on the various naval centric events reported in the article, we found ourselves in discussion about some of the other details reported. Ponder the impact of this detail as reported, because the meaning is not trivial.

Russia’s ambassador to Moldova, meanwhile, said the country’s leaders should be wary of what happened in Georgia and avoid a “bloody and catastrophic trend of events” in the separatist, pro-Russia region of Trans-Dniester. The ambassador, Valeri Kuzmin, said Russia recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia because of “Georgia’s aggression against South Ossetia.”

Someone has foot in mouth disease. Russia is not a serious actor if they want to make threats to other countries. If this is going to be Russian policy, there is no other option than to take them on now instead of waiting until the execute their ambition in the form of military power. If that leads to cold war II, so be it. As we have already said, the US and Russia are not equals except under certain circumstances, and a cold war isn't one of those circumstances. The way we see it, Russia is in position to accomplish their goals with South Ossetia and Abkhazia without disconnecting themselves from the west, but signals of another military intervention sends a clear message the ambition doesn't stop at peacekeeping.

Putin is apparently not as smart as some have credited him, because expansion of threatening rhetoric right now is a losing hand for Russia. It really isn't very difficult for Russia to make a compelling case in support of South Ossetia and Abkhazia independence, if and only if that is the sole objective. However, Russia doesn't have a case at all if the ambition of Russia extends beyond those two provinces.

If you have been waiting for Russia to make a mistake, ambassador Valeri Kuzmin just did it. The center of gravity in geopolitics always centers on the highway of commerce, which is the sea. While the Persian Gulf has been that sea lane in play for the last few decades, it is time to add the Black Sea to the list, and with the Iranian rhetoric heating up, the Caspian Sea isn't far behind.

Five Good Reads - Submarine Edition

Secretary Winter is taking a tour of Fincantieri's shipyards in Muggiano (La Spezia) and Riva Trigoso (Genoa). Fincantieri recently purchased Manitowoc, which includes Marinette Marine, where LCS-1 was built. There is some speculation in the future we might build conventional submarines in the United States. If so, it will be for export, not for the US Navy. Invent something with better sustained power and more power than AIP, then we'll talk.

Have you seen this submarine on the Mississippi River?

More talking about Hezbollah's South American submarine force. We agree, sonar for the Coast Guard. The trends all point underwater, we need to be moving to counter this strategic shift.

We are now only $25 million savings away from reaching $2 billion per on the Virginia. Amazing what the industry can do when they set goals to improve a system and reduce cost. It is also amazing how successful the submarine industry is during a time of slow build rates. If only the rest of the shipbuilding industry was finding the same success.

Iran has announced for the umpteenth time they are building a new class of submarine. OK, whatever, another minelayer for the Straits, we get it. This is my question, can anyone name the submarine class shown in the picture caption of this report?

Green Light For Freedom

Acceptance trials for LCS-1 Freedom are completed, and the verdict is in.

Navy inspectors have recommended that service officials accept the first littoral combat ship, the Freedom, after the ship finished its acceptance trails Aug. 21 on Lake Michigan, top acquisition officials announced Wednesday.

The Board of Inspection and Survey concluded that the Freedom was a “capable, well-built and inspection-ready ship,” according to information provided by Allison Stiller, the deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisitions. She and other top acquisitions officials spoke at a rare roundtable with reporters at the Pentagon.

Acceptance isn't really surprising, I think everyone expected the ship to be accepted regardless of the real status of the ship. What is noteworthy is that the "InSurv turned up 21 “starred” systems" and "about 2,600 trial cards overall." That really isn't too bad for a first in class, although the article goes on to note that not every system was tested. Time will tell the result of the work in the yard.

But what jumped out to us is that top acquisition officials had a roundtable with reporters. Last we heard from Allison Stiller, she was making haste to a black SUV following the House hearing on July 31st. Running from reporters is a bad idea. Sitting down with reporters, telling what you can and allowing the American people see what we are paying for is a good idea, and good for the Pentagon for doing it. Hopefully it was productive.

The article has a number of details, but the last paragraph is very informative.

Once that’s complete, the Freedom is projected to be ready for its first operational deployment in 2011, Mahon said, whether or not there’s a growing fleet of follow-on ships. Some of the original concepts of operations for the LCS called for the ships to operate in LCS-only squadrons, but the Freedom could also sail as part of a carrier or expeditionary strike group, Mahon said. “It depends on what the fleet wants to do.”

Whether or not there's a growing fleet of follow-on ships is an interesting comment. Hard to tell what the Pentagon would say that would lead Phillip to reporting it this way, but certainly an interesting report.

Good article, a lot more in there than what we have discussed here.

Image: Wake from LCS-1 Freedom as posted on the Intranet website of Lockheed Martin. Click for better resolution, and note the maneuvers implied.

In the Spirit of Halsey

Think you are up to date with events taking place in the Black Sea? I thought I was, but now I'm not so sure...

The U.S. embassy in Tbilisi on Tuesday retracted a statement saying a U.S. destroyer and another ship were headed for the Georgian port city of Poti, where Russian forces are deployed.

"We cannot now confirm that U.S. ships will be travelling to Poti," embassy spokesman Stephen Guice said.

Guice had earlier said the USS McFaul, a destroyer, and another U.S. ship, the Dallas coast guard cutter, were to arrive Wednesday in the strategic Black Sea port.

Where is the USS McFaul (DDG 74)?

The world wonders.

For pictures of the humanitarian operation, Chuck Simmons of the North Shore Journal has a photo album up on Flickr. Good stuff.

China and the Information War

The Federation of American Scientists security blog has an interesting article up regarding PLA activity to limit the effectiveness of Google Earth. I guess they aren't very happy.

Chinese military authorities are paying increased attention to foreign satellite reconnaissance of Chinese forces and operations, and are pursuing countermeasures such as camouflage and deception to conceal sensitive material and activities, according to a newly-disclosed analysis (pdf) performed in 2007 by the DNI Open Source Center.

We enjoy looking at PLAN submarines, but if building underground submarine bases is how the PLAN is coping with Google Earth and other open source satellite imagery, what a great bargain for the United States. You'll have to forgive me if I take a moment and laugh at the insecurity of China in a Google world.

If China wasn't the only economic power in the top 30 hiding their military expenditures, nobody would care. However, the lack of transparency is a problem, in fact the lack of transparency is about the only hurdle facing the US and China in forming genuine partnerships in the 21st century. Secrets on top of secrets hidden behind secrets is not a healthy foundation for partnership.

The report is a quick read of seven pages. Guess we can look forward to a future where electronic jamming and laser dazzling are techniques China uses to conceal the activity of the PLA from the curious eyes of satellite technology. Welcome to the emerging information war.

Observing the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group

The US Navy is deploying the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) this week, the last ESG expected to deploy this year. In a return to the old days, we are going to take a little liberty and speculate (theory) regarding the enabling capabilities of the Iwo Jima ESG as it forward deploys from the Atlantic towards the Mediterranean Sea and Middle East.

The Iwo Jima ESG consists of the USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7), USS San Antonio (LPD 17), USS Carter Hall (LSD 50), USS Vella Gulf (CG 72), USS Roosevelt (DDG 80), USS Ramage (DDG 61), and USS Hartford (SSN 768). Let me first state it out loud, we love the new websites, we think the Navy is doing a good job here. Every ship has a story, every ship is unique.

Like all strike groups, there are special capabilities within the Iwo Jima ESG that aren't easily visible to the casual observer, so the point of this exercise is to perhaps educate a bit regarding your tax dollars, and speculate a bit regarding the enabling capabilities this strike group brings to the global maritime environment. This speculation does not reflect policy or political intent, rather is an exercise in naval theory.

This is a scheduled deployment. The Iwo Jima ESG will assume operational station in the Middle East at some point during this deployment to relieve the Peleliu ESG which departed in May. There will be some overlap, which suggests that the Iwo Jima may have duties in the 6th Fleet area of operations before moving into the Middle East. It appears the Iwo Jima ESG will be relieving the USS Oak Hill (LSD 51), which deployed in March and will be returning home soon.

As all sailors know, every ship is unique. The USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) is making her third deployment, all of which have been to the Persian Gulf. This is the first deployment of the USS San Antonio (LPD 17), and a number of people are watching to see how it goes. It won't define the class, but it needs to be said, there are high hopes for the LPD 17s among Marines. The last time the USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) deployed was last year, remembered because she blew up some small pirate boats while patrolling off the coast of Somalia.

The Vella Gulf (CG 72) has a long history of deployments including a history of rotations to the Baltic Sea, and was part of the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group in September 2001 when it made its presence known to Al Qaeda following 9/11. USS Roosevelt (DDG 80) has a really good reputation, in part due to a former CO Captain Richard Clemmons. Finally, the USS Ramage (DDG 61) is worth keeping an eye on, because it is the only AEGIS ship in the Atlantic fleet capable of ballistic missile defense. It is unclear if it carries SM-3s or not, but a reasonable guess would be yes.

The question is, where is the Iwo Jima ESG going, and what can it do?

Gulf of Guinea

Unlikely, but possible. The return home after only five months of the Nassau ESG was followed by one of the most important events at sea this year, the attack by MEND against Shell’s $3.6 billion “Bonga” Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading vessel (FPSO). Presence is a strategic concept; it means sustained manpower at sea on station. Presence is not realistic by aircraft and soft power isn't exercised on the telephone. We don't expect the Iwo Jima ESG to deploy ships to this region, but the necessity of naval presence exists.

Black Sea

The 1936 Montreux Convention has a few rules that could play into the thinking here. The sum of all vessel displacement for any outside nation must be less than 45,000 tons. The other rule though is that no ship may spend more than three weeks inside the Black Sea. This sets up the possibility we could see the USS McFaul (DDG 74) replaced by another ship, potentially the USS Ramage (61) which has ballistic missile defense, and replace the USS Mount Whitney (JCC 20) with the USS San Antonio (LPD 17) for supporting humanitarian assistance. Why the San Antonio? Well, first the radar cross section (RCS) of the San Antonio is less than that of the USS Ramage (DDG 61), and that might matter in a dangerous situation. It also has a tremendous amount of cargo space, which can be leveraged for humanitarian aid. It doesn't hurt that the ship has outstanding medical facilities.

Should the Navy upgrade from the current ships in the Black Sea to the USS Ramage (DDG 61) and USS San Antonio (LPD 17), that would be the true definition of gunboat diplomacy, because as an exercise in soft power it will certainly piss on (and off) the Russians.

Somalia

Quietly under the radar, Lloyd's List ran an article today regarding the establishment of a Maritime Security Patrol Area (MSPA). The MSPA is a patrol zone that will be protected by Task Force 150 intended to give commercial shipping a lane for safe passage through the area of heavy piracy off Somalia in the Arabian Sea. It is a clever idea, one that should have been implemented long ago, but we note that in order for it to be successful naval forces have to be committed. Clearly the Canadians are.

However, it will also require US Navy forces. We note through recent reporting that the USS Peleliu (LHA 5) is operating in the Red Sea. It could be that one or more than one amphibious ships will take part in the MSPA to provide aviation capabilities to the patrol zone. Is it possible we could see Marines storm a hijacked ship? We believe force recon snipers could make a significant impact here, but the dangers to captured crew may make such an effort a nonstarter. Either way, a hellfire missile can be an effective deterrent against a pirate skiff.

Iran

By now it should be clear that we do not believe the US will attack Iran during the Bush administration. With that said, we will not be surprised at all if one day Israel attacks Iran. The question for forward deployed naval forces must always be, if Iran decides to violate just about every possible international law, not to mention piss off just about every major world power except Russia and shut down the Strait of Hormuz, what will be asked of the US Navy to open the strait back up?

While amateurs, usually from a political perspective, tend to focus on carriers as a benchmark for Iran, professionals keep an eye on the number of ESGs forward deployed. For all the talk about small boats, mines, submarines, and ballistic missiles; from a tactical assessment perspective we see the three primary hurdles for military forces to reopen the Straits of Hormuz to be three islands, specifically Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb. These islands sit very close to the deep water channel, but more importantly, they have a bunch of troops on them. Those islands will have to be taken in order to open up the Strait of Hormuz.

A comment on this. Look, I know small boats are dangerous, and I understand the Iranians have some serious asymmetrical naval capabilities, but in a realistic assessment the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz is a declaration of war against Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Unless you believe these countries are going to accept Iranian attack without a word, the conventional military power here is one sided, completely lop sided not in the favor of Iran. This isn't the Persian Empire, and the number 300 may be a movie, but it also represents the number of aircraft one can expect the Gulf nations to be running sorties against every maritime and coastal target Iran has, blowing blue boats from the sea, all the while supported by US military power. It could get real ugly in Iraq, and Iran will do damage at sea, but a lot of the focus at sea is overblown and unrealistic. Ultimately, we don't see Iran shutting down the Strait, cutting off Asia from Persian Gulf energy would be the largest political miscalculation in Persian history, and Iran has never shown a tendency for stupidity.

While it is unknown the exact number of forces, it is widely suggested that there may be as many as 8000 total troops among the three islands. That is simply too many for a single ESG to handle. However, there is one lesson we learned in Iraq. The US Marines don't need a lot of troops to kill a lot of people, they just need a lot of support. I think if Israel attacked, and Iran shut down the Gulf, the world (led by Asia) would be leaning heavily on the US President to send in the Marines and open up the troops. With 1 ESG, the president says no. With two?

I think that if a President asks whether the Marines can crack open those islands, it isn't in the nature of the Marine Corps to say "we can't do it." So from a theoretical position of a Strait of Hormuz contingency, we see the addition of the Iwo Jima ESG to the Peleliu ESG as a powerful 2 MEU capability that wouldn't wait 3 weeks during maritime traffic disruption before making an assault. Oh you think there are other options? You would be mistaken. Few people realize that there are only six total forcible entry brigades in the entire US military today. 6 means 4 airborne and 2 Marines, and the Marines being the only heavy armored troops. The airborne units are either deployed, recently returned from a deployment, or preparing for a deployment.

That means in that contingency, the only option is the Marines.

It will be interesting to see where the Iwo Jima ESG goes. If we had to guess, we expect to see the group split up into several regions, and no, we don't expect the Iwo Jima ESG to be a precursor to a US military action against Iran.

Observing Early Lessons from the Russia-Georgian Conflict

It is found that anything that can go wrong at sea generally does go wrong sooner or later, so it is not to be wondered that owners prefer the safe to the scientific. It is also found that it is almost as bad to have too many parts as too few; that arrangements which are for exceptional and occasional use are rarely available when wanted, and have the disadvantage of requiring additional care. Their very presence, too, seems in effect to indispose the engineer to attend to essentials. Sufficient stress can hardly be laid on the advantages of simplicity. The human factor cannot be safely neglected in planning machinery. If attention is to be obtained, the engine must be such that the engineer will be disposed to attend to it."

In the November 13, 2024 session, published 1878, Alfred Holt, "Review of the Progress of Steam Shipping during the last Quarter of a Century," pp. 2-11, here p. 8, Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. LI, Session 1877-78--Part I. London: Published by the Institution, 1878. (source)

There are a number of lessons from the limited information we have heard regarding the Russian Black Sea Fleet involvement in Georgia, and we don't believe it is too early to begin talking about them.

I have already read in multiple places how shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!... people are that the tiny Georgian Navy could possibly not only conduct a successful attack, but perhaps even damage the Russian cruiser Moskva in a Black Sea battle a few weeks ago. We have no hard evidence, only the reports that we have linked from the blog, but if we are simply speaking to the possibility the answer is of coarse "yes it could happen." Those with doubt fail to conceal their utmost faith in technology, a terrible failing if there ever was one in the littorals. Most of all though, they simply fail to recognize the most important element of littoral warfare: tactics. You see, the quote above is best known as one of the earliest precursors to the modern version of Murphy's law. As it turns out, Murphy was a nautical man, and understood littoral warfare.

Those who seek comfort in technology to override all possibilities fail to realize that tactics is the ultimate equalizer. Technology is not a substitute for tactics. Considering the probability of a nighttime amphibious landing, with multiple small vessels traveling in the littoral, and the potential of private civilian craft also operating at night; a maritime force can and apparently did exploit the conditions for an attack. With limited visibility, the Russians were forced to rely on technology to identify friend from foe in the fog of war, a process that is never easy. This is not limited to the Russians, and is an important reminder that while technology can improve the situational awareness of naval forces, tactics and doctrine determine success or failure in littoral warfare regardless of the size of your opponent. Victory at sea is earned by those who take victory from their opponent.

But the battle was not the most important lesson from the recent conflict in the Black Sea. The most important lesson is that Russia was able to take objectives because their naval forces were expeditionary. While control of the sea is a worthy task, we are yet to see a major power, regional or superpower, struggle to take command of the sea from an opponent who contested it. The utilization of naval power for Russia was decisive, in fact Russia has achieved extraordinary goals not because Russia was able to attack by land south into South Ossetia, but because they were able to move large numbers of troops by sea to seize strategic objectives. Lets be honest, Poti is an enormous strategic holding by Russia, it isn't surprising they aren't giving it up now that they have achieved control.

For all the talk about how the United States hasn't conducted an amphibious landing against a hostile enemy, we note it has been even longer since a US submarine has sunk an enemy vessel in anger... yet no one is suggesting we get rid of submarines. Amphibious assault is a core military requirement of naval forces as old as sea power itself, and as Georgia reminds us, in the expeditionary era it is the ability to leverage expeditionary forces that will give nations the advantage over their adversaries.

The lesson at sea of the recent Russian-Georgian conflict is that our strategists have been right all along, it is about turning towards the littorals to extend influence beyond the shores, and we must perfect the skills, hone our tactics, and resource properly to empower our people to be prepared and successful in the littorals where Murphy's law tends to show its ugly face.

Breaking: Moskva Scrambles Back to Sea - Updated

Interesting breaking news coming from Russia. Apparently after returning to port on August 23rd, the Moskva went back to sea today sailing from Sevastopol to Novorossiisk. Why? The article details some new events off the coast of Georgia. (translation mine)

Deputy Chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces Colonel General Anatoly Nogovitsyn told reporters that there are nine NATO ships off the coast of Georgia. Among them, two U.S. ships, one Spanish, German, and Polish ship, and four Turkish ships. "This increases the degree of tension in the region," - the General stressed.

So much for NATO exercises, looks like NATO has other plans first. This is the first report we have seen regarding the Turkish Navy acting in response to the conflict.

There are no details regarding which four Turkish warships are there, but the other ships would be the SPS Juan de Borbon (F102), the Polish frigate ORP General K. Pulaski (272), the German frigate FGS Lubeck (F214), the US Navy destroyer USS McFaul (DDG 74), and the USCGC Dallas (WHBC 716).

Will be interesting to see if this is just Russian crap media reporting, of which I have read a lot this month, or confirmed by other western media reporting.

Updated: Confirmed, Reuters is also reporting that the Moskva will conduct weapon testing.

Fantasy Shipbuilding FYDP

My answer to the previous post. Blast away!

FY10 - 11 ships $11.65 billion + $2 billion CVN = Over budget $.6 billion

1 Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) (1 v .9)
3 LCS (3 x .55)
2 Virginia class (SSN) (2 x 2.0)
1 Joint High Speed Vessel (1 x .2)
2 LPD-17s (2 x 1.7)
1 LCS MMC (GD) (1 x .75)
1 LCS MMC (LM) (1 x .75)

FY11 - 9 ships $12.75 billion + $2 billion CVN = Over budget $1.75 billion

3 LCS (3 x .55)
2 Virginia class (SSN) (2 x 2.0)
1 Joint High Speed Vessel (1 x .2)
1 LHA-5 (1 x 3.5)
2 LPD-17s (2 x 1.7)

FY12 - 15 ships $13.05 billion + $2 billion CVN = Over budget $2.05 billion

1 Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) (1 v .9)
1 Large Medium-Speed Roll-On/Roll-Off (LMSR) (1 x .5)
2 LCS MMC (GD) (2 x .6)
2 LCS MMC (LM) (2 x .6)
2 Virginia class (SSN) (2 x 2.0)
1 Joint High Speed Vessel (1 x .2)
2 LPD-17s (2 x 1.7)
1 CVN78
3 LCS (3 x .55)

FY13 - 12 ships $12.1 billion + $2 billion = Over budget $1.1 billion

1 Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) (1 v .9)
2 Virginia class (SSN) (2 x 2.0)
1 Joint High Speed Vessel (1 x .2)
2 LPD-17s (2 x 1.7)
6 LCS MMC (6 x .6)

FY14 - 13 ships $15.2 billion + $2 billion = Over budget $4.2 billion

1 Large Medium-Speed Roll-On/Roll-Off (LMSR) (1 x .5)
2 Virginia class (SSN) (2 x 2.0)
1 LHA-5 (1 x 3.5)
2 LPD-17s (2 x 1.7)
6 LCS MMC (6 x .6)
1 Joint High Speed Vessel (1 x .2)

I'm over budget by $9.7 billion over 5 years (assuming budget is $13 billion), meaning I'm basically over budget the cost of 1 CVN.

The idea here is to build 1 LPD-17 in FY09, and have 19 by FY14, purchasing towards a force of 8 LHDs, 4 LHAs, 19 LPD-17s, and 8 LSD-41s for a total amphibious force of 39, as it requires 17 ships for 1 MEB. The 4 LSD-49s would be utilized as Naval offshore staging bases, Global Fleet Stations, unmanned systems support platforms, manned systems support vessels, soft power projection, and other naval roles as primary duty but would retain optional amphibious capacity as necessary.

1 ESG = 1 LHD, 3 LPD-17s each
7 ESG = 1 LHD, 2 LPD-17s each
4 ERG = 1 LHA, 2 LSD-41s each

This gives us time to assess the platform requirements for amphibious forces (traditional platforms may not be the way ahead in the future). It has been said the amphibious requirement is 31, if true then all LSDs can be retired without replacement during a time period where money is tight and priority includes large surface combatants and SSBN(X).

Additionally, this plan builds only up to a total of 14 Littoral Combat Ships, but also builds 18 small sixth rate frigates based on the LCS hull. The intent is to provide 14 LCS for the MIW requirement (with other modular options), but have real frigates for other roles to free up destroyers for the larger roles. CG(X) would begin construction in FY15 at BIW.

Essentially this trades large surface combatants and more LCSs for 10 LPD-17s, 18 sixth rates, and only 14 LCS. I also push back 1 JCC replacement, opt for real LHAs instead of civilian LHAs, and keep the lift portion of the Sea Base for at sea transfer (ignoring the aviation component) to support 12 LHDs/LHAs and extra LPD-17s. I also choose to build 1 extra SSN in FY10. A total of 60 ships over 5 years.

I shift as much CG and DDG modernization as possible to Bath, and build as many small combatants as possible at Bath, both of which are industry sustainment directives. I also build parts of LPD-17s at Bath where possible.

From the Desk of the Armchair Admirals

Since the American navy now possesses command of the sea, however, and since the Soviet surface navy is in no position to challenge this except in struggles for local supremacy in the Baltic and Black Seas, the Navy can no longer accept this Mahanite definition of its mission. Its purpose now is not to acquire command of the sea but rather to utilize its command of the sea to achieve supremacy on the land. More specifically, it is to apply naval power to the decisive strip of littoral encircling the Eurasian continent. This means a revolution in naval thought and operations. For decades the eyes of the Navy have been turned outward to the oceans and the blue water, now the Navy must reverse itself and look inland where its new objectives lie. This has, however, been the historical outlook of navies which have secured the uncontested control of the seas, and as Admiral Nimitz has pointed out, during the period of British domination "it is safe to say that the Royal Navy fought as many engagements against shore objectives as it did on the high seas." It is a sign of the vigor and flexibility of the Navy that this dificult change in orientation has been generally recognized and accepted by naval writers and the leaders o fhe naval profession.

The application of naval power against the land requires of coarse an entirely different sort of Navy from that which existed during the struggles for sea supremacy. The basic weapons of the new Navy are those which make it possible to project naval power inland. Those appear to take primarily three forms:

1. carrier based naval air power, which will in the near future be capable of striking a thousand miles inland with atomic weapons;
2. fleet-based amphibious power, which can attack and seize shore targets, and which may, with the development of carrier based air lifts, make it possible to land ground combat troops far inland; and
3. naval artillery, which with the development of guided missiles will be able to bombard land objectives far removed from the coast.
   

The navy of the future will have to be organized around these basic weapons, and it is not Utopian to envision task forces with the primary mission of attacking, or seizing, objectives far inland through the application of these techniques.

National Policy and the Transoceanic Navy, Proceedings, May 1954, Samuel Huntington

We learn from history, and the folly of memory loss by those who attempt to emphasize "new" absent the context history provides. OK, granted the inclusion of nuclear weapons was specific to 1954, and the Soviet Union no longer exists, but the need to strike a thousand miles inland still exists... and one could replace Soviets with someone else, change a few places of geography, and this is still applicable advice for maritime strategy. This is the second time we have quoted from this Huntington article recently, and I assure you it will happen at least two more times. Written in 1954, the article applies directly to 2008 in too many ways to count.

The challenge facing shipbuilding today is what type of fleet to build, and what should that fleet look like in order to address both the operational and strategic requirements of the current era. The question is loaded, because we must account for an existing shipbuilding plan, a fiscally constrained budget, a rising China, an increasingly confrontational Russia, a global economic system enjoying many decades of relative global peace, and oh by the way... we are engaged in two land wars which have stretched the Army and Marines about as much as possible.

What needs to be replaced? First, the existing LHAs are on the way out, they are very old. By the end of the year, USS Peleliu (LHA 5) will be the only Tarawa class LHA remaining, and will be replaced by the new USS America (LHA 6). The Navy would normally build LHA 7 during the next 5 years, although configuration has not been decided. Another ship is dire need of replacement is the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates, which are essentially barely armed 200+ crew member ships with a flight deck. These ships are expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, and have almost no practical use beyond securing against the least of the threats at sea. Also worth noting, the coastal minehunters have all been retired, and the Navy is actively retiring Los Angeles-class nuclear powered attack submarines that are reaching end of life. We won't even both listing all the old logistics ships, or note the Sea Basing ships to be built, only to note the number of ships retiring is not small and that the Sea Base is going to be expensive.

What is your budget for replacement? According to the GAO, an average of about $13 billion a year, or put another way, about $65 billion between FY10-FY14 (5 years). We note that of that $65 billion, around $10 billion will be used for one new CVN, while another $20 billion will be used to purchase 10 Virginia class submarines. That leaves roughly $35 billion to buy new ships with.

A new LHA(R)s will cost between $3.5 and $4 billion, while T-AKEs cost around $400 million. The LCS is expected to cost $550 million per, while we have no idea what a new DDG-1000 or DDG-51 will cost, $3.5 billion and $2 billion respectively is a fair estimate we think. A new LPD-17 runs around $1.7 billion, while a new SSN on top of the 2 purchased each year would go for about $2 billion.

Looking for more purchase options? The LM LCS for Israel runs around $500 million, so we will say with NVR, etc... a LM/GD combat LCS version will run same as the LCS, $550 million. Sea Fighter (FSF-1) is always popular, but a sixth rate Sea Fighter with 16 VLS and 8 Harpoons with NVR would run around $300 million. You cannot buy European ships, because Congress says no.

Given Huntington's advice, the Navy's existing plan, the operational considerations, the Maritime Strategy, and $35 billion over 5 years... what would be your shipbuilding plan, and why? The FY09-1FY13 plan the Navy released in this budget year can be found here for comparison. Remember, we are talking about 5 years from FY10 - FY14 here, but it should be part of a larger strategy.

If you have a blog, you can use it instead of comments and use trackback.

Why this exercise? Because we are curious how our readers see things. Are we big picture or singularly focused? Are we worried about confronting China in the South China Sea, or Africa? Are we worried about piracy and terrorists, or Russia? How do we account for South America? How do you embrace the major emerging naval capabilities like unmanned technology and ballistic missile defense? How important are the MEB requirements from your perspective, and is it a sealift or amphibious assault issue from your POV? When it is your turn to make the call, which call do you make? Use the charts if you need them. Should be interesting.

Still Looking for Light at the End of the Tunnel

Tim Colton has the LPD-18 INSURV report, and it isn't pretty.

The Board of Inspection and Survey conducted the final contract trial of USS "New Orleans", (LPD 18), last week. This ship was "delivered" on December 22, 2006, 20 months ago, and its warranty has expired. Attached are the INSURV team's report - here - and a "Stoplight" summary - here. Note the opening sentence: "USS NEW ORLEANS WAS DEGRADED IN HER ABILITY TO CONDUCT SUSTAINED COMBAT OPERATIONS." Please read the whole thing. It's very depressing stuff. It's as if nothing on this ship works properly. The Marine Corps should raise hell.

This week the USS San Antonio (LPD 17) will be making its first deployment, and the expectation was the USS New Orleans (LPD 18) would be making her first deployment in the beginning of 2009, although this could change those plans. We have recently seen some positive news with USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19) and USS Green Bay (LPD 20), but we note these ships were built on budget and on scheduled, while the first two were not.

Just in case you think we are approaching the bottom and there is no where to go but up, lets take a quick review. LCS-1 and LCS-2 are both brand new classes of ships. DDG-1000 and DDG-1001 will be dual first classes of ships, so no lessons learned there, and GAO suggests lessons won't be learned by the time any DDG-1002 is built either (PDF). The MLPs for the Sea Base concept is a new class of ship. Both the Navy and the Army versions of the JHSV will be new classes of ship. The T-AKRs for the Sea Base will probably be a new class of ship.

There are also some new classes based on evolution, for example LHD-8 is an evolved version of LHD 1-7. LHA6 will be a new class based on an evolution from LHD-8, and there is talk LHA 7 will be different than LHA 6. CVN 78 will be an evolution from the Nimitz class. The T-AKEs for the Sea Base are supposedly evolutions of existing T-AKEs. Any new DDG-51s would be very slight evolutions of existing DDG-51 Flight IIAs.

Of all the ships in the current shipbuilding plan, only the Virginia class submarines and T-AKEs are the only programs that have reached maturity with a proven design.

If you think we have reached a low point in shipbuilding, your nuts. It is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, because even all those 'evolutionary' designs are relatively new.

Moskva Returns to Sevastopol

I don't see any noticeable damage in these pictures. Whatever damage the Georgian's supposedly did was superficial at best. These are very high resolution so click for a better look. All in all though, these are some of the best close ups I've seen of the Moskva in a long time.


There are persistent rumors that Moskva has spent the last several days in port at Novorossiysk rather than at sea. No way to confirm, I've seen pictures of Moskva said to be docked at Novorossiysk and implied as current, but I note those pictures were taken during the exercises in July, because I saw the same pictures back in July.

With the bulk of the Black Sea Fleet back in Sevastopol, the possibility of an incident between Russia and NATO is very low. Navy Times is reporting that the USS McFaul (DDG 74) has dropped anchor in the Georgian port of Batumi. The destroyer is reportedly carrying 80 pallets containing 55 tons of humanitarian assistance. Noteworthy in the report is that it reports the Georgian Embassy as suggesting five US ships are expected to deliver aid to Batumi this week Begs the question, if two are USS Mount Whitney (LCC 20) and USCGC Dallas (WHBC 716), what are the other two ships?

You can see pics here of cheering Russians from the shoreline, however I want to put a disclaimer up, the last photo on the other side of that link should be criminal... as some women should not be allowed to wear bikini's.

5th Fleet Focus: Groundhog Day Off Somalia

About a month ago, the US Navy had a press conference in Bahrain and suggested the Navy would be increasing its presence off Somalia. We don't know what happened with that, but when news broke yesterday that a German Tanker was hijacked by pirates, it became the sixth ship to be hijacked since that announcement.

Eagle1 has been tracking all of the piracy activities, including the four tankers hijacked this week. Responding to the increase in piracy, Bloomberg is reporting the Navy is going to deploy more ships and aircraft off Somalia.

Western coalition warships and aircraft will conduct patrols to boost security in the Gulf of Aden, the U.S. Navy said, after pirates hijacked a German ship off Somalia's coast -- the sixth such seizure this month.

"The idea is to counter and deter destabilizing activity in the area," Lieutenant Stephanie Murdock, spokeswoman for the U.S. Fifth Fleet, said in a telephone interview today from Bahrain. "It's part of the plan to help with regional security in the area. This is an area which we're keeping an eye on."

Bottom line, coalition naval forces aren't able to aid victims and nobody is stepping up to stop it. often with coalition warships passing right next to hijacked ships. There is no political will in the west to stop piracy, and the rules of engagement are so restrictive that even when pirates are identified at sea, coalition forces simply scare them away.

We have not seen any evidence that Somalian pirates are linked to global jihad movements, however we do note that if things continue without action on the part of coalition Navies, the jihad will soon be able to go to sea, and that can lead to serious trouble.

Islamist rebels seized control of a port in southern Somalia on Friday after 70 people died in fighting, the worst in months, that started Wednesday night, residents said. The last two days were particularly bloody, with the insurgents battling a pro-government militia in the southern port of Kismayu and similar clashes breaking out in the capital, Mogadishu. "Kismayu is under our control. We overpowered them and concluded the fighting," said Sheik Mukhtar Robow, an Islamist spokesman.

Al Qaeda has been calling for Naval Terror Cells for the last three months. Maybe we are mistaken, but it seems to us that by taking a port, that capability has been enabled. The US Navy could very soon find itself doing some shooting, but it won't be near Georgia or Iran.

Photo of the Day: Special Boat Team 22 (SBT-22)

Description: Special Warfare Combatant-craft Crewmen assigned to Special Boat Team 22 (SBT-22) conduct live-fire immediate action drills.

Check out more photos of riverine operations.

Photo Caption: FORT KNOX, Ky. (Aug. 11, 2008) Special Warfare Combatant-craft Crewmen assigned to Special Boat Team 22 (SBT-22) conduct live-fire immediate action drills at the riverine training range at Ft. Knox. SBT-22 operates the special operations craft-riverine and is the only U.S. special operations command dedicated to operating in the riverine environment. (U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Kathryn Whittenberger/Released)

Global Naval Operations: Order of Battle

Blog note: This post substitutes for our usual weekend 5th Fleet Order of Battle.

With naval forces deployed in Georgia, the Persian Gulf, the Pacific, and South America, and with so much disinformation being put out on the internet regarding US Navy activities, we thought we would give a general update of global Navy operations. Forgive me if I don't cover your ship.

In South America the US Navy is currently involved in two operations. The first is PANAMAX 2008, an annual exercise that simulates the protection of the Panama canal against attack. Participating in PANAMAX 2008 is the USS Tarawa (LHA 1) , USS Farragut (DDG 99), USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98), USS Kauffman (FFG 59), USS Devastator (MCM 6), USS Chief (MCM 14), and the USCGC Harriet Lane (WMEC 903).

The second current operation in South America is Operation Continuing Promise involving the USS Kearsarge (LHD 3).

In the Pacific the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike group has departed Malaysia. If we were guessing we would say the Ronald Reagan CSG is on its way to the 5th Fleet to relieve the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group that has been operating there for the last four months. That is a guess, but the Lincoln CSG deployed in March and is rapidly approaching the end of its deployment, and will be heading back soon. With no US carrier currently deployed in the Atlantic the Reagan makes the most likely replacement in the 5th Fleet to support operations in both theaters of war. The Reagan CSG consists of the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), USS Chancellorsville (CG 62), USS Gridley (DDG 101), USS Decatur (DDG 73), USS Thach (FFG 43), and the USS Springfield (SSN 761).

The Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group consists of USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), USS Mobile Bay (CG 53), USS Russell (DDG 59), USS Shoup (DDG 86), USS Momsen (DDG 92), and USS Curts (FFG 38).

The USS George Washington (CVN 73) has departed San Diego and is on its way to her new home port in Japan. This deployment would allow the Reagan to redeploy to the 5th Fleet.

The Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group is still in the 5th Fleet, but may soon be getting relieved by the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group. The Peleliu ESG deployed in early May, so they are only about half way through their deployment, but news today is that the Iwo Jima ESG will deploy next week. Given the time overlap, the Iwo Jima ESG may operate either in the Med or around Africa before relieving the Peleliu ESG, although that is purely speculation.

The Peleliu ESG consists of the USS Peleliu (LHA 5), USS Dubuque (LPD 8), USS Pearl Harbor (LSD 52), USS Cape St. George (CG 71), USS Benfold (DDG 65), and USS Halsey (DDG 97).

The Iwo Jima ESG consists of the USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7), USS San Antonio (LPD 17), USS Carter Hall (LSD 50), USS Vella Gulf (CG 72), USS Roosevelt (DDG 80), and USS Ramage (DDG 61).

Already forward deployed in the 6th fleet, by now you are no doubt aware that the USS McFaul (DDG 74) and USCGC Dallas (WHBC 716) are in the Black Sea on a humanitarian deployment to Georgia.

Also deploying into the Black Sea is Standing NATO Maritime Group ONE consisting of the Spanish frigate SPS Juan de Borbon (F102), the Polish frigate ORP General K. Pulaski (272), the German frigate FGS Lubeck (F214), and the US frigate USS Nicholas (FFG 47). These ships will visit the ports of Constanza in Romania and Varna in Bulgaria in the west Black Sea where they will do exercises with both Navies. SNMG-1 is also scheduled to make port in İstanbul for training during its Black Sea tour. These ships are not expected to visit Georgia and these activities had been scheduled and approved with Turkey back in October of 2007.

USS Barry (DDG 52) deployed two weeks ago and will do a tour with Standing NATO Maritime Group TWO. It is worth noting that usually SNMG-1 operates in the northern Atlantic and SNMG-2 operates in the Mediterranean Sea, but with SNMG-1 in the Black Sea it is unclear where SNMG-1 will be operating.

Other naval news. INS Delhi (D61), INS Talwar (F40), INS Godavari (F20) and INS Aditya (A59) are currently deployed off east Africa and are expected to make port in Mombasa, Kenya followed by Darasalam, Nigeria and other ports including Madagascar. Some of these ships are expected to participate in Malabar 08 in October.

FGS Pegnitz (M1091) and FGS Laboe (M1097) and FGS Main (A515) have taken up UNIFIL duties off of Lebanon.

HMS Lancaster (F229) departed Portsmouth yesterday and will be replacing HMS Montrose (F236) currently operating in the Persian Gulf. HMS Portland (F79) is reportedly preparing for deployment, and is suspected of relieving HMS Kent (F78) currently on a Far East deployment.

HDMS Absalon (L16) has a port visit scheduled in Malta on August 26-28, after which she is expected to operate with Task Force 150. HMCS Iroquois (DDH 280) and HMCS Calgary (FFH 335) are operating in Task Force 150, while HMCS Ville de Quebec (FFH 332) is escorting ships for the World Food Program instead of participating with SNMG-1 in the Black Sea.