Along with other reporting and data, recent Personnel Tempo, or PERSTEMPO trends illuminate cracks in the Navy’s readiness. As previously noted in this blog, Bataan, Mesa Verde and Whidbey Island are on their way to setting records with 10.5 month deployments. For those not familiar with Navy deployment patterns who might try to view these data in the context of recent 12-15 month Army deployments, I’ll try to add a bit of context on why anecdotal evidence and other statistics are a harbinger for future problems.
Partly as a result of the post-Vietnam “hollow force” of the late 1970s, the Navy began tracking PERSTEMPO in 1985 and has kept detailed data on these trends ever since. Past Center for Naval Analysis PERSTEMPO studies demonstrated that six month deployment lengths and 2:1 turn around ratios (or dwell, as its now called in joint parlance) are optimal for balancing forward deployed presence, allowing ships enough time to receive depot-level maintenance, and sustaining retention and morale for Sailors who are generally assigned to 3-5 year periods of sea duty. Prior to 2007, deployments longer than six months required CNO approval. As with other standards in DOD, when they can’t be met regularly, they are often redefined. The attached graphic shows these trends up to 2004. One thing not illustrated in this slide is how ship numbers have declined in relation to PERSTEMPO increases. In 1991, during Desert Storm, the shipcount was 529 ships. In 2004 at the end of the graphic, it was 292. Today, it's only 284.
I haven’t seen recent data on PERSTEMPO “busts” or CNO waivers, but we know that the new PERSTEMPO instruction extended the deployment length limit to seven months and shrunk dwell to 1.0:1 between deployments. And more than a few ships seem to be tripping those limits. Another interesting data point is the number of ships deployed at any given time. After running approximately 30% of the force deployed on any given day for decades, today 36% of the force is deployed away from home station, a figure previously seen only during wartime surge periods such as Desert Storm, immediately prior to Iraqi Freedom, etc. A detailed analysis of recent PERSTEMPO trends might make for an interesting NPS Thesis…
In the late 1990s, the realization occurred to the Navy that PERSTEMPO data demonstrates how frequently platforms and units are deployed, but doesn’t account for the amount of time individual Sailors are away from home. In response to Congressional concerns, an attempt to capture this data, and possibly even compensate Sailors for excessive time away, resulted in the creation of a system called “ITEMPO.” However after 9/11, this system was simply ignored as unworkable, because the limits set were frequently broken with war time requirements such as individual augmentee deployments. Therefore, it’s difficult to measure the actual strain of time away from home on each Sailor over the course of a career.
It should be noted that unlike the Army, the Navy (and Marine Corps) was heavily deployed prior to 2001 - albeit with more ships and aircraft - and will continue extended deployments for operational forces following the Afghan withdrawals scheduled for 2014. This pattern is the nature of what makes naval forces responsive and ready - continuous forward presence.
However now, the Combatant Commanders’ global demands for deployed naval forces are higher than current the ship count can sustain. Sooner or later, something will give, resulting in either a (more) precipitous decline in readiness due to maintenance problems, retention, or a combination of both. History demonstrates that what likely won’t give are these presence requirements, or the Navy’s obligation and inclination to fill them. So we seem to be left with two choices: a pending readiness disaster; or to simply build more ships. A force of less than 300 ships does not bode well for maintaining the US Navy’s status the world’s premier sea power. The exact force composition, high-low mix, etc. has been and should continue to be debated, but the fact that we can’t sustain maritime primacy without more ships and submarines should be clear to all by now.
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 US Navy, or any other agency.
No comments:
Post a Comment