An Interesting Case Study in Readiness

This article from Phil Ewing on the Insurv prep for USS San Jacinto (CG 56) is interesting. Several parts to highlight, which I'll touch one at a time.

For the Norfolk, Va.-based cruiser San Jacinto, it took the ship’s company, plus as many as 87 extra people from 16 commands working as much as three months in advance, to set the ship up for its material inspection by the Board of Inspection and Survey. A Navy message detailing those arrangements, written by the cruiser’s commander, Capt. John Cordle, made clear that without the extra help, San Jacinto would have failed.

“Bottom line: The maintenance community is not currently structured and the business practices do not currently support the large volume of work which inevitably must take place to prepare a ship for InSurv,” said the message, obtained by Navy Times. “The significant labor pool which rallied in support of SJA contributed greatly to preparations for the M.I. Without this additional manpower SJA would not have been ready for the M.I.”

This is the manpower issue.

According to Cordle’s message, cruisers today have about 44 fewer sailors than before the onset of “optimal manning.” And because San Jacinto had recently come back from a deployment, its ship’s company was even smaller, Butler said.

He didn’t have an exact number of the deficit in the ship’s crew, but generally the dip can be as many as 20 people.

"Optimal Manning" needs to focus on what is optimal to keep the material condition of ships fit to fight. If ships are not in condition to pass Inserv, then your manpower configuration is not optimal. There is a debate between shipbuilding and readiness here that deserves a lot of attention by Congress.

Senator Webb has been all over this issue lately, one can bet this Navy Times article is on his desk ready for the next hearing in the Senate. This will come up again.

The cruiser San Jacinto needed help from 16 commands throughout Naval Station Norfolk, Va., to get ready for its inspection. The commands that shared people and the number of sailors they gave, from 30 to 90 days before the inspection:

Enterprise Carrier Strike Group, 4; carrier Enterprise, 4; cruisers Leyte Gulf, 1; Monterey, 1; Vella Gulf, 2; destroyers Bulkeley, 1; Gravely, 10 people per day for 90 days; Jason Dunham, 10 people per day for two weeks; Ramage, 1; Roosevelt, 1; dock landing ship Carter Hall, 2; amphibious assault ship Nassau, 1; Cruiser Class Squadron, 3; Destroyer Class Squadron, 10 people per day for 90 days; Transient Personnel Unit Norfolk, 10 people per day for 90 days; Navy Reserve: 26 sailors for a total of 511 workdays.

It is unclear where this information reported by the Navy Times comes from, but if it is from Capt. John Cordle in his report, then that guy has earned a beer. It is basically an accounting of the mess he found himself leading up to the inspection, and a list of rabbits he pulled out of the magic hat to get his ship ready for successful inspection.

He shouldn't have been in this situation though. The Navy may have found a magic formula to stabilize shipbuilding costs for the near term, but this story reminds us that the magic formula to fix the maintenance issues is yet to be found. Clearly a bit of realism in the "optimal manning" discussion is part of the yet to be determined magic formula.

For the record, this is yet another reason why moving quickly to build a bunch of Littoral Combat Ships is a recipe for disaster. That ship class has two undermanned crews and an untested maintenance plan, or what I would call a perfect brew for a future dumpster fire.

Remembering the Largest Naval Battle in World History

It was the largest naval battle in world history, and it has a little bit of everything to prove it. The Battle of Leyte Gulf included five major naval battles: the Battle of Palawan Passage, the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea, the Battle of Surigao Strait, the Battle of Cape Engañ, and the Battle off Samar.

The Battle of Palawan Passage - The USS Darter (SS-227) and USS Dace (SS-247) intercepted the Japanese "center Force" near Palawan Island around 5am on October 23, 1944. The USS Darter (SS-227) is credited for sinking the Japanese flagship, the heavy cruiser Atago, and the USS Darter (SS-227) is credited for causing heavy damage to the heavy cruiser Tatao. The USS Dace (SS-247) is credited for sinking the heavy cruiser Maya. THe Tatao was ordered to return to port with two destroyers. A Japanese fleet of five battleships, ten heavy cruisers, two light cruisers, and fifteen destroyers had lost 3 heavy cruisers and 2 destroyers in 45 minutes thanks to the actions of two submarines. The submarines later chased the crippled cruiser and two destroyers, but the USS Darter (SS-227) ran aground. Her crew was rescued by the SS Dace (SS-247).

The Battle of the Sibuyan Sea - On October 24, 2024 Halsey's 3rd Fleet flew 259 sorties against the remaining ships of the Japanese center force in the Sibuyan Sea. While the American pilots scored several hits on several ships of the Japanese fleets, damage to the Japanese was light and ultimately concentrated on only two ships. The super battleship Musashi was sunk after having her steering crippled, and the cruiser Myōkō was crippled. Every other ship of the Center Force survived the attacks.

The Battle of Surigao Strait - The last battle where battleships faced battleships in a gun dual. The Japanese force, divided into two groups, consisted of two battleships, three heavy cruisers, one light cruiser, and eight destroyers. The US Navy had six battleships, four heavy cruisers, four light cruisers, twenty eight destroyers, and thirty nine PT boats. THe US 7th fleet was able to cross the T of the Japanese battleline, and ultimately sink every ship except for one destroyer.

The Battle of Cape Engañ - A Japanese "Northern Force" consisted of four heavy aircraft carriers, three light carriers, two hermaphrodite carriers that had flight decks in the rear of WWI era battleships, three light cruisers, and nine destroyers faced off against Halsey's 3rd fleet. In 527 sorties, the US sank one heavy carrier, two light cruisers, and one destroyer. One heavy cruiser and one light cruiser was crippled in the fighting. The light cruiser and a destroyer were later sunk by a US surface action squadron, while the heavy cruiser was later sunk by the USS Jallao (SS-368).

The Battle off Samar - The morning of OCtober 25, 1944, the "Center Force" consisting of of four battleships, six heavy cruisers, two light cruisers, and thirteen destroyers turned south after crossing the San Bernardino Strait that night. That force encountered Rear Admiral Clifton Sprague's Task Unit 77.4.3 (Taffy 3) consisting of six escort carriers, three destroyers, and four destroyer escorts. In a final tally, the Japanese lost three heavy cruisers while a fourth heavy cruiser and three battleships were damaged severely enough they never saw action again in the war. A Japanese destroyer was sank late that night by surface forces of Halsey's 3rd fleet. Taffy three lost two escort carriers, two destroyers, and one destroyer escort.

This summery is little more than statistics, and does nothing to capture the essence of the largest naval battle in history. The Battle for Layte Gulf was both less and more than this summery does justice. Not only was it the most lopsided victory by the US against the Japanese Navy in WWII, it is more often remembered as one of the greatest blunders in Command in US Navy history in the criticism of ADM Halsey.

I've read dozens of books on this battle, and would recommend at least ten of them. This is probably my favorite. Check out EagleOne's Sunday Ship History and CDR Salamanders Fullbore Friday, as both take a look at the Battle of Leyte Gulf as we remember the largest battle in naval history.

USS Barry Port Visit to Poti

The USS Barry (DDG 52) arrived in Poti over the weekend instead of move with the other ships of SNMG-2 towards Somalia. Below is the Russian news report of the ships arrival.

The ship would have departed port today. It will be interesting to see if USS Barry (DDG 52) rejoins SNMG2 once the USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55) arrives in the Mediterranean Sea.

H/T Russian Naval Blog

An Armada Masses Off the Horn of Africa

I was encouraged to read Nitin Pai's article in the Mail, because an expert voice on the Indian position regarding piracy in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean is a lot harder to come by in the Indian press than you might think.

But as far as tracking what the Indian Navy is doing since being allowed to commit forces to operations off Somalia, the details are a bit fuzzy. INS Tabar (F44), a modern Talwar class frigate, might be stealthy by warships standards but MK 0 eyeballs have been watching the ship operate in the region for a few weeks now. The Times of India confirmed the presence of INS Tabar (F44) on Friday, and suggested reinforcements are on the way.

Sources said another warship has now been dispatched from Mumbai to replace INS Tabar, a Talwar-class guided-missile stealth frigate, which was already patrolling the Gulf of Aden to protect "Indian interests" in this "strategic choke point" of the Indian Ocean Region.

The presence of helicopters and elite marine commandos, trained for covert combat missions, on board the warships tantalisingly points to the possibility of a mission being mounted to rescue the 18 Indians on board the Japanese-owned Stolt Valor, which was hijacked by Somali pirates on September 15.

That Times article by Rajat Pandit is excellent by the way, because it goes into some detail regarding what India can do based on international law, and what India is doing to conform to the law. A very good read.

Quietly I have been hearing over the weekend that negotiations between India and Somalian government officials have been proceeding quickly, and may either be close to completion or already completed. That is one reason why when the Naval Open Source Intelligence blog linked this article (from a source I'm not very familiar with btw), while I'm a bit skeptical... this is very possible.

Indian warships with guided missiles, which were dispatched from Mumbai, have begun patrolling in the Gulf of Aden near Somalia, according to sources in the Indian Navy in Mumbai.

The warships, said to be six in numbers, have been sent to the Gulf of Aden to protect Indian merchant vessels from pirates passing through the Gulf of Aden, even though the fate of the 18 Indians sailors on board the Japanese-registered ship “Stolt Valor” in Somali waters still hangs in balance.

The Indian warships have on board helicopters and elite marine commandos, trained for covert operations. The Indian naval presence in the Gulf of Aden also signals to the world that India has now the military might as well as the capabilities to hit hard at any enemy target, Balaji Rao, a defense analyst, told Arab News.

Six ships? If that is accurate, then that would explain why so many were scratching their head when early press reports suggested only the INS Ganga (F22) was being deployed. The Indian Navy doesn't have a reputation of doing anything small in the Indian Ocean, nor undertaking naval operations without logistics, so this report could be accurate. We will have to wait and see, but six ships would be a significant Indian naval operation, perhaps the largest military operation since the 2004 tsunami.

The big issue that has the Indian government bothered is the domestic pressure on the government by shipping industry unions. There are tens of thousands of Indian sailors worldwide, and they were threatening to strike unless the government took action. That is exactly the kind of economic problems India is looking to avoid, and with the problem in the Indian Ocean there have been some pretty critical quotes on the subject in the Indian press. Some go straight to the point, asking the purpose of such a large Navy for India, if in fact the government is 'too weak' to use it. It is a legitimate question actually, the Indian Navy is 21 destroyers and frigates, 24 corvettes, and is not only building 2 aircraft carriers, but 8 more destroyers and frigates AND 8 more corvettes.

The Indian Navy currently has 156 ships and 35 under construction, ranking it in the top 5 in the world in total numbers. In terms of numbers of modern ships, the Indian Navy will soon have more aircraft carriers, more amphibious ships, more major surface combatants, more submarines, more ships in the flotilla, and a larger auxiliary than any Navy in Europe, including Britain, Russia, and France. True they will not be as advanced in terms of technology, but a decade of buying American could change that in a hurry for India.

We will have to wait to find out whether this report is legitimate and just how many ships India has sent to Somalia, but with the arrival of SNMG-2, the numbers of naval ships off Somalia is rising considerably. South Korea will be sending its own delegation to Somalia to work out its own legal assessments with the Somalian government, and determine whether they will be sending naval power to the region. If it is decided South Korea will send naval power, it won't take long, the KDX-II destroyer KOKS Dae Joyeong (DDH 977) is currently in Egypt with a a Cheonji-class oiler. While Malaysia had sent three ships to the Somalian coast last month, it is unclear if those ships have returned home or not.

Regardless, as you start adding up the ships, one can start to count up between 20 and 30 naval ships pretty fast. France has 6 ships, SNMG2 is 7, the Danes and the Dutch each have a ship, and the Royal Navy has at least two warships that could be there. The US Navy has one Carrier Strike Group and one Expeditionary Strike Group in the area, and don't forget the Russians are coming. India has at least 1 ship there with at least 1 more ship coming, potentially six more. The USS Barry (DDG 52) could be sent down once the USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55) arrives in the Med. This is before adding in South Korea with two nearby, or Malaysia with three there very recently, and don't forget Singapore has a LST in the Persian Gulf.

When you do the math, this is slowly developing into the most significant international naval operation since the 2004 tsunami. Should be interesting to observe.

Observing Two Fleets in Motion

The Taiwan Defense Minister is discussing the movements of the US Navy in the Pacific, and if he is to be believed the US Navy will be operating 2 aircraft carriers near Taiwan and China through at least the next 6 weeks. From Navy Times.

Two U.S. aircraft carriers will remain deployed in waters near Taiwan to ensure a smooth transition of government in Taipei amid heightened regional tensions, Taiwan Defense Minister Michael Tsai said Wednesday.

Tsai told a parliamentary session that the Kitty Hawk and Nimitz will stay in the “Western Pacific” near Taiwan after deploying here since shortly before the island’s March 22 presidential election.

“The deployments have their strategic significance,” Tsai told lawmakers, citing what he said was the U.S. Pacific Command’s position that “the period between March 22 and May 20 is an uncertain time for the Taiwan Strait.”

Taiwan’s President-elect Ma Ying-jeou will be inaugurated May 20.

What is interesting about this development is that while it is implied the ships are staying at sea because of China, I'm not so sure. From all indications there is a bit of naval diplomacy taking place with China right now, and the signs aren't aggressive. The USS Lassen (DDG 82) visit to Shanghai is a good example, in observing the various port visits the US Navy is concentrating its forces in interaction with the Chinese, not in intimidating the Chinese. It is an interesting approach, a good sign actually, but because so many heavy naval forces are staying at sea there is an implication for purpose.

I think that purpose and the Navy focus in the Pacific is about North Korea. It was barely reported less than two weeks ago when North Korea decided to shoot off some missiles unannounced. Even less well reported is the rhetoric right now between the North and South, and I post the original Korean to highlight the North isn't being taken out of context.

“우리식의 앞선 선제타격이 일단 개시되면 불바다 정도가 아니라 모든 것이 잿더미로 된다는 것을 명심해야 한다”고 경고했다.“우리식의 앞선 선제타격이 일단 개시되면 불바다 정도가 아니라 모든 것이 잿더미로 된다는 것을 명심해야 한다”고 경고했다.

Translation:

“Our military will not sit idle until warmongers launch a pre-emptive strike,” an unidentified military commentator said in a statement carried by the North’s official Korean Central News Agency. “Everything will be in ashes, not just a sea of fire, once our advanced pre-emptive strike begins.”

The comment came in response to this comment by South Korean Gen. Kim Tae-young.

The North Korean demand came a day after it test-fired several short-range missiles off the West Coast, apparently to protest the Lee Myung-bak administration's hardening policy toward the Communist country.

In a National Assembly confirmation hearing last Wednesday, Gen. Kim Tae-young, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), said: ``The important thing is that we have to find the enemy (North Korea)'s nuclear facilities and strike the area.''

Kim was answering a question by a lawmaker of the governing Grand National Party (GNP) who asked: ``What are our countermeasures if North Korea attacks the South with small-sized nuclear weapons?''

I know, tit for tat and it's all rhetoric, no biggie. While that is true, we have been observing the food aid agencies highlighting the weather problems over the winter in North Korea, in particular the storms and flooding. People don't like to talk about climate change because the debate of the causes are very political, however the tendency to concentrate on the causes of climate change distracts from the real effects of weather patterns, and there real effect due to weather patterns in North Korea this year.

Eagle1 highlighted last week the predictions that North Korea is expecting severe food shortages this year. The political change in South Korea has adjusted the stance of the South Koreans this year also, and they currently have no plans to simply feed the North Koreans while their government acts irresponsibly regarding its nuclear program. We don't blame them, North Korea is basically holding 16+ million people hostage and starving those hostages to death for political leverage against their neighbors. If the food shortage predictions turn out to be true, this is going to create a lot of problems.

While conventional wisdom might suggest that the Olympic Games being held in China creates political problems for China from western countries, we are starting to observe some analysis from Chinese observers that suggests the biggest problem during the Olympic Games will not in fact be western nations, but potentially North Korea who tries to capitalize on the attention the Olympics brings to the region. This isn't to suggest the North will invade South Korea, rather attempt to make threatening gestures (shoot off missiles) and create international attention for themselves during the Olympic Games. If the people are starving to death, they may not have to fake the problem, and the last thing China needs to be dealing with during the Olympics is an unstable neighbor whose citizens are attempting to flood across the border.

As we lead up to the Olympic Games, there are 3 other Carriers currently in the Pacific discussion. The Reagan Carrier Strike Group has completed all of its pre-deployment training and exercises. If the schedule holds, Reagan will deploy before July. The USS George Washington (CVN 73) has deployed for its move to Japan to replace the USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63). GW is deployed with a minimum number of escorts which are not expected to make the trip to Japan, and all three ships will be spending at least the next 6 weeks or so around South America conducting exercise with nations there.

The Lincoln CSG has passed Guam and is on its way to the Persian Gulf where it will join the Truman CSG. It takes a lot of time to deploy from Washington state to the Middle East, and it will be interesting to see how many exercises the Lincoln CSG participates in along the way. The timing is interesting, because the Truman CSG deployed on November 5th, and based on that date the Truman CSG would be expected to stay in the 5th Fleet region until late May before returning to Norfolk. That implies there will be two US Navy aircraft carriers operating in the Gulf region for a few weeks during the month of May, unless the Lincoln CSG makes some stops along the way.

Speaking of activity, the Navy is doing a nice job of putting excellent photography on their website regarding the activity of the Atlantic fleet the last few weeks. For example, there is the deployment of the USS Anzio (CG 68), USS Barry (DDG 52), USS Donald Cook (DDG 75), USS Nicholas (FFG 47), and USS Taylor (FFG 50) who are transiting the Atlantic Ocean to participate in Joint Warrior 081. Joint Warrior is a United Kingdom-led multi-national warfare exercise in the North Atlantic designed to improve interoperability between allied navies as well as to prepare for a role in combined operations during upcoming deployments.

Also seen in photos lately is the USS Normandy (CG 60), who is currently operating with HMS Ark Royal (R7) off the east coast. Additional excellent photography recently posted includes USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55), USS Monterey (CG 61), USS Mason (DDG 87), and USS Sullivans (DDG 68).

While it isn't abnormal for several ships to be at sea off the east coast, it is abnormal to have so much photography of it. We aren't sure of the purpose, but we like it.

6th Fleet Focus: Security Does Not Substitute Defense

Eagle1 spotted an excellent article by Thomas P.M. Barnett regarding a global maritime network for sea born traffic monitoring and information sharing strategy being forwarded by Admiral Ulrich. The analogy is described as:

Worldwide, aircraft are transparent, because they're all required to carry an "identification friend or foe" beacon that allows them to be tracked leaving and entering airports by aircraft-traffic-control systems and monitored between airports by sensors distributed across a global network. Trip the wire that defines "suspicious activity" and somebody's fighter aircraft will soon be on your tail. NATO alone routinely launches two or three fighters a week to identify unknown aircraft.

No such pervasive system currently exists globally for maritime traffic. If a ship any bigger than a small freighter is flagged by a nation belonging to the International Maritime Organization, it carries an ID beacon similar to aircraft. But without a shared monitoring network, that's like tracking only selected commercial jets part of the time and giving everyone else a pass.

This blog is in full support of this initiative, I believe it is a key enabler for security across the spectrum for maritime commerce, and I think Admiral Ulrich deserves credit for pushing the concept, particularly in the African maritime domain, where it can do a lot of good.

Then I read this quote, and can't shake that tightening feeling in the pit of my stomach.

"I don't do defense; I do security," he (Ulrich) says. "When you talk defense, you talk containment and mutually assured destruction. When you talk security, you talk collaboration and networking. This is the future. This is the thousand-ship navy, except there are no ships."

In any context, that is a scary statement. Not only do I disagree with his simplistic characterization of what defense is, I think he is clearly saying something profoundly...dumb, since he is substituting security for defense.

I'm not really sure what "collaboration and networking" means, but security is not a substitute for defense. If "collaboration and networking" means anything similar to international partnership in mutually agreed cooperation, and security provided by such framework is being treated as a substitute for defense, then I have a serious problem regarding what he should be doing compared to what he is doing.

With the rhetoric regarding Iran hitting a fever pitch, we have the top guy in U.S. Naval Forces Europe claiming he doesn't do defense? We could potentially be months away from the largest naval actions since the Battle of Leyte Gulf, with economic ramifications well beyond the impact of 9/11, and Ulrich thinks his role in defense is limited to containment and mutually assured destruction? Sir, your articles in Proceedings have shown you to be a thoughtful person, but in the media you give a completely opposite persona.

This doesn't give me much confidence, in fact it is flat out frightening that the Navy would have a 4 star Admiral seemingly repeating the same mistakes thought to be lessons learned by the 1930s era Navy. History is full of examples where mutually agreed security failed to provide for defense, examples for the United States would include Washington Naval Treaty, also known as the Five-Power Treaty, among others. If US Navy leaders, and it is hard to call Admiral Ulrich anything but a naval leader due to his command, are seriously treating global mutually agreed maritime awareness of commercial traffic security initiatives or the 1000-ship fleet security initiative as a substitute for defense, they are building a Maginot Line at sea in false belief they are defending the nation.

Am I making something out of nothing? Maybe, but it is a bit troubling that the last merchant ship and the last warship to get hit by an anti-ship missile happened in Ulrich's area of responsibility, just last year and by a group closely associated with the before mentioned Iran. It was just last month the most recent sea mine was found and destroyed, also in his area of responsibility. Those aren't "security" issues, those are "defense" issues, and no amount of security substitutes exist as substitutes for the defense strategies required to counter these real and present dangers,

We don't live in an 'either/or' world. The Navy and its leaders had better be taking serious both security AND defense, or the strategy is wrong, and we are on a road of surprise not seen in the Navy since 1941. How Ulrich allowed such a stupid thing to not only fly out of his mouth, but get reported by a reporter who is clearly sympathetic to him leaves me searching for the confirmation of Vice Adm. Mark Fitzgerald, which in my opinion, can't come soon enough.

Admiral Ulrich deserves credit for his security initiatives which are very smart and will make a positive impact if implimented, but he is first and foremost a US Navy 4 star Admiral. If he has lost focus on his primary responsibility, which would be the defense of the United States of America and our interests, it may be time for him to move into a more academic role where his ideas can be promoted without the apparent distraction of his primary responsibility.

Fire on Cruiser in Drydock

First reported as an explosion, the fire on the USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55) appears less serious. These types of industrial accidents happen, and honestly it is a credit to quality of American shipyard workers it doesn't happen more often.

Five shipyard workers were injured, some burned, on Saturday when fumes "flashed" into a small fire aboard the guided missile cruiser Leyte Gulf.

"There's nothing to believe it's suspicious," said Battalion Chief Bruce Evans, a spokesman for Norfolk Fire-Rescue. "It was an industrial accident."

The incident, at 9:29 a.m., came as the ship is undergoing modernization. It is docked at BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair, in the 700 block of Berkley Ave.

"It was a fairly small incident," Evans said, although it initially drew national attention as news networks reported that there had been "an explosion" aboard the warship.

"No way does this appear linked to any type of terrorist activities," Evans said.

He said crews, working in a berthing area two decks below the main deck, were using a lacquer thinner to strip floors.

Fumes from the cleaning materials built up and ignited, investigators from the shipyard and the fire department determined, Evans said Saturday night.

He said there really wasn't a "big boom" of an explosion. Rather, there was a loud noise - more like a "woomph" - when the fumes ignited.

Exactly what sparked the fumes could not be determined, however, Evans said.

They may not know what ignited the fire yet, but they will find the cause. The USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55) returned from its last deployment on November 18, 2024 with the USS Enterprise Strike Group, but went into a maintenance period and did not deploy with the Enterprise CSG this summer. The extent of the damage remains unknown, but historically we don't learn the extent of the damage in industrial accidents to warships until the investigation is complete and cost of damage is released.