Senator Mark Warner of Virginia gave a speech this morning to the Northern Virginia Technology Council in which he suggested that the defense industry shared blame (with the legislative and executive branches, presumably) for sequestration. Here's the key graph:
“We have muffed this thing four times,” Warner said. “We blew it on
the debacle, that was an embarrassment to be in Congress, on the debt
ceiling. We blew it on the supercommittee. We blew it when they
undermined the bipartisan efforts, and candidly, we blew it on New
Year’s Eve. And yeah, we ought to get 80, 90, whatever percent of the
blame. But you ought to take some of the blame too.
“Because every
time there’s been efforts to try to build a broader coalition to say
let’s go ahead and take this on, and get out of our individual political
foxholes and get out of our individual industry foxholes, most of y’all
have said, ‘Well, I don’t want to’ anger ‘this guy or that guy or this
chairman or that chairman".
No doubt, Senator Warner accurately describes the efforts of industry lobbyists and influence peddlers; what he does not get right is that those activities are not appreciably different today (or in the past few years) than in the years preceding them. What changed was the utter incompetence of the leaders on the Hill and in the White House to do what has always been expected of them--and that is reach agreements.
The pain we are now beginning to feel as a result of both the Continuing Resolution and the looming sequester is a surprise to no one in authority in the Department of Defense. The cancellation of a deployment, the postponement of a nuclear refueling, the detriments to Army readiness--all of it was knowable AND KNOWN months ago, before the election. Yet time and again, DoD officials spoke in vague generalities about what would happen while assiduously asserting that no sequestration planning was ongoing. What DID happen was that when a major defense contractor made preparations to send required notice to employees that their termination may be in the offing as a result of the sequester, the full weight of the Labor, Justice and Defense Departments came down on that contractor like a ton of bricks for even hinting at the very horrors that the Administration now dramatically grasps to its beating heart in order to win additional tax revenue as the price for any spending restraint.
No Senator Warner--it may make you feel good to share some portion of the blame for where we are with the defense industry. Perhaps it would make you feel better to apportion some share of it to the American people whose judgment resulted in the legislative stalemate we now endure. But the fault is yours--along with your colleagues of both parties and the President. Your suggestion that it is otherwise is weak.
Bryan McGrath
Friday, February 8, 2024
Hard to Believe
Dear Families and Friends of TRUMAN,All indications are that Captain Roth found out that USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) and USS Gettysburg (CG 64) were not deploying on Wednesday, the same day the press broke the news to the public. This is the official DoD press release.
As you may know, the Secretary of Defense announced yesterday afternoon his decision to delay the deployment of the Harry S. Truman Strike Group, which was scheduled for tomorrow.
At this moment, I do not know when we are set to deploy. However, as we start to receive more information and as dates start to solidify, we’ll be sure to inform your Sailors.
With our uncertain schedule, my focus is on our larger TRUMAN Team - our Sailors and their families. You have all done such a wonderful job preparing for a February deployment in an accelerated work-up cycle. From arranging long-term storage of your vehicle to changing your housing situation, I appreciate all the actions you took in order to ensure you were ready for extended time away from your loved ones.
I understand the impact this sudden change has on all of us, both logistically and emotionally. It is important to recognize the heightened stress levels we may all feel and seek healthy ways to cope with this change. We are committed to taking care of all of our Sailors and their families. For our single Sailors, we are investigating lodging opportunities ashore. Our Family Readiness Group, Ombudsmen and the Fleet and Family Support Center are always great resources available for you.
It is also significant to note that TRUMAN’s mission has not changed. We are still required to provide combat power from the sea and be ready when our nation calls us into action. Although we have been certified to deploy after successfully completing our Composite Training Unit Exercise, taking care of our Sailors and their families will always be a priority that will enable us to fulfill this mission. Additionally, we’ll continue to maintain our war fighting proficiencies through various training opportunities.
In the meantime, your Sailors have additional time off this weekend to take care of personal affairs. Whether it’s reinstating their cell phone plan or simply being with their families, it’s important to take time to decompress and make necessary adjustments.
I thank you so much for your flexibility, which I truly believe contributes to the strength of our Navy. You have certainly endured a few significant changes to our schedule. However, I have seen Team TRUMAN assemble into a well-oiled machine like no other. The nation asked us to be ready, and we are more ready now than ever. The love and support of our families have gotten us through each day, and knowing that you are by our sides provides us the motivation and fighting spirit to accomplish the mission.
I am proud of each and every one of your Sailors. Team TRUMAN is ready to overcome all obstacles, meet all challenges and give ‘em hell!
Sincerely,
Bob
CAPT S. Robert Roth, USN
Commanding Officer
USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75)
“The secretary of defense has delayed the deployment of the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), Norfolk, Va., and the USS Gettysburg (CG-64), Mayport, Fla., which were scheduled to depart later this week for the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility.So let me get this straight, the US Navy was who asked OSD to cancel the deployment because of the budget, which of course implies the US Navy was completely unprepared for the impact of the Truman deployment to the budget and somehow couldn't get approval until just two days before the aircraft carrier deployed? If that is true, and I am struggling to believe it is, members of Congress should be demanding the head of whatever Admiral in the Navy or individual in OSD screwed over sailors for huge amounts of money. More than 5000 sailors on those ships have each spent hundreds of dollars preparing for a deployment and the Navy, facing well known budget problems, couldn't cancel the deployment before sailors had to spend all that money?
“Facing budget uncertainty -- including a continuing resolution and the looming potential for across-the-board sequestration cuts -- the U.S. Navy made this request to the secretary and he approved. This prudent decision enables the U.S. Navy to maintain these ships to deploy on short notice in the event they are needed to respond to national security contingencies.
“The United States will continue to maintain a robust military presence in the CENTCOM region, including the current carrier presence and a mix of other assets, to fulfill enduring commitments to our partners. The U.S. military continues to stand ready to respond to any contingency and to confront any threat in the region.”
The Navy doesn't like the budget situation, but I reject as an assumption the Navy is so completely unprepared for the budget situation that they would screw 5000 sailors intentionally by waiting to the 11th hour to cancel an aircraft carrier deployment. There must be more going on that we don't know for this to make any sense.
I find it a bit hard to believe Navy leadership was who was pushing for this. If the Navy wanted to cancel a deployment, the Navy would have made the request over a month ago and put a hard deadline in mid January, before sailors started spending their money for storage, canceled cell phone subscriptions, etc. in preparation for the deployment.
So what we are led to believe is the cancellation of the deployment has nothing to do with anything except the budget? There are other events going on though, for example, the Administration is suddenly pushing General Mattis out of CENTCOM (see here, here, and here). I also find it hard to believe that only a few days after the SECDEF nomination hearing the Navy is supposedly pushing to cancel an aircraft carrier deployment, the implication being the Navy is pushing for the Navy to be used less. It has been reported that CENTCOM has reduced the 2 carrier requirement to a 1 carrier requirement in the region, but if I remember correctly, General Mattis was who asked for the 2 carrier requirement to be met.
Based on the DoD press release the Navy is apparently so disorganized and unprepared for the budget challenges facing the Navy, and despite the whole country being aware of the tight budget situation, the Navy needed to wait until more than 5000 sailors had spent their money preparing for deployment - the last possible moment - to cancel an aircraft carrier deployment.
That doesn't really sound believable when you say it out loud. Blaming the budget looks more like a convenient distraction.
At the same time we are seeing Mattis being pushed out, CENTCOM requirements for naval presence suddenly changing, and Hagel on his way in as the new SECDEF the US Navy is supposedly advocating for less US Navy? Seriously, who believes that? Sorry, but that DoD press statement is either total bullshit and spin, or someone in the Navy needs to be fired for being completely unprepared for the budget situation.
Bottom line, if that DoD press statement is true, either OSD or the Navy is led by unprepared, incompetent fools, because that is basically what the press statement is saying if OSD and the Navy didn't react to budget problems until 2 days before an aircraft carrier with 5000 sailors was set to deploy. Yes, I realize I am repeating the same point... because if you say it a few times to yourself and think about it, the budget reasons cited don't make any sense.
Unless people whom I know to be really smart have suddenly become really incompetent, it looks to me like there is a lot more going on than what is being said.
Thursday, February 7, 2024
Panetta, Dempsey, and Syria
Outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey were on the Hill today, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) directly asked them if they had an any point supported arming anti-Assad rebel forces in Syria (something the President has thus far publicly resisted). Both Panetta and Dempsey indicated that they had.
This of course, played right into Senator McCain's narrative, who appeared surprised by their direct and forthright answers. That the President had the temerity to overrule the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs rankled Senator McCain, who said later in a press release, "What this means is that the president overruled the senior leaders of his own national security team.”
Good for the President; so far, he is acting with wisdom on Syria, even in the face of the advice of many of his senior advisers. Assad's a bad guy but the Rebels aren't a bunch of schoolboys. Mr. Obama seems to recognize this, and he is moving with caution on a matter that is not vital to our national interests--at least not yet. Mr. McCain's suggestion that a President over-ruling his advisers should somehow be looked at askance strikes me as a fundamental misunderstanding of just who is in charge.
We've discussed Republican foreign policy a bit in the past few weeks here on this blog, and we've seen quite a bit of it on display this week--book-ended by Senator McCain's activist stance at today's hearing and Senator Rand Paul's decidedly less-activist musings at Heritage earlier in the week. Neither approach is a long-term winner for Republicans, and it is my hope that the Party begins to coalesce around a "via media" that places at its center the principle of strong American leadership, yes--exceptionalism--and then assiduously asserts that vital national interests--properly understood--are what drive our foreign policy.
Left to Mr. McCain, Republican foreign policy would over-extend the nation and deplete its energies on lesser undertakings. Left to Mr. Paul, the remaining power that the US does have at its disposal would slowly deteriorate, as the bar for its use steadily raised its price. In both cases, the U.S. would ultimately end up weaker and less influential than it is now.
Before the good Lord takes him, George H.W. Bush and his team should hold a seminar for up and coming Republican foreign and defense policy thinkers about how the world's most influential superpower selectively engages based on its interests. It is active on the world scene, it respects, shapes and leads international organizations, it acts when it should and it takes a pass on those issues that are secondary to its interests. It is strong and unapologetic, but humble and collegial. It is tolerant of other cultures and approaches, but without resorting to relativism. It recognizes that Western Civilization has had a profoundly important impact on the lot of the average human on this earth, but that those who practice it do not have the market cornered on good ideas, or goodness.
Mr. Obama appears to practice some of the tenets I would claim for a Republican foreign policy, but in his statements and speeches, he skips the opportunity to defend Western values while scoffing at America's exceptional place in the world. He is--at his heart--a selective engager, and that is why I believe his foreign policy has generally been one of the more successful elements of his Presidency. Were Republicans to marry this general approach to a more direct and activist leadership role in the world, the makings of a sustainable foreign policy would appear.
Bryan McGrath
This of course, played right into Senator McCain's narrative, who appeared surprised by their direct and forthright answers. That the President had the temerity to overrule the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs rankled Senator McCain, who said later in a press release, "What this means is that the president overruled the senior leaders of his own national security team.”
Good for the President; so far, he is acting with wisdom on Syria, even in the face of the advice of many of his senior advisers. Assad's a bad guy but the Rebels aren't a bunch of schoolboys. Mr. Obama seems to recognize this, and he is moving with caution on a matter that is not vital to our national interests--at least not yet. Mr. McCain's suggestion that a President over-ruling his advisers should somehow be looked at askance strikes me as a fundamental misunderstanding of just who is in charge.
We've discussed Republican foreign policy a bit in the past few weeks here on this blog, and we've seen quite a bit of it on display this week--book-ended by Senator McCain's activist stance at today's hearing and Senator Rand Paul's decidedly less-activist musings at Heritage earlier in the week. Neither approach is a long-term winner for Republicans, and it is my hope that the Party begins to coalesce around a "via media" that places at its center the principle of strong American leadership, yes--exceptionalism--and then assiduously asserts that vital national interests--properly understood--are what drive our foreign policy.
Left to Mr. McCain, Republican foreign policy would over-extend the nation and deplete its energies on lesser undertakings. Left to Mr. Paul, the remaining power that the US does have at its disposal would slowly deteriorate, as the bar for its use steadily raised its price. In both cases, the U.S. would ultimately end up weaker and less influential than it is now.
Before the good Lord takes him, George H.W. Bush and his team should hold a seminar for up and coming Republican foreign and defense policy thinkers about how the world's most influential superpower selectively engages based on its interests. It is active on the world scene, it respects, shapes and leads international organizations, it acts when it should and it takes a pass on those issues that are secondary to its interests. It is strong and unapologetic, but humble and collegial. It is tolerant of other cultures and approaches, but without resorting to relativism. It recognizes that Western Civilization has had a profoundly important impact on the lot of the average human on this earth, but that those who practice it do not have the market cornered on good ideas, or goodness.
Mr. Obama appears to practice some of the tenets I would claim for a Republican foreign policy, but in his statements and speeches, he skips the opportunity to defend Western values while scoffing at America's exceptional place in the world. He is--at his heart--a selective engager, and that is why I believe his foreign policy has generally been one of the more successful elements of his Presidency. Were Republicans to marry this general approach to a more direct and activist leadership role in the world, the makings of a sustainable foreign policy would appear.
Bryan McGrath
Iran vs. the World
It's been an interestingly under-reported week for the shadow war between Iran and well, pretty much every Western nation. First, Bulgaria is set to place the blame on Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah for last year's bus bombing against Israeli tourists. Of more interest to maritime-inclined audiences,
on 23 January, Yemen (with a little help from 5th FLEET) intercepted and boarded an Iranian dhow which according to SECDEF was smuggling a treasure trove of weapons - including modern manpads - likely to northern Yemen's Houthi rebels. The Huthis are Shia co-religionists who have waged at various times a hot and cold insurgency against Yemen's Sunni government. The Houthis are a small island of Shia on the mostly-Sunni Arabian Peninsula so unsurprisingly, the Saudis intervened in 2009 when the conflict began to get out of hand.
The video above shows some of the weapons from the interdicted vessel, which according to Yemeni authorities include:
"1) 199 explosive packages used for IEDs, in addition to electronic circuits, wires, transmitters and 12,495 12.7mm bullets for DSHK heavy machine gun.
2) Automatic rifle suppressors "silencers" effective for ranges less than 150 meters and 2,660 Kilograms of RDX explosives.
3) G9 artillery range finder and optics for land-sea targets with a 40 KM range and 7x military binoculars.
4) 122-mm Grad-type Katyusha rockets and Strela 1\2, Misagh-2 surface to air missile (SAM) and RBG 7 rockets.
5) 2,786 C4 packages (16,606 strips of explosives) and remote "bomb triggers" devices and 124,080 bullets 7.62mm.
6) PN-14K Night vision optic sights and laser range finders and other Iranian made goggles."
Iran uses pretty much whatever methods it can to smuggle arms to surrogates to fight its proxy wars, but the sea has historically been a favorite path. Despite the ongoing international counter-piracy presence in the Indian Ocean, the maritime rat lines between Iran and the Red Sea/Med are largely intact, and successful interceptions like the above operation require a concerted, multi-lateral effort.
With Syria falling apart, Iran's ruling Mullahs have very few remaining friends in the world. Other than the usual third party suppliers (China, Russia, DPRK) that will hawk their advanced weapons systems willy nilly to whomever is willing to pay - including Iran's surrogates - there is little support for this increasingly desperate regime. It is only a matter of time (admittedly, it could be a long time) until the Iranian people are able to undo the raw deal they've had from their leadership since 1979.
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.
on 23 January, Yemen (with a little help from 5th FLEET) intercepted and boarded an Iranian dhow which according to SECDEF was smuggling a treasure trove of weapons - including modern manpads - likely to northern Yemen's Houthi rebels. The Huthis are Shia co-religionists who have waged at various times a hot and cold insurgency against Yemen's Sunni government. The Houthis are a small island of Shia on the mostly-Sunni Arabian Peninsula so unsurprisingly, the Saudis intervened in 2009 when the conflict began to get out of hand.
The video above shows some of the weapons from the interdicted vessel, which according to Yemeni authorities include:
"1) 199 explosive packages used for IEDs, in addition to electronic circuits, wires, transmitters and 12,495 12.7mm bullets for DSHK heavy machine gun.
2) Automatic rifle suppressors "silencers" effective for ranges less than 150 meters and 2,660 Kilograms of RDX explosives.
3) G9 artillery range finder and optics for land-sea targets with a 40 KM range and 7x military binoculars.
4) 122-mm Grad-type Katyusha rockets and Strela 1\2, Misagh-2 surface to air missile (SAM) and RBG 7 rockets.
5) 2,786 C4 packages (16,606 strips of explosives) and remote "bomb triggers" devices and 124,080 bullets 7.62mm.
6) PN-14K Night vision optic sights and laser range finders and other Iranian made goggles."
Iran uses pretty much whatever methods it can to smuggle arms to surrogates to fight its proxy wars, but the sea has historically been a favorite path. Despite the ongoing international counter-piracy presence in the Indian Ocean, the maritime rat lines between Iran and the Red Sea/Med are largely intact, and successful interceptions like the above operation require a concerted, multi-lateral effort.
With Syria falling apart, Iran's ruling Mullahs have very few remaining friends in the world. Other than the usual third party suppliers (China, Russia, DPRK) that will hawk their advanced weapons systems willy nilly to whomever is willing to pay - including Iran's surrogates - there is little support for this increasingly desperate regime. It is only a matter of time (admittedly, it could be a long time) until the Iranian people are able to undo the raw deal they've had from their leadership since 1979.
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.
Wednesday, February 6, 2024
More Speed!
The Navy’s fifth Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), Milwaukee, will be the first to benefit from new high-power density waterjets aimed at staving off rudder and propeller damage experienced on high-speed ships.Hopefully Dr. Ki-Han Kim is talking specifically about waterjets being the future of LCS, and not the fleet. Here is the problem.
The product of an Office of Naval Research (ONR) Future Naval Capabilities (FNC) program, the waterjets arrived last month at the Marinette Marine shipyard in Wisconsin, where Milwaukee (LCS 5) is under construction.
“We believe these waterjets are the future,” said Dr. Ki-Han Kim, program manager in ONR’s Ship Systems and Engineering Research Division. “Anything that we can do to keep ships ready to go will ultimately benefit our warfighters.”
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert’s 2013-2017 Navigation Plan calls for fielding improved ships to support counterterrorism and irregular warfare missions at sea and ashore. The LCS will play a big role in the Navy’s plan as a modular, adaptable vessel for use against diesel submarines, littoral mines and attacks by small surface craft.
Waterjets are incredibly loud, as in they can be so loud that a ship with waterjets is probably going to significantly reduce the effectiveness of a bow sonar. For LCS, the point is mute, because there is no bow mounted sonar... and waterjets is why there never will be.
Now ONR is going to deliver super waterjets, which may increase the speed of LCS a knot or two, who knows. Here is the problem though - waterjets are still loud like a rock concert, and one of the primary missions of the LCS is to hunt littoral submarines.
When will this program start being about mission and stop being about features?
If I was a submarine captain, I am pretty sure the safest place in blue water is going to be underneath a Littoral Combat Ship on diesels, because not only can the ship not hear or detect the submarine, but nobody else is going to hear a thing except these super awesome waterjets. Just saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)