Sunday Funnies

PEO LCS at their latest Command Picnic demonstrates the Singapore deployment through interpretative dance.

Senior Leadership: Doing it right

Forget all the "stand downs." Delete all the CMEO emails you don't read anyway; ditto the messages.

Forget the mind-numbing PPT and video that substitute for leadership and accountability and the cowardly acceptance of the worst smears from media and Congress.

You want to see how you deal with it? Want a benchmark?

Here you go; listen to this video from the Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison, AO, to the Australian Army coming on the heels of the announcement on Thursday, 13 June 2013 of civilian police and Defence investigations into allegations of unacceptable behaviour by members of the Australian Army.

This is how it is done. It doesn't take hours and days. It doesn't take reams of paper.

This is how a leader does it.

Pull quote:

"The standard you walk past is the standard you accept."

Hat tip Chuck.

Fullbore Friday

It has been six years - time to remind everyone that it wasn't too long that even Belgium could rise to the occasion. Time for a nice FbF best of;

---

Today, ... we will remember plucky Belgium. OMC sent me this awhile ago, and it tells a story not well known. 

Forget the image you have of the castrated Belgium of today; the Belgium that spends much less than 2% of her GDP to defend herself and whose Capitol's most popular name for newborn boys is Mohammed - no think of what was - and give them credit. Why credit? They held so others could bring victory.

In 1936 Belgium started its policy of "Armed Independence", which is different than a policy of strict neutrality. The Policy of "Armed Independence" was highly supported by the Belgian people even if it meant that 25% of the national budget was spent on the military and that in times of economic recession. Nor Britain or France were able to outline such a policy. In both countries military expenditures were highly criticized by public opinion until it was too late.

The inability of the French and British government to react when Germany re-occupied the Rhine-land had brought the German army at the Belgian-German border. The international agreements were broken (Locarno pact). At that time Belgium was the only country prepared to help France in case of a war with Germany. But France didn’t react, as Britain didn’t want to support a war.

Before 1936 Belgium was obliged to help France or Germany when the other attacked the other one and vice versa. French generals and politicians saw Belgium not as an independent state but as the ideal battleground to fight another war with Germany. As tensions grew all over Europe Belgium needed a policy which was supported by the majority of the Belgian people, "Armed Independence".

The majority of the Belgians were against the Germans, but also against the French and this goes back to what happened after WOI, where Belgium was completely forgotten by the French in the Versailles Treaty. Also by not extending the Maginot Line at the Belgian-French border, the French practically invited the Germans to attack France through Belgium. The Belgian government asked the French government, on several occasions, to extent the fortifications, but as the French post-war commission wrote the French military preferred to fight the war with Germany in Belgium. This refusal resulted in a growing mistrust of the French by the Belgian population.

The British government supported in the 1930's the Belgian policy. The following is written in official documents of the Foreign office: The military built-up in Belgium, and the strengthening of their defenses, increases their chances to remain neutral, an attitude, which is beneficial for France and for ourselves.

In 1940 Belgium would have the best-prepared army in its history. Even Germany was impressed by the military built-up in Belgium and Hitler counted to need one million troops to defeat the Belgian army. While Belgium was doing an extraordinary effort to strengthen his army, Britain was following a policy of "no responsibility". Or in military terms, in the winter of 1939 the British Expeditionary Force was only 152.000 men strong. In May 1940 the BEF counted only 237.000 men. If it had spent the same proportional amount of its national budget on the military as Belgium, Britain would have had an army of 4.8 million men strong.
...
When on the 10th of January German military plans were captured when a German plane crashed, Belgian King Leopold III was prepared to accept allied troops in his country if the following conditions were agreed:

* Peace negotiations are not started without Belgian participation
* Belgium's integrity and of his colonies would be guaranteed after the war
* Financial support when Belgium needed to rebuilt his country after the war

For the British government (except Churchill) these conditions were unacceptable. The French decided that they didn't need to wait for an invitation and if Holland was attacked would march into Belgium with or without Belgian approval. The speech of Churchil on the 30th March stating that the neutral countries were scared to chose a side was an insult to the efforts which Belgium had done regarding its military efforts far more greater than Britain or France.

Short sighted politicians in the face of evil is not unique to our age.

The Belgian army counted 650 000 men (22 divisions). With another 150 000 men drafted in May 1940 to be sent to France to form reserve units. Totaling 800 000 men out of a population of 8 million In comparison it was three times a strong as the BEF (British Expeditionary Force). The majority were infantry divisions (all around 17 000 men strong), 2 divisions "Ardense Jagers" which were considered by the Germans as elite units, 2 divisions Cavalry (motorized infantry), a heavy artillery division, and several specialized regiments.

It started in a beautiful part of Europe on a beautiful day.

10/11 May 1940: Battle at the Albert-Canal.

On a sunny day WWII started for Belgium. The Germans obtained tactical surprise by attacking without any warning a large number of military targets and succeeded in destroying most of the already small Belgian airforce on the ground. It succeeded in taking two bridges over the Albert-canal and destroyed the strong fortress of Eben-Emael.

Read it all - read about the 17 days of an incredible fighting retreat.

Battles at the Lys River: At the Lys river the most fiercest battles of the Belgian campaign occurred.

While the battles at the Derivation canal took place 6th Army of Von Reichenau attacked the positions of the Belgian troops at the Lys river. The Belgian troops had extended their front to Menin to link up with the British front. Both fronts formed a 90° angle. The British front was diagonal with the German attacking direction. Which made the German left flank very vulnerable to British flank attacks and British artillery

The Belgian front was held here held by two divisions. The 1st (only 7000 men left) and 3rd (only 6000 men left) division and the 10th in reserve. The lack of material was even worse (no radios, few machine guns left). The divisions were supported by twenty artillery formations, something the Belgians still had plenty. These two divisions faced 6 German divisions and one division (7th) in flank protection against the British front.

Already on the 23rd of May the Germans made contact. The whole day and night the German artillery bombed the Belgian positions and the sky was full of German planes. The Germans lost on the 23rd 16 planes over this area, which is an accomplished as the Belgians didn’t have any plane in the sky. The Belgian artillery also participated and as usual dominated the German one. Several German units designated to attack the next day were replaced because the casualties they had taken by the Belgian artillery.

24th May: On the 24th of May 6 German divisions attacked the Belgian positions near the city of Kortrijk. The first attempt of the 30th division failed completely, as did the second, third and fourth one. But after two hours, 26inf managed to cross the river after sustaining very high losses in men and material. At two other places the German division managed to get over the Lys river, at Bavikhove (German 19th division) and Beveren. After a day of fighting the Belgian troops needed to retreat here, but some units remained fighting off the Germans until being eliminated. In the history of the German 30th division is written, "the resistance was much higher than expected"

Between Kortrijk and Menin the 31st German division attacked and managed to break through the Belgian front of the 1st division. The town of Bissegem was lost. The front was lost here as the Germans were now attacking two regiments in the flank. The Germans created a bridgehead of 3km long. The 1st division received units to perform a counterattack to retake Bissegem, but these units could only move slowly to their attacking positions because of the constant Stuka attacks. Still they managed to stop the German breakthrough and reduced the German Bridgehead(4km long and 3km depth)

The main German attack took place around Kortrijk. 4 German divisions, the 18th, 14th, 19th and 30th smashed in the front of the Belgian 3rd division. The 3rd division put up a tenacious fight, defended every meter, and inflected heavy casualties to the German troops. The division itself sustained heavy casualties and its defenses cracked everywhere. The German commander of the 18th division would later write that the attack against this elite Belgian division was very hard and costly.

It wasn’t an elite division, hell it wasn’t even on half it strength. The 3rd division was starting to give away when it supporting artillery fell out of ammo. The supply convoy had been destroyed by another air attack. At 21.00 P.M remnants of the division retreated behind the Roulers canal, leaving a temporary breach of 9 km in the front.

Between the Kortrijk area and the Derivation canal the Germans attempted also to cross the Lys river. The German 255th division failed completely. The German 216th division managed to get a foothold over the river by using two regiments (348 and 396 infantry) but they were quickly beaten back by the precise shooting of the Belgian artillery. The German commander wrote, "The enemy shoots with such a precision that we were only able to retreat back over the Lys river during the night"

25th May: On the 25th of May the Germans had created two bridgeheads, only separated by a small corridor in the Kortrijk area. This corridor included the city of Kortrijk itself. Still the city of Kortrijk was evacuated as it was endangered by encirclement. Belgian troops were moved from other places of the frontline to strengthen this sector, as there were no reserve units left.

A fight to the end.

On the 27^th May Belgian command realized that the situation was hopeless and that the army was on its last legs. The army couldn’t dislodge anymore and casualties increased by the day. The supply situation was dramatic. While for many different weapon types there was simply no ammo left, the real problem was that the German Luftwaffe had gradually paralyzed the supply convoys.
The information coming from the corps commanders to the Belgian high command on the 27^th was dramatic:

• The I Corps reported that is was endangered to be encircled
• IV corps was heavily attacked
• V and VII corps reported enemy breakthroughs and that their front was broken
• With other corps commanders contact was lost

It was cleat that the Belgian army was falling apart.
In the evening of the 27^th of May negotiations started and unconditional surrender was accepted. The cease-fire started at 4.00 A.M the next day.

And what did that buy?

The battle at the Lys river had been very costly for the Belgian army as it had sustained 40.000 casualties (4000 KIA, 36.000 WIA), but it had managed to disturb the Germans plans and had aided, without their knowledge, in the escape of the BEF at Dunkirk.

Dunkirk. With not an hour to spare, the nucleus of the Army and the Allied forces that would liberate Europe 4 years later was saved. Saved by the Belgian Army.

Even Empty Gestures Tell Stories

As painful as it is, you need to read it all.

A few points that came to my mind.

1. Just like the March of the Red Guards after tailhook with their paint brushes, dunce hats, and self-confessions - this reaction warps a real problem with hyperbole, agenda politics, and conflation of unrelated but fellow-traveller "issues." As a result, no real progress will be made.

2. Remember, this is based on bad science.

3. Ponder the manhours (if you can still use this term) that this will consume.

4. As per para 4.A, this is to be regular. "Regular" is not defined - but feel free to multiply #3 above by the crack-of-doom. Once something like this is started, it will never end.

5. What does this say about the Senior Leaderships view of their Company Grade, Field Grade, and Non-Commissioned Corps?

6. You are not being defended. No one have confidence in you or your chain of command. You are accused. You must prove your innocence. We will tell you if you are in violation.



7. Bask on this ... just bask;

COMMANDS SHOULD LEVERAGE THEIR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ADVISORS, STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATES, AND COMMAND COUNSEL WHEN DETERMINING WHAT MATERIAL CREATES A DEGRADING OR OFFENSIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT. COMMANDS SHOULD CONSULT THEIR STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE OR COMMAND COUNSEL ON ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE HANDLING OF CONTRABAND OR SUSPECTED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY REVEALED DURING THE INSPECTION.

Part of me wants to see the system punked and overwhelmed. Send everything to the JAG including all copies of the Torah, Bible, and Koran found - but we are not at that level of social disobedience quite yet. No, things will need to get much worse first, and they will.

After all ... if you are going to use such undefined and subjective concepts ... the power relies on those who make their specific subjective ... the objective.

R 072105Z JUN 13
FM SECNAV WASHINGTON DC
TO ALNAV

INFO ZEN/SECNAV WASHINGTON DC
ZEN/CNO WASHINGTON DC
ZEN/CMC WASHINGTON DC

SUBJ: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY COMPREHENSIVE VISUAL INSPECTION OF ALL DON WORKPLACES
UNCLASSIFIED/
FM SECNAV WASHINGTON DC
TO ALNAV
INFO SECNAV WASHINGTON DC
CNO WASHINGTON DC
CMC WASHINGTON DC

BT

UNCLAS

ALNAV 038/13
MSGID/GENADMIN/SECNAV WASHINGTON DC/-/JUN//
SUBJ/DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY COMPREHENSIVE VISUAL INSPECTION OF ALL DON WORKPLACES//
REF/A/DOC/SECDEF/MEMO/06MAY13//
REF/B/DOC/SECNAVINST/5300.26D/03JAN06//
REF/C/DOC/SECNAVINST/5350.16A/18DEC06//
REF/D/DOC/OPNAVNOTE/5400/SNDL/01OCT12//
NARR/REF A IS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE MEMO ON SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE. REF B IS SECNAVINST 5300.26D, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (DON) POLICY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT. REF C IS SECNAVINST 5350.16A, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY WITHIN THE DON. REF D IS

OPNAVNOTE

5400, STANDARD NAVAL DISTRIBUTION LIST.//
RMKS/1. IAW REF A, THIS ALNAV DIRECTS THAT THE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS (CNO), AND COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS (CMC) PERFORM A COMPREHENSIVE VISUAL INSPECTION OF ALL DON WORKPLACES TO ENSURE THEY ARE FREE FROM MATERIALS THAT CREATE A DEGRADING, HOSTILE, OR OFFENSIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT. INSPECTIONS OF ALL DON WORKPLACES, INCLUDING THE U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY, MUST BE COMPLETED NLT 28 JUNE 2013, AND INSPECTION RESULTS REPORTED TO ME BY 12 JULY 2013.

2. APPLICABILITY. THIS ALNAV APPLIES DON-WIDE. THE GOVERNMENT WORKPLACES OF ALL DON SAILORS, MARINES, AND CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES ARE SUBJECT TO COMPREHENSIVE VISUAL INSPECTIONS.

3. PURPOSE. ALL DON PERSONNEL SHALL BE TREATED WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT. AS STATED IN REFS A THROUGH C, FOSTERING A COMMAND CLIMATE FREE OF ALL FORMS OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION, INCLUDING SEXUAL HARASSMENT, IS ESSENTIAL TO MAINTAINING HIGH MORALE, GOOD ORDER, DISCIPLINE, AND READINESS. THE INSPECTIONS DIRECTED BY THIS ALNAV AIM TO ELIMINATE MATERIALS THAT CREATE A DEGRADING, HOSTILE, OR OFFENSIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND TO ENSURE A PROFESSIONAL WORKPLACE FOR ALL DON PERSONNEL.

4. PROCEDURES

4.A. AUTHORIZED INSPECTION LOCATIONS. ALL DON COMMANDERS, COMMANDING OFFICERS, OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE, AND CIVILIAN DIRECTORS SHALL DIRECT COMPREHENSIVE AND REGULAR INSPECTIONS OF ALL WORKPLACES AND COMMON ACCESS SPACES UNDER THEIR CONTROL FOR MATERIALS LISTED IN SUBPARAGRAPHS 4.D AND 4.E.

4.B. WORKPLACES INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:

4.B.1. OFFICE BUILDINGS, FACILITIES, NAVAL VESSELS, AIRCRAFT, GOVERNMENT VEHICLES, HANGARS, READY ROOMS, CONFERENCE ROOMS, INDIVIDUAL OFFICES, CUBICLES, STORAGE ROOMS, TOOL AND EQUIPMENT ROOMS, WORKSHOPS, BREAK ROOMS, GALLEYS, RECREATION AREAS, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS EXCHANGES, AND HEADS.

4.B.2. SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION FACILITIES, AND OTHER SECURE FACILITIES.

4.B.3. COMMON AREAS OF ON-BASE MILITARY BARRACKS AND BACHELOR QUARTERS, TO INCLUDE ONBASE PRIVATE-PUBLIC VENTURE (PPV) BARRACKS.

4.B.4. COMMON AREAS OF OFF-BASE PPV BARRACKS IF ENTRY/INSPECTION IS ALLOWED BY THE TERMS OF THE PPV AGREEMENT OR IF THE PPV OPERATOR ALLOWS ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE.

4.B.5. ALL DON SCHOOL HOUSES AND TRAINING FACILITIES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY, THE NAVAL ACADEMY PREPARATORY SCHOOL, OFFICER CANDIDATE SCHOOL, NAVAL RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS UNITS, THE BASIC SCHOOL, OFFICER DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL, RECRUIT TRAINING COMMAND, AND MARINE CORPS RECRUIT DEPOTS.

4.C. LIMITATIONS. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SPECIFIC INSPECTION, DON COMMANDERS, COMMANDING OFFICERS, OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE, AND CIVILIAN DIRECTORS WILL NOT INSPECT ASSIGNED GOVERNMENT LAPTOP OR DESKTOP COMPUTERS (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF VISIBLE SCREENSAVERS), ASSIGNED INDIVIDUAL BARRACKS ROOMS/LIVING QUARTERS, ASSIGNED DESK DRAWERS, ASSIGNED CABINET DRAWERS, CLOTHING (E.G., COATS), ASSIGNED LOCKERS, PURSES, BRIEF CASES, BACKPACKS, PRIVATE AUTOMOBILES, AND PERSONAL ELECTRONIC DEVICES (E.G., IPADS, IPHONES, ETC.).

4.D. REMOVAL AND DOCUMENTATION OF DEGRADING OR OFFENSIVE MATERIALS.

4.D.1. DON COMMANDERS, COMMANDING OFFICERS, OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE, AND CIVILIAN DIRECTORS WILL EFFECT THE REMOVAL OF MATERIAL THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD CONSIDER DEGRADING OR OFFENSIVE AND DOCUMENT ANY MATERIAL DISCOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF WORKPLACE INSPECTIONS.

4.D.2. DEGRADING OR OFFENSIVE MATERIAL INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED

TO, DOCUMENTS, LOGS, BOOKS, PICTURES, PHOTOGRAPHS, CALENDARS, POSTERS, MAGAZINES, VIDEOS, PROPS, DISPLAYS, OR OTHER MEDIA, INCLUDING ELECTRONIC MEDIA, THAT CONTAIN INAPPROPRIATE DEPICTIONS AND ARE DETRIMENTAL TO A PROFESSIONAL WORKING ENVIRONMENT.

4.D.3. DEGRADING OR OFFENSIVE MATERIALS ARE TO BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM THE WORKPLACE BY THE SERVICE MEMBER/CIVILIAN WHO POSSESSES SUCH MATERIALS OR BY THE RESPONSIBLE SUPERVISOR IF THE RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT PRESENT FOR THE INSPECTION.

4.D.4. APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINARY OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION MAY BE CONSIDERED IF AN INDIVIDUAL FAILS TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER TO REMOVE DEGRADING OR OFFENSIVE MATERIAL FROM THE WORKPLACE.

4.D.5. IF THERE IS DOUBT AS TO WHETHER MATERIAL IS DEGRADING OR OFFENSIVE, THE INDIVIDUAL CONDUCTING THE INSPECTION SHALL REMOVE THE MATERIAL FROM THE WORKPLACE TO ENSURE A PROFESSIONAL WORK ENVIRONMENT.

4.E. COMMAND SEIZURE AND DOCUMENTATION OF CONTRABAND.

4.E.1. INDIVIDUALS CONDUCTING THE INSPECTION WILL IMMEDIATELY SEIZE AND DOCUMENT ANY CONTRABAND DISCOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF WORKPLACE INSPECTIONS.

4.E.2. CONTRABAND INCLUDES MATERIALS THAT ARE PATENTLY LEWD, LASCIVIOUS, OBSCENE, OR PORNOGRAPHIC, AS WELL AS SUPREMACIST IMAGES, PUBLICATIONS, OR MATERIALS.

4.E.3. IF EVIDENCE OF A CRIME IS DISCOVERED DURING AN INSPECTION (E.G., CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, ILLEGAL DRUGS OR PARAPHERNALIA, UNAUTHORIZED WEAPONS, STOLEN PROPERTY, ETC.), INDIVIDUALS CONDUCTING THE INSPECTION ARE TO IMMEDIATELY CONTACT THE NAVAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE AND COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE STANDARD PROCEDURES.

5. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE

5.A. THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT WORKPLACE INSPECTIONS MAY BE DELEGATED TO AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL WITHIN A COMMAND, UNIT, OR ACTIVITY, BUT NO LOWER THAN THE E-7 OR CIVILIAN SUPERVISORY LEVEL. INDIVIDUALS CONDUCTING AN INSPECTION SHALL HAVE THE APPROPRIATE ACCESS AND CLEARANCE.

5.B. WHILE NOT THE FOCUS OF THIS INSPECTION, GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS REMAIN SUBJECT TO INSPECTION PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. COMMANDERS, COMMANDING OFFICERS, OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE, AND CIVILIAN DIRECTORS HAVE A CONTINUING RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES ARE IN PLACE WHICH PREVENT DEGRADING, OFFENSIVE OR UNLAWFUL MATERIAL FROM BEING STORED ON GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS.

5.C. DON COMMANDERS, COMMANDING OFFICERS, OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE, AND CIVILIAN DIRECTORS REMAIN RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE FOR ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ALNAV, AND MUST PROVIDE CLEAR GUIDANCE AND INTENT TO THOSE MEMBERS DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT INSPECTIONS.

5.D. EACH AREA AND PERSON AFFECTED BY THE INSPECTION IS TO BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME LEVEL OF INSPECTION.

5.E. COMMANDS SHOULD LEVERAGE THEIR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ADVISORS, STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATES, AND COMMAND COUNSEL WHEN DETERMINING WHAT MATERIAL CREATES A DEGRADING OR OFFENSIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT. COMMANDS SHOULD CONSULT THEIR STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE OR COMMAND COUNSEL ON ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE HANDLING OF CONTRABAND OR SUSPECTED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY REVEALED DURING THE INSPECTION.

5.F. WITH RESPECT TO PPV INSPECTIONS, INSTALLATION COMMANDING OFFICERS WILL COORDINATE WITH THE RESPONSIBLE PPV PARTNER.

5.G. DON COMMANDERS, COMMANDING OFFICERS, OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE, AND CIVILIAN DIRECTORS WILL INSURE THAT A COPY OF THIS ALNAV IS PROVIDED TO THEIR LOCAL BARGAINING UNIT PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE APPLICABLE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.

6. REPORTING

6.A. DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION TO SECNAV. THE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (FOR THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY), CNO, AND CMC WILL SUBMIT FINAL REPORTS OF INSPECTION RESULTS FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE CLAIMANCIES TO THE DON SAPRO NLT 12 JULY 2013.

6.B. INSPECTION RESULTS FROM EACH ECHELON SHALL REPORT THE AMOUNT AND TYPE OF INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL FOUND, THE LOCATION WHERE DISCOVERED (INDIVIDUAL WORKSPACE, COMMON WORKSPACE, OR ELECTRONIC MEDIA), AND HOW THE MATERIAL WAS REMOVED.

6.C. ALL COMMANDS SHALL DOCUMENT INSPECTION RESULTS USING THE STANDARDIZED REPORTING TEMPLATE THAT CAN BE DOWNLOADED AT:

HTTP://WWW.DONSAPRO.NAVY.MIL .

6.D. REPORT SUBMISSION

6.D.1. THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. THE HEADS OF ECHELON I COMMANDS/ACTIVITIES UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF SECNAV PER REF D SHALL RECEIVE AND CONSOLIDATE INSPECTION RESULTS FROM THEIR SUBORDINATE COMMANDS/ACTIVITIES, AND SUBMIT RESULTS TO THE DON ASSISTANT FOR ADMINISTRATION.

6.D.2. COMMANDS ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL (ADCON) TO CNO. ECHELON II COMMANDERS SHALL RECEIVE AND CONSOLIDATE INSPECTION RESULTS FROM THEIR SUBORDINATE COMMANDS/ACTIVITIES AS DELINEATED BY REF D, AND SUBMIT RESULTS TO DIRECTOR, NAVY STAFF.

6.D.3. COMMANDS ADCON TO CMC. ECHELON II COMMANDERS SHALL RECEIVE AND CONSOLIDATE INSPECTION RESULTS FROM THEIR SUBORDINATE COMMANDS/ACTIVITIES, AND SUBMIT RESULTS TO DIRECTOR, MARINE CORPS STAFF.

7. DON COMMANDERS, COMMANDING OFFICERS, OFFICERS IN CHARGE, AND CIVILIAN DIRECTORS WILL ENSURE THAT VISUAL INSPECTIONS OF ALL DON WORKPLACES ARE CONDUCTED ON A REGULAR BASIS, NOT LESS THAN ANNUALLY.

THE NAVAL INSPECTOR GENERAL AND DEPUTY NAVAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR MARINE CORPS MATTERS ARE DIRECTED TO REVIEW AND ADDRESS THIS ONGOING REQUIREMENT DURING REGULAR COMMAND INSPECTIONS AND ASSESSMENTS.

8. LEADERS AT ALL LEVELS ARE RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE FOR ENSURING DON WORKPLACES REMAIN PROFESSIONAL AND FREE FROM DEGRADING, HOSTILE, AND OFFENSIVE MATERIAL.

9. RELEASED BY RAY MABUS, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.//
BT

#4953

NNNN

Well Shipmates ... I guess the deployment Monty Python must go.



Funny, I was WAY ahead when I set this standard for myself in the early 1990s:
- Never live on base.
- Make your friends mostly civilian.
- Socialize with those in your command and community at an absolute minimum.
- Have a defined, inwardly focused, small, and self-supporting liberty team.

... and I was a pro-female, pro-DADT repeal well behaved type ... but as I saw in the early '90s with what happened to others, that wouldn't protect you if you had bad luck. All you can do in shift the odds in your favor..

Can't vs. Won't and the Canadian Conundrum

If you ever see a foreign designed ship that you wish we had in our Fleet, you always get a Tourette like response, "You can't build a foreign designed ship here... "

Don't be silly, of course you can - we just don't want to for mostly reasons of ego; the Canadians are - via David Pugliese at Defense News;

Canada has selected the German Navy’s Berlin-class design for its new fleet of supply ships, setting in motion the eventual construction of two vessels that are critical to maritime operations.

But the timing of the ships’ delivery to the fleet is still in question, since the shipbuilder is also on the hook to build icebreakers for the Coast Guard and can’t build both ships at the same time.
...
The Royal Canadian Navy had been examining two designs for its Joint Support Ship (JSS) program. One was an original design from BMT Fleet Technology of Ottawa, while the second was of the Berlin class from ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada, also of Ottawa.

Finn said the final selection was based on operating capability, affordability, cost and risk.

“Across those areas, the Berlin-class came out ahead,” he said.

What a radical concept. So where will it be built?

A contract will be negotiated with ThyssenKrupp for the design, which will then be turned over to Seaspan/Vancouver Shipyards of Vancouver, British Columbia. Seaspan will build the two Canadian vessels, and Finn said he expects a contract for that to be in place by 2015.

There is the issue. The present ships are 40-years old ... and Canada has not quite kept her industrial base in shape ... so as Tim Colton points out;

... the crazies in Ottawa want to build some at Vancouver Shipyards, a company that hasn't built a self-propelled vessel in 20 years and then only a tugboat. Oh, lawdy, what a disaster in the making. And if you don't think it will be a disaster, just click on the link to what the Navy calls a "Backgrounder" and scroll down to "Next Steps". Aaaaaaah! Why don't they just buy some ships from the Germans? They'll cost less than half as much and take less than half as long.

There's your cautionary tale.

There are worse things than building a foreign design.

The LCS Full Court Press is on, I guess ...

This has been a rather humorous couple of weeks in the seemingly endless squabble over the pierside tinkertoy that is LCS and its erector set mission modules.

LCS fussbuckets like your humble blogg'r tend to be a suspicious lot - and it looks a bit "off" to see so much LCS apologia out in such a short time - so let's dig around the good, the bad, the curious, and frankly the ugly that has bubbled up as of late.

Perhaps this from BusinessWeek on 04 June served as a catalyst for the LCS supporters;

Congress will take a close look at the Pentagon’s $34 billion Littoral Combat Ship program and may consider restrictions on the Navy’s $2 billion request to buy four vessels in fiscal 2014, Representative Randy Forbes said.

Forbes, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s seapower panel, said today that any decisions would await the final report from an LCS review by the Government Accountability Office. A draft of the GAO study said Congress should consider slowing the program’s funding because the Navy is buying ships faster than it can test their design and performance.

“I’m not going to prejudge” the report, Forbes, a Virginia Republican, told reporters. “I’ll wait until we see it, but we are going to do some intensive oversight on this program, which will include hearings.”

There you go. Loss of money tends to focus the mind. So, what do you say, go back to the last few days of May? Sure.

Kris Osborne at DoD Buzz strikes a very 2005 press release sounding article;

The three packages, engineered with a modular, plug-and-play ability to integrate on both the Independence and the Freedom variants are designed for mine counter-measures, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare, said Capt. John Ailes, LCS Mission Modules program manager.

They consist of groups of weapons, sensors, UAS, mine-detecting technologies, aircraft, electronics and unmanned watercraft, among other things, designed to work in tandem on specific threats and issues, Ailes explained.

The Navy’s two-variant approach to the LCS development effort, which ultimately aims to build and deploy at least 55 ships, has come under scrutiny and received criticism for the wisdom of its two-variant approach, which critics have said will make sustainment more challenging.

The LCS program has also faced scrutiny for rising costs, and questions inside and outside the Navy about the fleet’s survivability and ability to meet mission requirements.

I guess if I have to repeat the same points over and over with for the better part of a decade - the other side can too. Oh, as one of my readers emailed me a few days ago, I would be remiss if I did not share this;

While recognizing that there is a business case to move toward greater commonality among the variants, particularly when it comes to sustainment and logistics, Ailes emphasized that the much-criticized two-variant approach resulted in several positive developments.

“We got spectacularly low cost and there is strength in diversity. Also, if you have an enemy that is trying to combat you, you give him a harder problem if you bring capabilities that are different. That is more difficult than going up against a single, well-understood capability,” he added.

Yes, I guess diversity has a variety of uses. Curious though - I wonder if Sailors want to go to war with something that is a "harder problem" to fight - or go to war in a ship that has weapons systems that have a "well-understood capability?"

A day later, Chris Cavas weighs in, sounding like something between a weary father or observational uncle - telling the story of the changes the follow on designs are going through;

Like a child entering adolescence, the Navy’s littoral combat ship program has entered an era in which some elements are trying to emulate fully mature combat systems, some are getting ready to try and others have much further to go.

The well-publicized cost growth of the program is nominally under control. “Ship production is stable, costs are going down, the contracts are a fixed price,” Sean Stackley, the Navy’s top acquisition official, told Congress on May 8. “There’s all goodness there.”

I was even feeling a bit more positive until ...

A year ago, the service had planned to test the Griffin, a small missile developed for Special Operations Command, on Freedom. But the missile is considered too lightweight for the LCS, and it was not installed. Instead, data is being gathered from testing aboard the coastal patrol vessel Monsoon.

“We really want to do a competition and award for an SSM that has a little longer range than the Griffin,” Murdoch said. “Ideally, what I’d like to have is autonomy — an autonomous seeker that you don’t have to designate with a laser to guide the missile on target.

“That’s another area that’s budget-dependent,” Murdoch added. “We have money this year and next to do studies and get ready for [industry solicitations] in 2014.”

Barring funding complications, the Navy is hoping to field an SSM on the LCS in 2019.

Hope. 2019. Great ... over a decade of service and then perhaps something with a longer range than a 1-iron.

03 June has RADM Rowden, 
Director of Surface Warfare, joined the fun at MaritimeLink;

Though the acquisition strategy changed, the consistent intent has been that the Navy would take the knowledge gained in the build, test and operation of these first ships to inform program changes. In some cases, the learning curve in these ships has been steep, with many of the issues highlighted in defense industry reporting and in the blogosphere. However, I can state with confidence that we have already aggressively applied lessons learned to improve the ships in production, and we will continue to do so going forward.
...
While criticism of the LCS program remains, I wanted to take opportunity to show how the Navy remains committed to delivering and sustaining warships that are operationally ready, combat effective and cost efficient. As we gain momentum, we will take plenty of fixes and make the course corrections to ensure we are getting LCS forward, in numbers, to support our national maritime objectives. These ships provide much-needed capability, and as I indicated last week, I strongly believe that forward presence and numbers are important values in a naval force unto themselves."

That's great and all - I love aspirational goals too - but faster please. These thing are joining the Fleet and it will be years before any of them will be anywhere close to being more than weak-IOC operationally ready, combat effective against any comparable adversary's ship or submarine - and when the whole program's cost structure is taken in to account vs. utility to Combatant Commanders, well, the cost efficient ship sailed a long time ago.

Keeping the drumbeat going, Robert D. Holzer at BreakingDefense gives it a swing on 07 June;

The chorus of criticism facing the first ships of the Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class calls for a little historical context to be brought to this debate. Almost all new ship classes experienced considerable “birthing pains in their early days.

This is not new. Indeed, the first six frigates acquired by the American Navy in 1797 all came in late and over budget.

Oh, no he didn't! Yes he did. Just one little reply; when they went to sea, they could more than hold their own against any other frigate at sea ... LCS ... well, they speak for themselves. If the first Six Frigates went to sea with nothing but swivel guns, then you may have a point, Shipmate.

Anyway - he reviews the other ship class challenges, argued and debunked with varying degrees of success over the years. Rinse and repeat, again, is fine - I do it all the time.

Making smoke, on the same day - SECNAV makes a nice show of it;

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced June 6 the next three joint high speed vessels (JHSV) will be named USNS Yuma, USNS Bismarck and USNS Burlington, and two littoral combat ships (LCS) will be named USS Billings and USS Tulsa.

I guess the 7th was "the day" to put stuff out, because over at AviationWeek, Michael Fabey came out to play with one of the most tiresome and patronizing quotes of the entire LCS campaign;

“Do not compare LCS to current platforms. It cannot be manned, trained, equipped, or maintained or tactically employed in the same way. NO OLD THINK.”

- -- 2008 U.S. Navy LCS Cardinal Rules (Emphasis in original)

Snort - I guess he needs to talk to a few of the authors above then.

Just a little more time on the 2008 quote; the last five years have shown that LCS is trending towards traditional manning numbers, training programs, legacy equipment (if they can make it fit), the maintenance plans need adjusting, and of course - we can't decide if it can do the tactical missions that we have been doing for the last century - and shocking - still need to do. Come on Michael - you asked for that.

And ... where did this come from?

The biggest impediment to the potential success of the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) may very well be some of the top-level brass who continue to view the ship through the “old-think” prism used to scrutinize traditional Navy warships.
...
The Navy needs to rid the service of the “old think.” The admirals and surface warfare officers would be a good place to start.

OK, I'm game. List all the "admirals and surface warfare officers" who have used "old think" to make LCS what it is today. Who are these brave souls that write and speak against LCS?

Seriously, show me this gauntlet of brass that has prevented LCS from demonstrating its glory.

Finally, something came out yesterday that simply, in a word, made me sigh. Our friend and hail fellow well met, Jim Holmes at TheDiplomat makes a try to find a new tactical angle on LCS. I'm generally here with him at the start,

Over at The National Interest last month, the Naval Diplomat reviewed the debate over the U.S. Navy's new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). My goal was less to rehash the ship's design than to puzzle out why the LCS debate — a debate, after all, over a mere hunk of machinery — is not just fiercely contested on the merits but often venomous.
...
With no common lexicon for shaping tactics, doctrine, and operations, the LCS debate quickly degenerates into claims and counter-claims about whether newfangled bits of hardware will perform as advertised. It takes on the "uh-uh!" and "uh-huh!" quality familiar to all ex-schoolboys.

Yet such craft are joining the fleet. Fitting them into U.S. maritime strategy is imperative. ... There's little new under the sun.

Remember when I threw in the towel about three years ago on LCS - that the anti-LCS cadre lost the intellectual battle, so we might as well try to make the best of it?

Well - Jim is searching.

In passing I portrayed the LCS as a "skirmisher" for U.S. Navy fleets operating off enemy coastlines. It acts as an advance guard for the main force, venturing into coastal waters to clear mines, detect and target submarines, and pummel speedboats and other small craft fielded by the likes of Iran and China. Once the littoral combatants do their work, the battle fleet can approach enemy shores to project power ashore, evacuate noncombatants, or what have you.

He fleshes out his concept - give it a good read, but I'm not convinced. It cannot do ASW with any kind of air threat, even if the ASW module works as designed. It can't defend itself. ASW is slow, so is MIW. Maritime skirmishers need to be small and agile - in the ASUW role or support of special operations. LCS isn't really that small, though it is agile. A skirmisher also needs to be able to inflict damage in the surface role - LCS just doesn't have any "there" there. It is fast with a shallow draft - but it has the profile of a WWII destroyer and more. It isn't going to sneak up on anyone, even at night.

Nice try Jim, and you have some good points - but I don't think we've bridged the gap.

So, there you go - a little review of a strange and, ahem, diverse little cluster of the LCS Joy Luck Club - covering the spectrum from "The Best Thing Since Bacon" to "Let's Try to Make it not Suck Quite as Hard" side of that aisle.

What reason for all this now? Is LCS moving towards PLAN SALAMANDER of 36 that I abandoned years ago out of despair? If the substance of the lastest pro-LCS argument is any indication, LCS is in significnt danger. Here is why.

None, and I mean zip-zero-nada, of the latest articles have anything new. Even Jim's skirmisher idea is just a reworking of the streetfighter concept. If there is nothing new to say but that there are additional delays, we need to wait another half decade for a corvette to have an ASCM, and that once we have a half dozen ships displacing water, then we'll be close to a design we can use - then I'm sorry; you're doing it wrong.

Speaking from my seat in from the LCS Eeyore Caucus - I say; "Meh; let's just do the best we can and start design work on two new classes - one between PC and LCS - and one between LCS and DDG-51 Flt-IIA."

One final note; this by far is the most interesting pro-LCS comment I have read in awhile. It's from Jim's article. In its own way - I think it fits as a way to close this up.

MAJOR LOWEN GIL MARQUEZ, PHILIPPINE ARMY
June 10, 2013 at 3:46 pm

The US LCS are one of the potent weapons in offense and defense posture that can e use to infuse to AirSea attle doctrine in order to address the small speed boat, liferaft that wil be used by China or Iran against any United Nation free World Forces, it is very minimal and cheap when it comes to the resources with strong, big possitive output when it is properly used in Blue Water Warfare, it will bring isastrous effect over the enemy bee hive doctrine, counter the hive with a fire and it will dissapear in the map of the earth…

ELEVENTY!

Oh, no. No. Not Allison again. Help her, someone, please.

Yes, it is Allison from that bucket of fail in April.


The fail is so strong here, I don't want to ruin it by quoting the highlights. If the video embed doesn't work; click here.



No, you have to watch it yourself. Just think of not only the face time she is getting - but also the bucks she is getting for this gig - and this is where a lot of people get their information on the Navy. 

Please Fox - find her another beat; or an assistant that knows a keel from a deckhouse.

Hat tip CS.