Proactively “From the Sea”; an agent of change leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.
My, my, my - the legions of the insecure LCS proponents have really put out the full-court press the last week or two, haven't they? As good of a sample of the genre as any other can be found quoted in this bit from the editors of USNINews;
On Aug. 8, USNI News interviewed Capt. John Ailes, program manager for Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Program Executive Office Littoral and Mine Warfare’s (PEO LMW) LCS Mission Modules, for an update on the embattled mission package program.
Ailes acknowledged past failures in the program but painted an optimistic picture of the way forward for the mission packages.
“It’s a wondrous time to be the mission package guy today compared to three years ago because you can point to the successes,” he said.
Starting next year, the Navy will test the packages in a series of operational evaluations (OPEVAL) as a final examination before moving the new capabilities into the fleet.
...
In June, NAVSEA completed its reliability work and now states that reliability numbers for RMMV has grown to more than 200 hours.
“That was highly successful, the reliability issues are really behind us,” Lose said.
AQS-20A is the primary sensor of the mine-hunting systems on LCS. The Navy has largely corrected detection problems found in early developmental testing with training and software and hardware upgrades, Ailes said. A plan to field the sonar from the package’s MH-60S was canceled for safety reasons.
“We took the Q20 and flew it from a 60S for a long time but the problem was, if an engine failed you could lose the aircraft,” Ailes said. “It hardly ever happens but once you lose an engine it would be catastrophic.”
NAVSEA instead decided to field the sonar only on the RMMV.
“That’s the centerpiece of increment,” Ailes said.
“If RMS works you’re going to be able to find mines and do it in a rapid fashion.”
The good Captain has a tough job. I wish him the best. We will reach the point soon where LCS-1 will use up almost half its expected service life and yet to have the ability to have a set of mission modules to use. What prompted me to put out another LCS post for discussion though, was this little video JD sent my way from LMT.
They totally lost me at the 0:24 mark. Look at it a couple of times and note where they say CENTCOM is? Yep .... they must be C-17 guys, they're going to Peter O'Knight. Who edits this stuff?
This is fun. Let's keep going. I don't know about you - but I have never seen a civilian intel type that looked like that. For a bit, I thought from the 0:38 to the 1:10 point this was about to be NSFW. ... watch the whole thing - there is so much more; I'll let ya'll hoist your favorite parts in comments including uniform, watch floor, and bridge funnies ... and yes, you heard a "Roger, over."
I can hear Captain Hoffman yelling from here. To cut to the chase, in the last issue of Proceedings, Norman Polmar calmly summarized what many of us kept reminding everyone for 8+ years.
Of course, any comparison of the DDG-51 with an LCS is ludicrous. The destroyer is a multi-mission ship, capable of standing alone against most threats, with upgraded ships providing ballistic-missile defense without the loss of other combat capabilities. The littoral combat ships now in the Fleet have a single 57-mm gun (the Freedom additionally has two 30-mm guns fitted as part of an antisurface module), a limited helicopter capability, and a limited point-defense capability. Some 12 years after the program was initiated, no complete mission modules are yet available for the LCS.
A follow-on (updated) DDG-51 costs some $2 billion. An LCS—when a mission package is available—will provide a highly specialized ship at a cost of about $750 million per unit (including a mission module). For the same investment, would a combatant or fleet commander rather have one follow-on DDG-51 or two or three LCSs? 3
The same Proceedings article also extolled the potential political influence of the LCS: Discussing the “strategic” Cook Islands, “A visit by the U.S. Secretary of State, followed by one or several visits by an LCS would reinforce our efforts to improve our influence in the region.”
So could a much less expensive Coast Guard cutter, or the temporary assignment of a Seabee team to recondition a school or build a playground, or a Marine band and drill platoon. While Oliver Cromwell said that “a warship is the best ambassador,” the LCS is not a warship in the context of impressing populations and governments, nor are the Cook Islands of strategic importance to the United States.
The LCS has several severe problems and limitations:
• The ships are over cost.
• Both LCS designs have required major changes for production units, causing cost increases; changes are continuing to be made in sequential ships.
• Shore support requirements are much greater than earlier envisioned; with a large number of the ships planned for forward-basing, this could be a major cost factor.
• No complete mission modules are available.
• Designed for core crews of about 40, the ships now require more than 50 personnel (plus the mission-module teams).
•The Freedom has experienced major mechanical problems on her first forward deployment (to Singapore); similar problems were experienced during earlier operations in the Caribbean.
• The ships lack realistic air-defense capabilities, meaning that they will need to be accompanied by a missile-armed ship when in hostile waters.
• The mission-module concept has failed to provide the promised capabilities although several LCS are in commission.
• Procuring both the LCS-1 and LCS-2 designs is requiring two crew-training programs, two sets of spare parts, two sets of documentation, etc.; it also limits flexibility in personnel assignments.
The LCS spin and happy talk is not helpful. Those who had the power to direct our future Fleet last decade decided that LCS is going to be a large part of our future. We need to stop with the PPT pipe-dreams and cheesy videos based on best-case scenarios and 0-downside technology-risk analysis. We need serious discussions and serious plans on how we can best employ a seriously sub-optimal platform. Norman is doing it. Others, notsomuch. Hat tip, in part, ELP. UPDATE: BEHOLD the power of the front porch! I guess they couldn't take the taunting; they took the video down. Nice LMT.
If the CNO's #1 priority is warfighting, how do leaders focus on that priority inside a 24-hr day? In a complicated structure of Administrative and Operational Chains of Command and the unending hunger of a bureaucracy for metrics and the reports that feed them - when does a system itself become and "Administrative Burden." On person's administrative burden is another person's critical requirement - so how does an organization's leadership balance subordinate priorities so they do not interfere with #1? This Sunday, 25 AUG from 5-6pm Eastern, for the first half of the show, our guest to discuss this and more will be Rear Admiral Herman Shelanski, USN, Director, Assessment Division, (OPNAV N81). Specifically, we will discuss the CNO's crowdsourcing initiative "RAD" (Reducing Administrative Distractions) specifically looking at removing those non-value added distractions in the Fleet keeping Sailors away from the Navy's top priorities.
For the second half of the show, join EagleOne and me as we conduct our end-of-summer SITREP.
Join uslive if you can with the usual suspects in the chat room and offer up your questions for our guest, but if you miss the show you can always listen to the archive at blogtalkradio.
Via Jake Tapper at CNN who has done so much to bring to the attention a part of a war most have chose to ignore:
The first shots rang out just a few minutes before 6 a.m. The rumors that the soldiers had heard for months were coming true. Carter said he had often imagined that day.
"I was like, 'Well, if it's my time to go, how am I going out?' " he said.
The Taliban had studied how the Americans responded to previous attacks, and they knew the outpost relied heavily on its mortars.
So they made the big guns their first target.
"When the enemy weren't shooting at us, they were shooting at the weapons," Carter said. "So they were disabling the weapons."
The insurgent fire killed Pfc. Kevin Thomson as he raced to his post. Sgt. Josh Kirk was killed while returning fire.
"You could hear the rounds coming in from every direction," said platoon Sgt. Jon Hill.
Troops begin running much-needed ammunition to the men on guard duty. Sgt. Michael Scusa was gunned down 10 feet outside one of the outpost's doors. In the midst of the gunfire, Sgt. Christopher Griffin "immediately ran out the door without hesitation," Hill said.
"He didn't make it back"
Ammunition was starting to run out, so Ty Carter and other members of his Black Knight troop volunteered to deliver more -- a hundred yards away across the heaviest of gunfire.
Carter didn't think twice about the danger. All he knew was there were three fellow soldiers -- Sgt. Bradley Larson, Spc. Stephan Mace and Sgt. Justin Gallegos -- trapped in a Humvee and they needed more supplies to return fire.
"Carter's kinda like .. for lack of a better word, a robot," Hill said. "You tell him to do something, he's gonna do it and he's gonna do it to the best of his ability."
He would return through that deadly gauntlet three times to get supplies to the men.
When the firefight was over, the death toll would include Mace, Gallegos, Sgt. Josh Hardt, and Staff Sgt. Vernon Martin.
The names of all eight men who died on that day are engraved on a steel band that Carter wears on his wrist, not that he needs the reminder.
For the fifth time in a week, a very serious defense person described Hagel to me in private as "an idiot" or "stupid." That is chilling.
— Raymond Pritchett (@Galrahn) August 22, 2013
Not the first time I have heard that, but the guy was elected to quite a few offices. So, who am I to judge his IQ - though there are lots of brilliant idiots out there and very smart people who don't know squat about what they should - or know a lot of what is just wrong. SECDEF Hagel was hired for one reason; to preside over the more rapid decline of the US military so that the next President doesn't have enough to really do anything overseas - and Hagel is doing a find job in that respect. No, I prefer to evaluate someone by the company they keep and the causes they support. For me, Hagel was unqualified for the position he now holds for one reason; his association with "Global Zero." Quick backgrounder:
Hagel is a vocal supporter of Global Zero, a group formed in Paris in 2008 that promotes eliminating nuclear weapons.
Made up of political, civic, and military leaders, the group calls for deep cuts in US and Russian nuclear arsenals.
Hagel has said that he does not believe in unilateral disarmament - a sticking point with right-wing policymakers.
He has also said he does not believe that eliminating the weapons will happen in the short-term.
In a press release on the Global Zero website, Hagel, with co-authors, wrote:
"We support bilateral, negotiated, verifiable U.S.-Russian arms reductions, to be followed by multilateral negotiations, bringing other key countries into a serious, verifiable process of reductions."
"...the suggestion that we naively believe that the elimination of nuclear weapons can be achieved easily or in short order is likewise false."
At best, Global Zero is just another posturing place for self-appointed intellectuals to make statements that make themselves feel good and be in a proper light with the "right" people. At worst, it follows in the long tradition of people so enamored by their importance that they think they can eliminate war, conflict - and have found just the way to do it. See the Washington Naval Treaty, Versailles, etc, etc, etc. Here is a cold fact; it is simple mid-20th century technology to create a nuclear weapon. Almost all modern, non-nuclear nations from The Netherlands, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Australia, Korea, and more could - turnkey - create a nuclear weapon of their own if they wished. But they don't. Why? Simple, they don't have a reason to. The domestic politics, international environment, cost, and most importantly - a relationship with the United States of America in one way or another, keeps the needle in the "don't build" area. So - what if we went to Global Zero? In a 4-Phase operation, we end here;
PHASE IV (2024 - 2030)
The phased, verified, proportionate dismantlement of all nuclear arsenals to zero total warheads is complete by 2030. The comprehensive verification and enforcement system prohibiting the development and possession of nuclear weapons is in place to ensure that the world is never again threatened by nuclear weapons.
OK, let's be adults here. How long, given human nature, will that last? The world has "zero" and then some player is found to have kept 50. The USA says, "no" it won't build more bombs, but will instead negotiate. What do mature nations do? Without a big-friend's nuclear umbrella for the Worst-Case COA - the math changes. Simple - some will build their own, and off we go. That or a few cities get nuked and nations blackmailed ... and there you go. Right now, no one does that because there is still the feeling of some kind of nuclear umbrella. No one fears that a bad actor will be able to click off a nuke and keep the USA, GBR, FRA, or even RUS from responding in kind. Like chemical weapons, most believe that even in a shooting war between most nuclear nations listed above, no one would use the nukes just like in WWII no one used chemical weapons. PAK and IND? Well, that is something different. Rogue nations? They may - but as long as we have a strong nuclear capability and seem to be willing to use it - that should keep it contained. All depends upon leadership - but right now I have little doubt that if someone nuked NYC, that in time we would find out were it came from and if needed respond in kind - at least I hope so. I recommend you spend some time on the Global Zero site - look at their "leaders" and think a bit. Think hard, think historically, think critically - and find your inner neo-Realist.
Personally, I like the fact that our President has access to our nuclear "crazy Aunt in the basement," who can advise him on how to vaporize entire cities in short order - and the fact that we have people trained, equipped and ready to do so. The world is a nasty place, all cultures are not the same, and now and then good people have to do what they need to do in order to keep chaos and barbarism on the other side of the border. As the world was, is, and will be.
In 1386, he marched again. The destination was the city of Isfahan, noted at that time, as it is today, for its beauty as well as its magnificent monuments and learned people. The city offered no resistance and opened its gates. Timur promised not to plunder the city if a ransom was paid. Out went the noblemen of Isfahan to collect the demanded booty. All was quiet for a day. Then, in the darkness of night, some of the townsfolk attacked Timur’s guards. In retrospect, it is not clear what happened, but the result was a disaster for the city. In the morning, Timur gave a general order for a massacre. The inhabitants of the city were hunted down and a mountain of skulls was created in the main bazaar. This was the first of the general massacres that Timur is noted for, something that he was to repeat later in Lahore, Delhi, Damascus and dozens of lesser cities. Almost 100,000 Isfahanis was killed.
In living memory, as a nation we have intentionally slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people - mostly women and children - in a fortnight - and one day we will have to again.
We should openly and soberly maintain a national Mattis Doctrine;
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
- General James Mattis, USMC (Ret.)
A bad actor using a nuke and good nations do nothing? That is a world I would not want to live in. When Rome lost the ability to "go Roman" - we all know how that worked out. Well, I assume everyone knows ... but at the rate our leaders seem to study history, perhaps not.
Should our policy makers have been shocked by what has happened in Egypt? Was it really unpredictable? How smart was it for this Administration to throw in with the Muslim Brotherhood early and often? Well, when you have Egypt experts who were educated in the politically correct ahistorical Middle East Studies Departments - you get what you get. Shall we let history get in the way? Of course. Via Arnoud De Borchgrave;
Next day, Cairo erupted in what became known as "Black Saturday" and the "Big Cairo Fire." It was huge. Some 300 buildings were torched, including the old Shepherd's Hotel where we were staying.
Martial law was decreed throughout Egypt. Losses to fire included 30 major companies and banks (including Barclays), 310 stores, 117 residential units, 92 bars, 73 coffee shops, 13 hotels, 40 movie theaters, either automobile showrooms, 10 weapons stores and 16 clubs.
Casualties were comparatively light -- 26 killed and 552 injured.
It was the handiwork of the banned Muslim Brotherhood.
It is a great story. Read it all. History will not tell you the future, but it will help you make the odds.
OK, someone help me out here. I will just make two points, but then I want you to read it yourself and tell me if this is as upside-down as it reads. From COMNAVREGMIDLANT NOTICE 5354 - Installation Roving Patrol Requirements" - Per para 3.b and para 4.b.(1) - if a LT is not available, at LTJG or ENS will be under a Senior NCO? Really? - Under Standing Orders 2.b - Commissioned Officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers, on duty, in uniform, on base, - if they find themselves in a hostile situation they shall NOT:
Confront a hostile situation that may put the patrol in danger.
So, a drunk 225# guy is acting like he is about to beat the snot out of his girlfriend, the patrol is to stand back - or are they just to wait until the 110# takes a solid hit square on the nose? They find three teenagers beating up a forth who won't stop, so they just stand there and wait for the MAs to show up? Clear? Read it and let me know what you think.
Roving patrols are a good thing - as a matter of fact as a JO I used to do something similar - just me and the Barracks Petty Officer. I know this is an effort to stop the snot-slinging drunk from turning in to a, "Why am I in bed naked with SN Schmuckitelli?" But seriously - should we forget simple military standards?
Teenage Midshipmen used to be given command of prize ships, lead boarding parties, etc; in the Cold War ENS and LTJG were given authority to deliver nuclear weapons. We don't even want to review what our Army and USMC brothers and sisters let their O1-O2 do. Yet, we won't let an ENS or LTJG lead a roving patrol CONUS?
Building confidence and refining leadership ability in our Junior Officers is a core requirement. What are we doing here? I can understand a standard-issue LTJG being under the positional authority of a MAC while on patrol conducting MA duties - but that isn't what we are talking about here. Also, do you really want a roving party led by a LT with a BMC and EN2 to come across four drunk SN fighting over who is going home with the cute OSSN, and have the LT say, "No Chief, don't get near them, they are drunk and dangerous! Stay away! Stranger Danger!" Next thing you know part of the roving patrol uniform will be Army issue glow belts.
After starting off Monday with such a negative-Nimrod theme, I really wanted to bring up something positive up today ... but alas - DC won't let me. Where to start? Well, let's go to one of my favorite places; the USAF. Think of the one plane that the USAF has been trying to kill for well over three decades - but whenever there is a no kidding conflict, the Soldiers and Marines on the ground can't get enough of? Remember - everything every service does boils down to helping that Soldier or Marine stand on a street corner holding a gun. One would think that even in a time of decline - you would want to keep some of that valuable support handy, right?
Senator Jeff Flake is making the customary rounds of Arizona during D.C.’s summer recess, and on a rare trip to Southern Arizona, he dropped a bomb on the residents of the 6th poorest metropolitan area in the country. In one of the few free opportunities to hear from their senator, Tucsonans were told that the Air Force plans to phase out the A-10, which will result in an estimated loss of 5,000 jobs.
In one of the few opportunities to hear from the Senator without paying a cover charge, Flake confirmed for listeners of the James T. Harris radio show that one of their worst fears was true: the A-10 has been marked for elimination in the next 1 to 2 years.
The F-35 can do many things - but that China Doll of an aircraft simply cannot take a hit like the A-10. The cost of a loss or damage repair? Child please. Speaking of the F-35, David Axe has a must read for those - like me - who have been closing their eyes and hoping for the best on the F-35.
“Inferior acceleration, inferior climb [rate], inferior sustained turn capability,” they wrote. “Also has lower top speed. Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.” Once missiles and guns had been fired and avoiding detection was no longer an option — in all but the first few seconds of combat, in other words — the F-35 was unable to keep pace with rival planes.
And partly as a result, the U.S. lost the simulated war. Hundreds of computer-code American air crew perished. Taiwan fell to the 1s and 0s representing Chinese troops in Stillion and Perdue’s virtual world. Nearly a century of American air superiority ended among the wreckage of simulated warplanes, scattered across the Pacific.
In a September 2008 statement Lockheed shot back against the war game’s results, insisting the F-35 was capable of “effectively meeting” the “aggressive operational challenges” presented in the Taiwan scenario. RAND backed away from the report, claiming it was never about jet-to-jet comparisons, and Stillion and Perdue soon left the think tank. Stillion is now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank in Washington, D.C. Perdue currently works for Northrop Grumman.
Steve O’Bryan, a Lockheed vice president and former fighter pilot, targeted the war game analysis and its authors. “It was policy people who did that report, [people] with no airplane experience,” O’Bryan said, adding that many critics of the F-35 “are people who are self-proclaimed experts who live in their mom’s basement and wear slippers to work.”
But Stillion and Perdue are both veteran aviators. Stillion flew in RF-4 recon planes and Perdue in F-15s during the Gulf War. “I don’t live in my mom’s basement,” Perdue said.
...
Engineering compromises forced on the F-35 by this unprecedented need for versatility have taken their toll on the new jet’s performance. Largely because of the wide vertical-takeoff fan the Marines demanded, the JSF is wide, heavy and has high drag, and is neither as quick as an F-16 nor as toughly constructed as an A-10. The jack-of-all-trades JSF has become the master of none.
And since the F-35 was purposely set up as a monopoly, replacing almost every other warplane in the Pentagon’s inventory, there are fewer and fewer true alternatives. In winning the 2001 competition to build the multipurpose JSF, Lockheed set a course to eventually becoming America’s sole active builder of new-generation jet fighters, leaving competitors such as Boeing pushing older warplane designs.
Which means that arguably the worst new jet fighter in the world, which one Australian military analyst-turned-politician claimed would be “clubbed like baby seals” in combat, could soon also be America’s only new jet fighter.
Sorry about that readers. Is it too early to start drinking? Wait, this will perk you up. What can I find uplifting from navy.mil?
NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (Aug. 16, 2013) Chief Hospital Corpsman Efrain Chaidez, assigned to the aircraft carrier Pre-Commissioning Unit PCU Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), places a dessert onto Chief Ship's Serviceman Lisa Jones' plate during a bake-off sponsored by the command's chapter of the Coalition of Sailors Against Destructive Decisions. Gerald R. Ford is being built in the Newport News Shipyard in Newport News, Va. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Davis Anderson/Released)
.
