Navy Shifts Focus To Lower-end Threats

Navy Shifts Focus To Lower-end Threats

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead has signed off on the Navy’s “Vision for Confronting Irregular Challenges.” The Navy will buy ships and aircraft that provide “broadened” and “balanced” capabilities to deal with a range of irregular opponents, including pirates, terrorists, criminal organizations, insurgents and other state and non-state actors, the document says.

By “balancing shifts in our investments” the service will better address and incorporate “urgent and emerging requirements” to confront the “hybrid nature” of future challenges. It emphasizes buying “multi-mission ships and aircraft,” oriented to “lower end operations,” such as Littoral Combat Ship mission modules, Riverine squadrons and “persistent manned and unmanned surveillance platforms.” Navy undersecretary Bob Work has been a big proponent of building flexibility and multi-mission capabilities, his “big boxes” concept, into ship design.

The document calls for using conventional weapons in low end missions, “to include P-3 for surveillance against terrorists and insurgents, tactical aircraft for armed reconnaissance, and submarines and surface combatants in counter-drug operations.” Navy ships and personnel currently provide anti-terrorist forces in the Philippines, pirate hunters off East Africa, protection of oil platforms in the Arabian Gulf and foreign nation security force training and assistance with multi-mission amphibious ships and helicopters.


The irregular warfare vision advocates closer ties with the Coast Guard and the Marines, as well as other government agencies and non-government organizations. Expanding coordination with interagency and international partners features prominently in the new vision document as part of the “indirect” approach to supporting counterterrorism, counterinsurgency and foreign internal defense. “Partners can appreciate the Navy’s dependable but impermanent presence, which requires neither a footprint ashore nor infringement on their sovereignty.”

The open seas and littoral areas provide “operating space” for irregular actors to destabilize weak governments, traffic in contraband or intimidate populations. As part of the Navy’s Cooperative Strategy, the vision “recognizes the value presence, of being there,” to maintain security and gather intelligence as well as to act as a deterrent to non-state actors.

Join the Conversation

This self-rationalization is putting the cart before the horse. It’s applying Madison Avenue marketing techniques (create meaningless names (like Littoral Combat Ship), titles (like irregular warfare) and phrases (like “hybrid nature of future wardfare”) to justify the current and planned mix of big Navy ships to all sorts of things they are not optimized to do.

We need some honest discussion about who should be doing what and where on the high seas. Is the U.S. Navy charged with protecting cargo ships off Eastern Africa from a bunch of pirates in fishing boats and dingies? And we’re going to pay hundred of millions of dollars for ships and people to stand guard? Why not just hire Blackwater (now Xe) in a bunch of fast boats to hunt them down and kill them? More cost effective and a much better solution. Save the Navy for the real fighting.

We really need to drop the “multi-mission”/“multi-purpose” requirements. Better to have “simpler”, dedicated, single-mission ships that do the job well, consistenly and cheaply, than insisting that minesweepers and patrol boats must have Backfire swatting AEGIS, a +40kts speed and banks of VLS.
And if the navy doesn’t want to do “littoral”, than the Coast Guard must be empowered, by both funding and personnel, to handle that — important! — mission

My question is…What happens when threatened by a state with a modern military?…China, Russia, several other countries come to mind. First priority must be to wage war and win. That means against the major actors. I’m afraid the emphasis on vessels able to take on 4th class enemies may be taking too much funding away from the Navy’s primary purpose.

Good Morning Folks,

I see nobody gets it. This article is about using foreign sources for “major” weapons systems.

The picture of the JHSV says it all. This craft has long been desired by both the Army and the Navy but was only available on a lease because it was a product of the Austal Ship yards in Australia, a foreign enterprise.

That problem has been solved. Austal will take over a BAE/General Dynamic failing yard in Mobile Alabama, build an automated yard and the US Government is seeding the deal with an order ten JHSV’s, evenly split between the Army and Navy and part of the LCS contracts.

To those of you truly interested in this problem you will note that Deputy Sec. of Defense William Lynn spent a week in Australia romancing other Australian ship yards in coming to the US to take over operation of shipyards from LM and NG who can no longer operate shipyards that meet Government expectations.

The negotiations stumbling point, is that the Government of Australia who wants as much of the work as possible to be work done in Australia and only the lift assemblies put together in the US.

With the demonstrated inability of the Gulf yards ran by LM, NG, BAE/GD to build quality ships the DoD/US Government was forced into this action. The problems won’t go away but perhaps the competent labor. lower and mid level managers can be brought back to the Gulf Yards.

In short, cheap labor builds cra**y ships.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Wrong article, Byron. All Grant’s article says is that the U.S. Navy will cooperate with other domestic and foreign organizations to counter threats. Mainly the same PR because we have an interest in protecting ourselves, but not enough ships and people to do it.

And if the article was talking about foreign yards coming to run excess U.S. yards, they’d want our Navy to pay for any Navy ships built. So, nothing changes except ownership or operations of the U.S. yards. That’s not a solution to anything. It’s like a broke bank being taken over by a solvent bank. Just makes the combined banks weaker and riskier. The basic problem is that there’s not enough business for U.S. yards because we spent too much money on stupid stuff like a $273,000 dune buggy. Love the Marines, but never, ever give them your debit card!

I generally agree with the comments so far.

For a very imperfect analogy, think of laminates. You put together layers of different materials to end up with a material which suits that purpose very well. If you try to come up with one material that does everything you are almost certainly doomed to failure.

So in combat you put together many different simple and optimized platforms and units tailored to the mission. You don’t try to build kludges that you think will do anything and everything.

And the first post was right. Guarding is too resource intensive if there is an alternative. You go and kill the pirates and then the problem will go away.

Ahh? couple of points of order… The photo is that of HSV2 Swift which was built by Incat and it currently time chartered from Sealift Inc a US complany. The JHSV is of course being built by Austal USA at a new shipyard in Mobile Al. There is not evidence to date that that shipyard is afflicted with the ills of other Gulf Coast shipyards.

GD does NOT run the Austal USA yard it serves as primary contractor on the LCS team with Austal as a team member. Austal has in fact a short order book of commercial building goin on (to include HSF prolem).

There are US shipyards competent in aluminum just not so many as steel.

BTW the JHSV order was based on a long standing need by several Services for an inter-theater sealift/transport ship and is NOT a seeding project.

“Why not just hire Blackwater (now Xe) in a bunch of fast boats to hunt them down and kill them? More cost effective and a much better solution. Save the Navy for the real fighting.”

No no more privatized fighting. Anti-piracy is exactly why the navy exists. What real fighting??? Since when are fleets engaging in surface to surface conflict? The navy should have plenty of frigates and corvettes for anti-piracy.

competent workforce in the Gulf ?? first, get house insurance companies to stop raising our Hurricane premiums !! It’s now over $5,000 per year for a 25 yr old track house in southern Miss. And Lousiana is even worse down by the Avondale NG shipyard. how can wind insurance rates go up 75 percent in just 2 years ? they never even paid out many claims at all after Katrina !! and those big insurance companies made “record” setting profits for the 2 years following Katrina. Good luck gttting and keep ing your workforce along the Gulf shipyards. better think of PLAN B.

Good Afternoon Folks,

Retired Now, I agree the insurance problem is keeping a lot of people from returning to the Gulf and many of them were the skilled labor and line managers who make the ship building industry work. Along with wages it is a problem that those who take over the Gulf yards are going to have to deal with.

Just to add to the discussion. Another American shipyard is also up for sale and that is bath Iron Works in Maine. BAE/GD has had it on the block for awhile now and it seems that part of Sec. Lynn’s trip to Australia and the Pacific was to work out a deal with a South Korean Commercial Ship Builder (Hyundai?) and an Australian Builder of war ships to take over the operation of Bath Iron Works.

The deal was sweetened on Friday by the DoD when they awarded Bath the long lead contract with a check for the DD 1001.

The need for this is as Matthew suggested is the production in the near term of a Corvette size ship (1,500 tons) and automated yard that can produce ships in months not years would be required. Another yard badly in need or recapitalization is the Ingalls yard in Poscagoula Miss.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

The big issue with the brass is even though they are talking all these new phrases and missions they are still in the mind set of carrier and expeditionary battle groups. We dont need to reinvent the wheel for this kind of warfare. We had the world by the tail during the Nam era as far as our Navy goes but it was cheap high speed boats armed with what ever we could mount on them that got the job done along the coast lines and in the delta regions. They Navy needs to realize that there is a place and a job for corvette type ships in our Navy. They can be outfitted with MK48 torpedoes, deck mounted Tomahawk launchers, deck guns, and anti aircraft missles, towed sonar bouys, and mine cutters, without having to develope new technoligy and platfroms to accomplish this mission (the old systems from the 70’s and 80’s are sufficient for this kind of warfare). At the same time they need to build a tender to service these craft in theater an oiler, one destroyer, and one assault ship with helos to accompany and support them ( 4 to 8 corvettes per group )would be more than sufficient.

Makes too much sense, Boomer!

Unfortunately John King you are right — If it’s cheap and easy then it cant obviously work in todays military. The reality of it is they could take any of the three recently decomed carriers and with a little work they could become the tender/amphibious assualt platform, mount some deck guns and external rocket launchers and it could replace the destroyer as well leaving only the oiler to be the other support craft which would reduce cost even further. a couple of deck cranes and they could also transport and support SWCC units for up close and inland waterways. But one ship doing that many roles means only one Commanding Officer which makes it harder for all thier buddies — sons and nephfews to get CO billets for thier advancement. More big ships means more advancements and that is what they are all about. Look at the SEAL mini sub, They could have bought seven off the shelf units from a manufacurer in FL. that makes trans oceanic submarines for civilians (150 ft’ with a 10 man lock out chamber capable of 1000 ft’ depths, self contained), for the same cost of the one that caught fire and never worked right in the first place. But I bet a couple of officers are shoe ins for cushy civilian jobs when they retire. Our system sucks bad.

If you really want to do this on the cheap, anyone out there remember the WW2 PT boats. A modern 56 ft’ aluminum hull boat, four 8V92 turbo diesels, armed with torpedo tubes, a couple 20mm chain guns, some 50 cals and a turrent cannon and fire control borrowed from a stryker or bradley would do the job nicely. nothing fancy needed, can patrol coastlines, take out pirates, support SPECOPS, and give fire support. They could use a floating dock amphib as a mother ship to operate from. Once again low cost, low tech, yet effective and I’m an enlisted type and not a admiral. I still have a spine and common sense.

Has anyone actually read the document? If it wasn’t so filled with meaningless pentagonese buzzwords, it might be instructive. Can anyone explain, in concrete terms, what the three steps of Section III. Implementing the Vision means. For instance, what the hell does “Increase our Navy’s application of related Defense and Joint strategic and operational guidance” mean. Or “Identify the advocates and resource sponsors responsible for resource allocation and comprehensive program execution for existing and emergy Navy-unique and joint multi-mission capabilities to confront irregular challenges”. I printed it out and I feel I robbed the planet of seven pieces of paper and my IQ is lower as a result of reading it.

let’s…Let’s make sure when we design a new ship, aircraft we do it to where we use it for a long time… I remember that one of the 1st helicopter carrier’s was decommission up to the moth ball fleet in Bencia California…about 10 year’s worth of sea duty.… quite giving away our equiptment.…..It would have been nice to see that A-4 Sky Hawk flying off on of those assualt ship’s instead of that harrier jump jet…look what the Army have done with it’s heavy mover the Chinook and the Marine’s Corp’s. Cobra„Air Forces C130K is now a 105mm gunship ?… All I can say once again don’t be alarmed if someone else build’s a better plane on paper.. let’s use what we got to better it example the B52 and how many year’s we have left in that plane ???

A big issue is having a limit set on how many ships or planes we are allowed to have. many have been sent to scrap, sunk, or given away years before the need. Many of the 640 class FBM’s were still good to go, some had gone through overhaul a year or so before decom was moved up. The 637 class subs out performed the 688’s and were more user friendly, the f14’s still had a lot of fight left in them, A10 intruders still got the job done, a lot of frigates and destroyers and other ships were still in great shape, a lot of tanks were decomed and put on target ranges along with 1000’s of 2 1/2 ton trucks (that would have been beter platforms for MRAPS), most recently carriers are being replaced. All because if you want a new one you have to get rid of the old one, or the argument that they are not capable of fitting in to future combat roles. Most of these craft could have been maintained and used for long term ops — meaning send in the new and fast updated stuff, hit them hard and be replaced by the old stuff so the new can return and set up to go to sea again ready for the next fight. The C130 gunships are awesome but the same job could be done with smaller — cheaper — off the shelf aircraft, would be even more accurate from a CH37 or 53 that could hover in one spot rather than flying in circles. Our brass just does not see the big picture and a lot of it is because of the limit of equipment congress allows us to have so the brass only wants the next big thing rather than maintaining what works.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement