In their own words: Extra helpers for LCS
July 30th, 2010 | Congress Ships | Posted by Phil Ewing
Contractors help LCS crewmembers with a lot of stuff when the ship's in port, the head of NavSea said this week. // MC2 Corey Truax / Navy
We’ve been hearing for years that the Navy will run and maintain its littoral combat ships in a way very different from the old-fashioned methods of the surface force, most notably in the amount of support LCS needs from contractors. But what does that mean, exactly?
On Wednesday, House lawmakers heard answers to that question from a man who knows: Vice Adm. Kevin McCoy, head of Naval Sea Systems Command, whose job is to build and maintain just about everything the Navy has that floats. McCoy detailed what the fleet has experienced so far in its contractors model, and as you’ll see, shore workers are supplementing active-duty LCS sailors all over the place:
MCCOY: We have had to augment the crew with contractor support to do fundamental preventive maintenance, where we have not done that before on previous ships, but when you’re down to a 40-person crew, we need to do that.
Russians vow to restore faded naval glory. Again.
July 30th, 2010 | Foreign navies | Posted by Phil Ewing
The battle cruiser Frunze will be back at sea within a decade, Russian officials say. Again. // Defense Department
Information Dissemination has an interesting post this week linking to a story that quotes “a high-ranking Russian naval official” who promises that the Russian navy will “upgrade and reactivate” its fleet of Kirov-class battle cruisers, and that all four of the massive death-wagons will be back at sea by 2020. Sound familiar? It should — Russia’s defense minister said the exact same thing almost a year ago. I couldn’t help being reminded of the South’s ongoing plans to rise again.
I-D blogger Robert Farley makes an excellent point about why we should view this (repeat) news skeptically: “I have my doubts,” he writes. “The newest of the three will be 32 years old in 2020, and while they didn’t see extensive service during their previous careers, I have to wonder about the condition they’ve been kept in. The first two were scheduled for disposal at points during their repose, and Kirov (now Ushakov) is rumored to have been cannibalized for spare parts.”
Today they may be toothless old hulks, but there’s definitely something about the Kirovs — by design, no doubt — that has always struck fear into Western naval hearts.
Check out this interactive graphic about the ships here.
The pirates who might not be pirates
July 30th, 2010 | Pirates | Posted by Phil Ewing
The dock landing ship Ashland destroyed a suspected pirate skiff after its crew allegedly fired on the U.S. ship in April. The men aboard claim they were "ferrying refugees." // MC2 Jason Zalasky / Navy
There was a time, back before the oil spill and McChrystal’s firing and Ellen’s announcement that she’s leaving “Idol,” when we Americans almost had a national debate about maritime security. The nation was captivated by the pirates off the lawless coast of Somalia, and there was a palpable but unfocused call for the Navy to really lay the smack down out there — just shred all those guys because, hey, who cares, they’re pirates! Or at least start arresting them, instead of continually letting them go.
But U.S. and international commanders resisted, and when you’re done with this must-read story about the ongoing piracy trial in Norfolk, you’ll be reminded why. Defense attorneys for six Somali men accused of firing on the dock landing ship Ashland in April told a judge this week that the law says a “pirate” is someone who takes control of another vessel and robs from it. So even if their clients had attacked the Ashland — which they didn’t, they insist — there’s no grounds on which to charge them with piracy. (For the record, the Somali Six say they were “ferrying refugees” when Ashland’s crew opened up with a 25mm chain gun on their skiff, which burned to the waterline.)
The trial’s not over yet, but if the judge throws out the government’s piracy charge, that will certainly take the teeth out of its case. What would happen next isn’t clear — if the men were convicted on some of the other charges, they could still face some jail time, but nothing like the life sentences they would’ve gotten for piracy. And the world might have to think of some other way to get a handle on this problem.
What damaged the M Star? Here’s what it wasn’t
July 29th, 2010 | merchant ships Submarines The Middle East | Posted by Phil Ewing
What could've caused this damage to the hull of the crude carrier M Star? Probably not a submarine. // AP via Emirates News Service
Here’s another high-seas mystery: The oil tanker M Star docked in the United Arab Emirates on Thursday after it had been damaged somehow during a transit through the Strait of Hormuz. That much we know. What we do not know is causing a buzz in maritime circles online.
Maybe it hit some floating wreckage, or, as some have suggested, a fizzled mine. If M Star hit another ship, what happened to it? Captains usually stick around after fender benders on the water. Another idea is that the M Star, a Marshal Islands-flagged very large crude carrier, collided with a submarine, which then sneaked away. This seems unlikely. Unfortunately, the Navy has already demonstrated what happens when a surface ship hits a submarine in the Strait of Hormuz, and this doesn’t quite match.
The fast attack submarine Hartford collided with the amphibious transport dock New Orleans in the strait last year, and the damage to both ships was much greater than what the M Star appears to have suffered. Together Hartford and New Orleans needed more than $102 million worth of repairs, and New Orleans was sliced open pretty bad. M Star endured some kind of small “explosion,” as it’s been described, that dented the hull and shook up the crew — but, at least according to the initial reports, didn’t let in any water.
That doesn’t make the idea that a crude carrier may have been attacked in one of the tensest parts of the world any less ominous, especially if it emerges that pirates or terrorists hit the ship with a suicide boat. That has happened before, too.
What do you make of it all?
Check out our new hall of shame
July 29th, 2010 | Blogs | Posted by Phil Ewing
Our readers just can’t get enough stories about fakers — these guys you see nowadays who claim they received two Medals of Honor, three Silver Stars, eight Purple Hearts, Pink Hearts, Orange Stars, Yellow Moons, Green Clovers, Blue Diamonds, and Purple Horseshoes. One man claimed he survived the bombing of the destroyer Cole; another gave a speech pretending to be an admiral, even though he’d gotten out as an enlisted sailor.
You can find all these stories and much more online now in Military Times’ new Hall of Stolen Valor.
In their own words: Harvey’s caution on LCS
July 29th, 2010 | Congress leadership Ships | Posted by Phil Ewing
The Navy must take time to get to know its new littoral combat ships, like the Freedom, and not force them to be something they're not, the top fleet boss said. // MC2 Jon Dasbach / Navy
Your correspondents went up to see Fleet Forces boss Adm. John Harvey appear before a House Armed Services Committee panel on Wednesday, a session that included so much interesting stuff that we’ll be writing about it for some time. In addition to Harvey’s we-can-fix-the-fleet-in-two-years pledge, and revelations about yet another set of new problems aboard a San Antonio-class amphib, Harvey gave his vision for how the Navy should proceed with the littoral combat ship.
It’s like asking a girl to the dance: The Navy has to go to LCS, Harvey said; it can’t force LCS to come to it. The fleet has to learn about LCS’ personality, its likes and dislikes, its favorite albums, get to know its friends — but not too well — and it can’t be too restrictive or controlling or this thing is just never going to work. Here’s what he said:
Lightning 610 strikes again
July 27th, 2010 | Aviation Photos | Posted by Phil Ewing
MC3 Charles Oki / Navy
What a pleasant surprise to flip through the avalanche of photos coming out of the “Invincible Spirit” exercise and see one of the classiest helicopters in the Navy — Lightning 610, of HS-14, the “Chargers” — mixing it up with everybody else.
The graphic on the tail of this SH-60F Seahawk is an homage to classic Japanese art, including an iconic great wave and the unmistakable image of Mt. Fuji. Here’s the original photo in which it appeared Tuesday, along with the South Korean amphibious assault ship Dokdo:
MC3 Charles Oki / Navy
If you’re gonna bet, bet on the Navy
July 27th, 2010 | leadership Washington | Posted by Phil Ewing
The U.S. should bet that it'll always need a Navy, one analyst writes. // MC1 Scott Taylor / Navy
Defense analyst Bryan McGrath has an interesting column in our grown-up sibling Defense News this week, making the case that the U.S. should try to be smart about the pending budget cuts that everyone in Washington sees lurking down each dark alley. Look, McGrath writes, we’re not going to get into another major land war anytime soon, but the U.S. will continue to need to project influence throughout the world forever. So if the ax is going to fall, the ground forces should absorb the blow, and the U.S. should bet that it’s going to continue to need a big, relevant Navy, he writes:
The United States must place a premium on that element of its military power that is equally valuable in peacetime as it is in war, and that is sea power. When Great Britain chose to diminish its fleet, it did so because its land Army was already tiny in comparison (and dedicated to homeland defense). We are not in a similar position today. While America’s land power is honorably engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is the stated policy of the U.S. government to draw down from those wars, leaving an open question as to the future of the Army.
The American people are not likely to support another massive land war soon, and nine years of combat against largely irregular forces should raise doubts about whether resetting the Army makes strategic sense in the face of mounting budget pressure. Given that American sea power includes a Marine Corps that, in the words of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, “exceeds the size of most world armies,” the right strategic decision for the United States is to accept more risk in the ability to fight extended land wars outside of its own borders and less risk in forces dedicated to the deterrence of adversaries, the assurance of allies, the maintenance of strategic balance and crisis response. In other words, sea power (and to a lesser extent, air power).
Ah, and did you copy that last bit, zoomies? You got some love too.
So what do you think? Should the Pentagon reshape dwindling budgets to give an edge to seapower, as opposed to a big, expeditionary land force? (By the way, we need some volunteers to go brief this to the Army guys.)
For the eyes of the Dear Leader
July 26th, 2010 | North Korea Photos | Posted by Phil Ewing
MC3 Adam Thomas / Navy
MC3 Jacob Moore / Navy
MC3 Adam Thomas / Navy
Are you watching, Kim Jong Il? This show is all for you. More here, here, here and the Marine Corps gets into the act here.
The Navy’s leisure landscape
July 26th, 2010 | The deckplates | Posted by Phil Ewing
Then:
NavHistHerCom
Now:
MC2 Tucker M. Yates / Navy
Our distinguished colleague Andrew Tilghman has a great write-up this week about how the way sailors spend their time off duty has changed over the past few decades. Gone are the old-fashioned clubs for people to gather on base, replaced by “eatertainment”-themed “liberty centers,” where sailors get a slice of pizza and surf the Web.
Back in the day, Tilghman writes, alcohol was a big part of socializing in the Navy — what a surprise — but as society changed, the brass tried to take the focus off after-hours drinking. Also, the clubs of yesteryear didn’t have to be self-sufficient, but when Big Navy decided everything had to “run like a business” in the late 1990s, on-base clubs couldn’t compete against off-base restaurants. People changed too. Young sailors entering the Navy today can stay in touch online with their friends and family much easier than their predecessors could before the computer era, and so today’s newcomers may feel less of a need to hang out with their shipmates after hours. Even more basic than that, today’s sailors don’t use the Navy’s surviving clubs to socialize, one of them told Tilghman. Instead, they watch TV or play video games.
What do you think of the change? Could today’s crews use a place right off the waterfront where they can get together for a beer, or are “liberty centers” with fast food and Internet access the right answer for the fleet of today?