Mitt Romney: Navy needs more ships
January 19th, 2012 | Navy Washington | Posted by Sam Fellman
Mitt Romney, front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, argued the Navy needs a larger fleet at a recent debate. // AP Photo
Earlier this week, the size of the fleet took center stage in the presidential campaign.
Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor widely regarded as the front-runner in the contest for the Republican nomination, raised the issue at Monday’s debate when he cited the fleet’s size as evidence that President Barack Obama is allowing the military to atrophy.
“Our Navy is smaller than it’s been since 1917,” Romney said, going on to add: “We simply cannot continue to cut our Department of Defense budget if we are going to remain the hope of the Earth. And I will fight to make sure America retains military superiority.”
Afterwards, the fact-checking site PolitiFact took up Romney’s claim. Their verdict? “Pants on fire.”
The Navy is the smallest it has been since 1916, based on the 285 battle force ships currently in service. So that part is true. But PolitiFact took exception to Romney’s contention that a smaller fleet means a weaker Navy, citing a broad range of experts who said this was too simple.
PolitiFact also notes that the fleet has enlarged since it hit a low under President George W. Bush. “Put it all together and you have a statement that, despite being close to accurate in its numbers, uses those numbers in service of a ridiculous point,” PolitiFact concluded.
Last week, in fact, Navy Undersecretary Bob Work made this same argument before the audience at the annual Surface Navy Association conference. As Defense News reported, Work said: “This is a different fleet. This is a more powerful fleet. I will take this fleet over a 600-ship Navy… in a heartbeat.”
Romney, however, has made building a larger fleet a central tenet of his defense strategy. Romney has advocated building 15 ships a year — the Obama administration plans to build 10 this year — as part of his goal to “restore America’s naval credibility,” according to his defense policy paper. However, the plan is short on specifics, such as which type of ships.
Boo! Haunted ship visits Washington, D.C.
October 26th, 2011 | Washington | Posted by Sam Fellman
A ship is making a Halloween port call in Washington, D.C., and not just any ship — ghost ship Barry.
“Hundreds have served onboard, but some never left,” reads the invitation to the haunted ship, written by the Naval History and Heritage Command. “Come and find out who still haunts the decks of display ship Barry…”
For those who dare, the ghoulish ship — a decommissioned destroyer which spends the rest of the year tied up as a fairly staid display ship at Washington Navy Yard — is open to the public on Friday night from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. But think twice about dressing up: costumes are discouraged and masks, capes, wands, swords, short skirts and candy buckets are off-limits.
Mullen v. Stewart, round three
September 15th, 2011 | Admirals Entertainment Humor Washington | Posted by Sam Fellman
Adm. Mike Mullen weathered comedian Jon Stewart's jokes well in a Sept. 12 interview. // DoD photo
As he prepares to step down from the military’s top post in two weeks, Adm. Mike Mullen braved the bright lights and barbs of The Daily Show on Monday one last time.
Mullen, while discussing his career, braced himself for the comedic trap, which host Jon Stewart laid about a trip they had taken together to Afghanistan in July to visit the troops. Mullen — a veteran of three wars, not to mention countless comedy show appearances — proved his mettle.
“I was surprised that when we landed at Kandahar, that you forced them to carry you around on a litter. I thought that was interesting,” Stewart said pausing, seeing if Mullen would take the bait. He smirked instead. Stewart continued: “I don’t know where they got rose petals. Certainly it’s a dry and arid place. But I’m glad you were comfortable.”
“That usually only happens once a trip,” Mullen replied to laughs.
What’s next for Mullen?
“My plan is to take a long winter’s nap,” he told Stewart.
The appearance seemed to stay on track more than Mullen’s June interview on The Late Show with David Letterman, when he answered so many questions about mistakes early in his career that he asked Letterman, “Where is this going, Dave?”
Mullen wore service dress khaki, the first time he’s worn it in his three appearances on The Daily Show. Appreciating Mullen’s sartorial sense, Stewart told him, at the end of the interview, that he hoped “that I get to try on that jacket at some point.”
“This is not a sergeant’s jacket,” Mullen replied.
Homers celebrated with a dive horn
April 27th, 2011 | Submarines Washington | Posted by Sam Fellman
When the Nationals hit a home run, submariners in the stands will hear a familiar sound — a dive klaxon.
It blares three times to celebrate each homer, a signal – as any bubblehead will tell you – for emergency surface.
The Nationals’ newest home run celebration honors their military fans and is a homage to the area’s naval heritage. The Washington Navy Yard, one block east of the stadium, was founded in 1799 and is the Navy’s oldest shore base. The horn also serves as a replacement for fireworks, which used to be fired after every homer.
Its sound can be heard on the D.C. Sports Bog blog of The Washington Post, which first reported the Nationals’ sub horn.
“The military is already part of game presentation and the Navy Yard is right next door,” Nationals’ Chief Operating Officer Andy Feffer told the Post, who said it also helps with the team’s branding. “Not only is it unique and distinctive, but it fit. It fit with our goals, and it fits with what Washington is. It’s ours. Someone else can’t copy it and say we’re gonna do that too. It’s Washington’s.”
The Nats recently purchased the horn and already have put it to plenty of use. As of Tuesday, the team has 20 homers this season.
Arizona shooting hits close to home
January 10th, 2011 | NASA Navy Washington | Posted by Gidget Fuentes
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, here speaking with a service member, remained in intensive care Monday.//Official photo/
The congresswoman seriously wounded in Saturday’s mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., is a Navy spouse. Rep. Gabrielle “Gabby” Giffords, D-Ariz., is one of 13 survivors in the shooting that left six dead at a supermarket shopping center, including an aide. Giffords was shot in the head by the gunman as she met constituents at a “Congress on Your Corner” event and, as of midday Monday, remained in intensive care.
Giffords, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, in 2007 married Navy Capt. Mark E. Kelly, a naval fighter pilot and NASA astronaut. It was a match that led former Labor secretary and professor Robert Reich to toast the couple at their nuptials: “To a bride who moves at a velocity that exceeds that of anyone else in Washington, and a groom who moves at a velocity that exceeds 17,000 miles per hour.”
Mark Kelly issued this statement: “On behalf of Gabby and our entire family, I want to extend our heartfelt gratitude to the people of Arizona and this great nation for their unbelievable outpouring of support. Gabby was doing what she loved most – hearing from her constituents – when this tragedy occurred. Serving Southern Arizonans is her passion, and nothing makes her more proud than representing them in Congress.”
Mark Kelly’s twin brother, Navy Capt. Scott Kelly, is miles above Earth in the International Space Station and regularly posts updates on his Twitter account. Capt. Mark Kelly has been slotted to command the space shuttle Endeavour on STS-134 logistics mission to the space station. That shuttle mission’s start has slid, to April 1, although his command of that flight seemed in doubt.
NASA Astronauts and Navy Capts. Scott Kelly, left, and twin brother Mark Kelly. Mark Kelly is married to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona congresswoman.//NASA photo
Retired Maj. Gen. Charles Bolden, a former Marine Corps test pilot and NASA shuttle astronaut who serves as NASA administrator, issued a statement. Giffords “not only has made lasting contributions to our country, but is a strong advocate for the nation’s space program and a member of the NASA family. She also is a personal friend with whom I have had the great honor of working,” Bolden said. “We at NASA mourn this tragedy and our thoughts and prayers go out to Congresswoman Giffords, her husband Mark Kelly, their family and the families and friends of all who perished or were injured in this terrible tragedy.”
Message not received
November 23rd, 2010 | Carriers China Navy North Korea The Pacific Washington | Posted by David Larter
An F/A 18E Super Hornet assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron VFA-27 takes off from the flight deck of USS George Washington as the destroyer Stethem steams alongside during flight quarters. // MC3 Devon Dow
Remember all those exercises South Korea held with the U.S. a few months ago to send a message to its pugnacious northern neighbor? You know, the ones that had the carrier George Washington steaming with the South Korean navy? The exercises that drove U.S.-Chinese relations to a low-point earlier this year? Well Kim Jong-Il didn’t pick up the phone, apparently.
This morning, the news broke that North Korea opened a barrage of artillery fire on South Korean troops, killing at least two people.
The question must be asked: How do the U.S. and South Korea abide this? The U.S. pulled out the biggest gun it had in the region the last time North Korea acted up — the 80,000-ton, four-and-a-half-acre George Washington and its escorts. It could be argued the situation is worse now than it was in the immediate wake of the sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan. Our relationship with China has suffered since and, by extension, so has our ability to respond diplomatically, since China is our only real means of reaching out to North Korea.
Another round of naval exercises would further tick off the Chinese and, given this morning’s news, would it be effective? How effective were those exercises this year if it failed to deter further aggression from North Korea?
The Defense Department said today it was monitoring the situation “with concern,” but that any discussion of a military response would be “premature.”
Meanwhile, South Korea put the word out that any further aggression from North Korea could be met with an “enormous” military response.
This situation could get ugly in the coming days. What do you think should be the response?
Seeing is believing, just not on the Internet
November 4th, 2010 | Washington | Posted by David Larter
There’s an old saying in the journalism community: If your mother says she loves you, check it out.
The lead story on Drudge Report today proclaimed that the U.S. Navy is sending 34 ships to Mumbai, India, to provide security for President Obama’s visit. The story links to an Indian news report you can read here. This is what Drudge seized on:
He will also be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, which will patrol the sea lanes off the Mumbai coast during his two-day stay there beginning Saturday. The measure has been taken as Mumbai attack in 2008 took place from the sea.
Taken at face value, this would seem to be a strange claim. Today the Navy has a fleet of 288 deployable battle force ships. How would an already stretched Navy muster 12 percent of the fleet to provide security in Mumbai? And which aircraft carrier are they sending to patrol the sea lanes in Mumbai? The Abraham Lincoln and the Harry S. Truman, the two carriers in the area, are both supporting the war in Afghanistan and maritime security operations right now. Breaking off Lincoln to patrol near India isn’t out of the realm of possibility but it seems unlikely.
A little more perspective: A typical carrier strike group comprises a carrier, a cruiser, and a couple destroyers. And that’s considered a lot of sea power. (Some might even say it’s power unlimited.) The massive RIMPAC exercise earlier this year managed to muster 40 ships, but they were from seven nations. In fact, 34 would be just shy of half the number of warships, excluding patrol craft and auxiliary ships, used during the invasion of Iraq.
Navy policy prohibits the service from commenting on presidential security arrangements. But a source within the Defense Department questioned the report, calling it “inaccurate,” and indicated the number was inflated.
There you have it, the story isn’t true. Calm down, people.
Now, if you take into account that the Indian coast guard will undoubtedly be patrolling Mumbai’s harbor at a heightened state of readiness, then you will probably have more than 34 vessels pulling security. But the idea of the Navy sending 34 ships is, frankly, absurd.
The uproar comes on the heels of unsubstantiated and flimsy reports that the president’s upcoming 10-day trip to Asia would cost taxpayers $200 million per day. Navy Times’ inimitable news editor Jenn Rafael points out Obama’s trip would then cost about as much as a Virginia-class submarine. The White House says those reports are also wildly inaccurate. USA Today’s “Oval” blog also put some AFFF on those flames. Read that take here.
Update: Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell commented yesterday on the 34-ship armada. “I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10 percent of the Navy — some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier — in support of the president’s trip to Asia,” he said. “That’s just comical. Nothing close to that is being done.”
And the winner is … both
November 4th, 2010 | Navy Ships Shipyard Washington | Posted by David Larter
Rather than selecting one team to build 10 ships, the Navy will instead award construction contracts to both Lockheed Martin and Austal USA. Lockheed's Freedom is on the left, Austal's Independence is on the right. // Navy
Yesterday, in-house heavy hitter Chris Cavas broke the news that both Lockheed Martin and Austal USA have been waiting for all year, and both companies can be happy with it.
After a year-long wait, the Navy will ask congress for permission to award both companies 10 LCS hulls. The service’s leadership thinks competition between the companies has driven down the program’s costs. Cavas writes:
Under the new proposal, the Navy would split its buy equally each year between Lockheed and Austal USA. Two ships would be awarded under the 2010 budget and two in 2011, with four ships year each from 2012 through 2015. One key issue that will be put off appears to be the choice of combat system. Each team created its own system, with virtually no commonality between the two types. Under the new proposal, each team would continue to build ships with their original combat systems.
Read our full coverage here.
Talking the talk, or, The dessert that nobody wants
October 13th, 2010 | leadership Washington | Posted by Phil Ewing
These sailors on the mess decks of the carrier Enterprise were probably glad to take an active role in ice cream cone consumption operations, rather than have the Navy explore options for an automated system. // MC3 Jeffry Willadsen / Navy
Last year, not long after Navy Secretary Ray Mabus began his job, he invited a group of journalists to the Pentagon for an introductory chat. He was still trying to get his bearings in the nonstop party called the Puzzle Palace, and described a steep learning curve with all the unfamiliar acronyms and technical terms and such. I asked him if he’d learned how to say “and oh by the way” yet, but he smiled and shook his head. That’s how new he was.
Fast forward to today, when Mabus gave a defense of his far-reaching energy-conservation and alternative fuel usage goals at the Reagan Center in Washington. Today’s bio-fuels are expensive, he acknowledged, but he remains confident that new technology and reliable demand from the Navy Department will soon make their costs competitive:
“There are some that say, ‘It’s just too hard. Don’t do this. We’re gonna be stuck with fossil fuels,’” he said. “Well, if we buy that argument, it’s going to become a self-fulfulling prophecy and that’s exactly what’s going to hapen. I’ve learned an expression in the military: It’s going to become a self-licking ice cream cone. But it’s one we can avoid.”
A classic! Now he’s definitely speaking the language.
You’ve come a long way, female service members
October 7th, 2010 | leadership Washington | Posted by Phil Ewing
CNN's Kyra Phillips hosted top military commanders this week at a women's power forum in Washington. // Lt. Laura Stegherr / Navy
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. Ann Dunwoody, commanding general of Army Materiel Command; and National Defense University president Vice Adm. Ann Rondeau all appeared with CNN anchor Kyra Phillips this week in Washington to talk about the advances that women have made in the military services. For example, Dunwoody proved that men no longer hold a monopoly on the ability to speak in jargon, buzzwords and Pentagon techno-phrases:
“We are in an asymmetrical environment without front and rear boundaries,” Dunwoody said of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Every soldier is in danger. What’s so good about the military is that we continue review those [policies]. The doors continue to open, and policies continue to change to capture the talent of men and women in uniform. All in battle are making sacrifices, and we can never forget that.”
Dunwoody’s answer clearly shows that she has reviewed today’s DoD lexicon from soup to nuts, gotten input from key stakeholders, and moved forward to make a commitment to leverage her resources to achieve broad-spectrum mastery of the full range of idea-delivery tactics, techniques and procedures, in keeping with today’s best practices. And she proves you don’t need to be a man for that.