According to the Armed Forces Journal, the Navy is obsessed with tactics at the expense of "operational art."
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/05/3434637
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/05/3434637
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Navy excels at tactics, sucks at operational thinking...
- Thread starter raptor10
- Start date
No, that's according to Milan Vego, someone I have heard referred to as "the Clausewitz of our time" more than once. His opinion holds some serious weight.
His stuff comes in the "Painful Flavor" of JPME JMO Brand Kool Aid.
And his book "Operational Warfare" is awesome, it's just the right weight to hold open my front door when I bring in the groceries.
His stuff comes in the "Painful Flavor" of JPME JMO Brand Kool Aid.
And his book "Operational Warfare" is awesome, it's just the right weight to hold open my front door when I bring in the groceries.
I understand the author's point, but it seems to be pointing out a problem without a solution. The Navy's problem is no different than that of the Marines and Army, in that it is working towards a skill set that is different than what might be needed against a near-peer competitor (read China). The Marines and Army are becoming expert at counterinsurgency, to the detriment of combined arms and "high intensity" combat skills. Unfortunately, those two services are unquestionably relevant in the current fight, and so don't have to justify their missions and budgets, while the Navy and Air Force are.
If the Navy asked for money to conduct training, and to go further, investing in capital ships-of-the-line to fight fleet battles over an entire theater, the civilian leadership would think it had lost its mind. Look at the fight the Army has had over its Future Combat Systems and the Crusader SP artillery. They were not "relevant" to the current nature of war. If the Navy started reinvigorating its sub fleet and ASW capability and conducting fleet-on-fleet exercises, it would look out-of-touch, and moreover, some crazies would accuse it of taking an overly aggressive stance against China.
If the Navy asked for money to conduct training, and to go further, investing in capital ships-of-the-line to fight fleet battles over an entire theater, the civilian leadership would think it had lost its mind. Look at the fight the Army has had over its Future Combat Systems and the Crusader SP artillery. They were not "relevant" to the current nature of war. If the Navy started reinvigorating its sub fleet and ASW capability and conducting fleet-on-fleet exercises, it would look out-of-touch, and moreover, some crazies would accuse it of taking an overly aggressive stance against China.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I agree with everything you've said, but I disagree with this point. I agree that we're getting very good at counterinsurgency ops, as well as MOOTW. However, we're still doing the MEU's and workups still involve all the same stuff they used to (to include combined arms). If you're talking CAX-level stuff, yeah - that's dropping off a bit.
I also agree that we're not in the desperate hunt for justification of our missions that the Navy & the Air Force are currently in...
I was thinking of the arty guys who've turned in their tubes, as well as others, to be provisional riflemen, civil affairs (or whatever the current buzzword is). That, and the shift away from CAX. There's only so much training that can be done, and something's got to give.
On the whole, though, I think that having a largely combat-experienced force puts the US at a huge advantage over most opponents.
On the whole, though, I think that having a largely combat-experienced force puts the US at a huge advantage over most opponents.
Wow, I'm in a decidedly bad mood but I nearly spit my coffee all over my notebook after having read that.
Well, I'm off to enjoy six hours of remedial landnav on a Saturday morning despite excelling at landnav events one, two, and three.
Joy. :icon_rage
Is there a "near-peer" out there on the horizon, though? The Navy might someday have to deal with a kind of asymetrical naval warfare, especially in the littorals, but we're not really sure what form that would take--kind of like we didn't know about IEDs until we got into Iraq, and then we could adapt to them. The Navy, it seems, is trying to anticipate but at the same time maintain flexibility.
He's right on about the technology thing, though. We're dealing with so many nifty new (or not so new) systems that work haphazardly at best, and so we have to still use the old systems simultaneously and we just increase our workload without really improving the quality of our product. So then we get another new toy that we have to keep an eye on...On some flights in the desert, I would have been happy with just one consistently working UHF-green radio, rather than three or four that were spotty.
He's right on about the technology thing, though. We're dealing with so many nifty new (or not so new) systems that work haphazardly at best, and so we have to still use the old systems simultaneously and we just increase our workload without really improving the quality of our product. So then we get another new toy that we have to keep an eye on...On some flights in the desert, I would have been happy with just one consistently working UHF-green radio, rather than three or four that were spotty.
I will only speak for my community but MEU's have become a joke compared to what they were. While painful, the longer work-ups of the past were nice in that they provided all more experience in the R2P2. That, and the abreviated 'OIF' METL for most T/M/S is a complete joke. It is not uncommon to run across a 53 pilot that has never been to the boat, done DM, or done much AR. This isn't a shortcoming on the individual squadrons but rather trying to fit 10lbs of shit in a 5lb bag IOT meet the deployment cycles. Unfortunately, we have drifted a long ways from operating as a MAGTF and desperately need to adjust focus and get back to it. I want to barf every time I hear somebody say 'that's how we do it in Iraq'...people need to start figuring out how to fight the next fight as we've already decided how we are going to conduct this one. In summary, I see a lot of folks that are competent operating as sections but would most likely be unraveled by the dynamic environment of a busy objective area. That is just on the rotary-wing side but think about the added complexity of GTLs etc. Aside from WTI, nobody sees this stuff any more and it a shame. End of rant/ramble!!!
You should see the video.
Although his OPINION holds some serious weight, I tend to think he is wrong by saying tactical acumen has left operational planning by the wayside. I dealt with his painful book in JMO and while he makes some really good sense at times, I think this is an instance of ignorance in brilliance. Has he even read certain OPLANs????