USN New Deployment Strategy for CSG?

[Hotdogs]

That's your take? This has zero to do with what SWOs want to do with their ships. David Larter is a former SWO, BTW. This is OPLAN level stuff, and it means putting platforms where they can provide maximum benefit to the fight.

So basically, we’ll have to relearn lessons the hard way?

 

[ChuckMK23]

That's your take? This has zero to do with what SWOs want to do with their ships. David Larter is a former SWO, BTW. This is OPLAN level stuff, and it means putting platforms where they can provide maximum benefit to the fight.

Roger. I initially interpreted it as the Big Surface Navy crying for resources - I like the author's intent/message - we can't execute without MSC getting the goods where they are needed.

I get its all big picture chess game stuff - interesting article. I'm curious what some SWO's think

 

[Brett327]

So basically, we’ll have to relearn lessons the hard way?

What's the alternative? We can't magically shit out all the CRUDES ships we might need for any possible contingency. We have to allocate them according to risk decisions. Such is life.

 

[Hair Warrior]

Strategic sealift is an important capability to respond to any contingency across the full ROMO and likely an important factor in executing any TPFDD.

 

[zab1001]

Strategic sealift is an important capability to respond to any contingency across the full ROMO and likely an important factor in executing any TPFDD.

Oh. OK cool.

 

[azguy]

Roger. I initially interpreted it as the Big Surface Navy crying for resources - I like the author's intent/message - we can't execute without MSC getting the goods where they are needed.

I get its all big picture chess game stuff - interesting article. I'm curious what some SWO's think

Nothing new here - the MSC has been talking about this for a while. It's a cultural shift for them to operate in a contested environment. And between all the mission sets CRUDES would/could be fragged with, there's not enough to permanently tie on a DDG to each MSC ship.

 

[Duc'-guy25]

Anyone want to take bets on the percentage of CIVMARS that quit MSC when we get into a real shooting war?

 

[Judge Q]

Anyone want to take bets on the percentage of CIVMARS that quit MSC when we get into a real shooting war?

42?

 

[Duc'-guy25]

Thats probably pretty close. I'd say at least 2/3rds of the supply department and 1/3 of deck and engineering.

 

[Griz882]

WTF...no balloon makers?

Happy now?

 

[Swanee]

What Truman is doing right now is anything but a good deal. Being on the hook to "deploy tomorrow" sucks fucking 100 times worse than actually knowing when you're going to leave. Keeping those guys ready to deploy at moment's notice costs a lot of money...and consists of mostly flying FCLPs to stay current for the boat.

Huh. I hadn't thought about the FCLP part. Perhaps there is a way to crack that egg on the backside of another flight? Have an LSO grade each pass at the field like an FCLP? Maybe save gas for two, or at most three passes? (That's what, one less look at the merge on an ACM/BFM?)

But they're still sleeping in their own beds next to their spouses, and they're not missing the kids school recital when they're at home. Sure you can't plan a vacation, and I really hate to jump on @Brett327 's soapbox about how JOs do nothing but bitch, whine and complain about how everything sucks- but this Terminal Lance comic seems relevant.

 

[Spekkio]

Losing ships and qualified mariners would rapidly put enormous pressure on U.S. logistics trains if the nation had to support a major war effort overseas. With far fewer qualified and trained mariners than existed during World War II, combined with an all-but-extinct commercial shipbuilding sector in the United States, sealift would rapidly become a massive strategic liability if Russia or China were able to begin sinking ships in numbers as Germany did during both World Wars.

Uhhh, Germany lost 783 subs in WWII. I can't find how many they built throughout the war, but suffice to say it's way more than these two countries can muster. Although both Russia and China claim to have more subs than Germany had at the onset of WWII, they're unable to keep them operational.

This seems like fear mongering for money.

 

[Spekkio]

Huh. I hadn't thought about the FCLP part. Perhaps there is a way to crack that egg on the backside of another flight? Have an LSO grade each pass at the field like an FCLP? Maybe save gas for two, or at most three passes? (That's what, one less look at the merge on an ACM/BFM?)

But they're still sleeping in their own beds next to their spouses, and they're not missing the kids school recital when they're at home. Sure you can't plan a vacation, and I really hate to jump on @Brett327 's soapbox about how JOs do nothing but bitch, whine and complain about how everything sucks- but this Terminal Lance comic seems relevant.

There's multiple ways to skin the cat that is the FRTP, but rest assured any changes that are made are done with the end-goal of increased time on station. That means more time at sea, and less time sleeping in their own beds next to their spouses.

 

[Flash]

Uhhh, Germany lost 783 subs in WWII. I can't find how many they built throughout the war, but suffice to say it's way more than these two countries can muster. Although both Russia and China claim to have more subs than Germany had at the onset of WWII, they're unable to keep them operational.

This seems like fear mongering for money.

If the number was tonnage a single cargo ship nowadays could easily equal a dozen or more WWII era ships. And ships nowadays are much harder to replace too. The article is a little hyperbolic but has some truth to it as well.